Huwmanbeing (talk | contribs) →Marion Giant 1999: new section |
|||
Line 1,602: | Line 1,602: | ||
:I have not receive any mention on my talk page that I am being discussed. I will make comments later. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC) |
:I have not receive any mention on my talk page that I am being discussed. I will make comments later. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
The problem here is one big pile of unrelated users with similar POVs on the subject of homeopathy in particular and alt med in general: {{user|Whig}}, {{user|Anthon01}}, {{user|Peter morrell}}, {{user|DanaUllman}}, and so on. Going further afield, we find more users with eccentric beliefs as far as science is concerned, such as {{user|Martinphi}}. |
|||
I would suggest that the first batch of these are classic [[WP:TE|tendentious editors]]. I haven't looked at Martinphi's contributions recently, so no comment there. Singly, these chaps aren't too hard to cope with: their incessant POV-pushing is relatively harmless, as you can see by the result of Dana Ullman's brief attempts to insert homeopathy into [[Beethoven]]; as a group there is more of a problem. I actually don't have an easy solution here. Whig and Peter morrell should have been banned long ago, or at least topic-banned, but the truth is Wikipedia has no easy way of coping with the user who pushes one POV all the time in a civil manner. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Pegasus]] Speedy deletions == |
== [[User:Pegasus]] Speedy deletions == |
Revision as of 18:09, 28 February 2008
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) |
|
Boomgaylove II
- Note: the first AN/I incident may be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive373#User:boomgaylove) - Wikidemo (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see this edit I inadvertently made to the archive. Should I pull the whole thing back here or file a new report? I'm really not sure how to proceed here but we could use some help in the midst of a sock/meat/disruptive/AGF/NPA/AfD, issue that seems to be blowing up. I don't know whether a checkuser request is the best approach. I'm hoping we can declare a standstill (and possible protection for the articles and speedy close on the AfD) for J Stalin and Cypress Village, Oakland, California while we sort out the sockpuppetry issue. Wikidemo (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can we kindly get some administrative help on this? There are edit wars brewing on the AfD discussions, articles, etc. I'm in a tough spot of having to choose between attempting to keep order at the risk of edit warring with possibly legitimate Wikipedians, and letting the articles devolve because I don't want to get involved. This may all clear up once we run a checkuser on some of the suspicious-looking editors who have jumped in, so I think everything would benefit from a cool-down. Some neutral, experienced help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are several issues here, one of which is a possible BLP violation accusing this rapper of having been a drug dealer, another of which is alleged sockpuppetry, but if a user is using socks and another user is making potentially harmful claims of drug dealing by a subject of an article, then we have a problem. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, please, do help! I am not "making" claims of drug dealing or inserting any derogatory material. The article mentioned the rap artist's drug-dealing (he was convicted of it and placed on probation as a 17-year-old) before I ever came to this, and I did so only because of the abusive sock puppet issue. The sockpuppets have been gaming this issue heavily. The information does not seem to be harmful because he apparently freely admits to it, and a feature article about him in a local newspaper mentions it. The news article and the artist's own words are the sources, and the attempt to remove the fact and the citations, as well as all references positive and negative to the rapper himself, were part of the sock attack. Since the sources are reliable and the mention relevant and harmless, there is no obvious BLP violation. I have no stake here, but I do not want to let sockpuppets dictate article content or goad people into starting edit wars. Wikidemo (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are several issues here, one of which is a possible BLP violation accusing this rapper of having been a drug dealer, another of which is alleged sockpuppetry, but if a user is using socks and another user is making potentially harmful claims of drug dealing by a subject of an article, then we have a problem. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Apparantly is the problem, it must be verified by a reliable source. Also what newspaper article says this? Provide it! Provide an opinion based on WP:RS how album notes are reliable. You simply can't. Therefore it is gaping BLP vio.Icamepica (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:SELFPUB for the interview. The newspaper source is obvious from the article. Try reading it.Wikidemo (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Apparantly is the problem, it must be verified by a reliable source. Also what newspaper article says this? Provide it! Provide an opinion based on WP:RS how album notes are reliable. You simply can't. Therefore it is gaping BLP vio.Icamepica (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved Wikidemo's edit from the archive to this thread for ease of use. --jonny-mt 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
New sockpuppetry report
- Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove. In addition to the obvious sockpuppets / evasion of block, a number of IP and recently-registered users have recently flocked to the issues, nominated for deletion the two (now five) articles that the now-blocked editor was trying to gut, parroted the same tactics and language. There are several users who are not clear sockpuppets but may be, could be meatpuppets (the user has admitted to meatpuppetry as well), or might just be innocent editors who wandered in. I'm not sure what to do next - a checkuser?
- Also, I'm wondering if we can speedy close or otherwise suspend the AfDs pending a resolution of the sockpuppet issue. I won't argue the articles' notability here (obviously I think they are or I wouldn't be here), but it's an undue waste of time dealing with edit wars, AfDs, and other wikigaming in the middle of trying to figure out who is a sockpuppet. If the articles are deletable they can wait a couple weeks until we've gotten rid of the trolls, and reasonable editors can have an honest content discussion. Wikidemo (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There are legitimate AfD concerns which are evident by the majority opinions on the AfD of J Stalin. Just because some user was blocked for contentious editing does not mean that any editor which coincidentally has a similar stance on the article's notability its a sock puppet. Also not a reason to indefinatly stop AfD's which you are biasly in favor or not occurring, while vindictively adding arbitrary and baseless warnings talk pages.Icamepica (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The article doesn't look like it will be deleted so the question is moot, and I see no point responding to the random potshots of an accused sockpuppet. I don't want to get into AfD procedure because, assuming this is boomgaylove, he/she has nominated at least six articles for deletion in five days, including this one three times using three different accounts, and should not be taught the ins and outs of how AfD relates to sockpuppetry.Wikidemo (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note - I am commenting out some of the residue of user:Icamepica's trolling from yesterday. As per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove we have uncovered a dozen or more sockpuppets (including Icamepica), some clearly linked to boomgaylove and some not yet. I'm adding this comment in part in case Icamepica causes trouble again when his/her block expires in a few hours and if the account has not (yet) been indefinitely blocked. Wikidemo (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yet more attacks
And in the midst of all this, yet another user with civility issues, User talk:ILike2BeAnonymous is making personal attacks. He's attacked me before in opposing my attempts to deal with the swarm of sockpuppets / trolls. See this edit[1], which he has made three times and I've deleted twice as a personal attack on me. My statements are correct, actually, and for that he/she calls me "ignorant" and says my edits are a demonstration of an "encyclopedia-that-any-idiot-can-edit." Rather than reverting him a third time I'm inviting him to remove his (or her) comments. Would someone mind taking a look to see if this is an NPA violation and if so, what we can do? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Some additional material - He's been edit warring in support of the sock puppets and making personal attacks on this article elsewhere in the past two days. here he calls me "irrational" for adding a second source, and deleted it along with sourced content, during the article's WP:AfD process. here he's doing the same thing a few days earlier. From the talk page this editor has a pattern of civility problems, and showing up in the midst of the bizarre sockpuppet swarm raises concerns (although the majority of the account's overall edit history does seem productive and in good faith). Anyway, I don't want to let stand an attack that I'm "ignorant" and an "idiot" for saying something that is, actually, true. Wikidemo (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The user has not removed the attacks. They really should not stay as a fixture on the article talk page, nor do I think it's good to leave them up while the article is under a sockpuppet AfD effort. I haven't gotten any guidance here and the user hasn't responded to my request for removal. I'm also hesitant to go to a different forum with this because I've tried to consolidate it all here after the sockpuppets went forum shopping and canvassing. So unless anyone has any other suggestion I'm going to just archive the incivilities. The editor has threatened to go past 3RR, claiming my removing his attacks are "vandalism", so please be alert in case this continues. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Mdsummermsw PROD's and AFD's
This is basically my last step before this heads to RFC. User:Mdsummermsw continues to prod articles with no notice. He never marks them for improvement just prods, as you can see by his user page dozens and dozens of articles. He is obsessed with notability criteria and his arguments are getting increasingly pointy. Nominating albums with imminent release dates citing WP:Music [2]. He also has a habit of not taking enough time to look at what he is proding, such as he here where he prod'd it as being an unreleased album [3]. If you look through the list on his user page you will find many examples of things that are clearly notable that he has nominated [4] [5][6]Among others . He seems to be trying to prove some point about notability, and seems to be actually asking for an RFC. Ridernyc (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- He never marks them for improvement just prods,
- as you can see by his user page dozens and dozens of articles.
- ...any of which went through AfD, ending in deletions.
- He is obsessed with notability criteria
- Wikipedia has notability criteria for very good reasons.
- and his arguments are getting increasingly pointy.
- I can only state that I am not trying to disrupt wikipedia, nor am I trying to prove a point. I'm trying to get rid of articles on unsourced (or poorly sourced), non-notable, unreleased albums.
- Nominating albums with imminent release dates citing WP:Music [16].
- Albums that haven't been released are unreleased.
- He also has a habit of not taking enough time to look at what he is proding, such as he here where he prod'd it as being an unreleased album [17].
- The first time you took issue with this was for what you said was "actually more like a demo". As I explained, the article and its few sources called it lots of things: a "demo album (which) has never been released in any form", "a suite ... but not a complete album", an "alleged recording" [[Category:Unreleased albums]] at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Ballad_of_Stuffed_Trigger. This case was a poorly written article. The lead tells us it's "I Murdered Mommy is a the name of an abandoned cd-rom project by avant rock band The Residents" and put it in the category "Unreleased albums". I'm still not sold on the notability of this one [18]. I'll get back to it.
- If you look through the list on his user page you will find many examples of things that are clearly notable that he has nominated Homegrown (album)
- Neil Young is clearly notable. Homegrown, in my opinion, is not clearly notable.
- Human Highway
- Please be sure of your accusations before you make them. I've never touched that article. [19]
- [20]
- Are you also taking User:Ten Pound Hammer to task for voting to delete the same article? Seems I'm not the only one who isn't sold on that one.
- He seems to be trying to prove some point about notability,
- If I'm "trying to prove" any point about notability, it's the same point I "try to prove" about verifiability, reliable sources, NPOV, etc.
- and seems to be actually asking for an RFC.
- I'm not hoping for an RFC, but you are certainly welcome to start one. If you find a meaningful consensous that says I shouldn't PROD and AfD based on Notability I will certainly stop. Or, perhaps you can mobilize them to make whatever changes (if any) you feel are needed in the guidelines. Personally, I think requiring substantial coverage in reliable sources is a good standard.
Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, there isn't any administrator action being asked for, nor is there any that would be appropriate. Ridernyc, a better first step would have been to talk to Mdsummermsw on his/her talk page about your concerns. From the random edits I looked at, I see no evidence that Mdsummermsw is not acting in good faith, nor does he/she appear to be violating any of the deletion policies, so I see no reason to take any action at this point. Natalie (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Natalie Erin's assessment here. What admin action are you hoping for? Saying "this is the last step before an RFC" seems overly dramatic. You obviously have a dispute about content/appropriateness of unreleased albums with Midsummermsw in that you think they should be kept and he/she thinks otherwise. I personally don't see enough justification for an RFC, but by all means go for it. I think mediation or dispute resolution, if not attempted yet, would seem to be a better venue. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, there isn't any administrator action being asked for, nor is there any that would be appropriate. Ridernyc, a better first step would have been to talk to Mdsummermsw on his/her talk page about your concerns. From the random edits I looked at, I see no evidence that Mdsummermsw is not acting in good faith, nor does he/she appear to be violating any of the deletion policies, so I see no reason to take any action at this point. Natalie (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have dicussed this issue on his talk and totally ignored. Ridernyc (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I see one message, which points out things you want Mdsummermsw to pay more attention to. Is it at all possible that he/she took your advice and didn't feel like any further comment was necessary? Regardless, now you both know that you disagree, and you can either hash this out on one of your talk pages or agree to avoid each other. Either way, there really isn't anything here requiring administrator attention. Natalie (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Prods and AfD's are often completely fine without other efforts by the prodder on the articles. For instance if the prodder thinks the article's subject is genuinely not notable at all. People are free to add the 'hang on' template and improve articles they think are encyclopedic. Removing stuff that is genuinely not suitable for wikipedia is a great thing to do IMHO, and Ridernyc you should try to WP:AGF that other editors are trying to improve wikipedia by prodding etc.Special Random (Merkinsmum) 22:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is the amount of Prods. I have literally spent the last 2 hours going through all his prods and AFD's and finding sources. His recent batch of AFD's are not going well, more then a few people have commented that the articles never should have been brought to AFD. I Have no problem with proding things and sending things to AFD, just look at my edit history. The problem is sending so many things in such a short amount of time and being clearly wrong a high percentage of the time. Ridernyc (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Small point of fact: prods do not have to be contested with the hangon template. The prod can simply be removed by anyone for any reason, and that is taken as contesting the prod. Again, if you feel that this user is nominating a lot of things incorrectly the best tack would be to start a conversation with him/her. There is not rule that says he/she cannot nominate a hundred articles a day for deletion, whether prod or AfD, and you haven't demonstrated at all that this user is acting in bad faith. And for the fourth time, I think, what admin action are you asking for? Natalie (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is the amount of Prods. I have literally spent the last 2 hours going through all his prods and AFD's and finding sources. His recent batch of AFD's are not going well, more then a few people have commented that the articles never should have been brought to AFD. I Have no problem with proding things and sending things to AFD, just look at my edit history. The problem is sending so many things in such a short amount of time and being clearly wrong a high percentage of the time. Ridernyc (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I see one message, which points out things you want Mdsummermsw to pay more attention to. Is it at all possible that he/she took your advice and didn't feel like any further comment was necessary? Regardless, now you both know that you disagree, and you can either hash this out on one of your talk pages or agree to avoid each other. Either way, there really isn't anything here requiring administrator attention. Natalie (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think that excessive nominations in a short period of time , especially excessive ill-thought-out nominations, do raise problems for other editors, and are not conducive to the orderly removal of material that ought to be removed--and the improvement and keeping of what ought to be kept. To nominate an article for deletion as "No released albums" when the article plainly shows two released albums as for Kiley Dean, shows carelessness and makes unnecessary work for multiple editors, preventing the proper consideration of what needs consideration. (I make no comment about actual notability--I cannot judge in this subject) There's nothing wrong with prodding a lot--I wish people would use prod more in general--but it should have some reasonable relation to the need for deletion. Nominating for afd without follow the steps and leaving others to complete them shows a similar lack of consideration. Nominating for speedy without looking for a redirect when its just a case of finding the right title and leaving it for others as in [21] is also inconsiderate. A certain degree of inconsiderateness can amount to the obstruction of normal process. The appropriate reason for bring this here was to bring this pattern to general attention. DGG (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like generally very good work is being done - lots of junk being cleared out by an editor willing to take the time to do it, with perhaps an occasional oversight or lapse, but of a purely trifling nature. Since there is no suggestion here that the editor's actions require admin intervention, I suggest this be promptly closed. Philosophical differences are not stuff for ANI. Meanwhile, I have a barnstar to award. Eusebeus (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like an Admin, to go through all of his deleted articles and make sure none of them were mistakes. I'm worried how many things might have sliped by before anyone noticed what was going on. In the last week the a large number of his prods have been contested and and even larger proportion of his AFD's are failing. I could easily picture a admin missing something like the I Murdered Mommy mistake. Ridernyc (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I looked through the first few and found gems like "Open was going to be an album by Q-Tip - the follow-up to Amplified - but like Kamaal the Abstract, this was canceled for not being commercial enough. Tracks will re-appear on his album The Renaissance in 2008." and "Take It Easy is the first single for rapper Rich Boy for his second album Tears of Joy produced by Polow Da Don that's scheduled for release in June 2008.[citation needed]" Mdsummermsw's prods seem pretty sound. Orderinchaos 01:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are many like this After the Astronaut (album), After the Astronaut (Butthole Surfers), After the Astronaut (Butthole Surfers album). Not sure why After the Astronaut would be deleted [22], if it was a considered a non-notable album it should have been redirected. This is only the second deleted title I have checked I'm sure there are others. Ridernyc (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is the willingness to misinterpret rules in order to attempt to delete articles and information, and the borderline incivility of collecting the pelts of articles they got deleted on their user page. The context of "unreleased" in the sentence in WP:MUSIC is clearly a reference to demos, promos, bootlegs, and historical albums that have never seen legal release, such as Smile (Beach Boys album), Songs from the Black Hole, Chrome Dreams, etc. It clearly does not refer to confirmed albums with release dates in the near future; only Mdsummermsw claims that it does. Other editors agreed that this interpretation was so offbase that they changed the guideline to eliminate any possible misinterpretation or misuse of the word "unreleased". The result of this? Mdsummermsw is now going around removing confirmed, sourced release dates from album info boxes based on one phrase in Template:Infobox_Album#Released. The section states in full: "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified, using a single occurrence of {{Start date}}, for example {{Start date|2007|7|31}} (or {{Start date|2007|7}} or {{Start date|2007}} if the exact date isn't known). Later release dates can be mentioned in a Release history section." - This clearly refers to albums with multiple issues released on different dates. However, Mdsummermsw is, I believe based on the pattern of behavior, willfully decontextualizing and misinterpreting the section by isolating the portion "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified". Let me state that again: after failing to delete several articles based on a clear misinterpretation of the WP:MUSIC guideline, the editor has begun deleting confirmed, valid information from the article based on the tense of a verb from a sentence that has been taken from instructions for an infoboxe and stripped of its content. This isn't about successful AfDs for articles lacking sources - (Yes, sometimes Mdsummermsw's AfDs are correct, but my VCR clock has also been accurate twice today, too) - this is about a pattern of behavior that clearly indicates WP:tendentious editing. —Torc. (Talk.) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am not removing confirmed information. Immediately before reading this, I restored this edit, removing the future release date "Released = March 25 2008". My edit to the talk page clearly explains that the information remains in the body of the article. "Released = March 25 2008" states that the album was released on March 25, 2008. It probably will be, it might not. On March 26, someone checking the article will see wikipedia saying that it was released. This one is somewhat higher profile than most debut albums, so it might be edited as soon as any change to that date were announced. Others would likely fly by unchecked. I would welcome a change to the info box to allow for scheduled release dates or support for other ideas. One possibility is changing "Released" in the info box to "Release date" and ensuring scheduled dates are so noted. An awkward work around would change "Released = March 25 2008" to "Released = March 25 2008 (scheduled)". At the moment, this seems like the wrong venue for this discussion though. If you would like to suggest admin action against me at this time, please do. Otherwise, I'm taking this piece to other venues. I'll note this on your talk page. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
User:JFBurton requesting unblock
- JFBurton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The above user is requesting an unblock. They claim that they have atoned for their sins, and are willing to contribute constructively from now on. I hold no opinion on the matter as yet, and am only posting this to bring more admins in on it to see what the prevailing opinion is on this request. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not terribly opposed, provided they're willing to accept mentorship (heck, I'll even volunteer to mentor) and to go on a "one strike and you're out" civility patrol. - Philippe | Talk 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Some background can be found here, where the indef-block was discussed and endorsed. I personally don't see much in the way of apology or acknowledgment of the issues that led to the block in the unblock request, which makes me naturally wary. If someone's willing to keep an eye on him (and the other eye out for sockpuppetry) and block again if there's any sign of the activities that were unpalatable last time, then perhaps an unblock would be worthwhile. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's been 10 months. If he wants to edit on this account, with all its history, rather than create a new one, it has some ring of sincerity. Gimmetrow 08:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I say unblock him, with a warning that he is being watched. The fact that he's coming back and wants to use the old account is IMHO a good sign. He could have just as easily, no easier, created a new account without the baggage. By using his old account, he knows that people will be watching him---particularly if Phillipe is sincere about his offer above.Balloonman (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- 10 months should be enough to learn his lesson. Would it be possible for a checkuser to be run against his current IP to see if there has been any recent anon. or sockpuppet abuse that we just haven't connected to him? MBisanz talk 09:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've unblocked. Gimmetrow 09:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I really wish you hadn't done that until we'd decided/codified whether a mentorship agreement was the desire of ANI and whether he was willing to accept that. I've now proposed it to him, but because it wasn't made a condition of the unblock I don't feel like I have any grounds to require it... particularly since the user had not yet responded to my question about whether he would be willing to accept mentorship. I kinda feel like you shot me in the foot here. - Philippe | Talk 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sure yet, but the unblock may have been premature. Most of the post-unblock edits look benign, but this seems a bit over-the-top. Removed all the references in favor of a rather dubious list of "typical" behaviors and pure WP:OR ideas about its cause. -- Kesh (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- JFBurton has accepted my offer of mentorship. His talk page has the details of the mentorship, but basically, I'm requiring him to maintain civility at all times, understand that his edits will be audited and feedback given, and to treat those giving feedback with respect. I do not require that he blindly accept the feedback - he's entitled to argue his case - but the moment it becomes heated he's expected to notify me so that I can interceded. I agree with Kesh that wiping out the refs section of an article is questionable, and will include that in my first batch of feedback to him. - Philippe | Talk 16:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
216.231.41.66 Threatening to Sue Wikipedia over VfD
Christopher Wunderlee, purportedly through a representative named "Greg Levant," is threatening to sue Wikipedia unless the Christopher Wunderlee article, which is currently on VfD, is kept by the community. This is one of the worst violations of the non-lawsuit guideline we have ever seen. In short, he is threatening to sue merely because his self-promoting article has been proposed for deletion. I think the full force of our guidelines should be applied and he should be banned. Here is the specific threat: [23]. Leesome (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unless you have proof you are willing to stand behind in court, you should seriously refrain from accusing someone of "self-promoting". Indeed, I think your making this claim here would normally count as a personal attack warranting at least a 24 hour block. But consider yourself warned instead.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if banning the IP would mean an indef block, it might not be best if it is reassigned. The editor should be informed that it is a discussion page, so it isn't really libel. Based on the article in it's present condition, I'd say the article should be deleted, but I'm avoiding getting directly involved. If the article in question doesn't exist, it can't be libelous. How are all the other supposed legal threats handled? I mean, after all restrictive actions? Who do they contact? Why is Wikipedia never sued, with all these BLP cases. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 22:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please be aware that your statements are being monitored and action will be taken. well monitor this, block for breaching WP:LEGAL. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I blocked the IP for 48 hours and left a note explaining why on the talk page. Obviously the IP cannot be blocked for any longer period of time unless there is some suggestion that it's static, so this will just have to do for now. I've watchlisted the article, the AfD, and the IP talk page, but some other people with magic buttons may wish to do the same. If this becomes a real issue we can courtesy blank the AfD, but obviously not until the discussion is actually closed. Natalie (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why not just 'splode it? Every entry has been for delete, the only entry not suggesting has been a legal threat and every entry since has been delete and salt. Snowball, maybe? Or too soon? HalfShadow (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Try putting the IP into the address bar of your browser, ie http://216.231.41.66/homepage.htm to find that it is actually the IP address of CollinsWoerman architects. This means that it's fair to assume both that someone has received a legal threat from an architect and that there's a good chance the IP is a static one, therefore blockable. --WebHamster 22:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't feel terribly strongly either way about the AfDs, but as this author appears to be somewhat upset and has an itchy lawyer finger, maybe it's best to let them run there course so the delete is as valid as possible. I'm also not up on my technical knowledge in regards to IP addresses, but if others are pretty sure that this IP is static then I'm not opposed to lengthening the block. Natalie (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c) Good catch! seicer | talk | contribs 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Try putting the IP into the address bar of your browser, ie http://216.231.41.66/homepage.htm to find that it is actually the IP address of CollinsWoerman architects. This means that it's fair to assume both that someone has received a legal threat from an architect and that there's a good chance the IP is a static one, therefore blockable. --WebHamster 22:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why not just 'splode it? Every entry has been for delete, the only entry not suggesting has been a legal threat and every entry since has been delete and salt. Snowball, maybe? Or too soon? HalfShadow (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted the AfD debate as a violation of WP:BLP. See section below. As for The editor should be informed that it is a discussion page, so it isn't really libel, you couldn't be more wrong. It doesn't matter where you publish something, it is still published. There is no excuse for gross insults to subjects of articles and such lack of courtesy. I suggest an apology is in order to the subject, or to his agent. The IP was warned 3 hours after posting the legal threat, then 12 minutes later he was blocked. Tyrenius (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Tyrenius is absolutely right. Yes, this poor person should not have made a legal threat. And people should never have engaged in the kind of completely failure of courtesy that led to it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since it's my block, I'll point out that blocking indef is SOP for legal threats until the threat is revoked. To quote from WP:NLT: "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." If the IP revokes the threat of legal action, they will be unblocked. If they continue in this vein, they will continue to be blocked. This is how these matters are nearly always handled, and I can't see any compelling reason to handle this matter any differently. Natalie (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it's preferable to let a new user know they are doing something that contravenes policy, before they are sanctioned for doing so. They should be given the opportunity to withdraw. They hadn't done anything during the 3 hours after one post. Tyrenius (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, blocks generally aren't sanctions. They are an attempt to prevent further harm and I believe the theory behind insta-blocking after legal threats is that it prevents the user from pushing the lawsuit point, and creating a further chilling effect. And they have been given the opportunity to withdraw - there is a templated warning on the IP's talk page as well as a personal note from myself, explaining exactly why they were blocked and welcoming them back once they withdraw the threat. Once the threat is withdrawn, or once 48 hours has passed, they will be free to edit once again. Natalie (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am not complaining about Natalie's block at all, although if forced to choose, I would support the idea of letting the warning stand in a case like this to allow the person to withdraw the threat. But a better response would have been a mass blocking on all the people who insulted the guy in the first place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, blocks generally aren't sanctions. They are an attempt to prevent further harm and I believe the theory behind insta-blocking after legal threats is that it prevents the user from pushing the lawsuit point, and creating a further chilling effect. And they have been given the opportunity to withdraw - there is a templated warning on the IP's talk page as well as a personal note from myself, explaining exactly why they were blocked and welcoming them back once they withdraw the threat. Once the threat is withdrawn, or once 48 hours has passed, they will be free to edit once again. Natalie (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it's preferable to let a new user know they are doing something that contravenes policy, before they are sanctioned for doing so. They should be given the opportunity to withdraw. They hadn't done anything during the 3 hours after one post. Tyrenius (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
"VfD"? This guy must be an old user socking. John Reaves 21:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Loony: a novella of epic proportions
I've just deleted this as a violation of WP:BLP with its liberal accusations of vanity. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Shorthands states unambiguously:
- "Vanity is a potentially defamatory term that should be avoided in deletion discussions."
This has been there since October 2006.[24], after discussion at WT:AFD and WT:BLP.[25] Likewise since 2006, the shortcut WP:VANITY has had a warning:
- Please do not use this shortcut, as the term can be considered insulting to the subjects of articles.
There are pertinent posts about this also (under maintenance at the moment).[26], [27], [28], [29]. Neither vanity nor self-promotion are in themselves valid delete reasons anyway, so there is no need to mention them. This applies to the above section also. Tyrenius (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is a major difference between "should be avoided in deletion discussions" and "is cause for immediate deletion of an AfD page that makes use of the term". I've restored the page pending consensus for doing otherwise here; maybe the word vanity should be removed from the page, but your action was heavy-handed to the point of ludicrousness. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've refactored it. I'd point out that using the term "vanity press" is completely reasonable, it's a valid term for a self-published book and has even got its own article. Thoughts? Black Kite 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Note: Avoid using the word "vanity" in a deletion discussion even if you think it's the case — AFD gets media attention, and the word "vanity" in AFDs has caused real problems for the Foundation."[30] (emphasis in the original) I think that's clear enough. Tyrenius (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Given that the author's article has just been snow-closed as Delete, I doubt if it's going to be a problem for much longer. Black Kite 23:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd suggest courtesy-blanking (not deleting) the AfDs when they're completed. Note, though, that the individual was threatening to sue not over the content of the AfD, but over the outcome, which is plainly dumb. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Given that the author's article has just been snow-closed as Delete, I doubt if it's going to be a problem for much longer. Black Kite 23:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think actually deleting the discussion was more than a bit overboard, especially considering it was two discussions deleted, and not one. If there is libel, you can delete the particular revision in question and leave a note. Deleting the entire page of an ongoing discussion without restoring any part of it is outlandish. Avruch T 23:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've closed it as a snow delete and redacted the nomination. I don't see any reason to continue a minor drama. Black Kite 23:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Completed AfD deleted per WP:BLP:
- Courtesy blanking of deletion discussions
If a biography of a living person is deleted through an Articles for deletion (AfD) debate, the AfD page and any subsequent deletion review that fails may be courtesy-blanked or deleted if there was inappropriate commentary.
"...In the meantime, it is my position that MOST AfD pages for living persons or active companies should be courtesy blanked (at a minimum) as a standard process, and deleted in all cases where there was inappropriate commentary. This is not the current policy, but currenty policy does allow for deletions of material which is potentially hurtful to people." --Jimbo Wales 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[31]
After the deletion of a biography of a living person, any admin may choose to protect the page against recreation.
End of material quoted from WP:BLP.
Tyrenius (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) I think a courtesy-blanking would be more than sufficient in this case, and would ask you to stop making contentious deletions unilaterally. As "inappropriate commentary" goes, suggesting "vanity" is very mild. In the interests of avoiding wheel-warring, I won't restore the pages unless there's a consensus to do so, but I think your actions are getting a little tiresome here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Besides which, you appear not to have deleted the discussions at all. Please don't. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Vanity as in vanity press is apparently a provable fact here. Just to muddy the waters :-) Feel free to courtesy blank the debates after closure, that is entirely acceptable in these case. {{courtesy blanking}} does the job, but probably no need to actually delete. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well said, Guy, but if we have not received such a request and have no obvious reason to expect one, the default would be to leave it well enough alone. — CharlotteWebb 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
"No obvious reason to expect one"? Just above, there is a legal threat. The default is WP:BLP and the onus on wikipedia editors to act pre-emptively:
- Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.(emphasis in original)
- Wikipedia is an international, top-ten website, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends.
Vanity accusations are clearly contentious and were made as pure editorial opinion.
Tyrenius (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've courtesy-blanked the pages, as there seems to be something approximating a consensus in favour of doing so. All history is still available to anyone who cares to look, so I don't think it does any harm, and I agree with the substance of Tyrenius's interpretation of WP:BLP (although obviously not with the severity of the conclusions he's drawn from this interpretation). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that is the main reason the server is configured not to allow Google to index AFD pages (despite how difficult it can become for as editors to find a specific AFD at a later date), not that the overall behavior of Google should matter much to us anyway. If we actually do believe the user plans to sue (and is not simply trying to troll us), I would suggest consulting
Brad PatrickMike Godwin before tampering with any of the "evidence". — CharlotteWebb 00:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I recommend that (not instantly, not overnight, not in a way as to shock people) policy be firmed up to make it clear that a deletion reason of "vanity" is a personal attack on the subject of an article, and not just "not recommended" but a blockable offense under WP:NPA.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wales has also stated here that to use the phrase "self-promotion" is a "personal attack warranting at least a 24 hour block", and in that same diff called for a "mass blocking" of everyone who "insulted" a particular person by using that and similar terms. These statements of Jimmy's are problematic and over the top. For one thing, WP:NPA does not and was not meant to cover "attacks" against subjects of articles. WP:BLP is better for that sort of concern, and it focuses—and rightly so—on keeping attacks out of articles, rather than on punishing offenders. Second, the text of WP:NPA itself wisely counsels that blocks are not the best remedy against personal attacks except in cases of high disruption.
- The reality is, experienced Wikipedians, including many admins, use terms like "vanity" and "self-promotion" all the time. Does Jimmy really think that each time someone has used it, they deserved to be blocked? Should, for example, Freakofnurture and JzG be (or have been) blocked for popularizing the word "vanispamcruftisement"?
- I submit that if use of phrases like "vanity" and "self-promotion" are causing legal problems for Wikimedia, then a separate policy page ought to be erected stating such. To proclaim that use of such terms merits blocking under NPA is not the way to go. Mike R (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate the need to move away from "vanity" as a term of art in discussion. It has an inherent, unavoidable negative connotation and has caused Foundation issues in the past. On the other hand, there are some logistical problems with making a term blockable; would we similarly mandate that vanity press publishers (term in use since the 1950s) be referred to as print on demand or otherwise euphemistically? But more to the point, I am not at all comfortable with the idea that "self-promotion" is an equally damning descriptor. A CSD G11 article on, say, Bob's House of Stuff created by User:BobsHouseofStuff is, with NPOV in mind, a type of promotion and from the source itself. In particular, it is an example of below the line marketing (and wow, that's an article in need of work!). "Self-promotion" has been used in places as a pejorative, but is equally common with a positive connotation (there are many books available on Amazon touting self-promotion strategies for small businesses). Is declaring the hypothetical article above as self-promotion thus any more pejorative or biased than suggesting it meets the requirements of CSD G11, which specifies "blatant" advertising? Obviously it--like most anything else--can be made into a personal attack or otherwise cross the line, but, ceteris paribus, I am not certain that it does. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oy. We deep-six "vanity" & we're back to arguing over "notability" when all we want to do is get rid of articles about teenagers created by friends/would-be lovers, & business ventures with no chance of success or advertising budgets. Let's see an explanation how "vanity" is a bad thing before we consider this suggestion, if at all. -- llywrch (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
G11 is not about "self promotion". It is about "promotion" regardless of who is doing it (could be a fan, for example), so that is not relevant to this discussion. "Vanity" and "self promotion" are both used in this context as disparaging terms and are therefore unacceptable, whether per WP:BLP or WP:NPA. They are furthermore needless and irrelevant in AfD debates as neither is a reason to delete. Arguments should be addressed to the worth of article content per WP:N and WP:V. Derogatory comments about living people are not only against the ethos of wikipedia, but are also likely to result in complaints to the Foundation,[32], [33] and should not be used, including for example "scam artist"[34] and vanispamcruftisement. This needs to be firmed up in guidelines and policy. When it occurs it should be removed with a strong warning to the editor who made it. Reinsertion would merit a block. However, at the moment I see such offences are unintentional, and most users would co-operate, once they were made aware that it is not acceptable. Tyrenius (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your hypersensitivity aside, "self-promotion" is a perfectly accurate description and "vanity press" a perfectly valid consideration and term. "Vanity"? Eh, so what. I'm not seeing the value of your attempts to ban perfectly valid, descriptive, and useful terms merely because you don't like how they sound. I, for one, will continue to use such terms where appropriate, and I think you'll find little support for disciplining editors who insist on precision over knee-jerk hypersensitivity. --Calton | Talk 04:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that some people, including Jimbo, are being way too sensitive here. Calling something vanity being blockable? What? It's No Personal Attacks, not Might Be A Personal Attack If You Are Easily Offended And/Or Suffer From Blood Loss To The Brain. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I'd like to request some outside eyes. NCdave (talk · contribs) posted a lengthy, largely off-topic thread at Talk:David Reardon describing his personal views on abortion and including a few external links to "crisis pregnancy centers" (). I indicated that this was a misuse of the article talk page as a soapbox, and removed the external links as promotional and unecessary ([36]). NCdave responded by restoring the links, saying "Please do not censor what I say, and I won't censor what you say. OK?" and noting, inter alia, that "... a mom 'wants' an abortion like a wild animal, with its leg caught in a steel trap, 'wants' to gnaw its leg off." ([37]). I don't see this as productive or appropriate discussion in the forum of Talk:David Reardon.
Context: I've had run-ins with NCdave before. Based on his tendentious editing at Steven Milloy, I sought a topic ban and NCdave was banned by the community from that page for 6 months. I don't think there's any response I can take at the talk page that will be viewed constructively, given our history. Therefore, I'm asking for outside input regarding whether these discussions are appropriate under the talk page guidelines, whether it is appropriate to add (and re-add) these external links to the talk page, and so forth.
Possibly relevant links:
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NCdave (pretty old)
- Block log
- Community sanction noticeboard thread
- Current talk-page thread in question
Any input or feedback is appreciated. Thanks. MastCell Talk 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- His post does not look appropriate, or at least the second half of it is not appropriate, and I've removed the external links again. Is there a particular reason you haven't brought this up with him on his talk page? Natalie (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Given our disputatious history, I doubt that anything I have to say will be received constructively (as with the article talk page). I thought it would be more useful to have uninvolved eyes look at it, though I did notify him of this thread. MastCell Talk 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I saw that, and your reason for wanting outside help makes sense. I note that he had a mentor, and possibly still has. Perhaps this person could talk to him about the inappropriate talk page comments? They may have a better idea of how to approach him effectively. Natalie (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Given our disputatious history, I doubt that anything I have to say will be received constructively (as with the article talk page). I thought it would be more useful to have uninvolved eyes look at it, though I did notify him of this thread. MastCell Talk 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll just chime in here quickly. When Mastcell brought NCdave to WP:CSN I suggested we give NCdave a second chance and instead of community banning try topic banning, if NCdave entered WP:ADOPT. He did and he got topic banned. When he asked what behaviour people found inappropriate I went to some length to it all explain him (see his talk page) as did his mentor. However NCdave has decided to argue with issues in my posting (I'm not saying my advice was perfect but in all fairness it's a pretty good explanation of his previous problems and why they are problematic) which wasn't a very encouraging sign. But if this post is anything to go by NCdave hasn't learned from his past mistakes. Mastcell is right to bring this here - NCdave's post is utterly inappropriate - NCdave is using WP as a forum, again. That said, I thought he was doing okay in his editing at Jesse Helms--Cailil talk 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Natalie.
- I disagree with MastCell's characterization of my Talk page comments, here. (I also strenuously object to MastCell's characterization of my contributions to Steven Milloy, which were over six months ago, anyhow; for the record, my edits to the Steven Milloy article were not tendentious, they were attempts to bring the article into conformance with WP:BLP.)
- Background: the article in question is a biography of Dr. David Reardon, a pro-life activist whose specialty is post-abortion trauma and counseling. The broad argument here is over whether there is such a thing as post-abortion trauma (also sometimes called post-abortion syndrome, or PAS).
- The specific discussion in question was about an edit to the article by a IronAngelAlice which introduced an inaccuracy into the article. In 1988 Koop wrote to President Reagan, and in his letter he said that "scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." However, IronAngelAlice's edit replaced that quote with a transplanted fragment of a statement that Koop had made elsewhere, and reported it as being in the letter to Reagan. She also made her edit with no Talk page discussion.
- Rather than just fix it in the article, I sought consensus by discussing the problem on the Talk page; I then edited the article with what I hoped would be wording that would be acceptable to all: I included both the accurate quote from Koop's letter to Reagan, and also the quote which Alice had inserted, but with a correct attribution to where Koop had said it.
- It is my opinion that the way to build consensus is to have frank, open discussion about points of contention, on the Talk page. Alice contends that PAS (Dr. Reardon's specialty!) does not exist. So I explained how it is that I know, from personal experience, that it does exist. The personal story I told linked to the web site of the local Crisis Pregnancy Center to which I had directed a woman suffering from PAS. I included that link so that someone who reads what I wrote can see why I gave that woman their phone number. If MastCell doesn't want to see that, he doesn't need to click on the link. Some people might not know that post-abortion counseling is a big part of the ministries at most CPCs, or might not know what that counseling really is. It seemed better to include a link rather than a big quote from their web site.
- MastCell then joined the conversation, not to help find consensus on the contested sentence about Dr. Koop, but to accuse me of misusing the talk page and "spamming," and he deleted the links to the local CPC from my comments.
- MastCell also didn't like the "wild animal" anecdote. But (as I noted in my comment) the wild animal anecdote was a close paraphrase (from memory) of Dr. David Reardon -- the subject of this biography! (It was one of the two most memorable things he said in the speech that I heard.) How can a close paraphrase from the subject of a biography be inappropriate to the Talk page discussion about that biography??
- Cailil, hello. I respect your opinion. Please read my comments to Natalie, and review my attempt to find a consensus wording for the disputed sentence about Koop, and tell me what you think was inappropriate about my change and my explanation of it (other than wordiness, a sin of which I am frequently guilty).
- Also, I am anxious to hear what bothered you about my contributions to the Jesse Helms article, but please put it on my Talk page or in private email. NCdave (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- NcDave, there is no complaint about your first comment to the talk page (this one) - I don't see MastCell complaining about it and I'm certainly not complaining about it. You were using the talk page to discuss a change to the article, which is its exact purpose. The problematic post is the second post, which is several paragraphs of your personal opinion about a controversial medical diagnosis. Your personal experience is not an admissible source for a Wikipedia article (or for scientific research - as the old saying goes "the plural of anecdote is not data") so you are hopefully not suggesting that this information be in the article. I also think the links are inappropriate - Wikipedia is not the right place to be advertising for crisis pregnancy centers. I would suggest that information about counseling from CPCs is maybe not the best unbiased information, considering their quite upfront bias about abortion and various related issues. So, in my view at least, the second post wasn't really about improving the article in any way. It sounds a lot more like soapboxing, which is an inappropriate use of a talk page.
- Small point of fact, as well: Cailil doesn't criticize your contributions to Jesse Helms, he says quite the opposite. Natalie (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- @Natalie: You're absolutely right, User:JodyB was previously working with NCdave. I probably should have gone that route first before coming here, but I had forgotten about the mentoring agreement. I will touch base with JodyB. MastCell Talk 00:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I am anxious to hear what bothered you about my contributions to the Jesse Helms article, but please put it on my Talk page or in private email. NCdave (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- First: I'm sorry, Cailil, for misreading what you wrote! To take a liberty with a quote from a famous President, "there I go again." If I had a nickel for all the times my sloppiness has gotten me in trouble or caused me embarrassment... <sigh>
- Also, I'm sorry if it seemed like I was advertising a local CPC, I assure you that wasn't my purpose. You are right, Natalie, that I was not suggesting that my personal explanation of why I am certain that PAS is real belongs in the article. (I can't prove that it ever even happened... trust me, I do not lie, but that assurance is not WikiProof.) In fact, I said as much when I wrote it: "The following is a personal anecdote, so it obviously doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article." But I believe in openness, I think it is helpful to know where editors are coming from. Considering that there was an argument underway about whether PAS is real I thought it pertinent to tell why I'm sure that it is. I'm sorry if it came across as soapboxie (is that a word?). I think it would be helpful to know where the other editors are coming from, too. But, of course, that is up to them.
- However, I do think that CPCs' web sites are reasonable sources for information about the services that CPCs, themselves, provide, and I note that WP:V permits such sourcing. By way of symmetry, I noticed that 5 of the 15 references in the Planned Parenthood article are references to PP's own web site. NCdave (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is starting to move into the realm of a content discussion, so I think we're mostly done here. You're right, NCdave, that an organization can be a source for its own services. The issue here, I think, is that the debate is over whether or not this phenomenon exists (if I'm misreading this, then disregard the following). If I'm trying to prove that something exists, its probably best to avoid sources that have a vested interest in proving that the phenomenon exists, since their bias is quite obvious. And the anecdote seemed soapbox-y to me because it was long, detailed, written in expressive language, and seemed designed to cause an emotional reaction. If your anecdote had been more along the lines of "I've had some experience with this," and then you outlined your experience in a few sentences, that would feel less soapbox-y to me. Natalie (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- However, I do think that CPCs' web sites are reasonable sources for information about the services that CPCs, themselves, provide, and I note that WP:V permits such sourcing. By way of symmetry, I noticed that 5 of the 15 references in the Planned Parenthood article are references to PP's own web site. NCdave (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
More help
OK, I really need help here. I think it's clear that NCdave and I don't get along particularly well, going back at least to his topic ban which I requested for tendentious editing. I do my best to avoid him at this point - for example, he appeared at emergency contraception earlier this month, where I've been a heavy contributor, and I decided not to get involved and to let other editors with less baggage handle it.
However, in the past few days NCdave has systematically injected himself into several disputes in which I'm involved on abortion and mental health and David Reardon. He's also gone to an ArbCom thread where I've requested narrow clarification of a prior ruling, and inserted a series of personal attacks and criticism of me which are completely unrelated to the narrow technical issue under discussion ([38]). Just to make sure the point wasn't lost, he also went to the editor in question's talk page ([39]) and the relevant WP:AE thread ([40]), again mostly to criticize me. For good measure, he also went to an conduct RfC on another user which I'd opened a week or so ago and added some fairly inflammatory rhetoric ([41], [42], [43]) again focused on my many misdeeds, canvassed this editor with whom I'm in a dispute to go to the unrelated WP:AE thread and chime in ([44]), provided advice on how to wikilawyer a 3RR violation ([45]), etc. This is all in the past 24 hours or so.
NCdave is following me, injecting himself into disputes I'm engaged in, canvassing others whom I've "wronged", trying to push my buttons with inflammatory and baiting language, and so forth. This is not an editor with a clean slate, as I've detailed above (prior blocks, RfC's, topic bans, etc). I'm asking for uninvolved admins or the community to nip this in the bud, before I say something I'm going to regret. MastCell Talk 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- From what Mastcell is showing here it looks like a case of harassment. I don't understand what NCdave is doing this for, this is simply re-newed tendentious behaviour. The wiki-lawyering really annoys me - this is just is not on. What's worse is that NCdave must know what he's doing. He's been through WP:CSN, he's been here before, he's had multiple blocks for this same behaviour. He also had it all explained to him. And now he's disrupting WP to make a point again. Enough is enough--Cailil talk 20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- NCdave also seems to be using administration boards as a way to stop my participation on certain pages such as Crisis Pregnancy Center. [46] --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Alice, you did three full reverts on the same article in under five hours. All three were done with the "undo" button. In case you had lost count, I warned you on your Talk page that you had reverted three times, to help you, by keeping you out of inadvertent 3RR trouble. At the same time I pleaded with you to "Let's work together to make this a better article. Please?"
- My plea fell on deaf ears. Your reply (five minutes later) was "...Please stop spamming my talk page." One minute later you reverted again -- a defiant, deliberate, 3RR violation, followed quickly by many consecutive additional reverts. So I reported it. What else was I supposed to do? NCdave (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- What seems to be related to this activity is NCdave's support for User:Strider12. As Mastcell has said some outside sysop attention is needed here. I'm bewildered at what's happened to NCdave, a few weeks ago I would have said he was making good progress but this is a complete U turn--Cailil talk 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- NCdave no longer has a coach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status --IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Calil, contrary to MastCell's accusation, I am certainly not following him around. Rather, I avoid him whenever I can. But it isn't easy: he is a prolific editor (which is not a bad thing).
- MastCell is seeking to ban User:Strider12 and User:Ferrylodge, who appear to me to be two of the most careful, conscientious editors I've seen on Wikipedia in a while, for supposed tendentiousness and disruptiveness, accusations which I believe to be unfounded. I thought the purpose of a request for comment was to elicit comments, and so I added my comments to the noticeboard cases that he had opened against them. Is that a problem?
- Believe me, I did not find those cases because MastCell filed them, rather I found them because I was reading Strider12's and Ferrylodge's comments. In both cases I was sufficiently impressed by their excellent scholarship that I visited their talk pages, and discovered that someone was trying to ban them! In both cases, that "someone" was MastCell.
- MastCell accused Strider12 of "long-term tendentious editing," POV-pushing ("her edits uniformly serve to advocate a single, particular agenda"), abrasiveness, disruptiveness, "constant assumptions of bad faith," "personal attacks," being "uncollaborative," and more. Those accusations against her are untrue, and I've been told that such accusations constitute WP:personal attacks.
- Likewise, MastCell accused Ferrylodge of "disruptive editing," being "confrontational rather than collaborative," producing "tons of heat and zero light," and asked that he be banned. Those accusations, too, were untrue.
- My comments were not for the purpose of criticizing MastCell, but to defend the people that he had wrongly accused of misbehavior. Unfortunately, it is hard to say "xxx's accusation against yyy is completely untrue" without being critical of xxx. Reading the diffs, I can see that I should have tried harder. I will endeavor to do so.
- I also put a friendly note of encouragement and thanks on Strider12's Talk page, and I asked another editor (MastCell) to be gentle to a her, as a relative newcomer. How is that a problem? MastCell called that "provideding advice on how to wikilawyer a 3RR violation." That's nonsense. For one thing, there was nothing to wikilawyer, because the incident was long over with. For another, MastCell had accused her of a 3RR violation for "removing tags." In fact, she did not remove tags, she inserted them. I pointed that out, and pointed out the likely source of her confusion. I don't think I was rude about it, but I guess MastCell did not like his mistake being pointed out. NCdave (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously, my take differs substantially. I'm not "seeking to ban" anyone. I opened a user-conduct RfC on Strider12 after 4 months of what I consider tendentious editing - this is a recommended part of dispute resolution. Similarly, I requested that some of the terms of the ArbCom sanctions against Ferrylodge be applied. In the last 48 hours or so, I've run into your accusations and lengthy abuse at every turn, in areas where you previously had no footprint. Would it be possible to get some outside input here? MastCell Talk 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am very glad to hear that you do not wish to ban anyone, MastCell. Will you then please revise your "request for arbitration enforcement" against Ferrylodge, in which you wrote:
- "I'm asking that the ArbCom remedy be enforced and that he be banned from abortion and its associated talk page"
- Thank you in advance. NCdave (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am very glad to hear that you do not wish to ban anyone, MastCell. Will you then please revise your "request for arbitration enforcement" against Ferrylodge, in which you wrote:
NCdave, you'd been doing rather well up until a few days ago. Its pretty clear that you have a grudge against MastCell and your behavior and comments are incredibly unproductive. This is a very large wiki, so pretending that you're trying to avoid MastCell while accidentally managing to get involved (for the first time, I might add) in two disputes in under 24 hours isn't going to wash. I suggest you disengage or take a break from the wiki if you don't think you can leave MastCell be. Shell babelfish 00:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Mikkalai
I appologise in advance for not discussing this directly with Mikkalai but if you read his talk page you will hopefully understand why. He's put a notice up refusing to take part in any discussion within Wikipedia whatsoever and that talk page messages will go unanswered and most probably reverted. The note is inflammatory as well, calling other admins trigger happy cowboys and wikilawyers and if anyone comes to his talk with a concern about this, it makes them a jerk. A quick look at his talk history shows he's simply been reverting any complaint for some time now. I'm sorry to say it, but this isn't the behaviour we expect of administrators and communication is something that admins must be good at. This attitude, and lack of civility is simply not the way an admin should act, but I'm at a :loss as to what to do about it. Has anyone got any suggestions? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- and here's his reversion to my AN/I notice. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- An admin who refuses to discuss anything should be desysopped. Corvus cornixtalk 04:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- We have had this conversation before regarding Gustafson. If you're an admin engaged in administrative tasks, you'd damn well better be prepared to admit liability for them, and discuss them. If he doesn't want to discuss editorial issues, that's a different issue, but if he's including admin tasks in this too, bad idea. No go. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- WP:AOR. He wouldn't pass a second time. seicer | talk | contribs 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, this is really ridiculous now. It's almost like pouting. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- So you support this type of behaviour? seicer | talk | contribs 04:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not pouting at all - just a serious concern about an admin who is refusing to discuss anything. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to the admin's unacceptable behavior. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)I have to agree with Riana, while it is not the best practice to not discuss article building, it does not require de-syoping. Now, if this user was not communicating about admin related functions, thats a whole different boat. Tiptoety talk 04:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, this is really ridiculous now. It's almost like pouting. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Considering he's still performing admin-powered actions [47] I'd agree that there is a problem given that another admin wouldn't be able to check an action with him before undoing it. A non-admin user wouldn't be as much of a problem, as the same rules of discretion in acting wouldn't necessarily apply. MBisanz talk 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but I have to play Devil's Advocate here. Is anyone really disagreeing with his admin actions? Is it possible everyone could simply leave him alone for a bit and let him cool off? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- This has been an issue in the past, so when we have to inform him about issues regarding admin actions, we will get reverted. If you noticed, Ryan gave Mikka a chance to respond to this, but Ryan was rebuffed with a revert. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not his admin actions I'm trying to bring up here - it's just the general inability to discuss things. It's his editing concerns he's not communicating about either, and simply rolling people back. It's not just been happening over a few hours/days - this goes back quite a long time. How long do we give him? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but I have to play Devil's Advocate here. Is anyone really disagreeing with his admin actions? Is it possible everyone could simply leave him alone for a bit and let him cool off? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- We can't make him communicate. What we can do is make his continued participation here contingent on him conducting himself like a civilized editor. Sure, we could leave it alone- if we want to make it clear that we welcome childish sulking admins. Friday (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well the block of User_talk:Alex_Vogt is a good block since it was vandalism, but the lack of a template or notice to the user's page that he was blocked (and how to appeal it), is disturbing to me. MBisanz talk 04:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- For now I would take a cautious approach, we can't force him to communicate but if somebody disagress with his sysop actions then we have a problem, the last admin to ignore communication when asked about his use of the tools was taken to arbcom and temporally de-sysoped. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Here's another one, an IP block for 2 week [48] without any comments to the user talk [49]. Again, the IP was vandalizing and should have been blocked, but a notice should have been left. MBisanz talk 04:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)I think this provides a clear example of his ability to communicate, when Ryan left him a message regarding this thread he reverted it, if he does not care to even leave a message here what does that say? Isn't this dealing with administrative issues (if that makes any sense :P), and still there he is silent. Tiptoety talk 04:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Deleting talk page messages and not leaving block messages for blocked users - both more common occurrences than you might think. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but that does not make them right. Users should still know their options for requesting unblock. Tiptoety talk 04:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then there's a whole host of admins to bring here too. Why single out Mikkalai except that he's openly pissed off right now? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- This isn’t singling anyone out, how many admins do you know that have a “I will not communicate with anyone” notice on their talk page? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then there's a whole host of admins to bring here too. Why single out Mikkalai except that he's openly pissed off right now? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but that does not make them right. Users should still know their options for requesting unblock. Tiptoety talk 04:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Deleting talk page messages and not leaving block messages for blocked users - both more common occurrences than you might think. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)I think this provides a clear example of his ability to communicate, when Ryan left him a message regarding this thread he reverted it, if he does not care to even leave a message here what does that say? Isn't this dealing with administrative issues (if that makes any sense :P), and still there he is silent. Tiptoety talk 04:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well the block of User_talk:Alex_Vogt is a good block since it was vandalism, but the lack of a template or notice to the user's page that he was blocked (and how to appeal it), is disturbing to me. MBisanz talk 04:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's no need for block templates because we have MediaWiki:Blockedtext. John Reaves 04:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It's important to distinguish his editing behavior from his administrative actions. If he refuses to discuss reverts and the like then he can be handled like we'd handle any other uncommunicative editor. Being uncommunicative can be a form of disruption depending on the circumstances. Refusal to discuss admin actions is far more serious, and in my view would be grounds for summary de-sysop. You just can't block people and so forth, then refuse to discuss the matter. (I hasten to add that disinclination to respond to pestering and badgering is of course within one's right as either an editor or admin, but that's not the issue here.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Wknight94. It serves neither the encyclopedia nor the community to continue hounding him when he's already pissed off. All it will do is confirm his low opinion that us. Meanwhile, if it really bothers you that these vandals didn't get their notices, go ahead and post them. Hesperian 04:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- WKnight, if there are others as well, & I agree that there are, all the more reason for us to get started doing something about them when they get noticed. Are we admitting its unacceptably wrong, and saying we should ignore it? DGG (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If Mikkalai wishes to not communicate via his talk page, then go ahead (I'm not condoning such behavior though). But Mikkalai should be warned that any of his actions, admin or not, can be overturned without his notification and consent. —Kurykh 05:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a bad idea... the only thing that now seperates him from the POV pushers is the mop. Will (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If this was a new problem, just waiting a few days would be sensible. As Ryan points out, this has gone on a long time. So we are faced with a question: do we tolerate admins behaving in unacceptable ways, or don't we? He needs to understand that his editing here depends on him behaving like a reasonable editor. The only way I can think of to communicate this message is a desysop and/or an indefinite block until such a time as he comes around. Yes, it's time for the clue-by-four; we've already seen that lesser measures do not work. And, for the record, no, I don't care what good things he's done in the past. Editors are only welcome here as long as they continue to do the right thing. Friday (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- This admin needs to be desysopped. No matter how good the admin actions, a refusal to discuss them automatically makes them bad - it is not possible to be a good but uncommunicative admin. We could do an RFC on his behaviour, but I think it's safe to say that he wouldn't participate. I have little experience with ArbComm; would they accept a case like this without an RFC? Would they accept it with an RFC? I know ArbComm's the last step in dispute resolution, but where somebody's admin bit is concerned, there aren't really any preliminary steps, especially given a refusal to discuss anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- One thing is for sure (in my mind anyway), if you can't find any sysop-related infractions, there's little chance of ArbCom even accepting a case against him. Why desysop someone who isn't misusing the sysop tools? I'm still waiting for someone to point out a sysop-related infraction... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- so your post here will most probably be reverted without reading is a very childish attitude for an admin to take and how are blocks etc suppose to be discussed with an admin who claims, he will not read his talkpage? --Fredrick day (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd agree with Wknight that there needs to be a blatant infraction of an explicit rule before Arbcom would jump into it. But a user's participation in an RfC isn't required. And there is a special Admin-focused RfC procedure. MBisanz talk 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Precedence, ArbCom has already stated that admins, more than any other user, must communicate to the community. Just wanted to point that out. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The problem here is that what he is not responding to is basically everyone saying, "Hey, why aren't you responding to me?!" I haven't heard anyone raise any other issue that he has subsequently shot down. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Arbcom has stated that admins must be available and willing to discuss their actions. He is not responding to more than just "why aren't you responding to me?" [50] [51] [52] He is refusing to speak about his own administrative actions. That is a problem. If he continues to refuse to discuss his administrative actions, he should be prevented from conducting them. Simple. RxS (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The three diffs you provided are for Richbold, Count of Breisgau. While he didn't respond, he did actually restore the article as asked. Then, in your third diff, Friday (talk · contribs) says he's re-deleting it anyway and says Mikkalai is "being a jerk" about it. All this within a few days of being blocked. Gee, I can't imagine why he doesn't feel like talking to people. </sarcasm> —Wknight94 (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would draw the communities attention to a request I made to Mikkalai back in January, to which I never received a response. This matter eventually wound up at ArbCom. I had previously requested comment in December, last year, from Mikkalai regarding his involvement in the initial area of dispute, again to no response. I recall I checked Mikka's contributions at the time to see if he was editing, and simply not responding - and it appeared he was. As I remember, I didn't bother chasing the matter as I was then compiling evidence for the ArbCom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure of your point here. You were questioning Mikkalai about a three-week-old block that had already been undone (with his permission) - a block of a user who has since been banned in the very ArbCom case that you're referring to. I might have ignored you too. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, well, Zeraeph wasn't banned when I made the first request - and it may have actually impacted on the subsequent ArbCom which resulted in the ban if I had had a response - and neither was she when I made the second; since I was clearly commenting about ongoing situations. Indeed, I was trying to gauge the basis by which he gave his permission. Now, unless it is your position that Mikka knew that Zeraeph was going to be banned and there was no point in responding to a polite request for information to assist in the administrative processes of the community, I would gently suggest that your responses appear to be simply imply that Mikka is outside of normal avenues of communication. I thought that that was the basis of bringing this discussion here in the first place, which is why I placed the comments I did.
- Also, I will try to remember not to bother you with bringing up mundane questions regarding your actions in relation to editors and other such bothersome members of the community until after it has been decided that there was no case to answer, or that they were right, or something innocuous like that.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure of your point here. You were questioning Mikkalai about a three-week-old block that had already been undone (with his permission) - a block of a user who has since been banned in the very ArbCom case that you're referring to. I might have ignored you too. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Precedence, ArbCom has already stated that admins, more than any other user, must communicate to the community. Just wanted to point that out. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd agree with Wknight that there needs to be a blatant infraction of an explicit rule before Arbcom would jump into it. But a user's participation in an RfC isn't required. And there is a special Admin-focused RfC procedure. MBisanz talk 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Community desysop?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The community can do anything ArbCom can do, as long as we have the necessary consensus. Typically this is defined as "no admin objects". If the community feels that it is highly unacceptable for an administrator to refuse communication (for an extended period of time), then we can decide here and now to desysop, and then ask ArbCom to implement the decision. As observed above, an RFC will not work because the user refuses to participate. If any admin objects to desysopping, we can refer the matter to ArbCom and let them decide what to do. Jehochman Talk 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong oppose: No demonstration of sysop misuse. Plain and simple. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - He has the right to walk away for a short time or a Wikibreak. Block for a long period of time (1 month?) if necessary to avoid harm to WP. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- But he hasn't walked away and is not on a break, he is just refusing to communicate but continues to wield the admin mop. Corvus cornixtalk 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not yet. Maybe in the future if things don't improve or the circumstances drastically change somewhat. Rudget | talk 17:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - While I don't agree (and that's putting it mildly) with how he/she behaved - If the admin is determined to take a respite for a short while, then there is no reason to desysop. If he/she returns and something similar is brought to ANI again, someone should consider reopening this discussion. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So this idea has no support. No need to continue. It seems that the admin can proceed with the current behavior until there is a disputed block. If and when that happens, they may end up in hot water, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Jehochman Talk 17:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- He knows he has a handful of rope; if he hangs himself, so be it, but until he abuses his power, there's really nothing to complain about. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- So then we do welcome childish sulking admins? Act as poorly as you want, just as long as you don't abuse the tools? --Kbdank71 18:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well I don't necessarily respond to every message left on my page. And I've even disappeared for a few months. Does that mean I am subject to desysopping too? How about everyone just leave the guy alone and stop coming to WP:ANI for everything (this one has been a waste of time, honestly) and see if he does anything wrong. I'd rather he quietly did everything right than noisily did everything wrong. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd prefer that too. Then again, if you're quietly doing everything right, there would be no reason to come to AN/I for anything. --Kbdank71 18:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well I don't necessarily respond to every message left on my page. And I've even disappeared for a few months. Does that mean I am subject to desysopping too? How about everyone just leave the guy alone and stop coming to WP:ANI for everything (this one has been a waste of time, honestly) and see if he does anything wrong. I'd rather he quietly did everything right than noisily did everything wrong. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think the question is whether a pre-emptive refusal to communicate about anything constitutes abuse of the tools. Being an admin isn't just hitting the block, protect, and delete buttons or whiling away the hours in elevated discussion on IRC. An admin whose talk page states: "I hereby pledge to not engage in any communication in wikipedia whatsoever" (emphasis in original) is abusing his power - my sense was that ArbCom has affirmed that communication is a central part of administrative responsibilities (e.g. here). Add to this that he's not using deletion summaries as even a minimal form of communication about his admin actions. What if he deletes one of my articles, even justifiably, and then I go to his page and see a blanket refusal to discuss his actions or respond to my questions? Don't get me wrong - I've never crossed paths with Mikkalai, I'm biased in favor of grumpy rouge admins in general, and I'd favor giving him time to chill and regroup. Still, I don't think we need to wait for a bad block to call this behavior "abusive", and if he keeps using the tools even non-controversially while refusing all discussion, then that would seem to be a problem. MastCell Talk 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- How do we know if tool use is controversial? A user who is aggrieved may go to his talk page and be discouraged from inquiring by the hostile message. This creates a poisonous atmosphere and should not be allowed. Jehochman Talk 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- This could be rather controversial, or at least out of policy. Mikkalai deletes Marathon dancing as a copyvio [53] (which it was). He then restarts it as a stub, which is ok. But now he's deleted Special:Undelete/Talk:Marathon_dancing the talk page twice, without restoring it when he recreated and stubbifyed. There wasn't a copyvio on the talk page, just discussion. MBisanz talk 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I'm not seeing any reason why Special:Undelete/Cut-and-paste_job should have been deleted. It was 2.5 years old and didn't have any deletion/questioning tags on it. MBisanz talk 19:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose he could have deleted Talk:Marathon dancing under G8 (talk page of a deleted page) and then forgot to restore it when he recreated the article, but I can't see any reason at all to delete Cut-and-paste job - it's an adequate stub, didn't meet any criterion for speedy deletion, and wasn't sent through prod or AfD. What's more, no deletion rationale was provided. Hut 8.5 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Cut-and-paste job is the first small red flag for me but it was completely unsourced. Articles like that get me inching towards the delete button too. So, if he doesn't want to talk about it, go to WP:DRV or raise the issue at WP:ANI, etc. If further questionable actions occur, try a WP:RFC and eventually WP:RFAR. But pre-emptive desysopping is silly, esp. when someone is clearly pissed off. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose he could have deleted Talk:Marathon dancing under G8 (talk page of a deleted page) and then forgot to restore it when he recreated the article, but I can't see any reason at all to delete Cut-and-paste job - it's an adequate stub, didn't meet any criterion for speedy deletion, and wasn't sent through prod or AfD. What's more, no deletion rationale was provided. Hut 8.5 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Even while MasterCell raises a good point, I do not think that there is a clear cut case where this has ever effected the way he used the tools. I would say differently if he was abusing the tools, or using they questionably and did not discuss it. But that just has not happened, how do we know that he will not engage in discussion when he must justify his admin actions? Tiptoety talk 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, of course. Taking draconian action against people who get riled when relentlessly trolled is not a great way to reduce the amount of trolling that goes on. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- But should a administrator get riled when trolled? If they are unable to re-main civil and keep a calm demeanor, then what good are they to the project. Maybe talking with those "trolls" may change their contributions to the project. (I still oppose de-syoping) Tiptoety talk 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- By definition, talking to trolls is unproductive. Hence WP:DNFT. Wknight94 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Users DGG, Kim Dent-Brown and Friday are not trolls, thanks. And calling people trolls is hardly ever productive. RxS (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? Straw man? How did we get from Guy talking about trolls to me calling DGG, Kim Dent-Brown and Friday trolls? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- You invoked WP:DNFT in response to Guy's claim that he was undergoing relentless trolling. At that point the last 3 editors that tried to talk to him were those 3 editors, and they got blown off. They were not trolling nor were they relentless. WP:DNFT absolutely positively does not apply. RxS (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? Straw man? How did we get from Guy talking about trolls to me calling DGG, Kim Dent-Brown and Friday trolls? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment One of my biggest criteria at WP:RfA is evidence of communication - I think it vital for the position. Perhaps it is legit to not respond to "trolls" - but it appears that that sobriquet is being applied a little too liberally here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Before everyone forgets, Mikkai is a long-term member of Wikipedia, who can be expected to know what is good behavior & what is not. As at least one person pointed out above, he hasn't done anything that deserves desysopping. On the other hand, he's clearly a burn-out case. He's demonstrated a brittle & contrary attitude (to put it mildly) towards anyone else that crosses his path for some time now: one may wonder which is worse -- being blocked by him or receiving a message from him. :-)
To repeat myself, he hasn't done anything deserving action -- yet. Refusing to respond to questions on his Talk page doesn't help him in the long run, although it might in the short term. Many cases of questionable behavior can be adequately dealt with by exchanging messages on a Talk page; take that option away & the options we have left are desysopping or blocking. Probably the best option is to let this slide, while keeping a careful, non-stalking watch over him in case he does cross the line & needs immediate handling. -- llywrch (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment How interesting. The rudeness and refusal to cooperate are troubling, and perhaps the project might be giving him stress. On the other hand, judging by the edits he's a productive administrator who does good work around here for which administrative privileges are important, and seems to have good judgment about staying on the right side of a dispute [54]. Maybe we should just agree to call him User:Dirty Harry and be done with it. It might shock people to hear me stick up for a problematic admin but I really think the way to go is through discussion, kindness, and understanding here, not arguments and threats of desysop. Wikidemo (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose very strongly, this is one of our best editors and admins and deserves our full support against the harassment he is receiving, to desysop would be to side with his trolls. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Who has been harassing him? If we can stop them, perhaps he will cheer up? Jehochman Talk 05:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Check his talk page hsistory for details. I have been watching it for a long time myself. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose If anything, the community needs to help good users who are stressed or harassed, not stress and harass them further. Kicking somebody when they're down is certain to hurt the encyclopedia and the community in the long run. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
While I would oppose a too hasty desysop on AN/I, I'm equally uncomfortable with the idea that we should just wait until something goes wrong again and then press the point. This is the third time in ten days that Mikka's behaviour has been raised on AN/I (see here and here). There are obvious civility issues, along with the unresponsiveness. But all I see is a variety of bad options. A longish break seems best, but that's pointless unless he desires it. Marskell (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose community desysop. Desysoping is not the job of a group of people chatted about it for a couple days then had a vote. This is a job for arbcom, who will examine the evidence and rebuttal in detail. If it continues then that is exactly where it will end up. I do however endorse the communities right to block disruptive users. I also condemn the unilateral unblock of this user as a violations of the blocking policy, a fact the unblocking admin couldn't care less about. I think this is an even greater violation of admin trust that what Mikkalia did. (1 == 2)Until 15:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
Obviously de-syoping is not the way to handle this, but something needs to be done. Why don't we try and discuss other methods of fixing/improving this issue. Tiptoety talk 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- It should be noted that he is participating on other user's talk pages and article talk pages...[55][56][57][58][59][60]. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This is outrageous conduct for an administrator. Does anyone imagine an RFA passing, where the candidate says "Once I become administrator, I plan to delete things and block people and I refuse to discuss it with anyone"? There is no way that this is anywhere within the realm of reasonable. There is a DRV currently under discussion, where the editor had to take the issue straight to drv because the admin refuses to accept any communication on wikipedia. If the deletion policy and the instructions at Deletion review say for editors to discuss the deletion with the closing or deciding admin, then this implies that the admin should discuss it with them. To refuse to do so id an abuse of the tools. What message does this send out about administrators in general, and our collabarative consensual community? This can not stand. Desysopping would be the appropriate measure to take, so how do we get that done? Someone said arbcom? Is that right? Lets take it there... who knows how?... lead the way. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- A clear weakness in the system. If this came to rfa, how would it turn out. Yet since this occurs after the rfa clears the only word is "live with it."--Cube lurker (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't clear a week ago when the last Mikkalai post was started when I said "per his pledge of muteness and per his previous actions, the next step should be arbitration". Now a week has past since that pledge of sorts and there is continuing problems arising. Again, my recommendation is arbitration. — Save_Us † 05:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
So let me get this straight.. there's no actual problem (as in, no one is currently talking to him about admin issues), but there might be a problem, but no one is sure if it even exists? Don't you people have articles to write? -- Ned Scott 06:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Ned. Is there a specific admin move that people are concerned with? I see some concerns with Mikkalai about the lack of warnings or posting for blocks (it can be a problem if blocked users don't know how to contest their blocks). If so, someone here complaining about that should just ask him. If he doesn't respond to that, you have something to go to Arbcom with. Otherwise, this is just pointless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are multiple issues Ned Scott, and they have been addressed many times over. Mostly it is his civility issues. This week in particular because of his 'pledge of silence', there are issues with him blocking editors and not issuing warnings, improper deletions and protections which were addressed on his talk page (responded to them with a revert) and issues with him removing content from pages (which he again responds with a revert of the message questioning him). Then there is the message on the bottom of his talk page: "If you came here to teach or bait me, this is a proof that you are a jerk and I am right.", which is a personal attack to anyone who thinks commenting on his admin actions is worth discussing with him. And if you look at the history of his talk page recently, you will find that you're statement "no one is currently talking to him about admin issues" is patently false. — Save_Us † 09:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- My recollection of the Gustafson mess was RFC first, then ArbComm. And that case resulted in only a thirty day suspenseion. To me, that seems the most relevant precedent, and if people really are that bothered they should take the time to do it right - expecting no more of an outcome than that. GRBerry 14:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have a wacky, loony, goofy, koo-koo suggestion: what if we wait until this is actually a problem, rather than just a potential problem? I can think of a lot of reasons why one might cut oneself off from communication temporarily: a death in the family, a medical procedure, religious reasons, or simply to introspect and clear one's head. I wouldn't do this myself, and I make clear that I'm not condoning it per se, but at the same time it's absolutely nothing in comparison to Mikkalai's years of excellent work as an editor and as an admin. Give Mikkalai some breathing room and see what happens. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
EliasAlucard still posting anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia
{{resolved}}
Despite a warning, EliasAlucard continues to post anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia:
- In the talk page of a biography of Kevin Macdonald, he out of the blue refers to the Holocaust as the "Holohoax" [61]
- anti-Semitic and belligerent edit summary here By the way, it's an invalid source that he keeps insisting on putting in, apparently thinking anti-semitic rants are a substitute for WP:RS.
When can this hateful editor be blocked? Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've blocked for 72 hours; if he persists after that, I think an indefinite block is in order. Wikipedia is no place for such bile. — Coren (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, I don't think this was a good block. Bloodlesthecat has been basically attacking him non-stop for quite some time now, and I'm pretty sure he's misrepresenting what's been said here. Look at the first one:
- [62]; he's discussing the second one in the context of the views of Kevin MacDonald, which include the view that the Holocaust is used as a political tool by "Zionist" to great effect; one should not be surprised to note that these same views form part of Holocaust denial or the "Holohoax" argument.
- [63] The second quote is similar. Kevin MacDonald (and, indeed, many other individuals) view Israel "birthright" citizenship based on race/genetics as hypocritical; that is what the source in question discusses and I fail to see how it is an "anti-Semitic" or "belligerent" edit summary
- This looks like a bit of a hit-job, designed to get him blocked for disagreeing. --Haemo (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, I don't think this was a good block. Bloodlesthecat has been basically attacking him non-stop for quite some time now, and I'm pretty sure he's misrepresenting what's been said here. Look at the first one:
- I disagree, even though it has become obvious that both users have issues the information posted on WP:WQA seems quite troubling, the user was warned and he was aware that the alert's resolution concluded that he should be blocked if the pattern continued. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then how do you explain that "Holohoax" was apparently used as a quotation of the subject of the article (Kevin MacDonald) and not by the user. This "evidence" does not show what is being claimed. Why is that? David D. (Talk) 06:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Read the thread in WQA, apparently this user has a tendency to make the comments in a manner that might hide some of its bias, but some are rather obvious attacks. The point is that he was warned and continued pushing the issue. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't seen enough to form an opinion yet, but this edit is problematic, even AGFing on the "holohoax" thing. --B (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok ... after continuing to go back over edits and seeing this edit, I've seen enough now. I endorse the block. --B (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and Jossi talked to him about avoiding inserting his own political opinions (questionable though they may be) into discussions on his talk page, and how to avoid it. Frankly, I think he's put up with quite a bit so far, being called at literally every turn names like "anti-Semite", "hate-monger", "racist", etc. --Haemo (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Haemo, here is another compilation of this editor's vile anti-Semitic rants and personal attacks. Your insinuation that my challenging this vicious, racist bile ia a "hit job," and your odd rationalization for this user to call the Holocaust the Holohoax is very, very offensive. Haemo, be so kind as to AGF and likewise desist from your insulting insinuations and apologetics for anti-Semitic rants and Jew baiting personal attacks on wikipedia and against its editors. thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Mmmm, I do love being called an "insulting" apologist for "anti-Semitic rants" and "Jew-baiting". --Haemo (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- And I do love insinuations that my protesting Jew baiting abuse and anti-Semtic rants is a "hit job" that I concocted. Just another whiny Jew, eh? Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Mmmm, I do love being called an "insulting" apologist for "anti-Semitic rants" and "Jew-baiting". --Haemo (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Haemo, here is another compilation of this editor's vile anti-Semitic rants and personal attacks. Your insinuation that my challenging this vicious, racist bile ia a "hit job," and your odd rationalization for this user to call the Holocaust the Holohoax is very, very offensive. Haemo, be so kind as to AGF and likewise desist from your insulting insinuations and apologetics for anti-Semitic rants and Jew baiting personal attacks on wikipedia and against its editors. thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and Jossi talked to him about avoiding inserting his own political opinions (questionable though they may be) into discussions on his talk page, and how to avoid it. Frankly, I think he's put up with quite a bit so far, being called at literally every turn names like "anti-Semite", "hate-monger", "racist", etc. --Haemo (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok ... after continuing to go back over edits and seeing this edit, I've seen enough now. I endorse the block. --B (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then how do you explain that "Holohoax" was apparently used as a quotation of the subject of the article (Kevin MacDonald) and not by the user. This "evidence" does not show what is being claimed. Why is that? David D. (Talk) 06:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Boodlesthecat, you need to calm down. Your "holohoax" link was less than convincing. On the other hand B's links were quite revealing. David D. (Talk) 06:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hows that, David D? The "Holohoax" comment was entirely Alucard's gratuitous use--has nothing to do with anything in the article. Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Trust me, as someone who has no clue about the history it looks like he is quoting, or paraphrasing, McDonald. David D. (Talk) 06:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- trust me, he's not. Macdonald never uses phrases remotely like "holohoax." He's a bit more sophisticated and not about to get himself fired from his college (although he's halfway there). Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- All you had to do was post more examples, which should not have been too hard given "he posts volumes of anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia talk pages". The one you chose to present was not as obvious as you thought. Don't shoot the messenger. David D. (Talk) 07:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I hear you--this is actually the 3rd time I've filed a complaint about this user--I should have referenced all the previous examples. The two I cited were examples of what he posted after being strongly warned. Boodlesthecat (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- All you had to do was post more examples, which should not have been too hard given "he posts volumes of anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia talk pages". The one you chose to present was not as obvious as you thought. Don't shoot the messenger. David D. (Talk) 07:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- trust me, he's not. Macdonald never uses phrases remotely like "holohoax." He's a bit more sophisticated and not about to get himself fired from his college (although he's halfway there). Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Trust me, as someone who has no clue about the history it looks like he is quoting, or paraphrasing, McDonald. David D. (Talk) 06:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hows that, David D? The "Holohoax" comment was entirely Alucard's gratuitous use--has nothing to do with anything in the article. Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Boodlesthecat, you need to calm down. Your "holohoax" link was less than convincing. On the other hand B's links were quite revealing. David D. (Talk) 06:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- We have to be careful with this. We cannot block people for not liking or disagreeing with someone's political or religious views. Igor Berger (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is my opinion here. EliasAlucard has some opinions which most people (myself included) find distasteful. This was brought up to him, and he was warned about it. Since then, he has not made any more comments of the type he was warned against — he has, however, commented on some sourcing for an individual who has similar views. In doing so, he has apparently brought down wrath since his discussion of the sources includes similar opinions. What are we blocking him for again? Because if it's continuing to "rant" after being warned, this doesn't cut it. If it's for his opinions, then there's precedent — but then why the warning in the first place? --Haemo (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Haemo here. This isn't clear anti-Semitism. The Holohoax thing could very well have been misconstrued at first glance. The second comment that B used to endorse the block also doesn't prove anything. Even if it were that he was anti-Semitic (when rather I believe he is anti-Zionist) I don't see why he should be blocked for it. What matters is whether or not he is violating WP:SOAP or WP:POINT and being disruptive. I'm not seeing that here - I'm seeing accusations being thrown around left and right from both sides that need to stop. --Veritas (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let's just not become Crusaders. Igor Berger (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is precedent in cases where the user posting ethnic based attacks was warned and continued to use the talk pages to soapbox, what happened? Jimbo himself banned him, this case isn't that extreme but a short block might prevent that it becomes. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- AGF only goes so far. I am often told that I have a poor imagination, but I have a hard time imagining someone who participates at stormfront being a serious contributor here. That place turns my stomach and we have blocked people for linking to trash there before. Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Obviously, most of us have a worldview of some sort and disagree with anything contrary to that worldview - that's the law of non-contradiction. But the comments I have seen from this user convince me that he is here to push a racist agenda. --B (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've documented his anti-semitic ranting at length. How can you misconstrue someone using the phrase holohoax out of nowhere? He rants endlessly about JEWS--how is this "anti-Zionism? The logic that he is just presenting his "views" would make a mockery of NPA--I can tell anyone to eff thmselves, because that's my "personal opinion".
- Let's just not become Crusaders. Igor Berger (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Haemo here. This isn't clear anti-Semitism. The Holohoax thing could very well have been misconstrued at first glance. The second comment that B used to endorse the block also doesn't prove anything. Even if it were that he was anti-Semitic (when rather I believe he is anti-Zionist) I don't see why he should be blocked for it. What matters is whether or not he is violating WP:SOAP or WP:POINT and being disruptive. I'm not seeing that here - I'm seeing accusations being thrown around left and right from both sides that need to stop. --Veritas (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
But SERIOUSLY--why do some people seem to cut soooo much slack for vicous racists when the targets are Jews? Enquiring minds want to know. Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your comments here have crossed the line from helpful to unhelpful. Please stop. --B (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, speaking AS a jew, I love it best when people are free to shoot of their mouths, and by opening, prove they're the idiots we suspected them to be, to paraphrase an old adage. (Speaking in general terms about free speech, not taking potshots as EA.) So long as they're just spouting bullshit, let them prove they're idiots. If it hurts the project, or could be liberally interpreted as incitement (or other legal crimes), then I'm all for community bans or calls to the police. Otherwise, free speech means distasteful speech too. (And remember, the sooner a Jew hears organized Nazism gaining a toe-hold in society, the sooner they can loudly protest, and move out of the area.) ThuranX (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- So WP:TALK is meaningless, and we should allow racists to rant all over Talk Pages? Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Are we here to defend a group of people or to defend knowledge! We are here to promote NPOV not to take sides of history. Igor Berger (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are missing the point here, this user is repeating a pattern of ethnic-based soapboxing, a pattern that has led to at least one user being banned, and he is doing so knowing that it will inflame the situation further. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the point that Blood makes apparent by his reaction is that certain comments can be disruptive to the project due to their divisiveness. I think that mediation is called for here in which EA agrees not to discuss personal opinions on ethnic groups. --Veritas (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still confused as to why anti-Semitic rants are described as "personal opinions." Are Jews fair game for rants, without censure, in the name of "free speech"? Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree - if he wants to discuss his personal opinions on ethnic groups, there are plenty of outlets for him to do so - Wikipedia is not among them. A topic ban would be my first choice. --B (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- If those opinions are relevent to the article and can be referenced with notability he would have a right to quote them, but if they are targeting an editor on a talk page than he has not right to be abusive. Igor Berger (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia, not a message board. I can't imagine any serious encyclopedia having an editor on race topics who holds views that could only be described as racism. If he participates in stormfront and agrees with their views on life, I probably have a poor imagination, but I can't imagine him being a serious contributor here in that topic area. --B (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's been established that he actually agrees with stormfront. --Veritas (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- What does it matter--he posts volumes of anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia talk pages. Is that or is that not unacceptable? Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Very true, he would have to walk a fine line if he is serious about contributing. Igor Berger (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not having looked into this user, her's what I have to say... Per WP:NPA there is no justification for preventing him/her from editing articles just because his/her views are disgusting. If his/her edits to a particular set of articles are continually unhelpful then there may be justification for a topic ban, but not just because of his/her views. Indeed, dismissing someone because of their views is a violation of NPA. If he/she disrupts talk pages by continually posting OT diatrabes or quotes then there is probably justification for a block after an inappropriate warning. Even more so if those OT comments are likely to be offensive and it doesn't matter whether the target is Jewish people, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Arabs, Africans, African Americans, Asians, Americans, Europeans, women, men, homosexuals, heterosexuals ... And I've seen a lot of disgusting irrelevant comments on talk pages, Jewish people are by no means the only target or even the most common target from what I've seen Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Notice, Boodles, who I'm sure isstill rading, if not editing: As I said above, let a person open their mouth enough and they prove other folks' suspicions. EliasAlucard's long list of offenses at the WQA shows the problems. had we tried to block him immediately, there would've been lots of argument that it was a one-off affair or some such. Instead, let him dig that hole big, deep and dark, and then hes' stuck in it. that's why I don't mind letting any fool run at the mouth long. In such cases, be the pig in the argument. (you know that adage about arguing with a pig? 'Never argue with a pig. You're not gonna win and the pig doesn't care anyways'?) that's why some people think it's better to NOT overreact. Hope this helps you understand it. (And it's not that I thoroughly ignore such stuff, but instead, just wait, watch, and never forget - Old German truism "We get too soon old, and too late smart") another case of being worth the learning. ThuranX (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's been established that he actually agrees with stormfront. --Veritas (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia, not a message board. I can't imagine any serious encyclopedia having an editor on race topics who holds views that could only be described as racism. If he participates in stormfront and agrees with their views on life, I probably have a poor imagination, but I can't imagine him being a serious contributor here in that topic area. --B (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- If those opinions are relevent to the article and can be referenced with notability he would have a right to quote them, but if they are targeting an editor on a talk page than he has not right to be abusive. Igor Berger (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree - if he wants to discuss his personal opinions on ethnic groups, there are plenty of outlets for him to do so - Wikipedia is not among them. A topic ban would be my first choice. --B (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still confused as to why anti-Semitic rants are described as "personal opinions." Are Jews fair game for rants, without censure, in the name of "free speech"? Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you read, Boodles? This is getting ridiculous. I told you in no uncertain terms to shut up and take the dispute off the wiki about 30 hours ago. Since then, you've been attacking and forum shopping on countless talk and user talk pages to get him blocked, using WP:TALK and Elias' political viewpoints as defence. This is getting tedious. Stop it. Will (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you read, Sceptre (Will)? a quick perusal of your talk page shows that at least three editors told you that your "Shut the hell up" response to Boodles was way out of line. Let this be the fourth. I think this edit of yours more than warrants some admin attention. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocked by Coren
(e/c) (undent) For what it's worth, given the fuss, I've spend some time walking backwards in EliasAlucard's contribs to see if I had been too heavy handed. What I see is a long time pattern of offensive racism of varying subtlety, and such a pattern is highly undesirable— even if we presume those are beliefs held sincerely, they were nonetheless presented to offend or bait reactions. I stand by my block. — Coren (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Boodles may or may not end up getting blocked as well if he doesn't leave the soapboxing and ranting to other sites, but Elias's block was appropriate. Neıl ☎ 13:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse Coren's block, and future actions in this same vein if disruptive behavior from EliasAlucard continues. There are standards here, even for personal opinions, and relentless disparaging attacks against an ethnicity (rather than, say, a policy of a particular government) have no place. Having said that, if Boodlesthecat can't keep a lid on his reactions then he may find himself in a similar situation. Avruch T 15:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse per the three above. We're supposed to have a welcoming environment here, and hostility toward any ethnic group is inimical to that. At the same time Boodles needs to learn when enough is enough. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- with all due respect, I'm at this point more than confused and disturbed that I am repeatedly threatened with being blocked for the crime of reporting the incessant racist rants and anti-Semitic personal attacks of another editor. I am equally confused and disturbed at accusations of "soapboxing" "forum shopping" and the are leveled at me, especially since my valid (and subsequently confirmed) complaint about anti-Semitic ranting was met with a response of "Shut the hell up" by a sorta maybe admin who shut the case. and I am as well confused and disturbed by the insinuations that I am somehow stampeding on this rabid anti-Semite's "free speech" by filing this complaint. The first, bold faced instruction on WP:TALK is that talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Does this somehow not apply if those personal views are anti-Semitic, Jew bashing racist personal attacks? Is that an exception to WP:TALK? I am simply not getting it here, and I am tired of the threats I am receiving, as well as the open season style nasty attacks by other editors and admins who don't even bother to read the case I've compiled. Please explain. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Are you kidding? You two have done nothing but bait each other and disrupted Wiki and dragged most of AN/I into your personal feud. Your comments have been mostly unhelpful and nothing less than inflammatory. You have accused established editors of Neo-Nazi sympathy and been largely uncivil. Not to mention your constant messages on people's talk pages about their comments on this discussion rather than engaging them here - not like your messages were even relevant anyway to the discussion of whether or not EA is disruptive. --Veritas (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- with all due respect, I'm at this point more than confused and disturbed that I am repeatedly threatened with being blocked for the crime of reporting the incessant racist rants and anti-Semitic personal attacks of another editor. I am equally confused and disturbed at accusations of "soapboxing" "forum shopping" and the are leveled at me, especially since my valid (and subsequently confirmed) complaint about anti-Semitic ranting was met with a response of "Shut the hell up" by a sorta maybe admin who shut the case. and I am as well confused and disturbed by the insinuations that I am somehow stampeding on this rabid anti-Semite's "free speech" by filing this complaint. The first, bold faced instruction on WP:TALK is that talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Does this somehow not apply if those personal views are anti-Semitic, Jew bashing racist personal attacks? Is that an exception to WP:TALK? I am simply not getting it here, and I am tired of the threats I am receiving, as well as the open season style nasty attacks by other editors and admins who don't even bother to read the case I've compiled. Please explain. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
BoodlesTheCat blocked by Nandesuka
I have blocked BoodlesTheCat for 24 hours continuing to insinuate that the admins and editors discussing this issue at AN/I are challenging him out of some latent or patent antisemitism, even after being asked, by multiple parties, to stop. I have left the block of EliasAlucard in place. Nandesuka (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse. Going over the top in the way he did is right out of line. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Huzzah. --Veritas (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oy ve - It sounds like someone in this discussion is trying to do their best to portray (and maintain) a certain Jewish stereotype... they're doing a bang up job at it too! --WebHamster 16:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- It appears to be a squabble based on off-Wiki activity, and I suggest when Boodles and Elias's blocks expire, they stay out of each other's way on-Wiki, as any further antagonism or baiting from Boodles, or anti-Semitism from Elias, and further, longer blocks would be necessary. Support 24h block for BoodlesTheCat, he was warned. I don't understand WebHamster's comment; it seems like he's suggesting Boodles is a stereotypical Jewish editor, but I'm sure it isn't - perhaps he could explain it? Neıl ☎ 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify: "Jewish stereotype" not "stereotypical Jewish editor". No mention of "editor" in my comment. Likewise please note the inclusion of "portray" as opposed to "is an". --WebHamster 16:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- It appears to be a squabble based on off-Wiki activity, and I suggest when Boodles and Elias's blocks expire, they stay out of each other's way on-Wiki, as any further antagonism or baiting from Boodles, or anti-Semitism from Elias, and further, longer blocks would be necessary. Support 24h block for BoodlesTheCat, he was warned. I don't understand WebHamster's comment; it seems like he's suggesting Boodles is a stereotypical Jewish editor, but I'm sure it isn't - perhaps he could explain it? Neıl ☎ 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oy ve - It sounds like someone in this discussion is trying to do their best to portray (and maintain) a certain Jewish stereotype... they're doing a bang up job at it too! --WebHamster 16:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Huzzah. --Veritas (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Requesting an extension of Boodles' ban. It took him ten edits after his block ended to come right back here and push the issue more. He can't let it go, and I really think he needs another block to get that we don't need him agitating more here right after he gets back (see the indef block section below.ThuranX (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm with ThuranX, it seems every time someone tells Boodles to take it easy, he goes crazy and shouts "zomg secret nazi". JuJube (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
EliasAlucard indef blocked by Will Beback
Based on comments here, on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#anti-Semitic rants by EliasAlucard, on the user's talk page, as well as the user's long block record, I've extended EliasAlucard's block duration to indefinite. If any admin thinks that's excesive I'd be willing to talk. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly endorse this block (though I'm not an admin). Unrepentant Holocaust deniers and anti-semites are one step above pedophiles. Bellwether BC 01:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's not actually a reason to block someone. The disruption that normally comes with it is. Sam Korn (smoddy) 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- If acknowledged pedophiles are blocked, then so should acknowledged Holocaust-deniers. Bellwether BC 02:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sam is correct. We don't block people for being pedophiles. We do block people when they push a POV in a disruptive, aggressive manner, or are uncivil towards those who don't share their POV. That was the case here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just to make it clear, I believe that the mere act of self-identification as a paedophile is disruptive. While I find anti-Semitism and Holocaust-denial revolting, self-alignment with this kind of thought is not per se disruptive in the same way. Sam Korn (smoddy) 08:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- If acknowledged pedophiles are blocked, then so should acknowledged Holocaust-deniers. Bellwether BC 02:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's not actually a reason to block someone. The disruption that normally comes with it is. Sam Korn (smoddy) 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse I was alarmed that the block was only 72 hours. This user is not worth the grief, nor the potential loss of editors who could not work with an editor who was unpunished or lightly punished for horrific behavior. IronDuke 02:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse; in view of the venom expressed in the unblock requests. In fact, I've blanked an pp'ed the talk page as it was used to spew further racist rants about the "zionized" administrators. — Coren (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse this block as per the above. Anti-Semistic and holocaust rants as well as personal attacks are not acceptable here on Wikipedia. Greg Jones II 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I as Jewish person having my father lose all his 7 siblings and his mother in Auschwitz oppose this indef block because we are being vindictive because the person does not agree with our views. He has not been disruptive and has not personal attacked an editor but stated his point of view on the talk pages. While Wikipedia is not the place to promote one’s point of view this does not justify an indef block to an editor who has been editing for a number of years. This should go to ArbCom at a least and if anything he should get a community ban of 30 days at the most but not an indef block. Also the provocateurs are just to blame of incivility as much as he is. Igor Berger (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- If permited I would like to submit an email that I received from EliasAlucard that will show that he is not a racisit and he cares about our community. Please let me know and I can post it here or forward it to an admin. I personally do not know him and just met him on this post and offer my defence for him just because of WP:NPOV. Igor Berger (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse In my opinion, this is not as much about anti-Semitism (even though I agree that his anti-Semitic remarks -- especially those in his unblock requests -- deserve a block on their own), but about an editor who has a tendency to attack other editors personally, and to talk about and to other editors in a condescending way, and has continued to do so after numerous warnings and blocks. Be it on the topic of neo-Nazism, anti-Semitism, or the Syriac people, this user has been uncivil incessantly. Also it should be noted that the user has been blocked indefinitely from the Swedish Wikipedia, for pretty much the same reasons. Personally, I believe anti-Semitic ideology in itself should not be a reason to block someone, lack of civility and a tendency not to comply with WP guidelines however is. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Again, it seems that he has been blocked for expressing a POV on a talk page rater than being "disruptive" (hardly more disruptive than many unblocked editors, and he more than makes up for it with positive edits), which is unfortunate. I say block him for 72 hours, and see what happens afterwards. He was already told that it was his final warning, so let it be so. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Blocking both was clearly appropriate, but I am not convinced that indefinite blocking is necessary for EliasAlucard, for all that his POV is unappreciated by most of us, and his actions to support that POV have undoubtedly crossed the line in this case. He is right that he has created and worked on a number of decent articles. I'd suggest this might be an appropriate candidate for probation. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I respect your opinion and would support any strong editor who is willing to take a menoring position with his editor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse this block as well - if Wikipedia is considered unreliable by someone who believes the Holocaust is a fraud, then so be it and I can't say it doesn't make me happy. (Previous edit was crossposting endorse comment from talkpage directed at EliasAlucard). Elias has demonstrated, in depth, that he holds opinions which are incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia and the principle of collaborative editing. Based on this, I support the indef block. Avruch T 17:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I haven't looked at this in depth, but it seems he has been editing since 2004. Had he just avoided behaving like this previously? Does this behaviour cast doubt on his previous edits? I note Guy said that he has created and worked on a number of decent articles. Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've deactivated the category on the indefblock, as even if the block sticks there is no need to have lots of signature links turn red. This is not a throwaway account, but one with history. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: A month ago, I started a thread here regarding this editor's edits to AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse based on his charming comments such as "in time, this Holocaust disease will disappear from peoples minds", "People are eventually going to realise and wake up that much of the so called Holocaust is a complete fraud", and "These are all pathetic Judaized admins". [64] We can do without that sort of racist nonsense, thanks, and trying to defend it in a cloak of "free speech" is enablement. Neıl ☎ 21:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Here's an an example of an article he started, where he accuses a Jewish author of "promoting miscegenation" (a phrase usually used by Nazis, segregationists and KKK-type racists.) Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: Perhaps if it didn't appear as though half the people invoved weren't wringing their hands and snickering in glee with this ban, I might change my mind, but this looks like outright vindictiveness: 'We don't like your opinion, so fuck off.' HalfShadow (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: I know the user on a personal level, and I am pretty sure he is not Anti-Semetic (is ironic calling him that since he himself is Semetic.) I think what he said was clearly wrong and does deserve punishment. But a ban I think is too much. Give him a long vacation to think about what he said, but he would be too big of a loss for Wikipedia:WikiProject Assyria, since he has carried the project on his back. I urge people to please take a look at his hard work before voting. His opinions on talkpages have bothered me previously as well, but it his opinion never gets in the way of his work (ie he makes sure things are neutral, etc.) His comments here [[65]] explains what I mean. An example of his work;Bahira. The guy's intentions are good, but he goes off on talk pages sometimes. He needs to learn to stop that, and perhaps a long suspension is a good thing for him, but just don't completely ban the guy. Chaldean (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - while I can't comment on Elias' actions pre-dispute, I find it hard to believe you've blocked the person who was at least trying to restrain himself in this dispute. Block the guy who's using his viewpoints as a platform for attacking him, and we'll talk. Will (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Neil, again, freedom of speech is important on Wikipedia talk pages, and even in articles Wikipedia includes content which offends millions (pictures in Muhammad article, so on), and no one has been indefinitely blocked for denying the Armenian or Assyrian genocides on talk pages either, which happens frequently. So unless it is actual Wikipedia policy to ban people who deny certain genocides and offend people through their POV, Elias shouldn't be banned. An indef block of Elias is a blow to Wikipedia's neutrality, more so than it would be if he wasn't blocked. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Commment: and no one has been indefinitely blocked for denying the Armenian or Assyrian genocides on talk pages either - Case in point [[66]]. If your going to ban him, ban everyone that denies the Assyrian genocide. Chaldean (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I endorse the block for two reasons. First, editors who promote ethnic or misogynist hatred can only serve to be divisive. Secondly, someone who truly believes there's insufficient evidence to show that the Holocaust occurred more or less as mainstream historians say it did, and who feels compelled to call it the "Holohoax," is unlikely to be of much use to an encyclopedia project. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse While I respect his rights to have his beliefs and opinions, I believe this editor has proven that he cannot do so in a non-disruptive manner. However, I strongly urge a similar block be given to boodles since he also seems to be a hostile disruptive editor continuously baiting others and forum shopping. --Veritas (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd endorse this only if Boodles gets the same treatment. Having someone accusing everyone "against" him of being secret Zionists/Nazis is not productive at all. JuJube (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? That made a lot of sense. Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: While I do not approve of EliasAlucard's views or edits in question, he has also made some positive contributions to Assyria-related topics, so perhaps he should be given a second chance. --07fan (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment EliasAlucard has made a number of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments too (see here for example.) Strange that his ire extends to all Semites. Strange too, that he's only blocked after supposedly questioning the Holocaust. I guess anti-Arab/anti-Muslim rhetoric is A-OK, eh? Tiamuttalk 02:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly, it doesn't seem to be policy to block people indefinitely for questioning other genocides, or for being critical of for example Muslims. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse. His many comments go beyond the pale. Tiamut's and Funkynusayri's comments confuse me; they indicate all the moreso that the banning is justified. The fact that those who do not edit the same articles as Tiamut might not have noticed his anti-Arab or anti-Muslim comments is unsurprising, and does not seem to justify Tiamut's bad faith question. Jayjg (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I've stated before, I do not think having certain POVs should be bannable offenses, whatever group they might be directed against, and I've already pointed out that it doesn't seem to be policy. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose indef. Wikipedia ought to be upholding the general principle of freedom of speech, and block not for having reprehensible views, but for disruption. And he has been disruptive here, yes, so a finite block and probation is what's called for now, not an immediate reach for the banhammer. --Calton | Talk 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Calton, I'd agree if we could fill that position. Let's say that "indef" means pending a strong editor to enforce a probation. Who's that person? Probation requires enorcement, we've learned that much. In this case, several admins have had to block this user again and again. We've gone from reeated blows of the blockhammer to using the banhammer. If you've got a more effective tool then please use it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe the user and actually both of them can use mentors. I have been going to Durova and Jehochman since I joined Wikipedia and that helped me a lot to adjust and learn about Wikipedia community. We all need guidance and a friend to turn to when something is bothering us. This way the two can avoid the cat and dog type of fights. Igor Berger (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Calton, I'd agree if we could fill that position. Let's say that "indef" means pending a strong editor to enforce a probation. Who's that person? Probation requires enorcement, we've learned that much. In this case, several admins have had to block this user again and again. We've gone from reeated blows of the blockhammer to using the banhammer. If you've got a more effective tool then please use it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose indef but support a one month block. Blocks are supposed to be corrective. Give the account a chance to correct the behavior. While you're at it, give Boodlesthecat a two week block for baiting Elias. Cla68 (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly! It was i that made him spew hatred across Wikipedia for the past year, right down to his lambasting all you Judacicized "pathetic intolerant dipshits"--because i guess I have those magic Jew mind control powers! Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have blocked Boodlesthecat for 48 hours for this comment, coming as it does on the heels of a 24 hour block for the exact same sort of innuendo and character assassination. I have informed him that I will consider an unblock if he apologizes to Cla68. Nandesuka (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly! It was i that made him spew hatred across Wikipedia for the past year, right down to his lambasting all you Judacicized "pathetic intolerant dipshits"--because i guess I have those magic Jew mind control powers! Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Uncertain I need to get sleep, and this isn't time critical. Someone ping me if I'm not back here with an opinion in 48 hours (assuming this remains with an indefinite block.) GRBerry 05:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: You know, I only wrote what I wrote based on what Elias has said wrong. But now I'm starting to read some of User:Boodlesthecat provocative comments. I think this was just a bad battle between 2 guys that went to the extreme. Banning one or both, just doesn't seem right. Teach these guys a lesson, and emphisize to them that talkpages are NOT forums. I appeal to all again to please just take a look at some of his work. He is professional when it comes to Wiki pages, but just very opinionated on talkpages. Its obvious why they are at each others throat, and I will make it more clear now; in my time on Wiki (and forum sites), it is not the first time for me to see this Jewish-Assyrian youth battles. This new generation are perpously at each others throats, with Assyrian youths thinking Israel is reason from blocking independence, while some Jewish youths are still bitter about the past (backround of the story one two). I think it would be a great punishment for the two to force them to create something like this. Just a thought. Chaldean (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree! What message are we sending to Israeli and Palestinian kids if we are to take one side over another? We need to be open minded and help bridge the two cultures back together and not isolate them through walls and barriers. Hatred creats more hatred and creates wars in real world. Wikipedia should help stop that hatred and give people a chance to come together and learn from each other. Blocks are ment to be preventive not punitive. I trully believe we need to help all sides with this and not slam the doors shot on these people and editors. Igor Berger (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse I've been aware of Elias Alucard as a tendentious editor for a long time (on various topics, not just Jewish ones) and he has acquired an extensive block log to prove it. He would have been banned sooner or later anyway so I don't see why we shouldn't do it now. I think the encyclopaedia will benefit. --Folantin (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"White people are cannibal vampires"
- Adnanmuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 75.72.88.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Well, the headline says it all. (Actual diff: [67])
This diff ([68]) confirms the IP and the account are the same person (although it is obvious anyway.)
This user has a history of pushing original-research theories of genetics, etc, with an unpleasant and somewhat hysterical tone, but I didn't realize how far off the wagon he really is. I propose a community ban of Adnanmuf and any sock puppets.
- Support ban, but I might just be an Infidel Zombie, so my opinion may not have equal weight. ThuranX (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've blocked the account for a year and the IP (which seems stable) for a month. By the way, weren't there suspicions Adnanmuf is himself a sock of a banned user anyway? Feel free to up to indef if anybody thinks it makes a difference. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- A community ban needs more formal structure than this, and it needs to be formatted properly. Please consider this if you intend to propose such a ban upon the user. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. A community ban requires that no admin be willing to unblock the editor. Are you willing to unblock him? Thatcher 12:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- No I am not. However, in WP:BAN, it is stated that due community consideration is needed. Personally, I do not think one ANI section of numerous others is adequate, but that's just me. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Further: Perhaps a separate section proposing the ban itself would be a good first step? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate that "the white europpeans intolerance for lactose made them drink blood"[[69] when soy-based milk alternatives are so widely available. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Further: Perhaps a separate section proposing the ban itself would be a good first step? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just a notice: I deliberately didn't declare my block a ban in whatever formal sense that has. It's a simple block for disruption. Its length is calculated according to my estimate of the likelihood that this user will mend his ways after returning. Which is, well, close to zero. If anybody wants to question this or else give it a further backing through a more formal community decision, go ahead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- No I am not. However, in WP:BAN, it is stated that due community consideration is needed. Personally, I do not think one ANI section of numerous others is adequate, but that's just me. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. A community ban requires that no admin be willing to unblock the editor. Are you willing to unblock him? Thatcher 12:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- A community ban needs more formal structure than this, and it needs to be formatted properly. Please consider this if you intend to propose such a ban upon the user. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Sumerophile repeatedly removing citation requests, etc.
This has moved way beyond a content dispute now. User:Sumerophile has been adding dubious statements to History of Sumer and removing references that conflict with his personal assessment; I tagged his statements with a request for citation but he is repeatedly removing the "citation needed" requests, holding his own private authority and supposed expertise to trump whatever any published scholars (including even renowned Sumerologist Professor Samuel Noah Kramer) have had to say. I warned him that removing citation requests (without citing them) is considered vandalism, and he removed them again, accusing -me- of vandalism for requesting the citations. Also, if I try to remove the unsourced statements as OR, he simply returns them. He usually does not even attempt to collaborate with other editors on the talkpage. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Classic text book edit warring and vandalism. A pity that the user has to be so difficult - I would attempt a WP:RFC first on the article talk page to try and gather more users into the picture neutrally. Warn the user about WP:3RR, and give him/her a final warning about removing cited material. If it goes unabated. I would try WP:AIV for disruption. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I warned the user about WP:3RR - However it is their choice to remove this warning if they choose. I'll keep an eye on this myself. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I did not know there was a noticeboard that could be used like this.
User:Til Eulenspiegel is trying to promulgate a POV that an as-yet unattested country Aratta a) existed and b) is located on modern Ararat, and has been doing so very aggressively.[70] This user has also been involved in the Aratta article [71], citing obscure or off-topic sources to "verify" a location that is at this point unverifyable. WP:V WP:RS.
"Aratta" is known to us from the myth "Lugalbanda and the Lord of Aratta", but there is no archaeological evidence for its actual existance. His use of Kramer [72] was not a citation from him, rather it stated that the Sumerologist Samuel Kramer believed[73] it to refer to Northwestern Iran. A number of Assyriologists - which is the correct term for Kramer[74] - have made offhand conjectures about what might be meant by Aratta, but none have ever stated any beliefs in the matter, because there is as yet no archaeological evidence for its existance.
The edit that introduced Kramer also replaced the phrase "some Armenian archaeologists" with "while other authors", which is more general, and puts these "other authors" on Kramer's footing. Changing these words changes the meaning and implication of this sentance considerably. It can also be noted that this user placed a citation tag on the statement disclaiming the Ararat location, but not on the disclaimer for the other (South-East Iranian) location.
Sumerophile (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Til Eulenspiegel has now changed the sentence considerably, removing all disclaimers. He has also cited an early work by Kramer, in which he speculated Aratta might be Urartu (in Anatolia), but quoted him as believing Aratta to refer to a location in Iran.[75] I would like to undo what Til Eulenspiegel has done, if that is all right with you, Wisdom86. Sumerophile (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
And now Til Eulenspiegel has removed the disclaimer for Ararat[76]. Sumerophile (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Now Til Eulenspiegel used his spuriously placed citation tags to remove 1) the disclaimer for Ararat (but not the disclamer for SW Iran), and the statement that Aratta is unattested, without needing to provide the missing evidence for its existance. What do we do, Wisdom86? Sumerophile (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I see has been pointed out to you on your talk page, what you need to do is cite the sources for your information. If you can't prove that your additions represent scholarly opinion, then we simply have no reason to believe you. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Move request closing at WP:RM
I would like to raise some policy questions on how the move requests are handled over at WP:RM.
On February 24 I posted two move requests at WP:RM 'Other requests';
- RM:Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F. → Académica de Coimbra (later amended to Académica de Coimbra OAF), and
- RM:Associação Académica de Coimbra → Coimbra Academic Association
They both ended less than satisfactory for both me and my opponent (the other person in the discussion). This is maybe to some extent my fault, but the biggest reason is the intervention of the "closing admin", User:Philip Baird Shearer. After two fairly short debates between two and three people respectivly, both RMs seemed to just fizzle out. I was expecting two 'no consensus' results and were thinking of either amending the nominations or just withdraw them alltogether. In steps the "closing admin" who closes both RMs and releases two rather strange "verdicts".
RM:Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F.
In the case of the RM of this football club, it was closed as a 'no consensus', which is fine since there were no-one debating it except me (the nominator) and User:Yodaki. The problem is Shearer's addition of his personal (and clearly uninformed) view in some sort of verdict or interpretation of the RM. I approached him on this on his talkpage, and removed his views from the archived RM. I think that if you have a view on the subject you should add it to the discussion where it can be debated, and not as a "verdict" when closing the discussion.
RM:Associação Académica de Coimbra
In the case of the students' union, me and User:Yodaki were discussing different alternatives when the RM was closed. The problem, in short, is that the Associação Académica de Coimbra is both a students' union (which I think should be named Coimbra Academic Association by WP:UE) and a multi-sports club with top-flight teams in e.g. handball and volleyball, with the professional football club AAC-OAF an autonomous part of it. Not only was the RM accepted prematurely, my request was also amended without discussion by the closer (again mr Shearer), creating a possible dab-problem with Coimbra Academic Association - football and adding the move of Estádio Universitário de Coimbra → Coimbra University Stadium (contrary to WP:WPF's conventions on Stadium names), before closing the RM. The RM itself was tied 1-1 so there was clearly no consensus.
The result of the RMs was that Associação Académica de Coimbra and all it's sub-articles was moved to Coimbra Academic Association, and the football club, Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F. (which is the subject that I actually think have an English WP:common name in Académica de Coimbra) was left where it is. I don't think that this is a good outcome. I have since come up with a (in my opinion) better suggestion (posted on User talk:Yodaki) which would have been an amendment to the RM, if it wasn't closed prematurely.
Frankly I'm a bit worried about how things are run over at WP:RM. It seems that the closing admins just makes the decisions themselves, not paying attention to the discussions. I also think that the closing admins should refrain from making personal interpretations when closing the RMs, withdrawing their views from the discussio and possibly setting precedents for future RMs.
This said, I would like to make it perfectly clear that I'm certain that these closings were not made with any malign intentions from User:Philip Baird Shearer. I'm not trying to point the finger at him, but rather raise some policy questions about WP:RM, to make the proceedings over there more objective and neutral. Sebisthlm (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have given detailed reasons for the closure I made of the RM. Further I have given anyone who wants to debate the decision a chance to do so.
- See Talk:Coimbra_Academic_Association#Review. If there is not a clear policy or guideline to follow (as there is in this case) I will go with the consensus see my closing of [77]. Or This one when someone complained of a decision I had made and on consideration I reversed the decision. On the 24 February 2008 I reviewed 7 requests on the 19th I reviewed 21 requests. That makes 28 requests of which the three I listed here are ones were people have questioned the decision. If there is no clear policy or guideline then I will go with the consensus, but I will not breach policy and guidelines when making a move even if there local consensus is to move an article. If Sebisthlm, you wish to discuss the specific decision in the case of the Coimbra_Academic_Association then lets do so at Talk:Coimbra_Academic_Association#Review --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I begin to understand why WP:RM suffers from chronic backlog. Relata refero (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Abuse by User:Tvarkytojas User:T_bullshider PLEASE PLEASE HELP
This user account lay mostly unused for months, anad then suddenly has made hundreds of edits in a few days, in bouts lasting for a few hours with many edits within a single minute. There is concerne it's a sockpuppet but I don't know how to measure that effectively. Cleaning of the categorization mess is going to take a while. Many of the edits are identical to ones tried by ZZcon earlier this week. I don't know the procedures, and I'd rather work on cleaning it up than tracking down the procedures. Can you (all) DTRT? Tb (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lokyz&diff=192815984&oldid=192688463. Tb (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Again today, acting under what seems to be an IP address sockpuppet, he reverted the sock-puppet warnings on his user page. He is back again, every day, with his wild recategorizations. Can some admin please at least look at this and let me know? Tb (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Now there is a personal attack against me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tb&diff=194632004&oldid=194553392. Tb (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
And User:T_bullshider seems to be connected: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tb&diff=194633125&oldid=194632728. Tb (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Will SOMEONE at least REPLY? I don't know the proper procedure, and the abuse is only likely to get worse. Tb (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: This guy could really use some assistance. Everything I looked at looks like he's getting hit pretty hard for no real reason by these two guys and some anons. I'm uninvolved in this situation. CredoFromStart talk 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
MisterWiki (talk · contribs) and Diegogrez (talk · contribs)
- To set the stage, back when Diego Grez was up for deletion, it was clear that it was a hoax. Diegogrez (talk · contribs) was blocked for repeated hoaxmongering, and Musicfan48 (talk · contribs) started up doing the same thing. A sockpuppet report was filed by User:Jespinos, who added MisterWiki (talk · contribs) to the list, since MisterWiki had signed his name as Diego Grez at one point on WikiMedia Commons. MisterWiki insisted he was not Diegogrez, and said Diego was indeed a vandal, and the matter was closed.
Except recently, he has started adding references to Diego Grez again, this time having the alias of "DJ Raiden", which is up for deletion too. Given his style of editing, I think it's fairly clear that they're one and the same and that a CU should be run, but complicating the matter is that up until recently MisterWiki has not been editing with hoaxmongering in mind and his history was actually good enough for him to get rollback rights. I'm still not convinced. I'm not sure what the next step is. JuJube (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I dont know what it is. MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 21:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why Dj raiden would be Diego Grez, nobody knows the name of the DJ (i dont know) but always confund me with Diego Grez, im not guilty, also, in the YouTube profile, nowhere says Im Diego Grez, this cannot be a coincidence. The stupid also knows my password, How can i change that, he uploaded images like Image:Perro-cariñoso.jpg and others with copyright [78]. I dont know why everybody think what i am diego grez. Please stop. All my evidence is there. MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- DJ Raiden is not Diego Grez, you say? That's not what you said before. JuJube (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Other claims and concerns notwithstanding, I read the assertion from MisterWiki above ("[Someone else] also knows my password") as an acknowledgment that the account has been compromised? Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, if you really want to block me, ok, but im not guilty of these things. --MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 22:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why Dj raiden would be Diego Grez, nobody knows the name of the DJ (i dont know) but always confund me with Diego Grez, im not guilty, also, in the YouTube profile, nowhere says Im Diego Grez, this cannot be a coincidence. The stupid also knows my password, How can i change that, he uploaded images like Image:Perro-cariñoso.jpg and others with copyright [78]. I dont know why everybody think what i am diego grez. Please stop. All my evidence is there. MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
More evidence, MisterWiki and Diego Grez are the only two people in the world that speak the Carmeni language [79](Another Diego Grez's hoax). Additionally, enciclopediadgcarmeni.wiki-site.com is one of the websites of Diego Grez. See also [80], enciclopediadges.a.wiki-site.com is the main personal site of Diego Grez. Jespinos (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is only a redirection. Like others. --MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- That redirection should be speedy deleted. Corvus cornixtalk 23:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is presumably another hoax. To compare the supposed album cover with Image:Bullying Irfe.jpg. Jespinos (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- The song is not a hoax by Diego Grez, i made myself that image and is licensed under gfdl, i confused it with the cover of Together Forever by DJ Lhasa. Can be referenced by 4shared, the music was played in the RED TV tv program, Asi Somos video in YouTube, Wena Naty is not a hoax. MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 03:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:Afd top
This is the template used to close afds. I was just closing one, and thought about maybe adding '''{{{1|result}}}''' to the end, directly following "The result was". If I'm correct, this will remove the need to add the result as something like '''delete'''. Instead, we'd only have to write {{subst:at|delete}}, and it would show up the same. Thoughts? Justin(Gmail?)(u) 22:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that's been discussed before and rejected...not sure why, though... --Haemo (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've been closing lots of AfDs lately. Anything simpler would be appreciated by me for one. Do you know, Haemo, where that discussion happened? Maybe I'm missing something. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- please please do it - would make things a lot quicker. ViridaeTalk 23:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sure - I'm a bit hesitant though, this would change the way every admin closes these. This is a really important thread, and I'm not sure everyone's seen it. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- You may want to use some of the AFD closing scripts out there, they do basically the same thing with about the same amount of effort, no template work required. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sure - I'm a bit hesitant though, this would change the way every admin closes these. This is a really important thread, and I'm not sure everyone's seen it. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can't image why something like that would be rejected; it's an optional parameter anyway. Maybe I'll just put it in, with some logic that turns "d" in "delete", etcetera... — Edokter • Talk • 01:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Work on that, it would be useful still. Maybe extra templates could be used for delete results, keep results, etc. Since it is, in fact, an optional parameter, I've added it in, along with a second one, which would appear to be for a summary. If anyone wants to use the new template method, the code is {{subst:at|result.|summary.}}. I've tested it, and it works fine, using the original form, the full form using both optional parameters, and using only one parameter. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 02:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can't image why something like that would be rejected; it's an optional parameter anyway. Maybe I'll just put it in, with some logic that turns "d" in "delete", etcetera... — Edokter • Talk • 01:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Seems it was already reverted. But I became bold and implemented my version of an optional parameter. (I don't see any use in a second parameter.) See the talk page on how it works and give feedback there. There should be no reason to revert, as it is an optional parameter. But using it will save typing, which is what using templates is all about. — Edokter • Talk • 14:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, {{sfd top}} does exactly what is being suggested here for WP:SFD, and is very useful. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, I routinely find myself doing this with {{at}}, and having to go back and re-do my close. I've added the instructions to the template page itself, as there was nothing there to indicate how the template was actually used in practice. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Social networking?
The following all appeared in, essentially, one big lump on New Pages:
- 21:18, February 26, 2008 User:Bbenjamin100 (hist) [12 bytes] Bbenjamin100 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
- 21:18, February 26, 2008 User:Ro1109 (hist) [0 bytes] Ro1109 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with 'hello ==yes== we already know that')
- 21:17, February 26, 2008 User:2diefor (hist) [10 bytes] 2diefor (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '[[/sandbox]')
- 21:15, February 26, 2008 User:Lianar86 (hist) [12 bytes] Lianar86 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
- 21:15, February 26, 2008 User:Bensy1745 (hist) [12 bytes] Bensy1745 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
- 21:15, February 26, 2008 User:Amushib1 (hist) [12 bytes] Amushib1 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
- 21:15, February 26, 2008 User:Jnl91986 (hist) [12 bytes] Jnl91986 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '{[/sandbox}]')
- 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Jibarra27 (hist) [12 bytes] Jibarra27 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
- 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Sozlem (hist) [12 bytes] Sozlem (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
- 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Ashah103 (hist) [12 bytes] Ashah103 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
- 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Jrivera103 (hist) [12 bytes] Jrivera103 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
- 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Jachiappetta (hist) [12 bytes] Jachiappetta (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
- 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Rebeccamiriam (hist) [12 bytes] Rebeccamiriam (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
- 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Noromaxp (hist) [12 bytes] Noromaxp (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
- 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Janegrace (hist) [12 bytes] Janegrace (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
- 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Dingdongdingdong123414 (hist) [12 bytes] Dingdongdingdong123414 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
- 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:SJBacchus (hist) [12 bytes] SJBacchus (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
- 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Seliuk (hist) [12 bytes] Seliuk (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
Any idea what's going on? The few edits I see are not exactly encouraging. --Calton | Talk 01:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like all sockpuppet accounts. Just indef block them all. Igor Berger (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, don't block them all. Probably kids in a community college "How to edit Wikipedia" class. No harm done yet, they're just editing their sandboxes. That's what sandboxes are for... --barneca (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Barneca, you're completely right. They're all editing their sandboxes. This is cool. Darkspots (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- We should have agreed on a strategy there, Darkspots - I start at the bottom and you at the top, As it was our {{welcome}} templates collided in the middle of the list somewhere ☺ Tonywalton Talk 01:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I only welcomed a couple at random--some of those kids looked like any distraction would rattle 'em even more. Except the totally bored "hello ==yes== we already know that" guy who ignored the whole exercise and blanked his page. Darkspots (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- You want to really rattle 'em? Technically, we should notify them of this thread... :) --barneca (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- And block their teacher for meatpuppetry! Seriously, I'm hoping that the links in the welcome template may interest at least some of them and we may end up with a worthwhile contributor or two. Even the guy who already knows it may (if he attends Wikipedia 102) wonder why he's suddenly got an orange bar when he logs in and think "Heyyy...". On the other hand [[CAT:CSD]] may see ome activity... Tonywalton Talk 01:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Barneca good call. I thought they were all sockpuppets..:) Igor Berger (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- And block their teacher for meatpuppetry! Seriously, I'm hoping that the links in the welcome template may interest at least some of them and we may end up with a worthwhile contributor or two. Even the guy who already knows it may (if he attends Wikipedia 102) wonder why he's suddenly got an orange bar when he logs in and think "Heyyy...". On the other hand [[CAT:CSD]] may see ome activity... Tonywalton Talk 01:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- You want to really rattle 'em? Technically, we should notify them of this thread... :) --barneca (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I only welcomed a couple at random--some of those kids looked like any distraction would rattle 'em even more. Except the totally bored "hello ==yes== we already know that" guy who ignored the whole exercise and blanked his page. Darkspots (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- We should have agreed on a strategy there, Darkspots - I start at the bottom and you at the top, As it was our {{welcome}} templates collided in the middle of the list somewhere ☺ Tonywalton Talk 01:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Barneca, you're completely right. They're all editing their sandboxes. This is cool. Darkspots (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, don't block them all. Probably kids in a community college "How to edit Wikipedia" class. No harm done yet, they're just editing their sandboxes. That's what sandboxes are for... --barneca (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm taking a history class (which fulfills the history major's computing requirement) that requires students to edit wikipedia articles about specific American abolitionists. Which will require 32 other students create accounts to edit articles so they can prove to the professor that they did the edits. I don't think these people are in my class because the professor hasn't told us to create sandboxes. But keep an open mind about it, because you will probably see mass editing on Thursday before 3:00 PM Eastern, and probably pages with uncited material and improper wiki markups. I myself will be editing the Samuel Cornish article sooner or later. I'd say it would definitely rattle the students to be warned about this thread, but they can't help it if professors give stupid assignments like this, classes that require a student to edit Wikipedia. They should edit if they want. Rebelyell2006 (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is time for Wikipedia to develop a formal policy in reference to class assignments. We have had several good experiences with such projects, and a number of less-positive ones. (I especially remember the conflict-resolution assignment, which had new editors wading into minefields such as Waterboarding.) The best assignments are the ones where the instructor lets the project know of the assignment, and where the new editors discuss possibly contentious changes before making them. Be Bold can be perceived as vandalism coming from a brand-new account. Rattling new editors is a very bad idea (Don't Bite the Newbies), and I'm a bit disappointed that some of the editors above suggested it after the likely reason had been identified. Horologium (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you re-read the thread, I don't think you'll find anyone seriously suggesting we intentionally rattle new editors. --barneca (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking over all of this, isn't it possible to create some kind of wikiproject that could welcome such classes and, more importantly, give pointers to the teachers assigning them? Sethie (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- We already have Wikipedia:School and university projects and Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination. Graham87 08:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Problem category
For some reason this category won't arrange alphabetically. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Template:Toronto-geo-stub says [[Category:Toronto geography stubs|*]] which is causing all members to be sorted as if named "*". Apparently fixed by Gonzo fan2007 as I typed this. Bovlb (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Yes I fixed it. It will take a little bit to repopulate the category, but that should do it. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 06:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize for that. I did not intend for that to occur. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 19:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Back log
Hey guys, WP:AIV is kinda back logged with a few active vandals at the moment. Just a heads up. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- You know what would be great, is if the bot at AIV posted a message here or at AN when the backlog reached, oh, more than 10. Tiptoety talk 05:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This user is constantly leaving me messages on my talk page. I left just one on his that said "do not message me unless you have something constructive to say." Despite this, he has left me two more messages, and one was (ha!) to warn ME about being uncivil. This is uncalled for (and quite ridiculous) — I can't see how I'm being rude by not replying to him.
He needs to be warned. I'm tired of these pointless messages. Timneu22 (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you did accuse him of having a learning disability... o_O JuJube (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Which can definitely be construed as a personal attack. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- A quick look through the history of Timneu22's talk page calls to mind the saying in Matthew 7:3 about the mote and the beam. andy (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have not been a disruptive wikipedian. If anything, it is the opposite. All I've done is wipe out his comments on my talk page. My edit summary is not a personal attack, as I'm not attacking HIM. Timneu22 (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- A quick look through the history of Timneu22's talk page calls to mind the saying in Matthew 7:3 about the mote and the beam. andy (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Which can definitely be construed as a personal attack. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Timneu22, for not notifying me about this thread. For everyone else, kindly consider this thread and the diffs highlighted therein. Of particular interest besides Timneu22's general incivility is the way he automatically assumes bad faith and sockpuppets at every turn. Dorftrottel (ask) 14:06, February 27, 2008
- Moreover, consider Timneu22's disruptive recent mass conversion of archive box transclusions to his own {{Archive banner}} which was thoroughly overturned. Also, here are some diffs that highlight this user's frequent failure to abide by AGF, CIV, and even NPA: [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]. Dorftrottel (canvass) 14:17, February 27, 2008
- In light of Timneu22's general behaviour it's a mere footnote that he opened a thread at WP:WQA and this one here at ANI within 4 minutes of each other. Dorftrottel (troll) 14:35, February 27, 2008
Stop redirecting the issue. There is only one issue. I just want you to stop leaving me disruptive messages on my talk page. I have not left any on yours; I simply delete the messages you leave me. I am tired of you accusing me of ANYTHING. You are leaving me messages and then calling me disruptive when I clean up my talk page. This is not disruptive. Just leave me alone, this is all I'm asking. Stop redirecting the issue at hand. Timneu22 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Timneu22, if you are simply wanting Dorftrottel to leave you alone, then why pray tell, are you opening an ANI report? I'm at a loss as to how this will draw less attention to the matter. Enlighten me? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Here's why, Keeper76... I get an awful message from the user, and I delete it. I do nothing else. Later, I get another disruptive message from the user. This is unwarranted, and I want it to stop. I have repeatedly told the user to stop leaving messages, to no avail. I had to take action. Timneu22 (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Has he posted any message since you opened this report? If not, I would say it has stopped. What other action are you hoping for? And what response do you have to the links provided by other editors here regarding your own actions and contentious editing? Again, if you don't want to get burnt, stay out of the sun...coming here with an accusation, regardless of the merits, almost always brings your own actions under scrutiny, under the Two to Tango Clause of course. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- He posted another message yesterday, and I started this thread shortly thereafter. I don't know that it has stopped. This is the only action I'm hoping for. Timneu22 (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- As for the other editors' accusations, I fail to see how edits I made three weeks ago are relevant to this discussion. Obviously, things have cooled since then. Timneu22 (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- So much so that you started posting unpleasant remarks on my Talk page again, accused me of incivility and then said on Wikiquette that I was a sockpuppet. Then deleted the entire Wikiquette section. Sorry, I wasn't going to mention any of this but actually you have made sure that things have not cooled by launching a public attack on this editor and then doing the same to me. andy (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Timneu22 called me a moron and said I have a learning problem, both of which is of course spot-on. Also: I posted the uw-npa2 message at 05:25, 26 February 2008 (not the first he received, I might add), and he opened this thread almost 24 hours later. As far as I'm concerned, I think the thread has fulfilled its non-function and I think it can be closed. If someone feels like occasionally monitoring Timneu22 for further disruptive and/or uncivil behaviour, that would be appreciated. Dorftrottel (talk) 15:38, February 27, 2008
- As for the other editors' accusations, I fail to see how edits I made three weeks ago are relevant to this discussion. Obviously, things have cooled since then. Timneu22 (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- He posted another message yesterday, and I started this thread shortly thereafter. I don't know that it has stopped. This is the only action I'm hoping for. Timneu22 (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Has he posted any message since you opened this report? If not, I would say it has stopped. What other action are you hoping for? And what response do you have to the links provided by other editors here regarding your own actions and contentious editing? Again, if you don't want to get burnt, stay out of the sun...coming here with an accusation, regardless of the merits, almost always brings your own actions under scrutiny, under the Two to Tango Clause of course. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Here's why, Keeper76... I get an awful message from the user, and I delete it. I do nothing else. Later, I get another disruptive message from the user. This is unwarranted, and I want it to stop. I have repeatedly told the user to stop leaving messages, to no avail. I had to take action. Timneu22 (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Closing. Backing away slowly, everyone....
Rangeblock?
- 205.189.25.71 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
- 205.189.25.216 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
- 205.189.25.228 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
I have no clue about rangeblocks, but I was wondering if one would be in order here? There is persistent trolling and vandalism, and it seems that whenever an IP is blocked, a new one appears. I believe the range would be 205.189.16.0/20, although I may be mistaken. I dont know if one would be in order here, any comments from admins with more experience in this field? « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 06:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Range blocks can have serious implications on innocent users - if those are the only IPs that have sprung up, I would deal with them one by one normally, warning and report to WP:AIV. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Haha I actually blocked one of them, I just wanted clarification if more of these start popping up on whether a range block would be warranted. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 06:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you ultimately end up doing the rangeblock thing, just remember to keep the duration short and softblock only!! - Alison ❤ 06:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to have died down, and I think I would find someone more experienced to do the rangeblock... *peers over toward Alison* ...haha jk, I was just wondering for future reference, if this troll really feels like trolling. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you ultimately end up doing the rangeblock thing, just remember to keep the duration short and softblock only!! - Alison ❤ 06:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Haha I actually blocked one of them, I just wanted clarification if more of these start popping up on whether a range block would be warranted. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 06:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Content issue
(copy from AIV to here) Barkonst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On Lonnie Frisbee; vandalism after final warning. This person is removing sourced content after having been asked not to in edit summaries and on the article's talk page by several other users and administrators. Discussion with this user has also taken place on various other user talk pages as well. User refuses to heed these discussion or even give sources for his removal of this valid sourced content. Quite belligerent on the whole matter. Not to mention he claims to be a documentary film maker on the subject of the article which would seem a WP:COI issue as well. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 09:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
American Patriot Party - Deletion by Administrators
WP:DRV recommended to author. No admin action required. Pedro : Chat 10:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There was a deletion of the article "American Patriot Party" that was being debated. It was deleated by apparently administrators before much discusion was had. And with no real reason to delete as edits were being made to improve the article. When trying to reestablish this article I was blocked by an administrator. I would like to have the article reopened and need neutral a third party to aid in discussing and improving the article on the Talk Page retaining the previous discussions. User Richard Taylor APP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Taylor APP (talk • contribs) 09:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- There seems to have been support for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Patriot Party (2nd nomination) which ran for the normal time. After the article was deleted following the AfD debate you then re-created the article, and it was speedy deleted, which is in line with our policies. From my reading, your argument in support of the article was that the party may become prominent in the future. However, Wikipedia's notability policy limits us to things which are notable at present. If you're not happy with the process used in closing the deletion debate Wikipedia:Deletion review is the best place to raise your concerns. If you recreate the article again without doing this you should expect it to be quickly deleted. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like a good delete in keeping with standard operating procedure and our processes - I also see nothing requiring administrator intervention. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Jon Hobynx likely reincarnation of R:128.40.76.3 et al
Jon Hobynx (talk · contribs) is a likely reincarnation of the string of blocked socks of R:128.40.76.3 (talk · contribs). He undid a bunch of the user page tags on the sock accounts and doth protest too much about my having sought the blocks that are in place on them. User:Pete.Hurd has commented previously that he believed Jon Hobynx to be another sock and I have left a note on his talk page and expect he'll comment here. I'd like folks to review the whole issue. You might start here: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of R:128.40.76.3. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, I am not associated with R:128.40.76.3 et al, merely interested as they have previously shown an interest in Kiwi scientists. Jack Merridew seems to have gone on a bit of a tagging spree and accused a bunch of unassociated accounts and IP's of being socks. The only accounts where there is evidence to suggest a sock is Iconoclast4ever (by admission). As for the above allegation, a checkuser would conform that beyond a doubt and show that I am clearly not related nor a sock puppet. It seems that this is not the only case where Jack Merridew has abused sock puppet tagging policy, and a quick look through his history sees that any account or IP which disagrees with him in regards to D&D and role playing articles has been labeled a sock of User:Grawp. While in this case I agree some of the accounts may well be socks, I find some of Jack's allegation absurd. For example: claiming that Grawp is a master hacker using a sophisticated network of trojan viruses using anon IP's to revert his edits is absurd. Surely a more reasonable explaination is that more than one user (registered or not) disagrees with his edits. For what its worth, User:Jack Merridew is most likely an account created to avoid an indef block on User:Moby Dick and User:Davenbelle, see [90] for evidence. Their editing styles are the same, their manner of finding conflict are the same, following and harassment of user:White Cat is the same. A good example of WP:DUCK. Jack Merridew definetly needs his wings clipped. Jon Hobynx (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- The only example of WP:DUCK I can see here is an editor that edits in small spurts, then disappears regularly, the last being disappearing completely for four months, only to suddenly re-appear and start removing sockpuppet tags from a particular sockfarm. Quack quack indeed. Black Kite 10:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- After closer examination, blocked as an obvious sock. Account was created 3 minutes after the admin that blocked the above accounts announced her intent to do so. Quack! Black Kite 13:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I do wish she would return… Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- After closer examination, blocked as an obvious sock. Account was created 3 minutes after the admin that blocked the above accounts announced her intent to do so. Quack! Black Kite 13:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- The only example of WP:DUCK I can see here is an editor that edits in small spurts, then disappears regularly, the last being disappearing completely for four months, only to suddenly re-appear and start removing sockpuppet tags from a particular sockfarm. Quack quack indeed. Black Kite 10:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It gets more interesting; see [91] where he references a sock allegation made against me at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop#Indefinite block of Jack Merridew by User:White Cat. Note also that the WP:DUCK link he gives redirects to Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade which I linked to on the workshop page a few weeks ago; here. I have suspected the White Cat's allegation was somehow intended to reveal where I am to the many harassers who have dogged my edits and made numerous threats; [92]. I am concerned about the connection between these incidents. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Peat.Turd (talk · contribs) - another likely sock and an obvious attack on Pete Hurd. Already username blocked. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Massive spam sock/meat farm
- quasimodobell.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Yes, that list at WT:WPSPAM#Long term quasimodobell.com spam contains no less than 200 spam only accounts, with edits spanning more than two years. I posted a checkuser-friendly list of the accounts in my sandbox, if anyone can be bothered weeding out the stale ones and running checks.
The site, of course, has already been blacklisted but there's a removal request by one of the over two hundred accounts. Supposedly "we understand that we may added too many links too soon", which suggests that they are coordinated. Can we have a few admins to bag and tag over there please? MER-C 12:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Can I please have an administrator help me with this user? Advali has re-created an article (presumably about a friend of his/hers) Rachelle Dimapilis as well as re-uploaded an image (poorly photoshopped and probably a part-copyvio) File:Zaqxsw.jpg. If you look at the Advali's talk page you will see what I'm talking about. In all honesty, I wish there was a staged recreation warning (like uw-vandalism), so that you can tell the user to "give it a rest, seriously". Anyway, what's the policy regarding the repeated recreation of deleted articles and images if the user re-creates again? SMC (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Um, nevermind. The user appears to have vanished into thin air (or at least their user/user talk pages have) and I have no idea what happened.. SMC (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- User:John Reaves deleted all involved pages and blocked him. I don't really follow what happened either. • Anakin (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed sockpuppet User:Runreston still active
An earlier checkuser (see here) definitively confirmed that User:Xcstar and User:207.91.86.2 were sockpuppets of User:Racepacket, resulting in a permanent block of Xcstar. Xcstar had been used primarily to make false and defamatory edits to the Dane Rauschenberg article and other related articles. Shortly after the ban, User:Runreston was created, following the same path as Xcstar and the most recent sockpuppet check confirmed that Runreston was a likely sockpuppet of Racepacket. Runreston, in exactly the same disturbing obsession as Xcstar, has devoted nearly 90% of his edits to Dane Rauschenberg, following the same pattern of abusive edits and refusal to respect consensus. Given that Runreston is a confirmed sockpuppet, what is required to implement appropriate long-term blocks on both the sockpuppet and the puppetmaster User:Racepacket who created his newest sockpuppet almost immediately after the previous block. Alansohn (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Checkuser says likely. Runreston blocked. I suggest a final warning to Racepacket that any further such crap will likely result in a ban, not sure what others would think here. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Evidenced from this editor's recent edits and remarks, one can note that this editor fails to assume good faith and has issues with regards to civility.
This editor has left an edit summary that is deliberately in bad taste evidenced here. Another editor felt the same and advised him to be more civil here. I am requesting administrator intervention in taking the appropriate course of action to delete/modify the editor's edit summary in the first diff or completely deleting that contribution.
It was only recently that I advised the editor to cool off here as he was appearing incivil on an occasion prior to this incident. He responded here with a clear assumption of bad faith against me, and deliberately chose to ignore the advice. It is perhaps as a result of the several times User:Sarvagnya has gamed the system successfully, that this editor felt that he could get away with the same. In any case, I also request that an appropriate course of action be taken against this editor (whether this be a temporary block or a warning of some sort) for his recent assumption of bad faith and incivility towards articles, myself, and User talk:John Carter - where the same is evidenced here.
Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- sheesh.. Amarrg is one of the best and most prolific editors en.wikipedia and WP:INDIA in particular, has seen in some time. When did ANI become a whineboard for the likes of ncmv to carry out malicioius smear campaigns with cherry-picked-twisted-out-of-context diffs against some of our best? And jftr, unless ncmv can substantiate/elaborate/explain/justify "...as a result of the several times User:Sarvagnya has gamed the system successfully, that this editor felt that he could get away with the same...", I demand that he retract his tripe. Sarvagnya 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- sheesh...an editor's past or even present contributions do not justify violating behavioural policies and guidelines. This sort of interaction cannot be condoned. And as for your demands, please feel free to make such demands during the Rfc (when it is opened asap), where I'm sure you'll make more pathetic excuses and justifications. Then once Wikipedia stops casting a blind eye to your pathetic excuses for gaming the system, I wonder if you will still be this smug in making such demands from others who are not in any way bound by them. Hmmm!
- Still, what a coincidence it must have been for User:Amarrg to come to my talk page and issue several notices of him templating 'speedy deletion' on several articles relevant to Carnatic music, which I, among few other editors, have actually made any positive contributions towards. But lo! When we look at his history of contributions...wow...these are the only articles he has pushed for the deletion of...articles that I happened to have contributed to, however little or great. With the articles being deleted prior to a hang on notice being issued, it looks like he got what he wanted. And how strange that this is his only response to date for having an ANI filed against him.
- In any case, twisted out of context and cherry picked? I can't help but note the trouble he goes to bring up the past of an editor in order to use it as a sole reason for rejecting behavioural advice here. Or the same can be seen here in reply to another editor who offered similar advice to him. There is nothing twisted out of context, or cherry picked about it, so again, stop trying to distract people from the issue - Amarrg's recent edits clearly show that he has deliberately failed to assume good faith in his dealings with me, as well as others. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I blocked this user for making a legal threat. Ironically, it seems he's now making legal threats at the French Wikipedia because of my actions at the English Wikipedia.
I'd welcome input from some French-speaking admins, to overview my actions. Happy (as ever) to apologise if I've got something wrong. More information and links to relevant pages at the French Wikipedia can be found in this thread at my user talk: User_talk:Dweller#fr:Discuter:Dominique_Boubouleix --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and here ([93]) is the diff that I responded to with a block. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There's something strange going on with the templates on this page. It's showing up in CAT:CSD, but there's no CSD template on the page. I had a quick look at the templates used on it to see whether there's a tag on one of them (Template:Hidden-delete-reason is showing up on the "Edit" page), but if there is, I can't find it. Could someone who's better with templates than I am please take a look? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Template:S-line/SBB right/S3 was nominated for CSD under G2, as a test page. That would add articles using that template to the CSD list... but why it has not cleared, I'm not sure. I'm working on it. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the templates on that page (and there are lots!) are protected... but, of the S-line templates included, the one noted above (S3) is the only one nominated for CSD. The tag was removed, and has not been re-added, so this is probably just an issue of letting the change pass through the cache. Does not appear to be malicious, either. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Any idea how long that usually takes? It's still showing up in the log. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's gone from C:CSD now. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Any idea how long that usually takes? It's still showing up in the log. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Repeated hateful and homophobic remarks
My patience is diminshing with this user. He/She was once again blocked, this time for one month, for repeated hateful remarks including: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (I was told to kill myself). Now, the person has left this lovely message (note the edit summary) on their talk page in regards to admin John Reaves after the last block. I'm asking that their talk page be protected and the block extended because it's obvious this type of language is going to continue once the current block expires. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd agree, there is no call for that sort of personal attack at all. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Heck, I'd have been using the buttons waaaay earlier in that masterpiece of sub-bridge-dwelling. --Dweller (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Talk page tidied (per RBI) and protected for the duration of the block. --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- So this it what hate preachers do when Mardi Gras isn't happening... John Reaves 16:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rotating IP address notice? seicer | talk | contribs 16:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't care if he has a spherical floating helicopter IP address... if he behaves sufficiently badly using it to come to our attention, it'll be blocked. --Dweller (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know it doesn't matter now since the issue has been resolved, but I just wanted to let you guys/gals know that it wasn't the name-calling that bugged me. It was the trolling and wishing me dead that really bugged me. I've been called worse names by relatives and people from my old church, so I'm numb to those kind of attacks. Thanks for the help. G'day. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't care if he has a spherical floating helicopter IP address... if he behaves sufficiently badly using it to come to our attention, it'll be blocked. --Dweller (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rotating IP address notice? seicer | talk | contribs 16:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- So this it what hate preachers do when Mardi Gras isn't happening... John Reaves 16:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Talk page tidied (per RBI) and protected for the duration of the block. --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Heck, I'd have been using the buttons waaaay earlier in that masterpiece of sub-bridge-dwelling. --Dweller (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism by Steven407653 (talk · contribs)
Please block Steven407653 (talk · contribs), as he is trying to vandalize pages of India and Pakistan
Examples
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=prev&oldid=194421441
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=next&oldid=194421655
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=194423098
- Tinucherian (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like the editor has made any edits since 2 hours ago. If he does this again, report him to WP:AIV as he has already received a final warning. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Languishing thread
At the risk of annoying everyone by spamming, could I ask for some outside eyes on this thread, which is languishing at the top of the page? I'd really appreciate some outside assistance in resolving this issue. Thanks - MastCell Talk 17:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The above editor made the following edit which remains on the Wikipedia:
As of December 2007 !!!!you guys are cock sucking douche bags.,, but Admin User:John Reaves claims it is no longer there, but I suspect that the Userbot fix was cancelled out becuase it occurred the same second as the edit in question. I keep checking the article and see the above - maybe I am seeing something no one else can.
BTW: User:TheUmbrellaAcademyGirl's home page should be looked at - it contains references and obscenities which merit a permanent ban. 216.194.0.237 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note - The userpage has been deleted per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Tiptoety talk 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring by Allstarecho (talk · contribs) on Lonnie Frisbee
Nothing to see here. Move along. - Philippe | Talk 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Will somoene please address the ongoing edit warring on Lonnie Frisbee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with Allstarecho (talk · contribs · logs · block log). He and I are not exactly the best of friends right now, but the POV editing and newbie-biting on that article should be curbed. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you weren't so busy stalking my every move on here, you'd see I already posted about this issue above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Content issue. The fact is, the user removed sourced content that was already in the article and has failed to discuss it on the talk page. I am not the only one that has reverted his removal of the content. Several others have as well as an admin. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 19:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently the giant bold letters at the top that says, and I quote, "This page is not part of our dispute resolution process. " needs to be bigger and bolder. I see no evidence of anything here beyond the need to start the dispute resolution process, such as WP:DR describes. May i suggest starting a WP:RFC or WP:3O discussion, or, and I am going out on a limb here, HiDrNick could simply engage in a talk page discussion as Allstarecho is begging him to do. Seriously, there is no adminstrator action to take here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Unresolved
No one here is asking an administrator to decide the dispute, and there is talk on the talk page about the content issue. I had hoped for an uninvolved editor to admonish the edit warriors here against edit warring. Instead an obviously involved administrator has protected the page in the same state that he himself edited it to just a day ago, which, coincidentally, I’m sure, is the version preferred by the user with the most reverts on the page. I was not aware that three reverts to a page in a day was behavior that was now acceptable behavior around here; if reverting and asking a friendly administrator to protect the page is the best way to win your content disputes around here, then so be it. ➪HiDrNick! 22:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, if you weren't so busy stalking me, you'd see that SatyrTN protected the page before I brought the issue to him on his talk page. He blocked at 14:54 and I brought the issue to his talk page at 15:04, a 10 minute difference. What else you got? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- And just to point out, 3 reverts in one day on a page isnt against policy HiDrNick. 4 reverts would be against policy, see WP:3RR. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- And further to point out that I didn't protect the page because of anyone "breaking the rules", but rather because this same behavior has been going on for days now, with several editors reverting each other without discussing the issue on the talk page. So go - discuss! :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- And just to point out, 3 reverts in one day on a page isnt against policy HiDrNick. 4 reverts would be against policy, see WP:3RR. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Eyes on Selmedica
I and another editor before me have reverted edits by Markswikinto (talk · contribs) to Selmedica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I want someone to "sanity check" this revert because the question of the company's ethics may be controversial. Also, it would be nice if the user didn't write in ALL CAPS in his edit summaries. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding this edit, the source provided makes no mention of Selmedica. seicer | talk | contribs 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- ... and removed most of the content on the page. It was either...
(edit conflict)::Just did one more small change. This seems resolved now? Anybody add any warnings/blocks anywhere or are they unwarranted until the problem re-arises? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This is markswikiinto clearly the Selmedica entry was created by a competitor of the company taking advantage of Wikipedia's high exposure. Almost all of the information provided is 100% false and libelous and as you can see from the sources cited completely unsubstantiated. I did provide an edit summary for every edit I made, did they not show up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markswikinto (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, your edit summaries are there. Please don't use ALLCAPS THOUGH. They are easily confused with combatitiveness and yelling and are unnecessary. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Antisemitic personal attack by WebHamster
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
No administrative action required. I fear Boodlesthecat will end up being blocked if he continues to agitate, and suggest he calms down. Neıl ☎ 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I had brought an account of severe antisemitic ranting by EliasAlucard to WP:ANI here; that user is now indefinitely blocked. In the course of the discussion, in which some editors were challenging my bringing the case, WebHamster wroteWhen asked to explain the comment, he wroteOy ve - It sounds like someone in this discussion is trying to do their best to portray (and maintain) a certain Jewish stereotype... they're doing a bang up job at it too! --WebHamster 16:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
When asked yet again for further clarification of these elliptical comments, WebHamster wroteTo clarify: "Jewish stereotype" not "stereotypical Jewish editor". No mention of "editor" in my comment. Likewise please note the inclusion of "portray" as opposed to "is an". --WebHamster 16:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
In that response, WebHamster linked to "an impression of Woody Allen" to an obscure blog which finally clarified the nature of WebHamster's antisemtic personal attack. In that link, the only mention of Woody Allen isif I wanted to clarify what I was saying any more I would have done so in the first place. It's all in the eye of the beholder in these politically-correct times. Let's just say Boodles is trying to do an impression of Woody Allen--WebHamster 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
WebHamstercontinued to defend his slurs when challenged by other editors here."...in the Woody role of course .. he would just make the perfect whiny neurotic jew!"
These obnoxiously antisemitic personal attacks are made doubly offensive by the snide and faux-obscurantist manner in which WebHamster flings the slurs and provides patronizing mock haughtiness to justify them. It's dismaying not only to have to navigate a rough road to get action taken against a rabid antisemite like EliasAlucard, but to also have to endure gratuitous attempts at intimidation via antisemitic slurs such as those flung unrepentantly by WebHamster. I would like an apology and appropriate action taken in response to this nastiness. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Addendum: in response to this posting, WebHamster is continuing his antisemitic rants here. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- You got to be kidding! You just come out of a 24 hour block and you at this again? Are you on self destruct mission? If anyone says anything remotly to chritisize you you scream Jew hatter. I recommend to block you for 72 hours being that you have not learned your lesson and have not humbled yourself. If you keep treating people this way you give yourself and Jewish people a bad name. Please just let it go and go back to editing before you will be complainig against an unfair long block. Igor Berger (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly endorse the block of EliasAlucard but I don't see any anti-semitism in what WH wrote. And Igor, the remark about how he would "give himself and Jewish people a bad name" was over the top. Please don't repeat that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was speaking as one Jewish person to another and did not mean it to be personal. But we as Jewish people cannot get insulted every time someone says something that may make as feel bad and make a big thing out of it. We are all grown ups here. If Boodlesthecat is taking it personal I would like to appologize for that. But we need to let things rest. Igor Berger (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Other than two small, perhaps ill-advised, minor jokes, I don't see any anti-semitic rant. This issue seems a total non-starter, except by the person who created this thread, which only serves to draw attention to his own prior bad behavior. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Insinuating that someone protesting vicous antisemitism and Holocuaset denialism is "a whiny neurotic jew" is cool around here, Jayron32? Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. It isn't. Putting words into my mouth which I never spoke is not either. Stop it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would say that insinuating that something written by someone else in a link on a blog owned by a different user accurately describing Woody Allen (you are not Woody Allen) is not even remotely grounds for anything. If you disagree that Woody Allen portrays a neurotic Jew, then you have no clue who Woody Allen is. There is nothing even remotely anti-Semitic here. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest this thread gets closed. Soon. It is unproductive, it does not build an encyclopedia, and full of insinuations and misunderstandings. If everyone was in the same room instead of on separate computers, this would more than 100% likely be a nonissue. How 'bout let it be a non-issue? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly, there is a significant difference between this and the last thread, I think that Boodles is being overreactive. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest this thread gets closed. Soon. It is unproductive, it does not build an encyclopedia, and full of insinuations and misunderstandings. If everyone was in the same room instead of on separate computers, this would more than 100% likely be a nonissue. How 'bout let it be a non-issue? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Odd editing
I noticed user Mangostar [[94]] has been on a page creation flurry, creating pages about US relations with other countries, while adding in a POV tag, as he created the pages?
All the material appears to just be copied from a US Gov website.
I wanted some heads up from people with more wiki experience then I to look at this.Sethie (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Err, American government publications are public domain - one can copy them freely. I'd expect they have POV problems though. Have you tried asking Mangostar what she's up to? WilyD 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I did - Revolving Bugbear 21:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/, and it is in the public domain. Prodego talk 21:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I did - Revolving Bugbear 21:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
My question is more about policy on cut and pasting pages? I don't know the whole thing just seems a bit off. Sethie (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Cutting and pasting public domain material, so long as it's sourced, is perfectly proper. A lot of our articles started that way, when the data was copied and pasted from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica. Corvus cornixtalk 21:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- In response to a question on the POV tags on my talk page, I'm adding them because obviously as an interested policy not everything the US says is entirely neutral, but I think there's a lot of good factual material in there and I don't have the expertise to judge what's a neutral assessment and what's not. (Hopefully others that know more will simply remove them if they think the articles look okay.) I think it's certainly good to be cutting and pasting this because these are great starting points for research and wikification, and wiki should be more aggressive in my opinion about making good use of the mountains of PD information free for the taking that's created by the US government. Mangostar (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Be sure to add a blurb on the articles' Talk pages about why you put the pov tag on the article. POV tags without explanations on Talk pages tend to get removed unilaterally. Even if it's just a canned template or something. Corvus cornixtalk 22:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for others input and Mango- it all makes sense now. Sethie (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Except that the POV tag says that the neutrality of the article is "disputed" - but there is no dispute about these pages, as Mangostar makes clear in the notice that's been placed. Mangostar questions that they might not be neutral, but there is no genuine dispute. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- But many of them are blatantly non-neutral, and I'm sure many others are more subtly so. I'm not sure of a better tag, there's the nominating for neutrality check one but I'm not sure I actually want to nominate anything. Mangostar (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- What about a bolded heading at the top of the page that says something on the order of "The following material comes from a United States government website, and may not represent a neutral point of view"? Even if someone goes through these articles and vouches for their accuracy, it's still worthwhile having them labelled as government-produced material. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- But many of them are blatantly non-neutral, and I'm sure many others are more subtly so. I'm not sure of a better tag, there's the nominating for neutrality check one but I'm not sure I actually want to nominate anything. Mangostar (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Except that the POV tag says that the neutrality of the article is "disputed" - but there is no dispute about these pages, as Mangostar makes clear in the notice that's been placed. Mangostar questions that they might not be neutral, but there is no genuine dispute. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for others input and Mango- it all makes sense now. Sethie (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Arsenic 99
People who deny the Holocaust are indef blocked. But its perfectly OK to deny and delete anything related to Armenian Genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_22#Category:Armenian_Genocide_deniers
- Please point to anyone who has been indef blocked for "denying the Holocaust". Tendentious editing is a reason for blocking, but not beliefs. Corvus cornixtalk 22:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Um... HalfShadow (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, try again. Corvus cornixtalk 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Um... HalfShadow (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone should defiantly investigate the canvassing and the spa accounts showing up for the vote. Not to mention the personal attacks. VartanM (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Tendentious editing you say? This was on his user page on November 3rd http://www.armeniangenocidehoax.com Accurate Armenian Genocide History - A factually accurate site that uses a unique analytic approach on the history of the Armenian Genocide. Do not dismiss the site as "propaganda" simply because it may support a view you do not believe in, but the evidence shows that the Armenians did suffer, but so did the Turks, and the Ottomans had no motive to exterminate Armenians and the government never attempted this
- July 13 2007 La Isla Bonita
Removes " Daron Malakian of System of a Down has also performed a portion of the song as a "transition tune" during concerts" and justifies it with "Song information; completely unrelated and unimportant waste of the readers time, so I removed a small segment to make it easier to read" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Isla_Bonita&diff=prev&oldid=144547032
- August 24 2007 Talk:Armenian_Genocide
...this whole article should be deleted for the propaganda it represents. It's like "Hmmm, how can we make an article to make Turks look like Nazis WITHOUT ANY PROOF". Sad sad world we live in where we are arguing over a 91+ year old event when the Armenian Genocide has no supporting proof.[96]
- November 6 2007 Pan-Turkism
Removes the sourced section about Armenian Genocide [97]
- November 8 2007 Ottoman Empire
Changes the sentence about the Armenian genocide to Turkish POV Edit summary - Edited by adding the Turkish POV alongside the Armenian POV, to have a more neutral article and removed the link to the Armenian Genocide since that is simply a claim not a fact[98]
- adds the following to the To-Do subpage
Someone should remove the Armenian Genocide link since it is a POV article, not a historical fact and therefore would not make for a neutral point of view. I think adding the Turkish point of view on the Armenian Genocide is important since the Armenian point of view was already included. [99]
November 8 2007 Greco-Turkish war (1919-1922) removes sourced material about Armenian and Greek genocides Edit summary - Taner Akcam is not a historian and his work is unsourced since he cannot see the Turkish archives [100]
- November 9 2007 Krikor Zohrab
Deletes the section about Armenian Genocide Edit summary - No citations or sources... unverifiable POV insertion[101]
- Removes the information that he was killed by the Ottoman authorities during the Armenian genocide
Edit summary - Unverifiable POV insertion without any sources or citations [102]
- Removes the link to Armenian Genocide
edit summary - Unrelated [103]
- November 21 2007 Talk:Turkish War of Independence
"...There were many Armenians in Istanbul as well, they were unharmed... Turkish forces were under orders not to harm civilians, whether there were bad apples that didn't listen to such orders, it doesn't mean the Turkish forces are guilty of harming minorities" [104]
- January 9, 2008 Armenian Forgeries
Revisionist fork of Armenian Genocide. Speedy deleted as copy-vio[105]
- Accuses Karanacs who nominated the article for deletion as emotionally involved in the issue[106]
on the AFD page adds his Strong Keep vote on top, accuses "Armenian Diaspora" of inventing quotes from Hitler, forging pictures and Ottoman documents. Claims that the Armenian genocide is a fabrication.[107]
- Apologies to Karanacs for calling him emotional about the issue, " ...the Armenian Genocide article is like on total lockdown by Armenophile wikipedians" [108]
- January 10 2008 List of wars and disasters by death toll
Lowers numbers[109]
- Janury 19 2008 User talk:Stevietheman
"Quite frankly, I'm not even sure why the heck "Armenia wikiproject" is involved in that article, but obviously not with good intentions" .[110]
- January 21 2008 Foreign relations of Armenia
However, many Western historians and Turkish historians have debated the appropriateness of the genocide label.[111]
- January 25 2008 Taner Akcam
Adds "theory" after the Armenian Genocide[112] Alters the lead "This is usually referred to by Armenians as the Armenian Genocide, but many historians still debate the issue."[113]
- January 25 2008 Armenian Genocide
Removes from the lead "and most Western scholars and historians accept this view. The majority of Armenian diaspora communities were founded as a result of the Armenian genocide."[114]
- "I have not heard of a single non-biased Ottoman historian that said the Armenian Rebellion should be labeled as the Armenian "genocide". So this is part of WP:Extremist. I hope you understand that such false statements weaken the genocide argument."[115]
- January 30 2008 Talk:Justin McCarthy
"Apparently, the Armenian Wikiproject has decided to "patrol" this article, by discrediting Justin McCarthy's work with their own propaganda on the Armenian genocide theory" [116]
- Removes sources[117]
- You are an Armenian with a nationalistic agenda of promoting the Armenian genocide in almost any article you edit. Your own userpage has many boxes such as "independence of kurdistan" "independence of palestine" "wikiproject armenia" "advanced Armenian" "history of armenia" "opposes denial of armenian genocide" "independence of nagorno karabakh" among others which clearly shows you are Armenian indeed, because only a propagandist such as yourself would go to such lengths to make Justin McCarthy look like "a nobody" or a "minority POV" as you so claim.[118]
- February 4 2008 Samuel Weems
Removes sourced info and See also links to Armenian Genocide[119]
- Uses armeniangenocidehoax.com as a source[120]
- February 7 2008
Although it is still an unproven theory/allegation, I will try not to make such an edit in order to please Armenian nationalists who are seeking undisputed recognition for a genocide which they have so far provided no proof of intent.[121]
- February 15 2008 Justin McCarthy
his statistics are controversial to people who support the Armenian idea that 1.5 million Armenians were killed
- Samuel Weems
Changes Weems's claim to fame(denial of the Armenian Genocide) to continuous research and efforts to fight against smear and hate campaigns against Turkey and its predecessor the Ottoman Empire[122]
- February 21 2008 Weems
Armenian genocide related categories are deleted[123]
- Murad Gunmen
Deletes a whole section[124] "In addition, Tall Armenian Tale is not a hate site" [125] Armenian genocide related categories are deleted[126]
Let me know if you need more VartanM (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just as a separate note, but long unorganized complaints tend to be ignored fairly quickly. Personally, I'm not going to read all that nor really respond to it. It would be helpful if you focused and gave specific arguments (pointing to "deleting a section here", "removing this here", etc. are really complicated to review). If you think an article should be deleted, head to WP:AFD and make your point. If it is really complicated (not that AN/I tends to archive within a few days), follow the dispute resolution procedures. Now, if you have a focused point or two, I would be willing to review here. Otherwise, I'd say that saying "people who are against my view should all be blocked" isn't going to work particularly well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
When I made the complaint, a user was blocked because he made anti-semitic comments and denied the Holocaust. And I found odd that there was nothing being done not only to Arsenic99, but also to a number of other users that have systematically made anti-Armenian remarks and were genocide deniers. Corvus cornix pointed out that the user was blocked for making tendentious editing is a reason for blocking, but not beliefs. So I just showed him the tendentious editing of Arsenic99, who has called for the Armenian Genocide article to be deleted because its POV, removed categories and links to the article. Removed entire sections from articles. Radically changed the Taner Akcam article, the same kind of change that got him arrested before. Personally attacked users based on their nationality. Nominated the category to be deleted, then canvassed about it to other Turkish members and then SPA accounts appeared out of nowhere to support the delete vote. His POV and purpose here in wikipedia is clear, is to delete anything Armenian genocide related. So far he made very few edits outside of the Armenian Genocide topic and most of those edits have been reverted because of the strong POV by Armenian or third party users alike. Click around his contribution list and you'll see what I mean. VartanM (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Beyond Aston/Beyond Austin; Dopefish/Doopefish
I am really not sure where to go with this one. User:Dopefish is the webmaster for Black Sabbath drummer Bill Ward's site. Dopefish got fairly upset about the deltion of that artist's unreleased album Beyond Aston[127] (much more was on the article's talk page.
Now, along comes new User:Doopfish, supposedly the webmaster for "White Sabbath" drummer "Dollar Bill" and his album Beyond Austin.[128]
Is this a sock of Dopefish mocking wikipedia or someone else mocking Dopefish? Either way, Doopefish must go. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- ... and gone. I've also speedied the hoaxalicious article. — Coren (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I wonder if a word about possible misuse of alternate accounts, and the potential for sanction toward the originating account wouldn't go amiss on Dopefish's talkpage? Unless similar accounts start similar hoax articles I doubt there is enough to go to WP:SSP with - so nipping it in the bud may be most effective. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Clem32 is an account clearly opened with the aim to create a confusion with the account User:Clem23 (sysop on :fr as fr:Utilisateur:Clem23), who has been for several months if not more a favourite target of a disruptive and obstinate user known (among other accounts) as "Mario Scolas". See m:Vandalism reports/BogaertB for details. If you read French, see also detailed comments about recent developments on this week sysop's bulletin on :fr.
This week, we have got numerous attempts on :fr, by the use of false quotations, to try to discredit Clem23 as a racist (see for instance [129], in French -among many others). The only intervention of "Clem32" here on :en is obviously part of the same game, and the speedy reaction of User:Mario Scolas is not suprising and typical of his several personae play.
Certainly User:Clem32, only created as a disruptive account, should be immediately blocked Has been done through a parallel request on WP:UAA, while an administrative inquiry should be launched about User:Mario scolas who, though careful here on :en, has been disruptive enough on :fr and :nl to justify a strong treatment here also. French Tourist (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (sysop on :fr as fr:User:Touriste)
- As noted, I've blocked the account for a Username violation. It's interesting that the account's two edits were to add a comment in favor of deletion of Boubaker polynomials, and then to reinsert the comment when Mario scolas (talk · contribs) removed it (calling it harassment). I've also warned Mario Scolas for removing the comment, and would not object to a block if disruption continues. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- We are currently facing some really serious issues on fr:, related to Mario Scolas AND to the Boubaker polynomials. A summary of the issues can be found here in French :
- In short, the community decided to delete Boubaker polynomials, and as a result, several sock puppets and IPs spammed articles and user pages of admins and entourage of Clem23 (40+ and counting), insulting Clem23, and related sysops and users, mostly claiming that the deleting was a consequence of racist behavior. (Boubaker is Tunisian) Legal threats were raised, the number of affected pages is impressive : We are taking this problem very seriously.
- There are no proved links between Mario Scolas and these issues, but a fact is that Mario Scolas immediately backed up on en: the boubaker controversy.
- Now, about the situation here, I'll bring these diffs to your attention :
- (very bad English to French translation :) [Clem23's full name] [...] you'll eventually end up with slaps in your Nazi face
- [130] & [131] : it will be the first slap in your racist face
- Mario Scolas is reverting Clem32 : Please don't get fooled : Drama and disputes between two of his sock-puppets is definitely part of the modus operandi of Mario Scolas, as stated on the meta page (Creating conflict with 2 of his accounts)
- The AfD page of Boubaker polynomials is a mess : sock-puppetry, canvassing, and so on.
- Please take a look at the en: contributions of the French vandal IPs : they are all related to Boubaker polynomials.
- We are currently investigatins IP ranges, as 196.203.x.x, 41.224.x.x and 41.226.x.x might also be involved in some related but undetected yet vandalism, but we'd really appreciate some help down here...
- Thanks...
- NicDumZ ~ 22:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, and my apologies for this intervention out of the blue.
- About that last part, to clarify, in The IP list, 196.203.x.x, 41.224.x.x and 41.226.x.x belongs to the true Boubaker (193.95.x.x does too, likely), whereas 70.85.16.16 & 64.131.83.138 are impersonations (supposedly Scolas), as I kinka doubt Boubaker know how to use proxies.
- A Dual CU on en: and fr: (comparing with IP history) might help putting things to light, but this will be heavy ; really heavy to do.
- Darkoneko (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Update : a few minutes ago, three new disruptive impersonations playing with Boubaker polynomials : User:Tonton Bradipus, User:Pere Cormier, User:Olmec23. Don't hope things to settle by themselves without strong sysop interventions ! French Tourist (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- A bit of clarity, again :
- the names refers to fr:user:Bradipus, fr:User:Hégésippe Cormier, fr:user:Olmec & fr:User:Clem23 respectivly, which are all frwiki sysops.
- The edits of all accounts were made straight at AfD/Boubaker's polynomials at random places of the page. He also took liberty to delete some comemnts statings which other votes were likely to be sock (see diff). I took the liberty to revert them "en masse".
- Darkoneko (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has hit them all with {{usernamehardblock}}. Lara❤Love 14:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Many thanks. But what about the (99% sure) main account ?
- Darkoneko (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just as I was writing this, another (pretty obvious) sock appread : user:ClemClem32 [132]
- As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (2nd nomination) is becoming a war zone due to all that commotion & sock-puppetry, does enwiki's policy allows to put the page protection at "autoconfirmed" level in that kind of cases ? (ever since the creation of the page 3 days ago, every single non-confirmed account & IP edits have been pov-pushing from Boubaker, and socks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkoneko (talk • contribs) 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Darkoneko (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's usually just tolerated on AFDs themselves. As has been my frequent observation, single purpose accounts never actually affect the outcome of the debate, and 95% of them never edit again once the article is deleted. As such, admins here usually don't consider page protection necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- User:Mario scolas has been a very painful issue for fr:WP (260 socks) and nl:WP (over 30). I hope the vandalism does not spread too much here, at this time he is mostly focused on fr: admins (see the history of my talk page) but knowing him I doubt he'll restrict his vandalisms in the future. I hope you can do something about that, at this time he is only gaming the system, playing with his socks and proxies while trying to play the victim with his main account. Clem23 (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's usually just tolerated on AFDs themselves. As has been my frequent observation, single purpose accounts never actually affect the outcome of the debate, and 95% of them never edit again once the article is deleted. As such, admins here usually don't consider page protection necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has hit them all with {{usernamehardblock}}. Lara❤Love 14:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocks requested
LeonaCatherine (talk · contribs) and Rangeguide (talk · contribs) are clearly sockpuppets of the single purpose account Burk Hale (talk · contribs). See their series of edits (stretching back nearly a year, but recently resuming again) to the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress article. I would have blocked them all myself if not for my involvement in a content dispute in that article. Indef blocks of all three are requested. · jersyko talk 13:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Moved down the page from the mire above. Please consider blocks. Thanks. · jersyko talk 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've blocked Rangeguide (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a sock, and Burk Hale (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. These are admittedly the same user, and they've both been used to edit-war on the article in the past 24-48 hours. I'm being somewhat lenient with the Burk Hale account because there have been a few dog-ate-my-homework type excuses put forth and I'm in a generous mood, though I wouldn't object to an indef block. I did warn Burk Hale that if he continues edit-warring to insert material he's directly connected to, that he would be liable to sanctions for disruptive COI editing.
- As to LeonaCatherine (talk · contribs), this user claims to be a separate person though there is clearly at the very least a real-life connection which would constitute meatpuppetry. It's also possible this is a sockpuppet account. I'm asking for additional input on how to handle this account - please chime in. MastCell Talk 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
IP address jumping vandal
A user in the 99.145.2.xxx and 99.141.227.xxx range is vandalizing User_talk:Oxymoron83 and User talk:NawlinWiki. As soon as they're blocked, they just come back with another IP address and continue the vandalism. Is a range block possible? Corvus cornixtalk 23:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- 99.145.2.0/24has already been blocked, range 99.141.212.0/24 has not, yet.--Hu12 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's a bit broader than that ... 99.141.208 - 99.141.223 at least. I think all relevant pages are semi-protected now. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- They usually get bored after a while - I was involved in a similar situation where each time an IP was blocked, another one popped up in its place a short period later. Range blocks are tricky. If you block them one by one, they tend to show signs of weariness or stop altogether. Nobody is that tenacious. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's a bit broader than that ... 99.141.208 - 99.141.223 at least. I think all relevant pages are semi-protected now. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Could we have help here? The situation has broken down into an edit war, primarily because one SPA user, Saul Tillich (talk · contribs), is now persistently reverting against consensus and making article development impossible. See [133]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I issued a final warning on User talk:Saul Tillich. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thx. I don't think there's any provable COI, though. I think it's just a name chosen to reflect an agenda. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
User:76.91.240.181 attempting to use RICO to ensure her text is added to an article
The article Footprints (poem) reports on a real-world dispute over the authorship of a text. User:76.91.240.181 has attempted (many times) to remove references to the dispute and assert that one person (whom she claims to be) is the true author. After several attempts to point this out, she has [134] not only accused me of a crime in reverting her edits (I'm not sure what the offence is supposed to be) but also threatened the use of RICO against me, or possibly against Wikipedia, I'm not sure, for reverting her edits. Are these legal threats within the meaning of WP:LEGAL or should this be dealt with in another way? Marnanel (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Most definitely. The user should be blocked for making legal threats. Corvus cornixtalk 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- She claims to be Carolyn Joyce Carty. Corvus cornixtalk 23:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've blocked the IP address for 24 hours. Bearian (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also blocked the author as noted at User talk:Carolynfujii. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've blocked the IP address for 24 hours. Bearian (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This editor has been rude on a regular basis. He's been blocked 5 times, since October 2007 for personal attacks and being uncivil. His recent behavior shows he has no plans to stop: [135] and [136], also see his talk page. He thinks it's alright to attack people that vandalize. Vandals or not, being rude in edit summaries isn't the correct thing to do. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Advice left; user has been blocked previously for abuse and as far as I'm concerned, he's on a "one-strike and you're out". --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I request an uninvolved admin take a look at this. I blocked Sarah777. She persisted in removing my post which was relevant to her unblock request and answers a significant accusation she has made against me. As an emergency measure I protected the page. Her unblock has been declined. No doubt she will appeal again and will again remove my post. Tyrenius (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ty, I'm not uninvolved here, but I seriously think you should have asked another admin to block that time. Because it came from you and because both of you have a certain history, well ... You could have kinda predicted how this was going to go, too. Note to others: I blocked Sarah777 for 24 hours, just three days ago - Alison ❤ 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no history with Sarah777 to speak of. The only significant contact is at Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777, and I think it's established there we do not let people violating policy establish "no go" zones by making accusations aganst admins. (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm no admin, but it certainly looks as if that block was justified. It doesn't matter how much an editor contributes or how good those contributions are, if they can't deal with problems civilly, they should face sanctions. --clpo13(talk) 00:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Aye, nothing wrong with the block, though Alison is right that it'd probably have been better for someone else to do it. I don't think you'd have found a shortage of takers. Black Kite 01:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is no reason why another admin should have done it. I am not in any editing dispute with the user. I have no history with the user, apart from warning her not to make abusive posts. The precedent otherwise is that an admin warns a user, a user makes some accusation against the admin, and the admin is then not allowed to interact with the user any more. This is asking for abuse and gaming the system. Tyrenius (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but she was blocked a few days back for telling you to "sod off" [137]. You're right though, I don't think it's a big deal to be honest. Black Kite 01:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is no reason why another admin should have done it. I am not in any editing dispute with the user. I have no history with the user, apart from warning her not to make abusive posts. The precedent otherwise is that an admin warns a user, a user makes some accusation against the admin, and the admin is then not allowed to interact with the user any more. This is asking for abuse and gaming the system. Tyrenius (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to see this block lifted. Sarah777 was commenting on the block of another user that she felt was unfair. She said something like "trust the fascists to come up with an excuse" (not a quote, but words to that effect), and was blocked for it. That seems like overkill. There are far worse things said every day by people (including admins) whom no one would think to block for them. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- A quick look at User:Sarah777's contributions reveals that the exact quote is "Admin-power abusing fascists like friend Ty". That looks like a clearly unacceptable comment to me. --Conti|✉ 02:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think that comment was after the block, Conti. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- (EC) - I'm not necessarily "uninvolved" as I declined the unblock request for this user, however, I believe that the block needs to remain. This user has a clear civility problem, as evident from prior blocks, and this comment that she left today while blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think this was the comment that attracted the block:
- "This is getting more and more like some institution run by a cult of abusers. 40k edits in "main"; not a single cross word ever uttered - and you get blocked. At least I put myself about as they say; there is simply NO valid excuse for blocking you no matter what self-serving rationalisation the fascists come up with. Plus, the block is totally illegitimate as you are using an undeleted system of categorisation." Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- It was inappropriate, for sure, but I can't see that it was worth a block in itself. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You might like to check out Sarah777's long term history of abuse. Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777 is a good starting point. Editors should not be subjected to her insults. Tyrenius (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- If we were routinely blocking users for those kinds of comments, it'd be fair enough, but we're not, which is the problem here. This seems to have become something of a self-perpetuating thing, whereby she makes an inappropriate comment, gets blocked, is pissed off, makes a snide remark, is blocked, gets even more pissed off, says something else, and on and on -- where each comment in itself wouldn't normally attract a block. I recommend an unblock as a show of good faith, which might turn things around a little. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- We do (or at least have been recently) routinely blocking for those sorts of comments in this particular subject area. The problem with Sarah, is that when an admin makes a decision not to her liking, it is always an example of fascist abuse, Anti-Irish abuse, Anglo-American abuse, and she is not shy in telling anyone who will listen. In the already politically fraught subject areas she occasionally edits in, her comments are particularly inflammatory. Its difficult enough to keep editors working together on the Irish/British issue, but when editors regularly throw accusations around like that, it quickly degenerates into edit-warring, sock and meat puppetry, legal threats, off-wiki threats of violence and we all end up at ArbCom again. I'm being a little dramatic, of course, but all those things listed have happened by editors in this subject area over the last year. Most of the participants put their actions down to being insulted or goaded. Hence the zero tolerance policy on civility and personal attacks on this subject, especially since everyone has been warned countless times already.
- Now, Sarah is certainly not among those who have indulged in the worst behaviour I have listed above, but she does, for want of a better phrase, "have a mouth on her". We can continue to discuss issues with her (as I have done many times before) and ask her time and again to stop calling people offensive names, but she resolutely refuses to stop. If asking doesn't help, perhaps blocks will. Though I doubt it, to be honest. Rockpocket 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777 made the comment above, was warned by Rockpocket that is was likely to get a block and then endorsed her comment:
- Sarah, please don't refer to other editors, named or implied, as "fascists". In addition to being wholly incorrect, it is also gratuitously offensive and likely to earn you a block yourself for WP:NPA before too long. How many times do you need to be asked - make your point without resorting to name-calling, please. Rockpocket 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd have thought it was a pretty good description. Don't you? And if some goon can block Ardfern then we should all be proud to be blocked, don't you think? And I reckon we'd be rather more interested in your take on the Ardfern block than on my civility (yaaaaaawn!) Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
She continues to insult editors whenever it suits her. Fine, if she states she will desist from making abusive personal comments, I don't object to an unblock, but in the past she has stated quite the opposite intention and there is no sign of her attitude changing.
Tyrenius (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Per this comment, and per lack of a clear consensus to endorse this block, I have left a comment on her talk page suggesting I will unblock if she states she willd desist from making personal comments. See how it goes ... - Alison ❤ 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, there is a clear consensus to endorse the block, but I'm prepared to show good will. Tyrenius (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Tyrenius, please see my comments below at #Sarah777:_there.27s_more_to_this_than_meets_the_eye. But I note from your comment above that you even think it was a blockable offence for her to call the admin who blocked Ardfern a "goon". Sorry, but I think that given the outrageousness of that block of a highly productive and respected editor, an expression of outrage was well-justified. "Fascist" and "goon" are not exactly parliamentary terms, but nor are they a completely unjustified or disproportionate response to a very bad block.
In effect, Sarah was blocked for objecting to another block, and that's a form of victimisation. If you can't see it that way, please recuse yourself from further use of your admin powers towards Sarah. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Community ban
Initiating this straw poll as a neutral party. Sarah's conduct is way over the line. The whole "Brilliant means block" section and the edit summary "get off my page you twat" is just the latest I can see in a row of gross incivility, and I think enough is enough. We don't need this, especially in such a contentious area. Ramp the block up to indef community ban. Will (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. I certainly won't endorse that and I feel you're "ramping up" the issue here just a bit - Alison ❤ 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is this really acceptable? Will (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, but neither is a community ban. If I show you an admin that called someone a "cunt", will you campaign to have them community banned? - Alison ❤ 03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Was in a contentious area such as The Troubles or Eastern Europe, where opinions don't need to be more inflamed then they already are? Will (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose. Look at her block log- they've all been short, she could be given a slightly longer one, say a fortnight, to reflect. I agree with SV on the other issues- I think there should be a block, but not a ban, because there are plenty of others who swear etc. on site and they haven't been banned.Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is this really acceptable? Will (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The word "twat" is used much more lightly than "cunt". However, there is a long term problem with her incivility, not just an occasional mishap. Community ban would be an answer. If not, then there needs to be some other arrangement in place to contain it, and to prevent her from excluding any admin who tries to address the issue. Tyrenius (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- A longer block would make her consider her actions more. In that regard, an analogous case would be User:TharkunColl, who after a two week (I think) block and warning that he would next face one of 3 months, has been comparatively well-behaved. :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ty, there are also cultural differences to be recognized here, too. Profanity in Ireland (where myself and Sarah are from) is treated a lot more lightly than in, say, the United States. Thus in her own view, her transgression may not have the same weight as it does to others. Seriously - Alison ❤ 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Incivility is a problem on Wikipedia these days, but I don't think that community banning everyone who's uncivil is remotely the right answer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- We'd only be left with about 5 editors. Nandesuka (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) I don't think there's been any gross profanity as such. It's the ongoing ad hominem posts like "Stop talking complete arrogant bull. YOU have imposed "criteria" that nobody bar your pompous self accepts. You abuse of power is passing the point of annoyance and becoming nauseous".[138] That needs to stop. The only question is how it can be stopped. Tyrenius (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think Merkinsmum's suggestion is sound. Sarah is a productive editor with a volatile temper. A period of disengagement might help defuse some of the recent drama, and drive home the point that wikipedia is a collaborative effort, which means sometimes agreeing to disagree without launching into nationalistic attacks. Horologium (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- From an observers view - she seems to carry a big chip on her shoulder, and grudges against certain admins. I agree with Will (talk) in that somethings need to be dealt with firmly, and not just swept under the rug with a wink and a nod, and don't let it happen again. Its gonna happen again. Modernist (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think we need to remain in the middle ground here; no community ban and no unblock - sit out this block, and we'll go from there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with User:Rjd0060. If we're going to community ban for this level/frequency of incivility, there are a lot more bans to be given out, including some to admins. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that a more comprehensive approach is needed. I think the proposed actions, e.g. long-term blocks or bans, are not in line with the way we have approached similar issues of late. Such actions would be viewed, correctly, as capricious, and the consequences of this might be worse than the problem we are trying to correct. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) I agree a ban is excessive at this stage. My concern is that the issue is addressed and not just ignored. As Rockpocket has pointed out, such behaviour impacts considerably in an area where there has been a lot of trouble. It would be a good start if Sarah777 were to recognise that attacks on others are not the way to address differences. To date she has asserted that she is justified in making them. Tyrenius (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that a more comprehensive approach is needed. I think the proposed actions, e.g. long-term blocks or bans, are not in line with the way we have approached similar issues of late. Such actions would be viewed, correctly, as capricious, and the consequences of this might be worse than the problem we are trying to correct. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with User:Rjd0060. If we're going to community ban for this level/frequency of incivility, there are a lot more bans to be given out, including some to admins. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think I see a clear consensus against a ban. Including by one of the admins that has previously blocked her. For the record, having reviewed this, I agree with the consensus above that a ban is inappropriate. If we were going to issue bans for incivility, there are multiple admins we'd need to ban before we got down to Sarah's level of incivility; I've seen so much worse from others. GRBerry 05:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah has agreed to make a "supreme effort" not to repeat this if at all possible and has also apologized to Rockpocket. Per discussion above (esp. per blocking admin) I have unblocked her. I'll try to mediate over the next few days and try to address everyone's concerns here. I think BHG makes some excellent comments below and I'm largely in agreement. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye and I think amongst all of us us who are familiar with the situation here, we'll work something out. Unblocking - Alison ❤ 11:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's great, as long as Sarah777 delivers on her promise to make that effort. We have to assume good faith and I would love to see Sarah continue to edit - yet it seems her incivility has been increasing in both frequency and magnitude of late, and there is simply no place for that kind of behaviour on this kind of project. Hopefully there will never be the need to block Sarah777 again, but should that need arise, I don't think a short term block would prevent any future occurrences. I'm against a community ban at this stage, but if Sarah's behaviour does not change, that stance will. Waggers (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777: there's more to this than meets the eye
The suggestion of a ban is a terrible proposal, and I'm glad to see that there is a consensus against it. Yes, Sarah does have an ongoing problem with her short fuse, and her responses exacerbate the situation. However, the latest block was a very bad one, by an involved admin whose objection was to the removal of his comment from her talk page, and traditionally we have given editors a lot of leeway in removing stuff from their own talkpages.
Furthermore, the issue that triggered Sarah's outburst was the rapid and unjustified blocking for alleged "disruption" of Ardfern (talk · contribs)}, who is an incredibly productive and uncontroversial editor who has no history of trouble, by an admin who had made a dodgy closure of a related DRV. I was shocked at Ardfern's block and had intended to raise the issue here later today, but while I don't use her colourful language I fully share Sarah's dismay at that block. I happen to be a lot better at biting my tongue, but I am starting to get very concerned at the way that Sarah now feels that she is be being "targeted" by a group of admins who were involved in "The Troubles" arbcom. The issues here have very little to do with that arbcom case, but some of the admins (notably John (talk · contribs) and Tyrenius (talk · contribs) who were involved in that case now appear to be running into regular conflict with Sarah, and I think it's time to ask them to step right back from dealings with Sarah, because whatever their intentions (and I assume good faith), they are not helping to calm things, and on the contrary they are consistently provoking the worst reactions from Sarah; they have become part of the problem. I would like to contrast this with the calm and balanced approaches of Alison (talk · contribs), who as usual seems to remain calm and to retain the trust of all involved; the contrast is important, but it demonstrates that this is not simply a case of any admin who confronts a miscreant being demonised.
There are several serious issue behind all this. The most visible cloud is the set of issues considered at The Troubles Arbcom case, a huge and long-running mess which still rumbles on 4 months after it was closed, and which now turns out to have been in significant part to have been underpinned by a bunch of sockpuppets of a banned far-right British politician (as well as the antics of Vintagekits (talk · contribs), whose misconduct continued after more "last chances" than North Korea has been given over its nuclear weapons). That arbcom was supposed to draw a line under everything, and to say "no more misconduct", but that didn't really happen: the far-right sockpuppets were only recently uncovered, and Vintagekits eventually turned out to have been sockpuppeteering too. So there is a long history of trouble here, and considerable post-arbcom evidence of some nasty stirring by banned editors.
One of the ongoing problems is cultural difference in what constitutes civility. I have lived in England for over years and understand how more of English people conduct themselves and can play by those rules, but as Alison (another Irish exile) pointed out above, social norms in Ireland are very different: raucous outspokenness and swearing are much more acceptable.
And one of the reasons that this comes to the surface so often is that Irish editors routinely find themselves outnumbered by British editors, and end up at a severe disadvantage in the formation of consensus. I have watched too many instances where Irish editors and British editors polarise on different sides of a dispute, and where there is no shortage of British admins ready to condemn the culturally different conduct of Irish editors, and thereby exacerbate a difficult situation.
It's far too simplistic in this mess to simply condemn the "wild" Irish editors; there's a lot more going on here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you don't mind me saying, in the words of Ali G, "is it because I is black?" :) (joke). There are English, American, all sorts of people that swear, and people can't have licence to swear at other people and in other ways be incivil, just because of their country of origin. You do the irish a disservice if you say they don't have it in them to be as well-mannered as the English- any one I've met has been, more so if anything as they have a reputation for being friendly. On the other hand, it did seem weird to me that people were discussing a 'community ban.' Special Random (Merkinsmum) 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- May I offer the following poem by a pal of mine from Dublin, by way of explanation?
"Terms of Endearment"
Two Irishmen meet.
They like one another.
They are friends.
"There ye are ye bollix."
"Fair play to you you cunt."
"Ask me arse you tit."
Very shortly they will be best friends.
God alone knows how they will express
This extra closeness.— Pat Ingoldsby, "Terms of Endearment"[139]
- - Alison ❤ 12:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- But as the poem said, they are friends already. It would be like me calling TharkunColl a drunken old c**t.:) I'm allowed because I'm his mate lol but people don't tend to in a formal situation such as wiki. Also Sarah777 wasn't talking to a friend, but to one of her wiki 'rivals', so her words weren't meant in a joshing way, you big !*^!er.:) (joke) :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 14:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nice try BHG and I appreciate you for sticking up for her. I am from an Irish family, and have spent a lot time in Ireland, North and South. Any contention that Irish people are unable to follow conventional rules of formal civility, though, is laughably inaccurate. Yes, in the pub, old friends will use terms to each other that would make a maiden aunt blush. We Scots are the same. However Wikipedia is not the pub and Sarah's ongoing incivility does need to be addressed. I did not (yet) support the idea of a ban, but that is the way this needs to head if Sarah demonstrates that she is unable to follow our norms, and we need to be clear about that and not make excuses for her on the basis of her nationality. She is not stupid and knows very well what she is doing. --John (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- But as the poem said, they are friends already. It would be like me calling TharkunColl a drunken old c**t.:) I'm allowed because I'm his mate lol but people don't tend to in a formal situation such as wiki. Also Sarah777 wasn't talking to a friend, but to one of her wiki 'rivals', so her words weren't meant in a joshing way, you big !*^!er.:) (joke) :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 14:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- - Alison ❤ 12:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Response to BrownHaired Girl
You were in the minority in opposing this block, which was endorsed by clpo13, John, Black Kite, Conti, Rjd0060, Rockpocket and Special Random. I haven't mentioned or alluded to the word "goon", and I wasn't even aware Sarah had used it. Sarah was not blocked for objecting to another block, something she is quite entitled to do through the proper channels. She was blocked for a personal attack, namely calling someone a "fascist". Several of those who endorsed the block have no prior connection with the situation.
You state that I am an "involved" admin. The attack by Sarah wasn't made against me, and I wasn't involved in the conversation about it. I have had very little to do with Sarah777 previously, apart from very recently, when my only involvement was to address her incivility at Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777 and remove offending comments about John, which Alison said she was just about to remove,[140] which Sarah then reinserted and which I removed again.[141] In the meantime Alison, not I, blocked her for her response to my warning about that removal. That is the extent of my supposed involvement. According to your rationale, if an admin warns a user and the user is uncivil in return, the admin should then refrain from dealing with that user over any other issue.
You say I am running into "regular conflict" with Sarah. I have only had dealings with her for 5 days, since removing the posts mentioned above. Apart from John, I note she also objected to Fram, Ioeth and SirFozzie, all of whom she wished to see de-sysopped.[142]
You have also got your facts wrong, when you state my objection was the removal of material from her talk page. That happened after the block and was not the cause of it. She was not entitled to remove this, as it responded to a statement she made concerning the unblock which was incorrect, though that was an understandable mistake: removal of my correction was not.[143]
You have previously said the accusation that John is partisan "is not without some reasonable basis",[144] failed to provide any evidence, then apologised, [145] but still thought John should not intervene, because he had been accused of partisanship, regardless of whether it was just or not.[146] (In that post SirFozzie was one of the acceptable "calming" editors, but it seems he as now lost that status.) User:Lar said, "what I see as an outsider is John trying very hard to be helpful in the face of others applying the bias label unjustly."[147]
Your assertion that this is a nationalist issue is inappropriate, objectionable and false. Regarding "British admins ready to condemn the culturally different conduct of Irish editors", I have not stated my nationality, so you should not presume, Fram is Belgian, Ioeth is American, and SirFozzie is, if I recall correctly, of Irish extraction in America. You have also said Rockpocket (American) should not intervene because of what you perceive as "victimisation" and being "trigger-happy" (although he has never blocked Sarah),[148] and no doubt the "fascist" Fram is not welcome, so with John and myself, we are now up to 7 admins. It strikes me they cannot all be the problem.
Most "Irish editors" are not uncivil, and editors of any nationality can be.[149] Nationality is not the issue: WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are the issues, for which I have previously blocked "British" editors, David Lauder,[150], Astrotrain,[151] (twice, as well as lengthening a block for continued incivility while blocked), and Counter-revolutionary,[152] (for "Derogatory implication based on another user's nationality"). In the Troubles ArbCom Astrotrain accused me of "bias and harassment" on behalf of "Irish" editors.[153]
The only admin that is allying themselves nationalistically is you:
- Yes, once again, Irish editors have been stitched up, and wikipedia's coverage of Irish history has been impeded, but ... big but it's really important to remember that however much we are provoked, incivility or pparent WP:POINT violations won't help us undo the damage.[154]
I am surprised that you take this stance, as I have not noticed it previously, but it indicates that you are the one who should recuse yourself from this issue. I see no reason to recuse myself.
Tyrenius (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Point of information: I'm not American (though I live there). Neither I am Scottish, English, Irish (though I have lived in all three countries) or Welsh. I find the fact that we are even discussing the nationality of our admins utterly depressing and demonstrative of how much the false accusations of problems editors have influenced us. It doesn't matter what nationality you are from to recognize POV pushing, personal attacks and name calling.
- I too take exception at BHG's accusation that I am involved in "victimisation" of Sarah by being "trigger-happy." My relationship with Sarah, from my own POV, is entirely cordial. I have never blocked her and I very much enjoy interacting with her. I don't think Sarah should would dispute that either (though I could be wrong). If you have an issue with an unfair block, then I suggest you address that through the proper channels, BHG, but leave me out of it. All I did was ask an editor to stop calling another offensive names, which is about the least "trigger-happy" response I can imagine. Rockpocket 18:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Zandweb
Zandweb (talk · contribs) has posted a antisemitic YouTube video on Purim. When asked to clarify, he left comments on Purim and on my talkpage finding some justification in the Bible. Could someone have a look at this editor's behaviour and consider an appropriate response? JFW | T@lk 01:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- This rather incomprehensible article Iranian genocides that he created appears to be linked. Not sure how this got past NPP. Black Kite 01:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting that. JFW puts article into a wheelbarrow and carts it off to PROD JFW | T@lk 01:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- You should just CSD the article it is clearly disrupt and racist. Igor Berger (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- As for that video, besides it being propaganda and denigrating, it's also a spam link. Just remove it each time it's added per WP:EL. I'm sure this is resolved already, but just wanted to drop that in. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ongoing personal attacks
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Final warning provided to user:Coloane and a request for a personal apology to Orderinchaos left. Colane appears to understand that personal attacks will no longer be tolerated under any circumstances. Several other editors also commented along those lines.--VS talk 02:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have been dealing with Coloane (talk · contribs), who seems to have taken particular personal exception to me since I implemented a topic ban after a lengthy discussion here at AN/I in late January. [155] However, the racism and prejudice with which he is attempting to bait me at the present time ([156], [157]) are completely unacceptable and an obvious violation of WP:NPA. The ironic thing is his false accusations of racism towards others in recent days (e.g. [158]).
On this occasion, it was completely unprovoked - I was asked on my talk page for an opinion on a matter [159], I gave it [160], and that was used as an excuse to attack me - at first levelling almost comically over-the-top accusations at myself as well as his original disputants (eg. [161]) before adopting this new tack in the last 24 hours. The user has a long history of such attacks towards other contributors and of being disruptive (this was the reason for the original topic ban, after episodes like this).
It should be noted that OhanaUnited, despite the venue being his talk page, is only marginally involved - he has attempted to calm the troubled seas in recent days. Orderinchaos 01:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Given the date and time difference between your warning and the previous offensive edits I am going to provide a final warning to Coloane. I will invite him to apologise also. Any further Personal Attacks will result in my blocking him for an appropriate period of time (unless someone beats me to that block).--VS talk 01:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- You will find this entertaining, I just told user Coloane to come here because he was complaining at Jimbo's talk page. [here] is the diff of his post. Just here to tell you guys, I do not want to get involved. Rgoodermote 02:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- As you will see Orderinchaos despite polite requests from myself and other editors Coloane is unable to bring himself to apologise. I have left a final warning on his page and will welcome your direct request to me for blocking should he re-offend to you personally. Of course if he re-offends to another editor you will take the action you are entitled to as an Admin. Unless you object I will close this thread in 30 minutes or so?--VS talk 02:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would close this if I were you steve, by the way no clue who you were talking to but...I am not an admin. Rgoodermote 02:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Ah, I mis-read that, sorry about that. Anyways I hope this all goes well, I am just going to slink back into my corner. Rgoodermote 02:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Vandals flooding RfB with self-noms!
Vandals have flooded RfB with self-noms! They appear to have taken a cue from WT:RFA, and look what has happened:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Ryan_PostlethwaiteWikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/RyanGerbil10 3- Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Riana
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Mr.Z-man
Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/MaximWikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Majorly 3- Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Wizardman
- Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Neil
- Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Acalamari
- Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/The Rambling Man
Come watch the inevitable fireworks? Avruch T 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Madness? THIS IS WIKIPEDIA! Rebelyell2006 (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Never rains but it pours. Ban 'em all!!!! :D - Alison ❤ 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, at least some mandatory checkusers? You never know, might be a troll trying to slip through ;) Ronnotel (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea. Suggest rangeblock on 0.0.0.0/0 until checkuser results are in. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously all one user.... :P Tiptoety talk 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Suggest mandatory mentorship from stewards and that they are required to add themselves to Category:Bureaucrats open to recall. MBisanz talk 04:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I consider this canvassing. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- That Neil guy waited for the Ryans to fall by the wayside before diving in for the win and great justice. I don't like him. Proto (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can't say I'm fond of his alter-ego, Proto either. Especially since that guy quite possibly has a worse username than Neil. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- That Neil guy waited for the Ryans to fall by the wayside before diving in for the win and great justice. I don't like him. Proto (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I consider this canvassing. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Suggest mandatory mentorship from stewards and that they are required to add themselves to Category:Bureaucrats open to recall. MBisanz talk 04:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously all one user.... :P Tiptoety talk 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea. Suggest rangeblock on 0.0.0.0/0 until checkuser results are in. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, at least some mandatory checkusers? You never know, might be a troll trying to slip through ;) Ronnotel (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Loathe as I am to spoil the party, my application was forced upon me by Dweller and Andonico. No dirty self-nom for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else find this odd?
A new user immediately subst'ing a blocked sockpuppet's various css and js pages into their own. Another sockpuppet or just weird behaviour? --Closedmouth (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's supicious enough for a block... Done. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- there's an explanation for that someone's cloning sockpuppets EraserGirl (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppets vandalizing article by blanking cited section after multiple editors have worked to make an acceptable version. See the article edit history. Some include: Redprince (talk · contribs) 66.65.113.244 (talk · contribs) 128.59.167.218 (talk · contribs) 160.39.243.150 (talk · contribs) Gimmephive (talk · contribs) User:160.39.244.29. The IPs are all in NYC and all except one are at Columbia University. Everytime it gets to the point of a 3rr vio or final vandal warning he shifts computers or alternates between registered names. It's driving me batshit trying to keep up. They're clearly all connected - see the edit summaries. Many of them have even edited the same articles in the past. --Veritas (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd consider semi-protection of the article if it's needed. At least it will make wait it out for the usernames and blocks will be more effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I requested semi protection and it was denied (not enough activity apparently??) No one has been blocked either. The AIV report has been sitting there for a long time now and no one has bothered with it. I'm about to give up. I have also gone to 3RR and Checkuser. --Veritas (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd consider semi-protection of the article if it's needed. At least it will make wait it out for the usernames and blocks will be more effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The semi-protection denial actually makes some sense. There's only been two days of vandalism, and fairly slow and blatant as well. The blocks are more annoying though. Since it's a series of rotating IP addresses, blocking would be pointless (and would have be in short durations anyways). I've added some more information (all sourced, but probably won't be popular) to the article, and am now watching it. If it gets serious again, message me and I'll personally keep watch. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
for now
The IP jumping vandal is back. And now he's being reallllllly disgusting. Corvus cornixtalk 05:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Lack of asian diversity vandal
This is a reoccuring problem on the article Talk:ER (TV series). A persistent soapbox pontificating vandal returns every couple of days, sometimes longer, to disparage all of the editors by labeling them as "dirty racist pigs" and insist on pushing a POV of the apparent lack of asian diversity on medical dramas. Below are some of the most recent IPs the anon has been using to promote his/her agenda. Each time myself and others attempt to combat the user through reversion, userpages are usually vandalized persistently and maliciously. A report is usually filed to WP:AIV, but it usually goes unanswered for abit due to backlogging. I'm just wondering what the best course of action is. Is a range block necessary? I usually try to avoid such a course of action, but sometimes it gets really out of hand. Should the IPs just be handled one at a time as they come? I know it is unusual for IPs to be indefinitely blocked, but is this an option? Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would be a bad idea to place an infinite block. Perhaps a range block is the more suitable remedy. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I would need an admin to make a judgment call on this - regarding the appropriate range that is. Also, bear in mind that the incident is not restricted to only those IPs listed above. It's been going on for sometime if one takes the time to check the history. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Block review: Eleemosynary
Eleemosynary (talk · contribs). This request is procedural since the block ends fairly shortly, but since he intends to post a complaint against me here when it ends (by which point I'll be asleep and unable to respond), I believe I should get my word in before I go.
3RR violation
Eleemosynary is claiming that I "admin abuse"-d him by blocking him for WP:3RR violation on Matt Sanchez. First of all, please note that the article is subject to an article probation, and all of the article's consistent editors, including Eleemosynary, are aware of this. My block message was as follows: You've been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on Matt Sanchez. Your reverts were as follows: [162], [163], [164], [165]. You were warned of your pending 3RR violation here and referred to it as "officiousness", and you are aware of the 3RR as you have been blocked 4 times before for it. Continual disruptive editing will not be tolerated.
Eleemosynary contends that his edits were not 4 reverts, which even if it were correct is irrelevant because the 3 revert rule does not entitle users to revert 3 times per day. From the policy: Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.. However, his edits were indeed 4 reverts. A revert, per the policy, "means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content..."
His first revert, [166] was a removal of this edit made on the 21st. His second revert again removed the text "writer". His third revert removed the text "writer" from a different place in the article. Eleemosynary contends that this is not a revert, however, clearly states A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time so in fact it is. Revert 4 is clear.
Note, that he was warned after his 4th revert that he violated 3RR. He deleted the warning as "officiousness." I then blocked him for 24 hours for the violation.
tendentious editing
As I have shown above, there were 4 reverts within 24 hours, a violation of the 3RR. Even were there not to have been, Eleemosynary was clearly edit warring on the article. Just a few days before that, he had edit warred over the bad faith removal of images of Matt Sanchez, justifying his removal of a freely licensed picture under the assumption of bad faith that "Matt Sanchez had lied before about the ownership of pictures, he must have lied about this one too."
You may note from Eleemosynary's extensive block log that he has been blocked 7 times for violating the 3RR, or edit warring. He's also been blocked for legal threats, and blocked twice for violating WP:OFFICE. Eleemosynary should know better than to edit war on an article, but even after being blocked, he insists that he was right, the blocking admin was wrong, and this is harassment against him, and that I have a grudge against him (more on that later).
Furthermore, given the article probation that affected the page (and he was well aware of such probation) he should have been on notice not to edit tendentiously on the article. Therefore even if his block was not for 3RR violations, it would have been appropriate for disruptive editing.
allegations that I have harassed him
Until this block, I have not dealt with Eleemosynary in months. I've blocked him once before, in August 2007 if memory serves right, for another 3RR violation. Just a week later, some of you may remember, was User:Crockspot's RFA. I don't remember the exact details, but it was disrupted by allegations that he was a racist, showed some off wiki forum posts of an off-wiki user with the same name saying racist things. At that time, a Digg user named Eleemosynary made a digg post about Crockspots RFA to try and disrupt it. It naturally failed. Our User:Eleemosynary was just coming off of his block from me. I can't remember exactly what it was for, but the block log says "multiple 3RR vios". He was blocked for a month by Isotope, which was later overturned by Theresa Knott. Eleemosynary here (who is a vocal opponent of Crockspots) maintains his innocence that he is not the Eleemosynary from Digg. I did not and still do not believe this, and at the time I wrote a post on my blog about it. Eleemosynary believes this to be my "harassment" of him. It should be very clear, however, after reading it that it is nothing of the sort.
His responses to this latest block are snarky, claiming that I have a grudge against him, and that I have harassed him and continue to harass him. This conveniently ignores that I have had no contact in months with him, and that a 16-entry long block log would imply that perhaps he is the one doing the harassing. As evidence of his hostile behavior, please see these diffs: "remove impotent rantings of utter disgrace" (referring to Matt Sanchez...yes there's evidence that he had good intentions for that article), [index.php?title=User_talk:Eleemosynary&diff=next&oldid=194538800 Well, this dishonesty isn't surprising, coming from "Swat."], (in that same diff accusing me of admin abuse, accusing me of lying, etc.) accusing me of editing on behalf of a banned editor, and again, and again, accusing me of working on behalf of a banned editor, harassment, and abusing my admin privileges, alleges that I've threatened him off wiki (!)(?), while maintaining that he has not been hostile at all, etc., alleges that I am interpreting policy "tortuously", which apparently means "deceitfully",
I've warned Eleemosynary that if he continues to make these allegations against me, I will block him for gross incivility, and that here is the appropriate place for him to bring any complaints he has against me. Since I expect to be asleep by the time his block expires, I wanted to post this now, before any facts get distorted. I believe that Eleemosynary should be article banned from Matt Sanchez, this is a remedy that any administrator can enforce since the page is already under article probation. I further would like to see this block endorsed, and possibly a community ban on Eleemosynary. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
My recollection of the "Digg-post" and Crockspot's RfA: I remember the Crockspot nom, and when the Digg posting went down. At the time the only evidence that they were the same person was that it was the same name, and I think a trivial bit of location info, which I was able to find --on wiki. At the time of Eleemosynary's block, I sent an email to Administrator Isotope, inquiring as to whether there was any off-wiki evidence that he was privy to, but not available to the average wikipedian. He said there was none. It was my impression at the time that someone used his name to stir up extra drama here. And I believe that before he left (?) Crockspot and Eleemosynary were behaving civilly with each other. This lack of acrimony between the 2 of them led me to believe that, at some point, Crockspot decided that Eleemosynary did not make the Digg post either. R. Baley (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's exactly right, R. Baley. Crockspot and I had a very contentious relationship here. But, after contacting me, and (as I recall) checking the timestamps of the posts in question, Crockspot dropped the issue of the fake off-site posting in my Wiki name. The only person who kept that canard going was Swatjester, here, on his off-site blog. (Swatjester could never get away with such an unfounded personal attack on Wikipedia.) I never even voted on Crockspot's RFA because 1) Swatjester blocked me during most of it, and 2) there was no way I could render a neutral judgment.
- During that RFA, a number of admins came to my defense when talk of extending my block -- based, again, on no evidence whatsoever -- came up. However, Swatjester pressed for a significantly longer block, evidence be damned. Thankfully, cooler heads and good faith prevailed, and the block was quickly reversed. But I have to wonder if Swatjester's activities over the past few days are "spillover" from several months ago.
--Eleemosynary (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Eleemosynary has demonstrated aggression on this page before and I remember warning him about incivility. I think Eleemosynary generally means well, but I think he has trouble controlling his temper. Ronnotel (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Probably true. However, I think the same could be said of Swatjester. --Eleemosynary (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
A non-neutral summary from SwatJester?
It seems to me that the principal question in issue here is not the block itself, because SwatJester is not really asking for a review of the block. If SwatJester really wanted a block review, he wouldn't have waited until shortly before the block is to expire to ask. Further, the blcok has already been endorsed by John Vandenberg in a post on Eleemosynary's talk page. What is in issue here is SwatJester's actions, and I am concerned by the summary with SwatJester has offered. Some things I find worrying:
- SwatJester stated that Note, that he was warned after his 4th revert that he violated 3RR. He deleted the warning as "officiousness." I then blocked him for 24 hours for the violation. It is interesting to note that no diff was provided. I wonder if that is because the warning was not that Eleemosynary had already violated 3RR, but that he was in danger of doing so. Now, the full discussion between Eleemosynary and Philippe is not all that constructive (it is preserved on Philippe's talk page), but it does make clear that Philippe believed that Eleemosynary's "next action may result in blocking". SwatJester is correct that Philippe's post was removed as "officiousness" from Eleemosynary's talk page, but I find SwatJester's mischaracterisation of the warning interesting.
- My concern is heightened by that fact that SwatJester knew that no action was taken after the warning. His block notification states that Eleemosynary was "warned of [his] pending 3RR violation". R. Baley pointed out shortly after that Eleemosynary had not edited after the warning, which Swatjester dismissed as irrelevant. SwatJester also noted that Eleemosynary "should have been using the talk page".
- Looking at the talk page for the Matt Sanchez article, there is a thread on the issue, started by Eleemosynary here.
- It takes at least two to make an edit war, and in this case the two parties are Eleemosynary and SatyrTN. As noted by SwatJester, the material on Matt Sanchez as a writer was added around 21 Feb, so either adding or removing it is part of edit warring. Here are the diffs, times, and edit summaries:
- Eleemosynary - 2323 26Feb - [167] - Changed "writer" to "blogger." He's not a writer in the traditionally accepted use of the term (as in, published by something other than a vanity press)
- SatyrTN - 0211 27Feb - [168] - The New Republic isn't a blog, therefore he's also a writer.
- SatyrTN - 0212 27Feb - [169] - +writer
- Eleemosynary - 0428 27Feb - [170] - He's never written for The New Republic. Beauchamp did. Check your facts before you revert.
- Eleemosynary - 0428 27Feb - [171] - fix info box
- SatyrTN - 0436 27Feb - [172] - Sorry - I meant NY Post. Writer.
- Eleemosynary - 0440 27Feb - [173] - He wrote one, single guest column in the New York Post. That does not meet the threshold of a "writing" profession. Please take this to the talk page.
- SatyrTN - 0530 27Feb - [174] - per talk page, please reach consensus
- Note that the edit summaries show an on-going discussion - not in the correct forum - but nonetheless a discussion. If Eleemosynary deserved a block for vilating 3RR, surely SatyrTN violated the same rule. Note also that Eleemosynary initiated the talk page discussion at 0442 27Feb - 2 minutes after editing requesting to take the discussion to the talk page. SatyrTN performed a final revert 48 minutes later, in the same minute as joining the talk page discussion. In such a circumstance, wasn't that reversion provocative?
- Did SawtJester simply not notice the other side of the edit war? It seems unlikely in collecting diffs that he would have missed this fact. SwatJester commented immediately after SatyrTN in the talk page discussion, announcing the block. SatyrTN then thanked SwatJester for acting, and SwatJester didn't even mention SatyrTN's own 3RR violation. It is interesting that SatyrTN asked "Please let me know if I a) overstep or b) understep - I feel like I might be getting too close sometimes, and I feel like I'm too new with the mop to know what and when to clean up. SatyrTN has been editing the Sanchez article, debating sources (on user talk:Benjiboi, for example), and using his admin tools: [175] - a full protection that ended less than a day before this edit war was up and going. Even if SwatJester didn't notice SatyrTN's role in the edit war, shouldn't he have responded to SatyrTN's request with advice to not use admin tools when he has been editing the article? His actual response was an offer to help if needed.
- In the above discussion SwatJester, cites as evidence of hostility that he removed a talk page comment from Matt Sanchez as "remove impotent rantings of utter disgrace". Note that the comments from Matt are abusive - he has called Eleemosynary "a crappy editor", described him as "a total sham masquerading as a legitimate editor", "pathetic", and "a worthless whore", called him "a rabid idiot" contributing "nothing but supercillious commentary" and with "a gay-hate agenda", and stated that he will "probably commit suicide once they throw you off of the article. What else would you have to live for?". All of this is in the last four days. "[I]mpotent rantings of utter disgrace" doesn't seem that unreasonable a summary to me - although I should admit a bias in that Matt called me "unprofessional and childish" and a "fellow traveller" of "homosexuals and sodomites". SwatJester's evidence of Eleemosynary's hostility towards Matt Sanchez based on his decision to remove abuse from his own talk page is pretty thin.
- SwatJester notes that Eleemosynary accused him of editing on behalf of Matt (a banned editor) but interestingly chooses not to mention that Matt asked for help on SwatJester's talk page, nor that Matt asked for Eleemosynary's topic ban: [176] [177]. Since the Sanchez posts were removed by Benjiboi, I can't prove that SwatJester read them - but I can show he edited 10 minutes after Matt's second post was made to SwatJester's talk page, and that benjiboi didn't remove the comments until nearly two hours later. Isn't this a relevant fact given SwatJester is calling for a topic ban?
- In the SwatJester / Eleemosynary talk page interactions during Eleemosynary's talk page, SwatJester states: "If you want to allege harassment, you need to do it in the appropriate forum, which is AN/I" - which is difficult for him to do when he is blocked by SwatJester.
- This is SwatJester's last post on Eleemosynary's talk page. Wasn't SwatJester required to post a notification of this thread for Eleemosynary?
I believe that SwatJester's summary is seriously slanted and leaves out important facts; some of this actions (notably around SatyrTN) are also questionable. Are other admins really comfortable accepting that SwatJester has acted objectively in this matter? Jay*Jay (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The only issue I see here may be a conflict of interest with SwatJester (blocking admin) and John Vandenberg (endorsing admin) per this at Commons and maybe SwatJester's own involvement at the Matt Sanchez article including a previous revert and warning of Eleemosynary. There's other edits at Matt Sanchez as well per SwatJester's contribs. It's just highly unusual that they somehow both seem to be watching Eleemosynary here on WP too. That being said, I don't see any harassment per say by SwatJester but he isn't an "uninvolved" admin and probably shouldn't have been the one to block for 3RR. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have a lot to add to Jay's excellent work above. I hope admins will look at the whole story, and respond accordingly. I would like to add that, judging from Swatjester's final paragraph, what he's after is getting me permanently banned from Wikipedia. He'd also like me banned from the Sanchez article, even though my edits have been constructive. (Despite the reverting between SatyrTN and me, I think one will find I've improved the article.) To lobby for these bans, Swatjester has constructed arguments on this page of half-truths (again, many thanks to Jay for providing the full story.) I would ask that, in the future, Swatjester defer to other, neutral admins if he has a problem with my edits. I think the guy has the capacity to be a good admin, but he's been very contentious of late, and I don't think he's capable of neutrality when it comes to me. --Eleemosynary (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Rynort returns
A while back User:RYNORT ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was indefinitely banned for multiple incidents of massive incivility, personal attacks, and generally reprehensible behavior. A coordinated effort came from 69.244.181.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which was also banned by several admins for the same sorts of behavior. I filed this ANI report back in January regarding some malice from RYNORT, and in this earlier ANI report I pretty much laid out the idiosyncratic behavior that linked the two. This IP has been trolling and making personal attacks, most recently on my talk page. RFCU may be appropriate, but based on the IP's own gross incivility I think the case is made. Thanks for the help. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Slow-motion vandal
138.32.32.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- This IP address is a slow-motion (i.e. not now) vandal with a thing for Gino Vanelli, along with several other articles. There have been multiple warnings, including two level-4s, since a 3-hour block in October, and the IP has recently vandalized again at Vannelli and, two days ago, Barnsdall, Oklahoma. Perhaps a block extending over several days would be noticed and prevent further abuse—unlikely, I know, but obviously the continuing warnings aren't helping to curb the behavior and simply posting more and more level-3 or level-4 warnings starts to become a little silly. (WHOIS shows it in a range owned by ConocoPhillips). -- Michael Devore (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Jumping IP Editor
This editor 76.1.244.185 has been doing some minor disruptive edits to Republican Party (United States) presidential debates, 2008 for some time. He keeps changing the order of the candidates in the list, and does not offer any explanation, even when asked. His IP address varies from day to day. That is the current one. I just gave him another warning. If he is blocked, he'll probably show up tomorrow with a new IP. He does make good, non-vandalism edits to other articles. I don't think it would be beneficial to semi-protect the page, as other unregistered users regularly make good edits to the page. How is this type of thing normally dealt with? Would it be possible for someone to set up a bot that automatically reverts this edit every time it is made? I reported this to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and was referred here, as this is "not a case of obvious vandalism." JBFrenchhorn (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- When you say IP changes do you mean the last 3 digist 76.1.244.*** or completely new IP range? If the last 3 digits change the IP range can be blocked from editing and I would think a topic ban can be instituted the same way. If an editor does good edits to other articles but vandalizes one article or one topic that may be POV problem and we should try to help the editor adjust to our community and become a productive member. Try to incurage the editor to regester an account so they can become a true member of our community. Igor Berger (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess it is a range. The last four digits change. Here are some:
- 76.1.244.185
- 76.1.240.184
- 76.1.244.86
- 76.1.247.99
- 76.1.244.240
- 76.1.243.221
I will follow your suggestion and try to talk to the editor and encourage him to register. From what I have seen so far, it may be hard to get him to talk. But we'll see. Thanks for your help. I'll bring it up again here if I can't resolve it with him. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it does look like it is all coming from the same place. But best to try to encourage the person to become part of community rather than using bans and blocks. Punitive does not really win trust and just creates hatred. Igor Berger (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
BQ
Request full protection of the page until the editors fixation with the self promotion of his user name, and the associated theatrics and melodrama is resolved. 70.19.125.82 (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Try WP:RFPP--Jac16888 (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is pure harassment from a permanently blocked user: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TomPhan. — BQZip01 — talk 14:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Robertkamau85 single-purpose spamming account
Perhaps someone should let him know that Wikipedia links are nofollow? At any rate, a block seems in order, but it's not strictly vandalism, so I brought it here instead of AIV. Thanks! Jouster (whisper) 11:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
David Shankbone is traumatizing notable authors
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
David Shankbone's attitude toward authors who don't like the photos he's taken of them is bossy and bullying. He takes disastrous photos of authors. Taking more unflattering photos could hardly be possible (See Edmund White, A.M. Homes, Francine Prose, Kathryn Harrison, Mary Gaitskill). It's gotten to the point that authors he hasn't assaulted yet with his camera are afraid to go to readings for fear he'll be there, waiting for them. I don't spend much time on Wikipedia, but when I come upon an author's page with a terrible photo, I now know it's been taken by David Shankbone. I became curious about how these authors felt about the photos he'd taken of them, so I went and looked back in the history of a couple of them. First I checked in the history of A.M. Homes, and sure enough, someone tried to take down the Shankbone photo (possibly even A.M. Homes herself or someone close to her), saying it was not a good photo, and he repeatedly put it back. I also looked in the history of Sharyn November, and she herself had an exchange with him on one of their talk pages saying she preferred another photo of herself instead, but he would not let her have her way, and I don't remember the details, but his attitude was unpleasant and bossy. She quickly backed down sweetly. A few days ago I came upon yet another disastrous author photo by David Shankbone and decided to Google his name, because I've been thinking that sooner or later an article will inevitably come out in the print media about authors' frustrations with this offensive photographer. I wanted to see if any articles had been published yet about it. I didn't dig very deeply but did find that on February 18th, 2008, lots of Wikipedia editors wrote about their frustrations with David Shankbone (in a section called: Does Wikipedia want David Shankbone or should we just tell him to leave?), to the point that he promised he'd leave Wikipedia (he shouldn't make promises he won't keep-he didn't even leave for one day, as far as I can see from his list of contributions). All those posts from upset people have been deleted from Wikipedia, but I was able to find them by going into the history of the page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Authors are not the only celebrities Shankbone has upset. I came upon discussions (on Wikipedia) about the actor Mike Farrell, who was upset by the photo Shankbone took of him, but Shankbone insisted his photo stay up on Farrell's page (it has now been replaced by a much better photo taken by someone else). And I'm sure it's happened to countless other “notables”. Many notable authors who are distressed by their photo will just remain quiet and try not to look at their Wikipedia pages, either because they don't know how to take down photos and post messages on Wikipedia, or because they fear that fighting David Shankbone will be futile and will only increase their distress. Authors are often shy and insecure about their physical appearance. Why make it worse? And why be stubborn and nasty about it to the few authors who do muster up the courage to request that an unflattering photo be taken down? As with any contributor to Wikipedia, David Shankbone should have no right to assert that his photos take precedence over the photos of others, especially when more appropriate pictures are available and copyright free. He claims that he has allowed better pictures to take the place of his, but this is clearly not true in many instances, given the way he fights to retain his pictures even in instances when any reasonable third party observer would agree that another picture is either better or more appropriate for the article. David Shankbone might be using Wikipedia to try and make a career for himself, and maybe that's okay, but he's hurting a lot of people along the way. I am an author, with a few published books, and there is a page on me on Wikipedia. That's why I care about this issue. I'm appalled at what David Shankbone is doing to authors. As I don't know the best place to post this message, I'm posting it in three places: David Shankbone's talk page, Jimbo Wales' talk page, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Anonymous 374 (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC) |
- Long personal attack multiple-posted (from an editor hiding behind a different account) compressed. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is there anything of substance to the statement? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've certainly encountered situations where David edited vigorously to keep an image of his that was, on even casual inspection, markedly inferior to the alternatives into an article (most recent example I'm aware of: [178] [179]). Extending good faith to David, there are also times when he has reverted to his images when they are superior (eg, here). My experiences with him in this regard -- well documented here on AN/I -- is that he is not terribly detached when it comes to evaluating his own work, and is fairly quick to attribute bad faith to editors who are simply trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I can certainly see how a less tenacious editor might be intimidated by this. I have no comment on the issue of authors being unhappy with photos taken of them by him, because I haven't been involved in any of those discussions. David is a valuable contributor with thousands of high quality photos here, but I don't think that those contributions entitle him to any presumption of quality for any specific photo, any more than those of us who have written thousands of words deserve to have our words protected from good faith editing by others. Nandesuka (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is there anything of substance to the statement? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am the anon IP responsible for addressing Shankbone's edits at the Michael Lucas (porn star) article and elsewhere. I have posted my concerns at more than one forum. I am not the editor Anonymous 374 who posted above, and I believe his/her post above was archived hastily and peremptorily. As far as Shankbone is concerned: I have observed a pattern whereby he will introduce his own work, images, into articles without announcement or request for consensus, then fight mightily when he's challenged on those additions, see the Orthodox Judaism article. Also, he will delete others' work, images, without requesting consensus for removal, see the Empire State Building article and the Chihuahua (dog) article, but he will excoriate others if they do the same thing. He has taken photos of alleged documents belonging to Michael Lucas [180],[181],[182] and slapped those images on the talk page of the article. The photos have yet to be verified for accuracy or provenance through OTRS, yet this photo[183] has been distributed at other articles as truly representative of what it claims to be, a Soviet (Russian) birth certificate, even though that has not been verified. He enjoys strong support from other LGBT editors; any legitimate challenge to him or addressing his impropriety, especially in gay-themed or gay-related articles, can be quickly thwarted by their monitoring, presence, and numbers.--72.76.3.104 (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Disregard for blocking policy
On the 28th of January, I was blocked [184] by William M. Connolley, with whom I was involved in a content dispute at the time. I pointed out [185] that he had breached blocking policy, specifically:
"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved."
On the 5th of February, I asked for an undertaking that this breach would not be repeated, and then on the 8th I asked again. I'm still waiting. This is the second time I've become involved in a content dispute with a block-happy administrator, and it's not getting any more pleasant.
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you don't want it to happen again, I suggest you cease inserting content without sourcing, and heed administrator warnings. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- William M. Connolley did not breach the blocking policy and was not involved in a content dispute with you. Just because an admin reverts you does not automatically make you untouchable. You were blocked because you continued to repeatedly revert and insert unreferenced text despite having been warned several times. Nothing wrong here. Shell babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. This request is ridiculous. Shell babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- William M. Connolley did not breach the blocking policy and was not involved in a content dispute with you. Just because an admin reverts you does not automatically make you untouchable. You were blocked because you continued to repeatedly revert and insert unreferenced text despite having been warned several times. Nothing wrong here. Shell babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Melon ?
greetings. This is totally unrelated to Scolas, but :
I just remarked a bunch of accounts created pretty closely : user:F MELON, user:THE DELETER MELON, User:VandalMelon, User:Free as a melon, all created within 15 minutes. They've not been used yet.
If you have a multiaccount vandal using that kindof names, it's your man.
Darkoneko (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- User:EPIC MASTER maybe? He likes using lots of themed vandal accounts created at once. Hut 8.5 17:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Racist fork
- deleted by KillerChihuahua Shell babelfish 13:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Pratul19 has created a racist fork of Andrew Symonds at Monkey symonds. Symonds was racially abused under the name, can someone quickly flush this disgusting piece of trash (and BLP hotspot) and show our racist friend the door? --Fredrick day (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
SPA User: Anthon01 and similar accounts on homeopathy and WP:FRINGE alternative medicine articles
A long standing discussion on the homeopathy talk page about the meaning of WP:NPOV has now spilled over to the talk page of Neutral Point of View itself: [186], for example. I went there to try to explain further NPOV as requested: [187], as best as I understand it. However, part of the difficulty is that these SPAs (or near-SPAs): User:Anthon01, User:Whig and User: Levine2112 have become adept at gaming the system and wikilawyering and charging that any disagreement with them is violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, so techniques that could have been used in the past, like disagreement and confrontation, are no longer useful and in fact quite dangerous. So after realizing that I could not explain NPOV to them (after trying for 6 months or more and dozens if not hundreds of times), I gave up and told them I would not further oppose them or disagree with them (given the current environment on Wikipedia where disagreement over such issues with WP:FRINGE elements is discouraged): [188][189] I repeatedly invited them to suggest new wording for NPOV or the homeopathy related documents as they saw fit: [190].
I did this since disagreeing with these SPAs is used as an excuse by these SPAs to charge an editor with violations of all kinds of WP policy. However, even when I said I would no longer disagree, I was still charged with violations of WP policy. User: Anthon01 and the related SPAs involved have now accused me of violating WP:COI, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL: [191][192]. It would be helpful if someone would offer some advice, since we are no longer allowed to disagree, even politely, with POV pushers and WP:FRINGE elements. And now even declining to continue to disagree is viewed as a violation of WP policy by these SPAs. So what are we supposed to do?--Filll (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC) I would also include User:DanaUllman as another of the SPAs, although this is highly dangerous to suggest since he is under administrative protection from any and all charges of misbehavior, although he has engaged in some outrageously disruptive behavior on these articles over and over and over.--Filll (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration with civility seeming to be valued over NPOV contributions - and I admit that I don't have the solution to that - but I have to say that you're not really telling the whole story, here. Your repeated response of "Unfortunately we have to abide by the principles of NPOV. I am afraid some of what I am reading here on this talk page is in direct opposition to the rules and principles of Wikipedia. Please realize that there must be a good strong dose of mainstream content in this article, whether some like it or not. Thanks." could probably be seen as stonewalling. Aside from that, I don't see any problems with your activity on the talk page. I do think some of your comments are a little melodramatic, though; are you aware of any editors being sanctioned for civil disagreement?
- As a more general warning to the community, I have to say that we need to somehow make sure that WP:NPOV is being valued on as high a level as WP:CIVIL, because the actions of the editors to whom Filll refers above and others like them - all of whom I believe are acting in good faith - are presenting a very real threat to the quality of Wikipedia's articles on pseudoscience. I think we need to take notice of that before too many more contributors are driven off. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I repeated myself by cutting and pasting because it became too tedious to rephrase the answer after answering the 500th time in slightly different wording. With all due respect, what I take from your response is that we should abandon NPOV. Ok, fair enough. I should expect to see the policy pages rewritten accordingly then?--Filll (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- What you should take from my response is that I am in wholehearted agreement with you that we need to make it harder for SPAs to attack NPOV in a good faith manner, but that I'm frankly bereft of useful proposals in this regard. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
are you aware of any editors being sanctioned for civil disagreement? The slightest disagreement or hint of problem is used as an excuse from these SPAs and POV pushers to charge someone with a violation. Some days ago, even calling someone a "homepathy promoter" was used as an excuse to demand administrative sanctions against some editors (more than once) and this received considerable support including from admimistrators. It was only though extraordinary means that this complaint was thwarted otherwise there would have been administrative sanctions for using the foul uncivil curse of "homeopathy promoter". And since then, things have escalated where even milder affronts have lead to charges of uncivility and violations of WP:AGF. What is happening is that in the frantic efforts of the community to remove all disagreement and incivility, you are handing an immense set of weapons to POV pushers and socks and SPAs and trolls. So be it. You want this, you got it.--Filll (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- But no actual sanctions were handed out, correct? This is why I find your assertions that answering people's questions is "dangerous" a little hollow: nobody's been sanctioned for civil disagreement.
- That aside, though, I agree with you that we need to find a way to enforce WP:NPOV as diligently as we enforce WP:CIVIL. Unfortunately, enforcement is done by uninvolved admins, and, while it's really easy for an uninvolved admin to swoop in and recognize civility violations, it's much more difficult for one to recognize POV-pushing, especially good faith POV-pushing as is going on there.
- I hung around Talk:Homeopathy for a while some time ago, in the hopes of finding a core of moderates on both sides who could work out content disputes while isolating the extremists on each side. I found several such moderates on the science side. I found none on the pseudoscience side. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- One problem is that uninvolved admins are not a renewable resource. Consider this: If I notice an edit conflict, I will read the arguments and form an opinion. I can then either hand out blocks out of the blue sky, or I explain my opinion and warn the parties - ups...now I'm suddenly an involved party. In many of these discussions, especially on the science/pseudoscience border, most educated and sane neutral observers will choose a side and stop being uninvolved. For an excellent example, see talk: Waterboarding, where one editor has complained (paraphrased) that "all admins who come to this page support one side! We need a neutral admin to handle the issue!"--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am acutely aware of that problem, and indeed it's more or less why I'm not handing out any article bans. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- One problem is that uninvolved admins are not a renewable resource. Consider this: If I notice an edit conflict, I will read the arguments and form an opinion. I can then either hand out blocks out of the blue sky, or I explain my opinion and warn the parties - ups...now I'm suddenly an involved party. In many of these discussions, especially on the science/pseudoscience border, most educated and sane neutral observers will choose a side and stop being uninvolved. For an excellent example, see talk: Waterboarding, where one editor has complained (paraphrased) that "all admins who come to this page support one side! We need a neutral admin to handle the issue!"--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see what you mean. Yes User: Whig has been sanctioned more than once. User: Anthon01 as well I believe. User: DanaUllman has as well. Some others have as well. Some others are listed here. --Filll (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
These spurious accusations of incivility are a serious problem. Anthon01 has hit me with these several times. When called to account he apologizes[193] but the sincerity of his apology is undermined by the fact that he keeps on doing it.
This behavior is damaging in several ways. It inhibits debate because (as Filll says) one never knows when honest and civil disagreement will bring a charge of incivility. Even if there ultimately is no sanction, it's draining to have to respond to the accusations. But far more importantly it undermines respect for WP:CIV as a policy when people see it being used speciously as a way to hound others. Editors have learned that flinging meritless accusations of WP:CIV wears down their opponent and carries no cost to themselves. We need to stop that.
Again, this is not about civil behavior, which I fully support. It's about gaming WP:CIV through a constant drip-drip-drip of empty accusations. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have not receive any mention on my talk page that I am being discussed. I will make comments later. Anthon01 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is one big pile of unrelated users with similar POVs on the subject of homeopathy in particular and alt med in general: Whig (talk · contribs), Anthon01 (talk · contribs), Peter morrell (talk · contribs), DanaUllman (talk · contribs), and so on. Going further afield, we find more users with eccentric beliefs as far as science is concerned, such as Martinphi (talk · contribs).
I would suggest that the first batch of these are classic tendentious editors. I haven't looked at Martinphi's contributions recently, so no comment there. Singly, these chaps aren't too hard to cope with: their incessant POV-pushing is relatively harmless, as you can see by the result of Dana Ullman's brief attempts to insert homeopathy into Beethoven; as a group there is more of a problem. I actually don't have an easy solution here. Whig and Peter morrell should have been banned long ago, or at least topic-banned, but the truth is Wikipedia has no easy way of coping with the user who pushes one POV all the time in a civil manner. Moreschi (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Pegasus Speedy deletions
- In fact he is deleting many articles, in this way. He should use speedy button more wisely. --- A. L. M. 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- If an article cannot meet Wikipedia notability as set per guidelines it maybe deleted eventhough you contested the deletion request. Please read WP:notability and try making the article in your sandbox User:ALM_scientist/sanbox before atempting to take it live to mainspace. You may also want to consult an admin before bringing live in order to insure the article is ready for mainspace. Igor Berger (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Article has not been deleted as CSD#A7 has been withdrawn. Article needs fleshing out a bit, but notability is asserted. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have looked at the article you created Asad Abidi and I will recommend it for speedy deletion myself. Wikipedia is not a place to promote people or things. Igor Berger (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- User:Rodhullandemu disagree with you and I think anyone who knows about what IEEE Fellow means will disagree too with you. You are welcome to nominate it for deletion but no need to be speedy (when under contest). --- A. L. M. 15:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Either you need to rewrite your WP:PROF or keep the article there. What IEEE fellow means is following.
The grade of Fellow recognizes unusual distinction in the profession, and is conferred by invitation of the Board of Directors to members of outstanding and extraordinary qualifications and experience in IEEE-designated fields, and who have made important individual contributions to one or more of these fields. Every year, less than 1 member in a thousand can be promoted to Fellow. On January 1, 2007 there were 5,777 IEEE Fellows [14] These members include Fellow candidates that are selected by the IEEE Fellow committee [15] In 2007, 268 "Senior Members" were promoted to Fellows ... --- A. L. M. 15:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is deleted again speedily. This time they were fast. They even does not give time to contest. The tag appears only for 1 minutes. Wikipedia is improving. --- A. L. M. 15:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- You need to make references to his work to meet the WP:PROF. Please try building an article in your sanbox to meet the WP:BLP and WP:PROF guidelines. Igor Berger (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I do not give a shit. Bye bye. -- A. L. M. 15:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) If there was a contested speedy, and that speedy nom was withdrawn, and the original editor has stated he is working on it and notability has been asserted as per Rodhullandemu above, I don't think it is acceptable to re nom for speedy so hastily. DuncanHill (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree, Fellowship of the IEEE is an assertion of notability, see IEEE_Fellow#Fellow_Grade. The article is still there, however, and it should be PROD'ded if necessary. We should not be annoying decent editors with this misunderstanding of specialist notability. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the speedy deletion, per JD554's reasoning. Now it's up to A.L.M. to improve the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Surely it's up to the community to improve it, or are we conceding ownership? DuncanHill (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I also left a note to the editor to the effect of building the article process. Igor Berger (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, an AfD notice has now been added to the article by a third party. DuncanHill (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Suspicious sock activity
Hi guys, I have a quandary that I would like some opinions on. User:Creamy3, User:Creamy4 and User:Creamy11... Creamy4 was "creamed" ('Scuse the pun) for vandalism and personal attacks by User:Bearian (12 hour block) and Creamy3 made a wiki-project entitled "Creamy Army Wikiproject". Their userpages are all very similiar; they have the same set up of biographies about themselves and they all seem to be involved in the Wikiproject films. They all state to be from Oregon... are they different people or are they socks? I know Creamy4 is definitely on the road to be a vandalism only account... bah, I don't know... Any ideas? Thoughts? ScarianCall me Pat 16:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- If the Quacking's not loud enough for you, try WP:RFCU. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I left them all notes about being constructive, I doubt they are the same person. John Reaves 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- John Reaves seems right - they're probably a group of friends. Judging from User:Creamy3/Creamy Army, there's a bit of an issue with social networking that might be going on. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've just warned Creamy3 for making a quip ([194]) at User:Scientizzle about that failed AfD. And yes, upon closer inspection they do look like just a bunch of friends... they're treading the line finely though... ScarianCall me Pat 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I've done the bold thing and created Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which was the last core/major policy whose implications seem to get fought over all the time and lead to no small number of edit wars. Lawrence § t/e 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Possibly bogus/vandal edits
Could someone please check the contributions of the following:
- ArmadilloPadding (talk · contribs)
- LetsDoThisRight (talk · contribs)
- Spirikitik (talk · contribs)
- SeekFind (talk · contribs)
- Mfriedrich9 (talk · contribs)
- JMVanDyk (talk · contribs)
- Jimtrue (talk · contribs)
Thanks. Thatcher 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Marion Giant 1999
In the history section of the Marion, Indiana article, a passage describing lynchings that occurred in the 1930s has been repeatedly cut by User:Marion Giant 1999 on the grounds that it reflects badly on the community. I've mentioned on his talk page that, though I understand his concern, this isn't sufficient grounds for removing content, and have encouraged him to discuss the issue with other users on the town's talk page and see if some editing might satisfy his objections. Unfortunately he hasn't shown any willingness to cooperate — he deleted a request for comment from the town's talk page, and states here that he still considers that the section constitutes a smear against the town and intends to keep deleting it (presumably no matter what). Any suggestions on how to proceed? Thanks! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)