→E.O. Green School shooting again, help please: Grayish, but the Right Thing was black and white. |
Caspian blue (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 248: | Line 248: | ||
:In your dictionary, stalking is a just fun and worthwhile job? You should change your book. At least have a shame on your misconduct.--[[User:Appletrees|Appletrees]] ([[User talk:Appletrees|talk]]) 05:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC) |
:In your dictionary, stalking is a just fun and worthwhile job? You should change your book. At least have a shame on your misconduct.--[[User:Appletrees|Appletrees]] ([[User talk:Appletrees|talk]]) 05:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
===[[User:Nanshu]]'s dubious behaviors=== |
|||
Although Nanshu and Endroit have strongly denied their relation with [[2channel]], famous Japanese bulletin board. However, Nanshu had not edit English or Japanese Wikipedia for 2 months, but suddenly came to warn [[User:LordAmeth]] of not listening to Korean's saying and ignoring 2channel meatpuppetry at [[Talk:Sea of Japan]] poll fraud which is very weird. He appears to be always on center of controversial disputes with questionable behaviors as well. To the contrary of Nanshu's argument, I identify Nanshu on the 2channel. His reports at the two place happened around 9 pm in Japanese time. See the green letters. (Japanese time is 9 hours faster than UTC) http://mobile.seisyun.net/cgi/read.cgi/society6/society6_korea_1198939173/ |
|||
{|class="wikitable" |
|||
!width="350px"|Original text from [[2channel]][http://mobile.seisyun.net/cgi/read.cgi/society6/society6_korea_1198939173/] |
|||
!width="350px"|Translation |
|||
|- |
|||
| |
|||
* 558 2008/02/29 10:39:42 ID:H/sTmUhZ |
|||
cuのリクの濫用ってどこに投げればいいの?<br> |
|||
checkuserの人じゃなくて。 |
|||
| |
|||
Where would be a good place for reporting abuses on Checkuser?<br> |
|||
Not checkusers. |
|||
|- |
|||
| |
|||
* 563 2008/02/29(金) 23:22:14 ID:7o+C4DiI |
|||
>558 アドミンのーてぃ酢ボードでしょ。 |
|||
| |
|||
>558Incident board of Administrator |
|||
|- |
|||
| |
|||
* <font color="green">566 2008/03/01(土) 09:58:08 ID:wuGmOPRW |
|||
>563 投げてみた。計画なく動いてるんで<br> |
|||
この先どうするか考えてない</font> |
|||
| |
|||
><font color="green">563 I throw it (reported it). I did without any plan and haven't think about how to do with the case further.</font>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=195014553][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=195084039] |
|||
|} |
|||
{{User|Engage31}}, a sock account, or friend of {{User|Endroit}} and {{User|Saintjust}}/{{User|Hermeneus}} from 2channel visited to [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise]]'s talk page with this obvious sock account. The sock wrote '''ex post facto rationalization''' which is rarely used by non native English speaker unless they are related to the area. Hermenus/Saintjust are very knowledgeable of political philosophy according to talk page info. I googled it and the only result I got is not surprisingly, Nanshu also did get involved in the dispute with {{User|Poo-T}} and Hermeneus.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Responses_of_Germany_and_Japan_to_World_War_II_crimes&diff=next&oldid=3727440] |
|||
If any checkuser looks into Engage31 and the possible "friends" at the same time, I think the possible relation of their meat or sockpuppetry can be confirmed. --[[User:Appletrees|Appletrees]] ([[User talk:Appletrees|talk]]) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Chosenjin's Wikipedia : fight against the fabrication 20=== |
|||
I translated ''small'' part of one thread which has information about their blatant meatpuppetry and filled with personal attacks on any editors who are not pro-Japanese side. So look into the contents in the table. |
|||
{|class="wikitable collapsed collapsible" width="100%" |
|||
|+[http://mobile.seisyun.net/cgi/read.cgi/society6/society6_korea_1194048623/ Chosenjin's Wikipedia : fight against the fabrication 20] [http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmobile.seisyun.net%2Fcgi%2Fread.cgi%2Fsociety6%2Fsociety6_korea_1194048623%2F (English)]<br> |
|||
朝鮮人のWikipedia(ウィキペディア)捏造に対抗せよ 20 |
|||
|- |
|||
!width="40%"|Original text |
|||
!width="40%"|Translation |
|||
!width="20%"|Engagements |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 12 [[2007-11-03]] 20:08:00 ID:XvglGUjx |
|||
Ethnic issues in Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br> |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_issues_in_Japan |
|||
「日本の民族問題」の英語版なんですが Korean people セクションで 540万人の韓国人が強制連行され、21〜87万人が満州・サハリンでの強制労働で死亡した、と記述されてます。<br> |
|||
一応報告まで |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
The English version of Ethnic issues in Japan but at the section of Korea people. |
|||
540million people were forced to labor and 21~ 87 million people were dead in Manturia and Sahalin for the hard labor.<br> |
|||
For the record in advance. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
{{la|Ethnic issues in Japan}}<br> |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 13 [[2007-11-03]] 21:05:52 ID:hgfJzbnO |
|||
>>12 According to the calculation of <nowiki>[[R.J.Rummel]]</nowiki>, と情報源を明示しておいた。<br> |
|||
ほかに情報源が無いから手が出せない |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>12 I add the sentence and source "According to the calculation of <nowiki>[[R.J.Rummel]]</nowiki>"<br> |
|||
I don't have more sources, so can't edit it. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_issues_in_Japan&diff=168928505&oldid=168912744 220.212.98.227] |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 17 [[2007-11-03]] 22:53:20 ID:R2eAmp+T |
|||
Eugenicsの件、ポイントがサッパリ分からんのだが、1〜2ページ |
|||
で概要つかめるまとめみたいなのはないの? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
While I don't know anything about the point of Eugenics, |
|||
Is there an extract to summarize in 1~2 pages? |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
*24 [[2007-11-04]] 02:29:20 ID:l69rWhej |
|||
>>17 Flying-Tygerはこう書いた |
|||
The purposes of this law are to prevent the birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point of view, and to protect the life and health of the mother as well ← ココ重要 |
|||
「母体の健康を保護する目的」っていうのを丸ごと削除して引用している。 |
|||
それから、戦前の国民優生法が定義した範囲は、遺伝性疾患(mental retardation)のみなのに、mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions と拡張している。(これは戦後の優生保護法の適用範囲) |
|||
なんで、こんな滅茶苦茶な資料の引用したのかを聞いているのだが、Flying-Tygerではなく、ZayZayEM というユーザーが 「失礼な書き込みだ」「あなたが母体保護について追記したいなら追記すればいい」などと回答して、Flying-Tygerは沈黙。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>17 {{User|Flying tiger}} wrote his statement. |
|||
The purposes of this law are to prevent the birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point of view, and to protect the life and health of the mother as well ← important |
|||
He concealed "and to protect the life and health of the mother as well". and emphasized inferior. |
|||
"while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions..." is also wrong. |
|||
Source #1 is written, Only "hereditary disorder (遺伝性疾患)". |
|||
Source #2 is written, "or hereditary malformation, or the spouse suffers from mental disease or mental disability". However, this is an explanation of The Eugenic Protection Law approved in 1948.<sub>copied from Azukimonaka's comment</sub> |
|||
I asked why this absurd citation like betting on drinking tea, {{User|ZayZayEm}} said that your asking is a uncivil comment instead of Flying tiger, and if you want to add the protection of the mother, you can add the info.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&diff=next&oldid=168949395] And Flying tiger was silent on that.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&diff=prev&oldid=168949395] |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
{{la|Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan}} |
|||
Involved Japanese editor in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&limit=500&action=history meditation]<br> |
|||
{{User|Azukimonaka}}<br> |
|||
{{User|Nanshu}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&diff=169343713&oldid=169201305][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&diff=169496146&oldid=169427001][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&diff=172271422&oldid=172040424]<br> |
|||
{{User|Saintjust}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&diff=170286438&oldid=170257049][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&diff=170288571&oldid=170286835][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&diff=170289193&oldid=170288571][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&diff=170295859&oldid=170289193][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&diff=170513423&oldid=170513297][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&diff=170513845&oldid=170513423][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&diff=171660033&oldid=171658181][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&diff=172340479&oldid=172325118][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&diff=172340948&oldid=172340479]<br> |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&diff=next&oldid=168885175]<br> |
|||
{{User|61.202.37.174}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan&diff=172306618&oldid=172280621] |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 35 [[2007-11-04]] 16:35:29 ID:TUZQpiio |
|||
>>27 それじゃあ、お話になりませんなあ。<br> |
|||
どうも、虎じゃないほうが癌のような気がする。<br> |
|||
論点のはぐらかしばかりして。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>27 Then, ah.. that doesn't add up.<br> |
|||
Indeed, someone who is not Flying tiger seems to intend like a cancer does<br> |
|||
I should turn the subject matter |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 36 [[2007-11-04]] 16:46:06 ID:xJdbXOfN |
|||
>>27>>36 |
|||
きちんとよんでないけど、まず虎とそれ以外のソックを疑うべきでは? |
|||
CUはアルビでは必須だっけか? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
I didn't carefully read, but first, how about suspecting Flying tiger and other possible socks of him? Is checkuser mandatory for Arbicom? |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 38 [[2007-11-04]] 22:32:28 ID:P9YsgV8E |
|||
あずきよ、あんまりカッカして虎のペースでメイン記事のリバート合戦はいかんぞよ。 |
|||
むしろ、虎は必ずリバートする典型的コリアンだから、ノートなり、メディエーション |
|||
なりで「見てください!この虎のリバートのひどさを!!」ってやった方が有利だぞ。 |
|||
一生懸命ノートで議論しようとしてるのに、虎は合意に達していないのに強引に |
|||
リバートしてる、って構図を作らんと。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
[[User:Azukimonaka|Azuki]], you tend to fly into a rage, so how you would keep up with Flying tiger's pace when you two face edit war? |
|||
Instead, Tiger is a typical Korean who always reverts, so it would be advantageous if you leave a note, or point out on how serious Tiger's reverting at the meditation page. While you try to discuss the matter at the talk and a consensus is not reached, Tiger could not unilaterally revert edits. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 39 [[2007-11-04]] 22:40:33 ID:hChJY74l |
|||
そうね。メイン記事はとりあえずここに通報して誰か有志が |
|||
対処してくれるのに任せた方がいいね、当分は。 |
|||
で、聞くけど、今の優生学の日本関係の記事は何が問題? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
I see. Post the main article at here for a while, in case I would rely on someone managing it. And can ask what a problem is with the article of [[Eugenics in Showa Japan]]? |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 41 [[2007-11-04]] 23:22:55 ID:LpCJnwjG |
|||
>40 |
|||
問題点はなるべく単純にした方がいいぞ。<br> |
|||
ともかく、ソースにのっとって書いてないんなら、ソースと虎の投稿Diff<br> |
|||
を並べて、「どうして違うんだ?」という点をおおげさに追求汁 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Simply summarizing problems is better for argument. <br> |
|||
Anyway, if the other does not write his wording based on sources, you can post the sources and Tiger's diffs, and exaggerate and point out "How is it so different?". |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 56 [[2007-11-05]] 22:45:48 ID:+8Fnc2xj |
|||
昭和の優生学に気をとられていたら、メロン爆弾が[[So Far from the Bamboo Grove]]にちょっかいを出してきてるね。 |
|||
コリアンは油断すると沸いてくるなぁ… |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
While I've been focusing on [[Eugenics in Showa Japan]], Melon bomb ([[User:Melonbarmonster]]) starts intervening [[So Far from the Bamboo Grove]]. |
|||
Koreans keep coming when I'm off my guard! |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 109 [[2007-11-11]] 17:48:51 ID:PYUzPziA |
|||
飛ぶ虎が[[Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere]](大東亜共栄圏)の大幅改修にとりかかってるけど |
|||
[[Eugenics in Showa Japan]]の議論は終わったの? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
I set a huge revision of Flying tigers edit on [[Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere]], is the discussion on [[Eugenics in Showa Japan]] over? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_East_Asia_Co-Prosperity_Sphere&diff=170713286&oldid=170592296 211.3.120.150] |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 110 [[2007-11-11]] 19:18:02 ID:g1W4h15y |
|||
メディエーションの仕組みがよう分からんから、なんとも<br> |
|||
言えないけどたぶん終わっていないと思う。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
You don't know about the meditation process, indeed.<br> |
|||
I think it would not end simply |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 111 [[2007-11-11]] 19:51:25 ID:t1n6nfTB |
|||
ついに果物まで…… |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Korean_fruits |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Finally to fruits.... |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Korean_fruits |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
See the whole contribution" |
|||
{{User|211.3.120.150}}<br> |
|||
{{User|220.212.97.129}}<br> |
|||
{{User|220.212.101.192}}<br> |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 112 [[2007-11-11]] 20:11:54 ID:daYoQVoP |
|||
>>112 直リンク貼るとかえって行き難い件。 |
|||
でもこれはカテゴリ削除議論が効きそうな気もするなあ。 |
|||
イランのフルーツという前例はあるけれど、余程の固有種でも |
|||
ない限り各国別に分けるのはナンセンスなような。 |
|||
カテゴリに含まれる記事数も、それほどないだろうし…。(´Д⊂ヽ |
|||
#ちなみに、朝鮮塩辛が香具師の手により日帝の支配下から独立してます。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>112 This matter is a difficult case to go back to which links are directly linked. |
|||
However, the discussion for deletion of the category seems to work. As far as I've know, the only case categorized by country was Iranian fruits. However unless very unique fruit, Korean fruits that are not even indigenous, so the category is ridiculous. It don't have enough articles as well. and... |
|||
By the way, [[jeotgal]] is segregated from Japanese imperial control.[http://ko.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%EC%8B%9C%EC%98%A4%EC%B9%B4%EB%9D%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1270233 Applebee] |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
[[:ko:젓갈]], [[:ko:시오카라]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 114 [[2007-11-12]] 05:59:00 ID:4emS+IOs |
|||
[[So Far from the Bamboo Grove]] (ヨーコの話) にメロンがはりついてるね |
|||
歴史修正主義<br> |
|||
嫌韓 |
|||
のカテゴリに分けろとか、韓国に都合の悪い部分の削除とか、色々としてきてる |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Melon aggressively tags [[So Far from the Bamboo Grove]] (Story of Yoko)<br> |
|||
History revisionist <br> |
|||
Anti-Korean sentiment |
|||
with this divided categories and deletes anti-Korean side, or do something various. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 116 [[2007-11-12]] 21:44:09 ID:4emS+IOs |
|||
>>112-113 とりあえず「韓国の果実」だけを追加した理由をトークページに書いてくれとリバートした。 |
|||
>>115 [[So Far from the Bamboo Grove]]については、「反韓感情」や「歴史修正主義」の根拠を示せって |
|||
議論ページに書いても平気かね? ヤブヘビにならなきゃいいが |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>112-113 As I demanded "Write the reason why the Korean fruits category should be included in the articles at the talk page first, then I reverted --> {{User|211.3.113.222}} |
|||
>>115 As for [[So Far from the Bamboo Grove]], doesn't he even care If I demand the ground for including cthe ategories, Anti-Korean sentiment and History revisionist |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 13#Category:Korean fruits|WP:CFD#Category:Korean fruits]] |
|||
{{User|Saintjust}} nominatior |
|||
{{User|Kusunose}}<br> |
|||
{{User|Watermint}}<br> |
|||
{{User|Sennen goroshi}}<br> |
|||
{{User|211.3.120.150}}<br> |
|||
{{User|61.202.37.174}}<br> |
|||
{{User|211.3.113.222}}<br> |
|||
{{User|220.212.97.129}}<br> |
|||
{{User|220.212.101.192}}<br> |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 117 [[2007-11-12]] 23:24:17 ID:HzUmYtHa |
|||
あれ、馬駄蟹は食い物専属だと思ってたが…ああ、履歴追跡して |
|||
流れてきたのね。何やってんだか。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Look, {{user|Badagnani}} is exclusively involved in cuisine. Ah, trace his contributions!<br> |
|||
He's making edit warring, what is he doing? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 124 [[2007-11-14]] 02:58:50 ID:p8wYyJNk |
|||
英語版の梨が学名に改名されたけど、英語版って学名を優先する規則でもあるのかな。<br> |
|||
ナシで通ってるならナシが普通だと思うけど。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
On English Wikipedia, pear is named as [[Pyrus_pyrifolia]], does English Wiki have a rule to have preference of its binominal name? |
|||
If nashi is used, I think nashi is a common name |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 126 [[2007-11-14]] 03:05:59 ID:nanqkawt |
|||
>>125 Asian PearかKorean Pearが多い。個人的にNashiは見たこと無い。<br> |
|||
学名に飛ぶのは結構多いね。NPOVにしやすいからかな。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>125 There are named as Asian pear or Korean pear a lot. I personally have not seen it named as nashi. Many fruit articles in Wiki are titled by their bionominal name because that is easily accessible to NPOV |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 127 [[2007-11-14]] 06:02:38 ID:XbRCilCx |
|||
>>117 リバート合戦になってるぞ。明らかに、あっちの理由はおかしいがな…… |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>117It has become the edit battling. Clearly, Badagnani would have no good reason for reverting... |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 129 [[2007-11-14]] 07:52:02 ID:kPsB6tcs |
|||
>>127 アメリカ北東部だけど、AsianかJapanese Pearしか見たことない。<br> |
|||
Korean Pearなんてどこの地域? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
I live in northeast of the US, but have only seen either Asian or Japanese pear here<br> |
|||
Which part can Korean pear be seen? |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
*130 [[2007-11-14]] 10:59:46 ID:P00RcEY/ |
|||
"Korean Pear" の検索結果 約 874 件中 1 - 100 件目<br> |
|||
"Japanese Pear" の検索結果 約 74,500 件中 1 - 100 件目 |
|||
ID:nanqkawtはこの前からいるプチコリアンナショナルリストだろ。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Results by "Korean pear" 1- 100 of 874<br> |
|||
Results by "Japanese pear" 1- 100 of 74500 |
|||
ID Badagnani has been in Wikipedia long time ago, might be a Korean nationalist. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 131 [[2007-11-14]] 11:00:42 ID:P00RcEY/ |
|||
"Asian Pear" の検索結果 約 184,000 件中 1 - 100 件目 |
|||
アジアンが一番多いね。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
The results by "Asian Pear" are 1- 100 of 184,000 |
|||
"Asian Pear" are the most prevailed name among them. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 132 [[2007-11-14]] 12:19:59 ID:qZ4lfdOr |
|||
ググるよりも、文献あたったほうがいいかも。<br> |
|||
ブックサーチとかで調べてみたら? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
It would be better searching books. <br> |
|||
How about book search? |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 133 [[2007-11-14]] 12:33:47 ID:P00RcEY/ |
|||
>>133 google testってウィキでは一般的方法なんだよ。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>133 google test is a common method. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 135 [[2007-11-14]] 13:50:41 ID:nanqkawt] |
|||
>>130 うちも北東部。ちょい内陸で日系スーパーは無いところ。韓国系は(どこにでも)あるw |
|||
Korean Pearは中国スーパーで売ってる。そこではJapanese Pearも見たこと無いなあ。<br> |
|||
どう見ても豊水にしか見えないんだけど。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
I also live in a little far northeast of the US where has no japanese supermarket. Korean pear is sold at Chinese supermarket, but no Japanese pear. |
|||
Or only Hosui cultivar is seen. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 138 [[2007-11-16]] (金) 00:59:04 ID:uOsr32zF] |
|||
報復依頼w |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* Request for revenge. w |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 139 [[2007-11-16]] (金) 04:20:39 ID:pxAR57OK] |
|||
梅だの柚子だのって本当に韓国のフルーツなのか? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Ume and Yuzu are really Korean fruits? |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 140 [[2007-11-16]] (金) 20:37:07 ID:Q87QiP4e] |
|||
何をもって「の」とするかが定義不能だけど、食ってるのは確か。 |
|||
柚子茶とか有名かな。 |
|||
まあ、宗主国様のサブセットだし。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
By what definition is unidentified , they certainly eat them<br> |
|||
such as Yujacha, is it famous? |
|||
Well, it is only a subset of the suzerain. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 144 [[2007-11-16]] (金) 22:26:52 ID:HwghQ5+9] |
|||
ところでメロンとリンゴ木って同一人物かな?<br> |
|||
あの完全な被害妄想、自分本位の姿勢、沸点の低さはソックリなんだけどな。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
By the way, are {{User|Melonbarmonster}} and {{User|Appletrees}} the same person?<br> |
|||
Totally a persecution maniac with self-oriented attitude, maybe a sock with high-test |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 149 [[2007-11-17]] 01:02:59 ID:97ToUCr/] |
|||
>>148 朝鮮人は皆あんなものだとすると、やつらとはやはり共同作業できないな。下らないし、ネチっこいし、自己中だし。相手するのが疲れちまう。ウィキのシステムから. 朝鮮人は追い出して欲しいもんだよ。<br> |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>148 If Chosenjin are all like them, I can't cooperate with them. Childish, catty, self-orientated. It is tiresome to deal with them. I wish Wikipedia expels Korean editors |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 150 [[2007-11-17]] 01:55:53 ID:GAYOftVB] |
|||
>>149 検証のために一斉にぐぐっていきなりココがヒットしたらアレなんで。(まあ、先にあほほどあるウィキのコピーサイトに埋もれるとは思うが) |
|||
まあそのうちいつの間にかどうにかなってると思います。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>149 Well, sooner or later, somehow it could be done soon. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 158 [[2007-11-18]] 16:23:59 ID:96wT0Ug7] |
|||
>>156 |
|||
フライング虎が今度は池田信夫さんのところに噛み付いてるね。 |
|||
優生学の記事は、『自分の主張どおりで保護されたから、mediationに参加する意味はない!』 |
|||
ってことなんだけど、mediationってそういう場所なの? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Flying tiger is now sticking to attack {{User|Ikedanobuo}} |
|||
The article of [[Eugenics in Showa Japan]] is protected by his claim, he says participation in the meditation is meaningless, but the meditation is such place like his saying? |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 159 [[2007-11-18]] 16:57:08 ID:9f9x3mEn] |
|||
なんかイケダノブオって集中砲火浴びてるな。なんとか耐えて冷静な姿勢を保って欲しいが。<br> |
|||
そのうち、虎あたりがCivil, personal attackに抵触 するような投稿するだろうからそしたら援護できそうだが。<br> |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Ikedanobuo is on the center from attack. I want him to keep calm though.<br> |
|||
I think I can defend him if I file a report on Flying tiger's behavior, the violation on civility and personal attack. |
|||
* '''Note 1''' {{User|Ikedanobuo}} seems unrelated to 2channel but he used his own blogs as the place for meatpuppetry on Comfort women article. [http://ianfu.blogspot.com/][http://blog.goo.ne.jp/ikedanobuo/e/ab4e9f4e372098e706c47ba5c5d032a2] |
|||
* '''Note''': 2 days later, {{user|Hermeneus}} and {{User|Blue011011}} begun to back up for Ikedanobuo on him unfairly being called as a nationalist.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=172673665&oldid=172659010][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=172738277&oldid=172685138][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=172743413&oldid=172738277][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=172799715&oldid=172798922][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=174489233&oldid=174472654][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=172508213&oldid=172505652] |
|||
* '''Note''': 3 Hermeneus is likely a puppet master of {{User|Saintjust}} per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Saintjust]] |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
{{la|Talk:Comfort women}}<br> |
|||
{{User|Ikedanobuo}}<br> |
|||
{{User|Hermeneus}}<br> |
|||
{{User|Blue011011}}<br> |
|||
{{User|211.3.121.109}}<br> |
|||
{{User|208.103.143.6}} -- [[Transparent proxy]] (adzilla.com)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=prev&oldid=175145231][http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:cAdleIo1F0AJ:www.sendcoffee.com/minorsage/adzilla.html+208.103.143.6+proxy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us] |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 185 [[2007-11-21]] 21:14:30 ID:wrG4Cwz2] |
|||
にゅーりんごって典型的な狐狸庵ですな。(´Д⊂ヽ |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Appletrees is a typical wicked fox.<br> |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
[[au one net|dion ip]]{{user|61.202.37.174}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_13&diff=prev&oldid=172547764][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_13&diff=next&oldid=172552886] |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 187 [[2007-11-21]] 23:53:32 ID:i3wyaefe] |
|||
Talk:Comfort women |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comfort_women |
|||
なんか、日本人が反論する代わりに親日派の外人さんが身体を張ってくれてるのが申し訳ない・・。<br> |
|||
IPアドレスだけど、支援をちょこっとしてみた。 |
|||
慰安婦問題に詳しい人って、ハングル板にいるならサポート頼みたいな |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
I feel a little sorry for a pro-Japanese foreigner who defends instead of Japanese rebutals<br> |
|||
There was an IP address, however, which looks likes a backup.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=prev&oldid=175145231]<br> |
|||
If there is one who know of the issues on Comfort women in Korean Wikipedia, I would like to ask for support. |
|||
{{User|208.103.143.6}} |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 191 [[2007-11-22]] 04:09:47 ID:T8h0yKPc] |
|||
>>188 サポートを頼むとかかくのは肉ソックととられかねないから控えてくれ。<br> |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>188 Please refrain from saying or writing "Support this!" which is likely to be accused of doing sock or meat puppetry. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 192 [[2007-11-22]] 08:12:51 ID:WQWcats0] |
|||
>親日派の外人 |
|||
J読み? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>Pro-Japanese foreigner |
|||
{{user|J Readings}} ? |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 193 [[2007-11-22]] 20:45:12 ID:hMyLfwHd] |
|||
リンゴ木の千年に対する粘着ぶりは見てて気持ち悪いな。<br> |
|||
気になって気になって仕方がないんだろな。<br> |
|||
あのしつこさはコリアン独特のものだな。<br> |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
I feel bad to see Appletrees' obsession at {{User|Sennen goroshi}} <br> |
|||
Although he may mind so couldn't help to bother himself<br> |
|||
The persistence of him is a Korean character |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
*195 [[2007-11-22]] 23:33:03 ID:hMyLfwHd] |
|||
もう早速削除決定したアドミン茶髪娘のトークページに<br> |
|||
乗り込んでいってるよ。アイツは年中ファビョってやがるな。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Now (already) Appletrees rushes to the talk page of the admin, BrownHairGirl who deleted the category. <br> |
|||
The person seem like a [[hwabyeong]] patient all around the year. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 198 [[2007-11-23]] (金) 00:43:59 ID:dGU7yJMk] |
|||
というか、カテゴリー削除議論のページで天皇陛下のゆかり発言<br> |
|||
まで持ち出すってどういう頭の構造してんだ? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Is he out of mind to speak of the Japanese king at the CFD page? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
*211 [[2007-11-24]] 13:16:08 ID:OHOpejDT] |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%8Ddai-ji |
|||
「東大寺」の英語版なんだけど、下の方"Notes"の4なんですが、建設したのが韓国人となってます。<br> |
|||
これ、[Edit]でも編集で直せないのですが…。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
It is Todai temple article in English Wikipedia that has the 4th citation in the "Notes" section and says of Koreans to build it. I could not fix it with "edit" function |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
[[Tōdai-ji]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 212 [[2007-11-24]] 13:22:29 ID:kftlwONY] |
|||
脚注の中身は、その脚注を参照している本文側にあるので本文側を編集して。 |
|||
で。件の「国中連公麻呂」は百済系帰化人の子孫だというのは確からしい模様。 |
|||
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/国中連公麻呂 |
|||
ただ、高麗以前の歴史なのにKorean Baekje Kingdomってのもおかしいんで、[[Baekje]] Kingdom in Korea Peninsulaとでも |
|||
しておいたらいいと思う。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Edit the main article if the citation is in the article. According to the source, it is certain that Kuninaka Kimimaro was a descendant of a nationalized Kudara people. |
|||
However, it is pre history of [[Goryeo period]], the intention of written as Korean Baekje Kingdom looks weird, so I think fixing it to Baekje Kingdom in Korean peninsula would be better. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
{{User|222.3.78.58}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T%C5%8Ddai-ji&diff=prev&oldid=173416315] |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 216 [[2007-11-25]] 15:24:36 ID:cNBALVIn] |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikuhiko_Hata |
|||
秦が日本の戦争犯罪を全否定してることになってる。数ヶ月前まではスタブ記事だったのに不良外人がんばるなwww |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
The article describes that Hata has denied war crimes. It is a stub about several moth a go, so the bad gaijin ([[User:Yaki-gaijin]]), don't try on don't try hard on that. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
{{la|Ikuhiko_Hata}} |
|||
{{user|Jjok}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ikuhiko_Hata&diff=173762502&oldid=173260367][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ikuhiko_Hata&diff=173772266&oldid=173767242]<br> |
|||
{{user|Amazonfire}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ikuhiko_Hata&diff=prev&oldid=182388148][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ikuhiko_Hata&diff=182393333&oldid=182392740] |
|||
{{user|220.219.92.222}}(infoweb.ne.jp) |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
217 [[2007-11-26]] 05:52:13 ID:qmK3Vesy] |
|||
>>217 なんなんだろな、アイツ。ともかく日本の悪口を書きたくて <br> |
|||
仕方ないんだろな。そんなに嫌いならに日本から出てけよ |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Well, it may be that the editor wants to write a bash on Japan. If he so dislike, leave Japan. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 220 [[2007-11-26]] 20:09:52 ID:JnzmUSIl] |
|||
千年もリンゴ木とか基地外だけ相手にしとけばいいのに。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
It would be nicer if Sennen goroshi and Appletrees only edit out of our important articles. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 221 [[2007-11-27]] 03:08:55 ID:+KYdxhJq] |
|||
>>218 朝鮮総連や中国から雇われてるんじゃないのか? VANKとか。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>218 Is Appletrees hired by [[Chongryon]] or China or by [[VANK]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 223 [[2007-11-27]] 20:12:35 ID:atjMeMts] |
|||
たしかに金もらって英語ウィキ専用活動してんのかもな。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
He is highly likely working in English Wikipedia and get paid. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 225 [[2007-11-27]] 21:57:41 ID:n5gid7DW] |
|||
>>225 |
|||
おれは部屋系はやっぱり良友達だと思うね。ちなみにメロンも良友達とほぼ同タイミングで |
|||
出没するから、同系とみる。 |
|||
また、新説としてリンゴ木=機械の疑いを持っている。機械がヤバクなってから |
|||
急にリンゴ木の活動が活発になったし、千年への粘着も機会っぽい。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
I think {{User|Room218}}'s socks are related to {{User|Good friend100}} as well. Judging by the similar time records, Melon could be Good friend100. |
|||
I come up with a new theory that Appletrees is {{User|Wikimachine}}. After Wikimachine is banned, Appletrees suddenly begun vigorous and his obsession at Sennen goroshi is the same as Wikimachine's. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 226 [[2007-11-27]] 22:39:56 ID:MGNERzwC] |
|||
>>226 部屋系=友達系はサポート。<br> |
|||
ちなみに高句麗の10月9日見ると隣り合わせに出てきてたりして。 |
|||
(そんな偶然あるもんかい) |
|||
めろんは除外していい。過去にまとめてチェックユーザ済み。<br> |
|||
もちろん回避方法は幾らでもあるんだけど、その記録があるから<br> |
|||
第三者を納得させにくい。<br> |
|||
りんご木は朝鮮語版に垢がある。それによるとかなり前から <br> |
|||
活動してる。機印よりも頭が悪そうだし、英語も今一つ達者では なさそうに見える。 |
|||
あと、機印はマジックワードがある。スラッシュ挟んだ例の3文字略語。<br> |
|||
だから今のところ、226ニムの可能性は低いと思うんだ。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Room's socks = Good friend100. Besides, the latter comes to edit [[Goguryeo]]. Are these are all coincidences? |
|||
You can exclude Melon in the list because he was clear by the past CU. Of course there may be other ways, but due to the record, we can't persuade a third person with it. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 230 [[2007-11-28]] 01:16:22 ID:6fe81vm6] |
|||
>>225 CUをその理由をつけて求めてみればいいんじゃないの? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>225 When you request for check user, add the reason to the report? |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 232 [[2007-11-28]] 01:41:51 ID:6fe81vm6] |
|||
CUは別に何回やってもいいはずだし、<br> |
|||
確認してないけど書いていることが本当なら求めてもいいレベルでは。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Submitting CU seems okay in a several times |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 234 [[2007-11-28]] 12:49:35 ID:E4rUIVsJ] |
|||
なんか、良友達の子供たちみたいなのウジャウジャ騒いでて<br> |
|||
すごいことになってるな |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Somehow, presumably socks of Good friend 100 are making fuss. It's getting notable. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 235 [[2007-11-28]] 14:01:40 ID:6fe81vm6] |
|||
CUかければいいじゃん |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Include them in the CU file. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 237 [[2007-11-28]] 19:13:11 ID:UwUNU/7g] |
|||
[[Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Eugenics in Showa Japan]]なんだけど |
|||
冒頭陳述を書いてきました。よくない部分があったら教えてください。 |
|||
初めての経験なので慣れていません。 |
|||
客観的に評価していただけると助かります。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
I bring in a statement about [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Eugenics in Showa Japan]]<br> |
|||
It is first time for me, so I'm not familiar wit it.<br> |
|||
I would appreciate it if you guys objectively judge it. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 240 [[2007-11-29]] 00:37:14 ID:xWqY7P0L] |
|||
りんごはちょっとマジで精神病院通いのような気がする。<br> |
|||
おかしいよ、あの被害妄想。ちょっとでも違う意見を持つ奴 |
|||
は、全て敵視して狂ったような攻撃してくる。 |
|||
ずいぶん前に「千年がムカついて夜眠れないニダ!」とか言ってた<br> |
|||
けど、そんな奴いるか普通?たかがウィキで意見が対立したぐらいで。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
I feel like Appletrees is a little a mental patient in real life. So weird such persecution maniac. <br> |
|||
If somebody has a different opinion with him, he regards the person as an enemy and then becomes aggressively attacking. |
|||
Once he said that he couldn't sleep because he was so upset at Sennen goroshi.<br> |
|||
However, is there anyone like him in common? It is just a content conflict in Wiki. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 242 [[2007-11-29]] 01:04:47 ID:4ytU3Oog]s |
|||
>>236 良友達は直接の依頼理由が作れないよ。<br> |
|||
部屋のブロック逃れか、強制ウィキブレイク期間中に稼動していた垢とは<br> |
|||
ぶつけられるけど。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>236 I can't make a direct rationale for the request. <br> |
|||
I could've reported it if Room were evading block or Good friend100 breached into his wiki regulation. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 262 [[2007-11-30]] (金) 03:08:41 ID:VjefzOyg] |
|||
cuのデータはそんな長い期間保存されないから、<br> |
|||
もと最近活動してるアカを申請したほうがいい。<br> |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
CU data are not preserved for a long time<br> |
|||
So, it would be better to report recently active accounts. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 263 [[2007-11-30]] (金) 05:45:52 ID:AN7JQb0j] |
|||
あ、もう他に大量に見つけられて無期限ブロックくらってるわ。w |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Ah, already discovered that it has a lot of socks to be blocked for indefinite. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 265 [[2007-11-30]] (金) 09:25:18 ID:U4G0RnM1] |
|||
>>256 いや、絶滅させてないす。<br> |
|||
俺の向かいに1人、間違いないタスマニア人が渋面見せて座ってますから。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
The comparison with Room's case, the possible period time for checking appears to be up to 6 months. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 270 [[2007-11-30]] (金) 16:49:52 ID:fX+xteXi] |
|||
>>269 構内LANからプロクシ経由で外に出て行くような感じでしょうか?<br> |
|||
それにしては、IPがよく変動しているように見えるんだけど。 |
|||
ところで朝鮮料理のごたごたが仲裁委に提訴されてるんだけどw |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>269 By the way, the whole mess-up of Korean cuisine is requested at arbicom. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 271 [[2007-11-30]] (金) 18:02:34 ID:BrzOG05N] |
|||
>>271 いいんじゃねえ?コリアンまとめてバンされればいい。<br> |
|||
千年にはかわいそうだが、人身御供になってもらって。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>271 Isn't it good? Blocking Korean after the matter is sorted.<br> |
|||
For Sennen goroshi is unfortunate, but be a scapegoat for us. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 278 [[2007-12-01]] 03:51:25 ID:UAGKp6WH] |
|||
「"I'm not Caus***"」とか、同じくらいつたない英語で<br> |
|||
管理者ページに自分で書いてるのが笑える。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
It is so laughable to see the denial of Bason0 written in poor English at admin's talk page like "I'm not Causxxx" |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 281 [[2007-12-01]] 12:26:14 ID:UAGKp6WH] |
|||
身障者を真似る踊りという肝心の記述を消しておいて、<br> |
|||
いきなり身障者差別じゃないとか書き始めてるから意味不明。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
He deleted the important description that Byung shin chum is a dance to minic disabled people, but suddenly claimed that it is not for discrimination on those people which is non sense. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
{{la|Byung shin chum}} |
|||
{{la|Yeongeunmun Gate}}<br> |
|||
{{User|Saintjust}}<br> |
|||
{{User|Nightshadow28}}<br> |
|||
{{User|Kusunose}}<br> |
|||
{{User|Amanatsu}} creator |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 290 [[2007-12-02]] 02:48:43 ID:O2oz/6S9] |
|||
ニュー場損のブロック解除要請に対するアド民のコメントが笑える件。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
It is so hilarious! The new Bason0 requests for protection of the article. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 345 [[2007-12-02]] 15:52:19 ID:edpRzTLp] |
|||
英・迎恩門の土下座のソースはないの? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Is there any source that kings of Korea knelt down and groveled in the dust? |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 347 [[2007-12-02(日) 18:25:26 ID:edpRzTLp] |
|||
>>347もう引退するみたいなこと言ってない?<br> |
|||
(迎恩門を自分の好きな版にするのを 管理者に頼み込む見返りに) |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Didn't he say that he already gave up?<br> |
|||
(As a promise, he asked admins to revert to his preferred version) |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 348 [[2007-12-02]] 18:26:38 ID:qg9TYKr0] |
|||
>>348 無限にソック作るやつの約束なんて無意味だろうに(w<br> |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
He seems to promise indefinitely. I think any promise with him sounds meaningless |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 349 [[2007-12-02]] 18:30:51 ID:id6cLCeE] |
|||
しかし、オマンコマークの管理者さんのように、長期間特定のバトル項目を<br> |
|||
ウォッチしてるとコリアンの異常さは伝わるんだなあ・・・ |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
However, considering that the admin Marckensen has been in charge of the specific controversial articles for a long time, we can see how irrational Koreans are... |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 352 [[2007-12-02]] 18:50:59 ID:O2oz/6S9] |
|||
>>352 まあ来たら来たでどうにかなるかなと…。 |
|||
しかしブロックされたきっかけが千年のコメント依頼への闖入→完璧が<br> |
|||
投稿履歴をチェック→ブロック、ってのが場損らしいというか。('A`) |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Well, if he comes again, there would be a way...<br> |
|||
By the way, the opportunity we could make him being blocked is his intervention in Sennen goroshi's comment -> Fut.Perf requested for check user on him ->blocked him because of him looking like Bason0. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 353 [[2007-12-02]] 18:51:02 ID:id6cLCeE] |
|||
場損はまず英語をマスターするべきだな。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Bason0 should first master English |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 354 [[2007-12-02]] 19:11:26 ID:O2oz/6S9] |
|||
てーか奴はいったい何歳くらいなんだろうね。中高生くらいと思ったけど。 |
|||
いや、中年盛りであんなことやらかしたとは思えない。つーか思いたくない。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
How old is he? I guess he is a middle or high school student. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 355 [[2007-12-02]] 20:04:47 ID:id6cLCeE] |
|||
なんでコーリアンは下関条約で「Independent」したという言葉を使いたがらない のだろう?どうして歴史を直視できないの? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
How do Koreans reluctant to say that they're "Independent" by [[Treaty of Shimonoseki]]? Why don't they face the history? |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 358 [[2007-12-02]] 22:37:34 ID:K0kzHJO7] |
|||
というか韓国人は大部分の人が5000年前かられっきとした独立国<br> |
|||
だと信じている。だから独立と言われても「独立?何を言っているニダ? 独島の間違いじゃないニダか?」ってな感じだろ。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Most of Korean people believe that they're descendent of the great independent nation since 5000 years ago. Therefore, if they hear the independence, they would likely respond like "Independence? What are you saying? Are you mistaking with Dokdo? |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
359 [[2007-12-02]] 22:42:46 ID:BC08A7xa] |
|||
>>359 神話信じちゃってるからねえ<br> |
|||
あの国は資料批判や学問が成立しない部分がある。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
They believe myth. In part the country does not permit criticism on sources or study. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 377 [[2007-12-05]] 14:34:27 ID:Jl+xVlM3] |
|||
コリアン食い物編は紛糾しているねぇ、相変わらず。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Korean cuisine article is disputing as always. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 378 [[2007-12-05]] 16:26:49 ID:5cvAw3Ji] |
|||
リンゴ木、良友達のいるところは常にヒートアップ。<br> |
|||
これ即ちこの二人がWP:OWNに抵触しまくってるから |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Anywhere around Appletrees, Good friend100 is always heated. Therefore, the two violate WP:OWN. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 380 [[2007-12-05]] 22:54:49 ID:nII5xSkL] |
|||
>>379 日帝による歪曲を正すことがミンジョクの使命だからです。 |
|||
パイティングフォーエバーって誰のソックだ? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
It is their nationalistic duty to fix the distortions by Japanese Imperialism. |
|||
Whose sock is Fighting forever? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 381 [[2007-12-05]] 23:00:41 ID:pAwU2Ewb] |
|||
[[Korean dance]] で |
|||
日本帝国の文化弾圧によって、ほとんどの韓国舞踊の教室は絶滅させられました。って書かれているけど、どこまで本当なの? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Of [[Korean dance]], written that due to the cultural suppression by Japan during the Japanese occupation, most of the dance academies died out and some dances were lost... to which part is true? |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 382 [[2007-12-05]] 23:13:24 ID:c89JB3Ez] |
|||
`∀´> 「日帝」は本当に便利な魔法の言葉 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
`∀´> Japanese occupation is a convenient term. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 386 [[2007-12-06]] 00:36:22 ID:QfEJNv0y] |
|||
コリアンの議論における行動パターンは、いつも<br> |
|||
#途中から形勢不利になると、個人攻撃や攻撃的口調になる。<br> |
|||
#もはやまわりに誰も賛同者がいないのに一人でヤダヤダ!!と駄々をこねる<br> |
|||
#Destructiveな編集に走る<br> |
|||
#大した問題じゃないのになにムキになってるニダ!!と捨て台詞<br> |
|||
お決まりだな<br> |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
As for Korean typical patterns on a discussion, they always |
|||
#If the situation is unfavorable for them, they tend to be aggressive or make personal attack. |
|||
#None agrees with Koreans, but they alone shout noisy sound and keep insisting |
|||
#Going toward editing article disruptively |
|||
#Nida whose exaggeration on something small to a big one is cliche! |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 387 [[2007-12-06]] 01:23:20 ID:nwQnQcWl] |
|||
機会亡き後はニューりんごがプロジェクトを背負ってるんですな。 |
|||
機会と同じ方向に突き進んでるような気もするけど。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
After Wikimachine's death, the new apple takes over the project. |
|||
He seems like going to the same direction as Wikimachine did. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 388 [[2007-12-06]] 01:31:11 ID:QfEJNv0y] |
|||
>>388 しかも、ものすごいスピードで。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Besides, at very fast speed |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 389 [[2007-12-06]] 12:09:05 ID:9KcjHTzb] |
|||
>>388 同一人物じゃないのかなあ。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>388 If the two are the same person? |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 390 [[2007-12-06]] 12:59:15 ID:3dknj3qS] |
|||
>>390 おれも最初そう思ったけど、多分ちがう。機械はもっと自分の言葉 |
|||
で反論してきた。コイツはただガキみたいな反論しかしない。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
>>390 I first thought so, but looks different. <br> |
|||
Wikimachine spoke his own voice, but Appletree said just poor rebuttals. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 391 [[2007-12-06]] 18:17:12 ID:LTAEFrAe] |
|||
林檎byは? |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
How about {{User|Appleby}}? |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 392 [[2007-12-06]] 18:38:39 ID:xg7WMJAP] |
|||
byは基本的に議論しないでリバートオンリーだろ。編集合戦が<br> |
|||
目立つくらい激しくなったらしぶしぶノートに来るって感じで。<br> |
|||
まあ、基本的な精神構造はみんな一緒だから、あまり区別は つかないけどね。<br> |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Appleby only reverted without discussion.<br> |
|||
When edit warring is getting serious, he reluctantly came to the talk page. <br> |
|||
Well, their mind is all the same, much differentiation is needed. |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 424 [[2007-12-09]] 15:10:46 ID:vkV4UfGn] |
|||
りんご木がんばるなぁ。専門外の筈なんだか。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Appletree is working hard, isn't it his real job? |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 470 [[2007-12-16]] 22:25:18 ID:8RA1diQP] |
|||
アイリス・チャンの本の英語版。これ日本語版に記事無かったのね。<br> |
|||
アイリス・チャン本人の記事はあるけど。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
The English version of Iris Chang's book. Japanese wikipedia has no article. |
|||
But Iris Chang article is there. |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
{{la|The Rape of Nanking (book)}} |
|||
{{User|Saintjust}} |
|||
|- |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* 473 [[2007-12-16]] 23:54:06 ID:M4lK/c2k] |
|||
アイリスチャンの本は注釈をつけるのに本人が反対して、注釈つけられなければ問題がある記述があってだせなかったような。その後どうなったんだろう。 |
|||
日本語の本がなくてもページ作ってもいい気もするけど。 |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
Iris Chang disagreed that notes are added to her book, but without notes, her book seems to have problems (in Japan) |
|||
Although no translated book into japanese, I think making a page on her book would be good. |
|||
|} |
|||
This thread is likely going to the next archive page after a day per my ANI experience so far, but this is for the record and caution for Korean editors to prevent further abuses by [[2channel]] and Japanese editors. ''Meat doll'' free Wikipedia. :D --[[User:Appletrees|Appletrees]] ([[User talk:Appletrees|talk]]) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Notable victims of the Babi Yar massacres == |
== Notable victims of the Babi Yar massacres == |
Revision as of 01:33, 4 March 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) |
|
I've spent the last 24 hours trying to decide if I should really blackbox it and leave the project. I wrote this to be a summarry, but maybe someone else would like to examine it.
Having spent two months revamping the hulk article, and getting it up to Good Article status, to have another editor blank repeatedly what I and others had worked hard on, was frustrating. To be the third editor to revert his edits, and the first to invite him to use the talk page, I was shocked by his response, which attacked me for violating WP:OWN, and having failed the GA. The refusal of an admin to use the talk pages, and to continue to attack me is bad. That he's been dismissive of consensus is worse. When I offered a simple starting place for consensus, his reply was plain. I was no longer welcome on the article. As such, I delisted the article, and will be moving on. I am not sure where I went wrong, that after two others reverted him without comment, it was I who was attacked. I do care about the article, and given how much I put into it, I feel justified in watching over it. But it has been edited by others since (4K in added material), and I've been open to other improvements. I do feel that having hit GA, I was also justified in making sure newer edits added value, not just bytes and hype, to the article. To have all my work repudiated is bad enough, but to have it all come under a pile of attacks is enough for me to leave the project. When admins model that sort of behavior, it's not hard to understand why so many people leave.
Am I right that his actions were poor, if not outright wrong? ThuranX (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Um. Not a particularly impressive example of collaborative editing, at first glance. I need to look closer into this. Oh, and FWIW don't leave, we can't do without good editors like you. Black Kite 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- i agree. this other guy is acting like a rela prick but its important to assume good faith and continue to try to colelaborate with him. i have seen many instances of users who seem kind of unhelpful when they first join but grow to become incredible editors who later even become admins or even presidents. his behavior indicates that he is at least interested in editing the article Hulk so i would recomend that you back off him for a bit and wait here for an administrator to interveine. sometimes engaging someone can be helpful but toehr times disengaging and letting the soul struggle work itself out for the fate of your wikipedia editing careres to be a far more rsafer alternatronive. Smith Jones (talk) 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- David is an administrator, not a new user. Your comment "Acting like a rela prick" is a personal attack, and you should be warned that violating that policy on this page often leads to a block. Please - try to make your comments here constructive, and use "Preview" before you save in order to correct the other errors that have pointed out to you many, many times. Avruch T 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I should also point out Thuran that you didn't need to strip the article of GA status just because I voiced the concern it may not have met the requirements. That's what WP:GAR is for, and I'd rather improve the article rather than going through that process. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- ThuranX, I do hope you will stay with the project. Thank you for developing a great article. Staying calm and keeping your own behaviour top-notch will produce the best chance of getting calm, reasonable behaviour from other editors, in my opinion. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Staying calm and keeping my own behaviour top-notch" didn't get me anything but hostile responses and accusations of policy violations. I was polite, invited him to use talk instead of just reverting. Three editors say no to the changes he makes, one says 'come talk to us' and he yells at that one. I really wish I'd started a revert war. It would've been simpler.
- As for David Fuchs, he was absolutely clear, not that he had "the concern it may not have met the requirements", he stated that it should never have passed. So I delisted it. When an article no longer meets the standard, it is stripped of the status ,and returned to a lower status. David Fuchs made it clear on the talk page that he does not need consensus to do anything on Wikipedia, and so I am simply enabling his no doubt incredible rewrite, making sure that everything is smooth for him. I am troubled though, that having promised a great rewrite, he dropped all efforts on the page once I left it.ThuranX (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Can some other respected editors please stop by the Talk page in question and weigh in on recent activities and actions? Things are getting quite...silly. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- And now ThuranX has begun editing the article to remove his earlier contributions, an obvious violation of WP:POINT and WP:OWN. Please, someone else try talking with this valued editor before he completely ruins his reputation and the article(s) he has edited. I have personally run out of patience with him or her and I am now withdrawing myself from this issue. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- An admin gamed 3RR, ignored CONSENSUS, and was incivil the whole while. He stated that consensus is not applicable if he thinks an article needs fixing, thus using Administrative Fiat to establish, by his word alone, a new CONSENSUS. I brought it to AN/I, where no one found his actions to be any problem. Now I'm in trouble for working with the new consensus. I can't win either way. If I argue with him, I'm making a bad article worse, if I undo all my mistakes, I'm a vandal and a disruptor. I'm totally confused, because WIkipedia LIKES how David Fuchs edits, and now I'm doing what he does. he said the article failed its' Good Article Review, so I reset the rating to Fail, and B rating article, removed it fr omteh GA listings, and closed an unneeded GAR. How can this be wrong? David Fuchs says it's right. And consensus here at AN/I is that David Fuchs does no wrong, per Avruch, who points out that as an admin, not new user, David FUchs kenw what he was doing. Note that Avruch finds no fault in the actions, and no one has countered Avruch, thus establishing that consensus is for all of David Fuchs actions. ThuranX (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're being childish, Thuran, and disruptive. I never stated that since I was an admin it failed GA; I said it probably would fail if it was taken to WP:GAR. No you are acting petulant and being as incivil as I evidently was. I am not trying to create any sort of fiat; I shouldn't have reverted repeatedly, but your accusations of a cabal are lunacy. I am attempting to cut down the long character history masquerading as publication and characterization, and you complain I'm adding more in. I will not respond to this any more, since you've gone off the deep end. I've said I'm sorry, I offered to be more cooperative, and you've spat at me and everyone who has told you to calm down. If you're so upset, leave. But this tirade has gone on long enough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- A bald faced lie. YOu've never once apologized, you've never offered to cooperate with me. YOu jsut keep saying you know what's best for Wikipedia, and that I wrote a shitty article alone and have OWN problems. I worked with many others. I asked for input throughout, then ran it through three reviews by regular editors of the Hulk page, while it was on my sandbox. After I posted it, I watched it but was careful to avoid OWN, and it grew by 4K. I've thought about ways to continue to improve the article, and had intended to begin examining ways to incorporate the Powers article, and incorporate the work of Grest & Weinberg regarding Hulk's powers. Instead, all you have done is insult anyone who worked on it. I worked to cite all I could in the publication and Characterization sections, ensuring that the rampant In-Universe style of Plot narration was dropped, because it's simple not encyclopedic. I added sources left right and center. Your first edit was to blank all of that. No explanations except "i'll come back and fix this shitty article when I want to".
- Three editors demonstrated there was consensus against you, and you ran right up to 3RR on it, rather than talk. When I reverted you the third time, and invited you to talk, you insulted me. I ignored that and tried patiently to explain WHY things were the way they were and WHY consensus was FOR the state of the page. You insulted me again, and again, and again. Every time I tried, your actions got worse. You instituted a new consensus that the article sucks alone, refuting all existing consensus. but luckily for you, Avruch supports you, and NetKiinetic showed up out of the blue to champion you. I've never asserted there's a cabal going on, but you did have two editors defend you without clearly looking at the situation. That's not a cabal, it's just Wikipedia.
- As for the fail, you stated that the article "really doesn't pass GA standards." That's a FAIL. there's no two ways to interpret that. You said it does not meet the standards. THus, it should never have been given a pass. I have worked hard to rectify this obvious bureaucratic blunder.
- In short, you have shown quite clearly that Administrators do not need to hew to the same rules as editors. I'm simply falling in line behind the new power structure. Really, what's the problem? ThuranX (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've had very good experiences with ThuranX in the past, and I'm sorry to see this issue causing him such upset. ElKevbo, I suggest that when someone is clearly upset and frustrated because their article work hasn't been appreciated, calling it silly won't help calm the situation. I don't know what to do to help, I wish I did, but I'm sorry to see this happening. I hope others will stay calm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're being childish, Thuran, and disruptive. I never stated that since I was an admin it failed GA; I said it probably would fail if it was taken to WP:GAR. No you are acting petulant and being as incivil as I evidently was. I am not trying to create any sort of fiat; I shouldn't have reverted repeatedly, but your accusations of a cabal are lunacy. I am attempting to cut down the long character history masquerading as publication and characterization, and you complain I'm adding more in. I will not respond to this any more, since you've gone off the deep end. I've said I'm sorry, I offered to be more cooperative, and you've spat at me and everyone who has told you to calm down. If you're so upset, leave. But this tirade has gone on long enough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- An admin gamed 3RR, ignored CONSENSUS, and was incivil the whole while. He stated that consensus is not applicable if he thinks an article needs fixing, thus using Administrative Fiat to establish, by his word alone, a new CONSENSUS. I brought it to AN/I, where no one found his actions to be any problem. Now I'm in trouble for working with the new consensus. I can't win either way. If I argue with him, I'm making a bad article worse, if I undo all my mistakes, I'm a vandal and a disruptor. I'm totally confused, because WIkipedia LIKES how David Fuchs edits, and now I'm doing what he does. he said the article failed its' Good Article Review, so I reset the rating to Fail, and B rating article, removed it fr omteh GA listings, and closed an unneeded GAR. How can this be wrong? David Fuchs says it's right. And consensus here at AN/I is that David Fuchs does no wrong, per Avruch, who points out that as an admin, not new user, David FUchs kenw what he was doing. Note that Avruch finds no fault in the actions, and no one has countered Avruch, thus establishing that consensus is for all of David Fuchs actions. ThuranX (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I thought my only comment in this thread was directed at Smith Jones, but apparently I'm mistaken... Avruch T 23:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Since my opinion is being bandied about anyway, here it is: this and the adjacent edit from ThuranX are completely inappropriate and could justify a block, certainly a warning. David's conduct was not the type of editing style I expect to see from admins, but it does appear from the above comments that he recognizes this. On the other hand, bad behavior doesn't excuse bad behavior. I suggest, ThuranX, that you take a step back from this article and get some perspective. Work on something else, take a quick Wikibreak, and come back hopefully willing and able to move beyond this episode. Avruch T 23:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Since I was asked to read this, I can see that per this, and Emperor's comments at the Hulk page, it's all MY fault. I"m beyond frustrated with this, I'm just sick. All these people who talk about how good an editor I am, and my 'reputation' are clearly mistaken. My editing fails a GA it passed, because David Fuchs said so, and was so bad he overrode consensus to do it his way. He IGNORED CONSENSUS. No one's said anythign about that. He's STILL ignoring consensus, making edits to the page. SO my editing can't be good at all.
- As for my reputation, I don't know who any of these people claiming to know my reputation are; and cannot recall working with any on any article or talk page, so I can only conclude that either they're thinking about someone else, or my name comes up in off wiki places without my knowledge. As far as I've ever seen, my reputation is that I'm one of the pro-vandalism cabal who hate MONGO and who never edit, just lay in wait to pounce on him, and I got away with it once. That's the rep I know I have here. So... to those discussing me elsewhere, either link me so I can see what's being said behind my back, or stop talking and figure out who you're really thinking of.
- I can't be clear enough in my frustrations. David Fuchs broke three major rules, and at best it's been said "not the type of editing style I expect to see from admins" and "Not a particularly impressive example of collaborative editing". No one has seen anything wrong with his actions. No one has said 'David Fuchs broke rules in ways that get most editors warned or blocked. That he's an admin and knows better makes this worse in my eyes; Admins are supposed to model the best behavior. When three different people revert you, use the talk. When you're invited to use the talk, be civil. He wasn't civil. I ignored it and he was incivil again. And again. I'm tired of writing up the summary, because the events are clear. Only when it was clear that post facto he had 'consensus by absence of objection' did I change and fall in line. I acted in the best spirit of Wikipedia to clean up the things he said were wrong, like a false rating. And I got in MORE trouble for that, with people accusing me of point violations and disruption. And I still don't get it. If people get away with doing wrong, what other choice do I have? Keep fighting him? He was given a pass on his actions here. If I had kept fighting him, I would've been blocked. Instead, I'm in trouble for accepting that I lost and doing the right thing by making the new consensus an actual consensus. And still editors say 'go use the talk page and build a consensus'. But HOW???? David Fuchs said on the talk page that trying to build consensus gets in the way of him fixing the article. How much clearer can it be that the ONLY choice is to accept and abide, because fighting him hurts Wikipedia. No one has addressed this. I've heard lots of 'Cool off' comments, but not one 'David Fuchs fucked up' comment. Why is that? I really am thoroughly confused at this point, and I'm also insulted by the lies that I ignored his apologies. He never apologized. Never. Instead, he went from 'get out of my way' to 'I already said sorry, so get out of my way!', without the intermediate 'sorry'. Then he characterizes me in all sorts of bad ways, after I did what he said, I got on his side to fix the article. There seems to be no pleasing him. I don't even want to try anymore. If you all knew some of the things I've gone through because of Wikipedia... Ask User:Newyorkbrad. He knows I've gone through the kind of Wikipedia stuff that permanently chases off editors, and I fought and stuck around through it. But this imbalance between David Fuchs' actions and mine, and the reception of both has broken my desire to be a part of Wikipedia anymore. To see an editor come in, ignore consensus, build his own false consensus and act on it till by repetition it seems to become real, and then blame those who stood up for the real, existing consensus as ruining articles? It's too much to see that go unchallenged by anyone but me. I'm sorry, but I really just don't want to do this anymore, because the unfairness there is too much to carry and keep looking at pages here. I look at any page on my watchlist, and wonder... how long till I do some amazing digging, and someone completely ignores my work and the work of the others who help, and just BOLDLY upends the article? David Fuchs never even bothered to look at the article's history, to see why the Characterization replaced a long fannishly written and mostly uncited Character History. He blanked out the sources I tracked down. I did everything 'by the book'. Look at my Sandbox and its' talk page for just SOME of what I did with others to make this article good., I may have done the typing and research, but I made sure to get input from many others over and over. David Fuchs didn't bother to ask, or look into ANY of this. If any editor really intends to rewrite an article from scratch, as He has stated is his intent, they should learn to check what's gone before. As an admin, he should already know this. But instead, he acted in the worst possible manner as far as cooperation goes, but no one seems to care. It's too much for me to respect this process anymore, because after all this, someone who doesn't respect the process can just undo it. had he come to the talk after being invited and put a list of things he's like to change, I'd have worked with him. Hulk as FA before the movie comes out would be great. But on the very first thing I offered up for consensus, his response was a POINT violating edit and summary.
- Did I go to far in my recent edits? Perhaps. But when you see the rules broken over and over, and see an admin getting a pass, what else can happen? I shouldn't have called him a fucking idiot. Fucking jerk, maybe, but not fucking idiot. At least that would've been more specific about his actions and attitudes instead of his intellect. But I'm not apologizing for my fixing of the article status, because the rules say whenever someone disagrees with a GA rating, it loses the GA by nothing more than saying 'this article isn't GA'. Because David Fuchs said it never met the standard, that's him effectively failing it at the time of the nomination. I fixed the rating to meet that. And as to my supposed childishness, well, no. What I did was make it crystal clear that I was trying to accept his supposed Consensus. He didn't have it, still doesn't, but he's gotten away with it, none the less. That leaves me feeling hollow defeat, and I don't like feeling that whenever I look at wikipedia. I really don't think that anything but leaving is right for me now. Anyways, I tried to write one "calm" version of my feelings, since no one thinks my other statements were me being serious. It's not fair, and that's that. ThuranX (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- ThuranX, I'm sorry if I confused things by trying to help out. It took me all day to track down a very old post, and to realize that I had mixed you up with TheronJ. My apologies for the confusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- ThuranX, I am unsure how you construed my comments to mean I am saying it is your fault. What I'm aiming at is a "no blame" approach on the talk page so we can actually work towards improving the article and getting it back on track for GA.
- There are problems on both sides but the talk page there is not the best arena for people to air their grievances in such a manner (as it is derailing the whole effort). If you have problems with another editor (whether they are an admin or not) is to get more input (from, for example the Comic Project and/or other editors) and here as a last resort. There is nothing that isn't fixable but you need to stay civil and not take this so personally so we can sort this out. (Emperor (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC))
- There's no way to talk it out. I tried. I tried that first, and I tried it again and again, and so far, not one person has said David Fuchs did anything wrong. Not one. Fuchs hasn't apologized. He went from saying he didn't have to, to saying he already did. No one cares about that. Just that I keep demanding some action, and all I get is 'go take a wikibreak, ThuranX'. Well, hell no. If you all thought a wikibreak was so badly needed, I'd have been blocked. But instead, you're all hoping I'll shut up and go away, and NOT get David Fuchs a clear rebuke. Why? I think it's cause he's short list for ArbCom replacements, and there's a sense of duty to protect him. Well it does no good for the project to get someone like him, who acts without consensus and without apology when wrong, on Arbcom. He doesn't read things through or do research, he steps in, makes a determination, and attacks others. That's not who we want for Arbcom. Not one person here or on the article talk has said one thing about his behavior beyond 'maybe we should think about if he did something wrong', but everyone here is absolutely sure that I'm to blame for all of this. On the talk page, Emperor called for ME to leave it but not David Fuchs, saying all the regular active editors should walk away. IN other words, get out of David Fuchs' way, he can save the article. That's how you blamed me for all of it, Emperor. IF that's how it goes, that community consensus is that regular editors should jsut get out of the way when some new editor runs ramshod all over their work, without discussion of finding consensus, then fine. Community ban me and be done with it. But David Fuchs will just do it again and again until someone makes him accept that he did something WRONG. How many editors are you willing to lose before you make him accountable for his actions? ThuranX (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have to totally agree with you. There are quite a few admins who are railroding regular dedicated editors without investigating the whole issue. I do not know if there is a hidden agenda behind this. Are they trying to score points to be advanced? It may sure seem like so. We are losing one edito after another. Even good dedicated admins are living. The Undertoe left, Michael is on protes strike. What is going on here? Have we become so vindictive and venomous that we are blind and not thinking about the project as a whole but as advancment of our own interest? I see this as WP:COI. If an admin wants to be an admin just to have power over other users that admin may need to be desysosped for the interest of Wikipedia project. Igor Berger (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are again misrepresenting what I said - I didn't say for you to stop - I said ALL active editors had to take a step back. There was an edit war over that page just staying this side of WP:3RR and it needed to stop. I also think you either need to be civil or take a break as could very easily get yourself blocked and I for one want to try and get this resolved without that. None of this is saying he is right and you are wrong - it is rarely that simple. It is about getting the right result for the article. (Emperor (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC))
- There's no way to talk it out. I tried. I tried that first, and I tried it again and again, and so far, not one person has said David Fuchs did anything wrong. Not one. Fuchs hasn't apologized. He went from saying he didn't have to, to saying he already did. No one cares about that. Just that I keep demanding some action, and all I get is 'go take a wikibreak, ThuranX'. Well, hell no. If you all thought a wikibreak was so badly needed, I'd have been blocked. But instead, you're all hoping I'll shut up and go away, and NOT get David Fuchs a clear rebuke. Why? I think it's cause he's short list for ArbCom replacements, and there's a sense of duty to protect him. Well it does no good for the project to get someone like him, who acts without consensus and without apology when wrong, on Arbcom. He doesn't read things through or do research, he steps in, makes a determination, and attacks others. That's not who we want for Arbcom. Not one person here or on the article talk has said one thing about his behavior beyond 'maybe we should think about if he did something wrong', but everyone here is absolutely sure that I'm to blame for all of this. On the talk page, Emperor called for ME to leave it but not David Fuchs, saying all the regular active editors should walk away. IN other words, get out of David Fuchs' way, he can save the article. That's how you blamed me for all of it, Emperor. IF that's how it goes, that community consensus is that regular editors should jsut get out of the way when some new editor runs ramshod all over their work, without discussion of finding consensus, then fine. Community ban me and be done with it. But David Fuchs will just do it again and again until someone makes him accept that he did something WRONG. How many editors are you willing to lose before you make him accountable for his actions? ThuranX (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm sorry. It's about David Fuchs' behavior being examined carefully. I waited for Black Kite to look into this more (he didn't) I had hoped Avruch would look more closely at what he'd said, and what he was supporting (Not sure if he did or not, so far he seems fine with all David Fuchs' behaviors). I waited on the talk page, but got more insulted. So I gave up. I did what David Fuchs wanted. It cost the article its GA status, one which took two months of hard work to earn. This, surprisingly, was where people noticed. And what did they notice? Not that David Fuchs had revoked status, not that he'd gamed, ignored, and broken rules, but that I was following consensus in a way they didn't like. Not one said hey, there's consensus that this article is good, no... Not one person spoke up to complain about David Fuchs. Just about me. It's hypocritical, and i hate it. Why is he immune from examination? Why is it suddenly only about MY behavior, and the good of the article, and not about his persistent behaviors that got the ball rolling here? ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I haven't called for a Desysoping, just a formal rebuke and an apology. I'm not getting either though. ThuranX (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I feel that ThuranX has been acting incivil in this matter. It's twice that he's calling editors interferring or comment unneeded.[1][2]
- Moreover, he unilaterally blanked the GAR page for Hulk [3] after PeterSymonds requested for review. Now to be fair, I believe that David Fuchs does not need to "bold delist" this article. David should have given an "on hold for 7 days before delist" approach. This approach would have prevented such drama. The so-called "bold delist" is only for those that fails obviously (e.g. completely no reference or the article is only 10 sentence long) but misunderstood by most in the community. So after some consideration, the April issue of GA newsletter will cover the aspect of "bold delist". OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- To be clear, I did the delisting, not David Fuchs. David Fuchs instead failed the article after it had passed GA. He gave no specifics, and had already gamed 3RR, been incivil and so on. I can't help but note that every bit of this entire situation has been David Fuchs doing wrong, then the entire thing twisting back at me being the only one in the wrong. Why isn't his gaming of 3RR, his refusal thrice over to initiate talk proceedings (One, before his massive blanking first edit, two and three before each revert), and his incivility when I very nicely asked him to the talk, and his further incivility when I replied to him more than once. Only after all that, after I brought it here where it was largely ignored (Black Kite never got back to it, Avruch effectively negated Smith Jones' comment and subtly supported David Fuchs), did I concede and initiate the pursuit of David Fuchs new consensus, one instituted by nothing more than his adamant refusal to follow policies. Only once I went in that direction did anyoen take notice of the situation, and then, only to complain about my actions. I followed every step Wikipedia has, only to have the entire system of polciy and recourse fail. Amazing that it works so well now that it's not an admin on the hot seat, eh? ThuranX (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Super-spam?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the Superman music page, a red-link editor has taken a fair amount of time to add track listings for an 8-volume CD collection of soundtracks from the Christopher Reeve films. I have several issues with this, and I would like for someone who understands the rules better than I do to comment on it:
- The editor is the producer of the CD as well as the author of the information he posted, as he made the point of saying and which started some frustrating dialoge: [4]
- Despite his denial of shameless self-promotion, he has made a point of it being a limited edition, so we had better order it before they run out. [5]
- It's not actually available yet, although it will be "imminently" and they are taking orders.
- It's not going to be in real stores at all.
So I'm seeing self-promotion as well as original research. What say y'all to this? Is this all proper, or should it be reverted? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- He added a great deal of valuable information, cleaning up the entire article. Any consideration of WP:COI problems, if found, should be careful to only pare dow nthat which is a true conflict ,and not the entire series of edits. ThuranX (talk) 03:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- To clear up a few issues with the above: 1) COI issues are for the sake of keeping it /neutral/, not keeping it off. 2) So, it's limited, so what? Countless items go in and out of print all the time. 3) It's available, and in fact has started shipping 4) What's a 'real' store? Again, countless items can't be bought offline. WHY does that matter? 5) It's NOT original research, it's research. Yes, the person who added it happened to do the 'original' research, but once it's been published, it's perfectly valid for use on WP (at least according to all rules I've read). It shouldn't make a difference who adds the info. Yes, any 'shameless self promotion' should be deleted, but if there's any, it's maybe a few unnessesary mentions of the set itself, and certainly not all the factual info. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Every word that red-link has written, in both the articles and the talk pages, has been for the express purpose of drumming up sales. The external links he added amount to testimonials for his product. The page is now essentially a protracted advertisement for his product. All of that supposed to be against wikipedia policy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you are refering to Film Score Monthly could it be that they hold an exclusive license to the Superman score? Sorry I do not know enough about the industry, but if you look on Ford article you will find links to different Ford model cars. Igor Berger (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- They probably do. I can get a Ford without buying it over the internet, sight unseen, and having to depend on testimonials that the one writing the article has cited. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is all part of the game and the marketing machine. I am sure if you go to Star Trek, Marvel comics, etc. you will find the same patern. Igor Berger (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously. I can see exactly what they're up to. I wasn't born yesterday, I can see a sales pitch a mile away. And they are welcome to do it on pages where it's OK. It's not supposed to be OK on wikipedia. I'm just trying to get an admin to comment on it, yea or nay, as opposed to unilaterally doing a complete rollback of that red-link's self-serving entries. I've asked several admins already, but apparently they have larger issues, since they won't answer the question. That's why I posted here, hoping someone would think this might have some importance. Wikipedia is not supposed to be amazon.com. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is all part of the game and the marketing machine. I am sure if you go to Star Trek, Marvel comics, etc. you will find the same patern. Igor Berger (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- They probably do. I can get a Ford without buying it over the internet, sight unseen, and having to depend on testimonials that the one writing the article has cited. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you are refering to Film Score Monthly could it be that they hold an exclusive license to the Superman score? Sorry I do not know enough about the industry, but if you look on Ford article you will find links to different Ford model cars. Igor Berger (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Every word that red-link has written, in both the articles and the talk pages, has been for the express purpose of drumming up sales. The external links he added amount to testimonials for his product. The page is now essentially a protracted advertisement for his product. All of that supposed to be against wikipedia policy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent) This diff shows all the efforts by the editor in question. Among them, I see the questionable track listing, which can be argued as promotional, since it details a product morethan the actual subject, but I also see extensive editing to expand on the topic, including the addition of years, names, musical techniques and rhythms used, detailed explanations of the various musical themes and so on. I note the linked inclusion of the record company name, but I checked, and this editor apparently hasn't touched that article, at least not in the past 50 edits, which go back a few months. This seems to be a case of the expert coming here and pouring out a great deal of knowledge which otherwise would only be available to 3000 folks(or less), and doing so freely with his time. That a portion of his edits seem to have a level of COI (and not an outright totality) can be discussed, but Baseball Bugs needs to AGF here. He keeps levelling accusations, but the editor in question uses the talk page and seems to want to fix the problems. This needs a careful looking at, not broad accusations of malfeasance. ThuranX (talk) 12:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- One point to remember is that track listings are pretty much the standard on WP. I certainly see no reason not to have them in this case -- as you can see, they were there before on the page for other releses. And again, I'll point out, that just because something happens to have a KNOWN (and I stress known) limited run doesn't mean we can discount it. I guarantee that many book sources used in WP have sold well under 3000 copies before they went OOP. And in this case...it may not even be that limited. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not about track listings being accurate or not. That's a diversionary argument. Every word that red-link user entered in both the article and in his comments on the subject have to do with selling his product. In fact, I was "assuming good faith" until he went onto the talk page and laid down the sales pitch. He is also the author of the book he's quoting. Does that book have verifiable citations in it? As far as "giving freely of his time", well, he's the producer, so it's in his best interest to promote the product and bring money in. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since I can't get a straight answer from anyone, I have decided to invoke the "be bold" rule and have reverted to February 23, the day before the red-link began laying the groundwork for using wikipedia to sell his product. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- As expected, there is now an edit war initiated on that page. WILL SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS??? Is it valid to use one's own book as a source? Is it valid to use wikipedia as an agent for selling one's own products, including the book that's being used as the source? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- The obvious answer to your question is "No, it is not alright to use Wikipedia to sell one's own book." You have been asked to remove the content that appears to be promoting the book. You have also been shown that some of the user's edits have absolutely nothing to do with his book. The phrase that comes to mind has something to do with baby and bathwater. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- My test is whether or not I can tell what they're trying to sell by reading the page. I can't. Add reliably sourced material to an article, which happens to be sourced to a book you wrote is a very mild conflict of interest, and the promotional aspect is very minor. I can't see any promotional tone in the article as it stands. A good litmus test would be "Would an unrelated editor, with the same resource, add similar material in a similar tone." The answer here is yes. --Haemo (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- By adding the track listings of his own CD's to the article, he is trying to pique interest. He coveniently adds external links with testimonials. Then you look into buying it and find that this "major release" is limited to 3,000 sets of CD's. Then you go, "Oh, I better get one before they run out!" That's what's going on here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- What's actually going on here, and what you're ignoring now, is that unrelated editors (as Haemo pointed out above) have evaluated the listings and added them on their own - regardless of the claim you made on the article talk page that anyone disagreeing with you was trying to sell products along with the original editor you disagreed with, this information was going to get added to the article eventually. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, I fully intended to go back and re-add legimitate edits NOT made by that one red-link who's trying to sell his CD's here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus is against you. No one else finds the sum of his edits to be wholly bad; many find nothing wrong, and a few find some parts questionable. However, it has been pointed out (either here or o nteh article talk) that CD track listings are commonly found throughout wikipedia. A track listing for a holistic collection of Superman music is better off at an article which examines, in depth, the music, than at a separate page, which would certainly be SPAM or COI or both. However, the editor, to my eyes added one section of potential COI, the track listings for a collection he helped produce. given that there's precedence, and that he added a wealth of good fact to flesh out the meat of the article, I cannot support any injunction against the editor, nor any removals on the page. He made an article that if I'd found it before, I'd have thought "this is a thin article with lots of spec and maybeish based writing", into an article that makes me think about the production of the scores and music for the various media themselves. I only considered the marketing because I read it with an eye towards that. While he did add the name of the company releasing the compilation a few times, that company has an article he didn't work on. This is a non-issue to me, and your continued intractability on the matter makes this become a waste of time, too.. ThuranX (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- And your blindness to what that guy is up to is extraordinarily frustrating. It's supposed to be against the rules to use wikipedia to sell stuff. If "consensus" overrides that rule, then it's hopeless. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- You keep acting like he added a great big section that screams "BUY MY CD NOW!!!" - but that's not what happened. He added factual listings of a released product that would have been added anyway by other editors as it directly relates to the page question - he also fleshed out other sections, without editorializing or specifically pimping the CD he contributed to. I think you need to step back here, as your insults and snipes at anyone who disagrees with you (and you do appear to be alone in this) is getting tiresome. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- You know what? You're right. I'm blind to what's going on on Wikipedia. I can't see that when editors work hard, its' meant to be ripped to shreds and insulted at length. Now that I know that such attacks and hostility are the new normal, I can see it all clearly. Anyways, this was the last thing I was involved in before retiring anyways, given how my own dissatisfaction with the project and unilateralism has grown. This is just another thread of the same 'only I can see what's going on and save the article' attitude that's driven me to leave, only this one's grounded in paranoia and hubris, not just hubris. ThuranX (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- The guy produces a CD and a book about the CD's; he posts information from his own products in the article; he posts links that amount to testimonials for his products; he makes a point on the talk page of saying that he produced the CD and that it's a limited quantity so you better get 'em while they're available. Original research, spam, huckstering. And that whole scenario is perfectly OK with everyone. I am very impressed. NOT. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- And your blindness to what that guy is up to is extraordinarily frustrating. It's supposed to be against the rules to use wikipedia to sell stuff. If "consensus" overrides that rule, then it's hopeless. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus is against you. No one else finds the sum of his edits to be wholly bad; many find nothing wrong, and a few find some parts questionable. However, it has been pointed out (either here or o nteh article talk) that CD track listings are commonly found throughout wikipedia. A track listing for a holistic collection of Superman music is better off at an article which examines, in depth, the music, than at a separate page, which would certainly be SPAM or COI or both. However, the editor, to my eyes added one section of potential COI, the track listings for a collection he helped produce. given that there's precedence, and that he added a wealth of good fact to flesh out the meat of the article, I cannot support any injunction against the editor, nor any removals on the page. He made an article that if I'd found it before, I'd have thought "this is a thin article with lots of spec and maybeish based writing", into an article that makes me think about the production of the scores and music for the various media themselves. I only considered the marketing because I read it with an eye towards that. While he did add the name of the company releasing the compilation a few times, that company has an article he didn't work on. This is a non-issue to me, and your continued intractability on the matter makes this become a waste of time, too.. ThuranX (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, I fully intended to go back and re-add legimitate edits NOT made by that one red-link who's trying to sell his CD's here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- What's actually going on here, and what you're ignoring now, is that unrelated editors (as Haemo pointed out above) have evaluated the listings and added them on their own - regardless of the claim you made on the article talk page that anyone disagreeing with you was trying to sell products along with the original editor you disagreed with, this information was going to get added to the article eventually. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- By adding the track listings of his own CD's to the article, he is trying to pique interest. He coveniently adds external links with testimonials. Then you look into buying it and find that this "major release" is limited to 3,000 sets of CD's. Then you go, "Oh, I better get one before they run out!" That's what's going on here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- As expected, there is now an edit war initiated on that page. WILL SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS??? Is it valid to use one's own book as a source? Is it valid to use wikipedia as an agent for selling one's own products, including the book that's being used as the source? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since I can't get a straight answer from anyone, I have decided to invoke the "be bold" rule and have reverted to February 23, the day before the red-link began laying the groundwork for using wikipedia to sell his product. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not about track listings being accurate or not. That's a diversionary argument. Every word that red-link user entered in both the article and in his comments on the subject have to do with selling his product. In fact, I was "assuming good faith" until he went onto the talk page and laid down the sales pitch. He is also the author of the book he's quoting. Does that book have verifiable citations in it? As far as "giving freely of his time", well, he's the producer, so it's in his best interest to promote the product and bring money in. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Any discussion, even on the talk page, about how it's in limited quantity should be removed immediately. I agree with Bugs that this is ridiculous to allow, but consensus seems to be against you, sorry. Frankly, the whole article needs serious sources. There's way too much OR about what the music includes, means, and is generally about. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus overrides the rules? That is not at all encouraging. But you've given one glimmer of hope, which is to remove anything that smacks of "selling it". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see you're already working on it. I modified the external links to remove the obvious self-promotion there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus overrides the rules? That is not at all encouraging. But you've given one glimmer of hope, which is to remove anything that smacks of "selling it". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
(Undent). Baseball bugs has now begun engaging in edit wars to remove all the material, first by hitting the 3RR cap on wholesale reversion, and now, in tandem with Ricky81632, by cutting it back one edit at a time. The blanking vandalism goes so far as to remove two sources erroneously put under External Links, including a press release and an interview with the producers. This level of contentious behavior in contravention of Consensus and policy is clearly the new vogue on Wikipedia, and I understand that administrative fiat permits the institution of new consensus by simply being an admin and saying so, but under wikipedia's old rules, he should be blocked for WP:POINT and BLANKING violations, and probably a 3RR skirting. ThuranX (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Those press releases were intended specifically to hype the product. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Look. can you not see that consensus is against you? that many people find the musical information he added valuable? That many find that since many articles about Music have track listings, that at most, this particular set's listings should be dropped, but that a wholesale revert is flat out wrong? He added immense amounts of genuine fact to the article, and not all of it needs to be reverted to 'fix' the COI you perceive? You propose a 100% reversion, but that's flat out stupid. Reverting the addition of dates, titles, and names which were previously speculative or less specific would be a value loss, not a value add. As the community doesn't see a COI here like you do, I suggest you either accept and move on, or consider it a Content Dispute and head to RfC or Arbcom. I also note your don't deny any of the policy troubles I noted above. Consider those before committing more. ThuranX (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Have you even looked at the article lately? Another editor already reverted everything I had reverted, and he along with yet another editor are trying to weed the hype out of the article. Since you won the revert war, those two have now done more work on that weeding effort than I have. Go talk to them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, the user you're complaining about acting "in tandem", who I never heard of until yesterday, Ricky81682, is an admin, and I expect admins to know the rules. So I appreciate his looking into this situation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Have you even looked at the article lately? Another editor already reverted everything I had reverted, and he along with yet another editor are trying to weed the hype out of the article. Since you won the revert war, those two have now done more work on that weeding effort than I have. Go talk to them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Look. can you not see that consensus is against you? that many people find the musical information he added valuable? That many find that since many articles about Music have track listings, that at most, this particular set's listings should be dropped, but that a wholesale revert is flat out wrong? He added immense amounts of genuine fact to the article, and not all of it needs to be reverted to 'fix' the COI you perceive? You propose a 100% reversion, but that's flat out stupid. Reverting the addition of dates, titles, and names which were previously speculative or less specific would be a value loss, not a value add. As the community doesn't see a COI here like you do, I suggest you either accept and move on, or consider it a Content Dispute and head to RfC or Arbcom. I also note your don't deny any of the policy troubles I noted above. Consider those before committing more. ThuranX (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Being an admin doesn't mean anything. Admins don't have rules. And whether it's coordinated or just observation and a mutual thinking ,working to undo all the work added is NOT the way to go. He added real facts. Not all of it's self-promotion. You assert that 100% is promotion, which can only mean that you think that the very act of contributing is a means of him seditiously attempting to gain our good will to get us to buy his stuff. That's absurd. He confirmed or added dates that were previously questioned. He added names of people who helped make the music. He added musical structure information. Everything he's added has been systematically removed or Fact tagged. It is a horrible violation of AGF, an overly broad interpretation of COI and OWN, it's incivil, and it's BITEy. I think it is wrong, but you DO have an admin on your side, and I can attest from personal experience, admins don't follow rules, and get away with that regularly.
- You need to clearly address how provide names of those who worked on the production of the music for hte films, and dates of events, and musical structure information constittue an attempt to sell the material. I really think your attitude is 'he worked on that, thus anythign he dos has to be a sell' even if he were ONLY on the talk page and doing grammatical edits. You really seem to say 'anythign he does which improves the page may have a net result of earning him profit eventually, even indirectly, and thus it's all bad. Had he not done anything but grammatical changes, but put the CD set on the net, and people came here first to learn more abotu the production of various superman themes and music, and reading the article, bought the product, you give off that you'd feel you'd be justified in asserting he, even in that circumstance, had a COI and should be blanket reverted. You really are just pushing him off the project, not helping anyone. ThuranX (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- You need to take the blinders off and realize that the red-link user's purpose was entirely self-promotional. And stop already with the "assume good faith" lecture. His own words confirm it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- For one thing, as far as "driving him off the project", the only articles he has modified are those directly connected with promoting his product. The only "project" he's on is to sell his 3,000 CD's. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- You need to take the blinders off and realize that the red-link user's purpose was entirely self-promotional. And stop already with the "assume good faith" lecture. His own words confirm it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- You have never provided a link which shows his express intent to be to hype his product. You have, however, made glue for days. There are at least three editors who aren't you OR mxscore who feel he HAS contributed valuable information. There are editors who feel he is NOT thoroughly self-serving. EVEN if self-serving were a part of his motivation, does that mean the project should throw it all out on some ridiculous principled stand that we would rather go blind than wear glasses? We can remove, after discussion and consensus, anything which gets too close to, or crosses, the line. If editor-based consensus and policy are not acceptable, then call in an administrator. They can make any rules they want. ThuranX (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your change of "written" to "wrtten" is another rule you care nothing about. You are not allowed to change others' comments. I say again, every word he has posted in that article has to do with selling his product. Period. Frequent mentions of who produced it and stuff on the talk pages about how it's a limited edition. That's called a "sales pitch". "Consensus" does not allow violation of the rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was a typo. I bumped the pageup key, and must've tapped the delete as well. I didn't notice that I'd accidentally taken out one letter two screens up. Why don't you go ask for a fucking block against me for it? Go on. It'll hide the fact that I've hit the nail on the head: You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and you know it, and you LIKE it. You're here ONLY because you refuse to back down from your position, and you're too embarrassed to reverse course now. Just shut the hell up, let this thread go into archive ,and move on. You have yet to provide any rationale for your opinion other than that anyone who has any interest in anything is suffering COI. Many, or most, if not all editors here write about what interests them. Many work in the fields they write about. Expert writiing is a contentious area, but it gets handled case by case. You're not thinking about it like that. You just want a community ban on the guy and a wholesale revert, and you REALLY have NOT explained why you're acting this way at all. You just keep saying 'he's selling stuff, so I can and msut wholesale 100% revert'. YOu can't defend against the examples given above, and haven't tried. Below, a fourth (or is it more now?) editor adds his thoughts opposing your wholesale reverts and finding value added by the edits of MXScore. Please catch on. You are trying to not just IAR but B(reak)AR, when BRD is in play, and CONSENSUS is against you. Since you don't care about that, though, I'd be glad to recommend to you some admins who have community support for the power to ignore consensus and substitute their own consensus. They'd be glad to help you out. ThuranX (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your change of "written" to "wrtten" is another rule you care nothing about. You are not allowed to change others' comments. I say again, every word he has posted in that article has to do with selling his product. Period. Frequent mentions of who produced it and stuff on the talk pages about how it's a limited edition. That's called a "sales pitch". "Consensus" does not allow violation of the rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- You have never provided a link which shows his express intent to be to hype his product. You have, however, made glue for days. There are at least three editors who aren't you OR mxscore who feel he HAS contributed valuable information. There are editors who feel he is NOT thoroughly self-serving. EVEN if self-serving were a part of his motivation, does that mean the project should throw it all out on some ridiculous principled stand that we would rather go blind than wear glasses? We can remove, after discussion and consensus, anything which gets too close to, or crosses, the line. If editor-based consensus and policy are not acceptable, then call in an administrator. They can make any rules they want. ThuranX (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've taken a look (as a non-involved non-admin) at what User:Baseball Bugs reverted, and frankly while most of the text might be unreferenced, and possibly original research, it was not blatantly promotional or in need of such a wholesale reversion. Sure, you can't just come on to Wikipedia and add "Buy my CD!" to an article. But if you improve an article, and in doing so make people want to buy the product related to it, then what's the problem? By the same token, if an Apple employee were to go and add some decent content to Criticism of Microsoft, it's still decent content. I'd advise Bugs to take a deep breath, talk with the other user to work towards providing some sources for the article (presumably, being associated with the subject he'd know where to look for them), and preferably stop referring to him as a "redlink" or "redlinked user", because the way the term's being used looks to me to be perjorative, ad hominem, and bordering on incivility and/or personal attack. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Enough of this. You've had enough of a venue here, and no one sees a problem that's actionable by admins. If you want a more extensive discussion, dispute resolution is down the hall. --Haemo (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The user worked on this one topic for a few days, not heard from before or since. His sole purpose in wikipedia was to promote his CD's. The typical red-link user has a single purpose on wikipedia. Often it's vandalism. Sometimes it's to focus on a specific article for a specific purpose, as with this case. Some red-link users are that way just because they don't choose to create a user page. There are even some admins with red-link user pages. That's the exceptional case. Generally, a red-link is here for a narrow purpose. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
New user User:Tom.mevlie
User:Tom.mevlie caught out using a sock puppet to "prove" his point and blocked.--VS talk 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This is totally unacceptable. And this was the user's first post. I have left a message on the user's talk page - however, I feel this behaviour is so strong that it is unlikely that the user would enjoy being a Wiki editor, and it might be in the best interests of all if this user was encouraged to disengage from the project at the earliest opportunity. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Although I may be somewhat biased in my favour, a better way than straight out banning me, would possibly put me on a probationary period, or look at some of my other posts, all of which, were, in my view, productive and helpful to each of the causes in which i donated my opinions to. But the descision rests with the administrators, not with me. --Tom.mevlie (talk) 12:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- This editor has made some good contributions, including creating the Woodstock Nation (novel) article. I would counsel some consideration of WP:BITE, even in light of the above incidents.скоморохъ 12:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- The user has apologised to the people he attacked, which we can take at face value. A block now would be punitive, so it would be best if he got on with editing, with a stern note warning that deviation from "productive and helpful" in this manner again will lead to a block to prevent disruption in future. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- If necessary, I'll oversight his contributions and pull him aside if this happens again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a bit less inclined to assume good faith given that as near as I can tell I had never interacted with the editor prior to his leaving this message on my talk page. (It seems he must have encountered my name when placing this edit, unless he knew me in another life.) His first edit was vandalism; within minutes of his first edit, he's requesting an assessment from a wikiproject, and then he's off to village pump proposals? Unusual, for a new contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. Also, his above comment implies he knows the difference between a block and ban. That's peculiar for a new editor. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I thought it was very clear that he's just here to troll. But the evidence is circumstantial, so we can only give him the usual miles and miles of rope before we escort him of the premises. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Quite true. :) I'd support the warning, pending further disruptive editing or more substantive evidence of puppetry. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I thought it was very clear that he's just here to troll. But the evidence is circumstantial, so we can only give him the usual miles and miles of rope before we escort him of the premises. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- The remarks I left on the Depiction of Muhammad discussion were purely to prove a point, and to gesticulate the fact that we shouldn't depict muhammad, lest someone get offended. Although, i am not the first person to talk to about offending people. Moonriddengirl is correct. I have never met her before, nor had any prior contact, i wrote on her page to see what i could get away with, but also to show that, although wikipedia states that there should be no line drawn between admin and non admin users, it still is rampant amongst the community, i am not trying to shift the blame from me to her, i am merely stating my rationale for saying what i said, and again, i am sorry to anyone who i offended. --Tom.mevlie (talk) 13:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, I think there may have been better ways to learn about the community than by posting the comment you made to Moonriddengirl. It may be difficult for some to assume good faith in your edits when you admit to having ulterior motives in making them. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Tom.mevlie, I suggest you review the WP:POINT guideline. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Of course you are correct, but may i say, that i have apologised for my actions, and i have tried to make up for it by posting well in all of my recent posts, i think what people should do, is instead of looking at the mistakes of people, you should look at where they did okay.--Tom.mevlie (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that you are mistaken if you think that a message like that would have been acceptable on the page of any user, administrator or not. While the first line of defense against incivility is to ignore it or to provide better counter-examples, there is a distinction between petty incivility and gross incivility. Please note that WP:NPA indicates "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored". As for considering your recent posts, I suspect that posts made four hours ago still technically fit within the definition of "recent". :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea. Tom.mevlie, I suggest that to restore the karmic balance, that you and I each go out and find 3 users we've never interacted with before, and give them purely positive praise for something good they've done, without any ifs, ands, buts, or negative comments around the same time. Is it a deal? --Coppertwig (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am sorry I do not get it. You are abusive, insulting, and vulgar to a person who you never dealt with before? Just out of a blue you picked her to experiment? What are we lab rats? What is going to be your next experiment? By your own admission, it is not like you got angry at someone for doing something you did not like and in anger say crap to them. Man I would not want you around! Why are you here? Igor Berger (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have only been here six weeks, so I am hardly an expert, but his case smacks of vandalism, trolling, and/or sockpuppetry. I would allow him some rope if that is what Wikipedia policy implies should be done, but I would shorten his leash. My two cents' worth (before adjusting for inflation). Jonneroo (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Abysmal behaviour - and I do not believe this user is "new". I submit in agreement with my colleagues above that at the very least a final warning posted to his page with detail in the edit summary - for tracking purposes if it is deleted. I will be happy to post that warning myself should that be the outcome of this discussion - and quite frankly I think that it should have commenced with such a warning (or if an admin has spotted it first with an immediate short block) rather than to belabour the point here.--VS talk 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- As an obviously interested party, I'm inclined to agree. There are two possibilities here. If this individual is to be taken at his word, he launched a vicious, sexist attack against a stranger to prove a point. Note that his apology for this assault is rather tepidly phrased towards the language use, when according to his own statement above, the entire personal attack was unwarranted. Given his pattern of editing, he is far more likely a sock puppet. In either case, the likelihood of future misbehavior seems high, and a clear warning seems best for the sake of the community. (Note that there is absolutely no requirement for us to assume good faith here now that he has admitted to intentionally disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point. (See WP:AGF.) Civility in handling misbehavior is mandatory; naivety is not.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Let me get this right: I can call someone a fucking whore, a stupid bitch, a cunt, and escape action, but if I choose a username that an admin doesn't like I get blocked? Dan Beale-Cocks 01:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify my point a bit - username blocks seem to be handed out a lot more readily than other blocks. Good faith editors who chose a marginal username ("confusing"??) face blocking. Dan Beale-Cocks 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Given what we are discussing, that was probably the wrong thing to say, and as this whole discussion stem from swearing to prove a point, i'm guessing that someone will probably report you.. Tom.mevlie (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- And here we see that Tom.mevlie clearly does not understand why he was reported. To try to make it clearer - I can fucking swear all I like, what I'm not allowed to do is make personal attacks to other editors, even if that attack has no swearing. Dan Beale-Cocks 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- You can swear all you like can you? Well then, maybe out of context swearing should be banned, i say out of context meaning not related to an article, like that of Cunt.Tom.mevlie (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia does have a code of conduct. Wikipedia:Civility is policy, though somewhat flawed in enforcement in that it largely depends on voluntary compliance and does not offer easy recourse to individuals who are treated with incivility. Even so, personal attacks are not allowed, whether they arise from disputes or experiments. Even isolated personal attacks may lead to blocking in extreme cases. If you had said that to another editor and I had seen it, I would have immediately issued you a final warning. Blocking is not punitive, but it can be instructive: as set out at the blocking policy, two of its four purposes are to encourage rapid understanding that behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated and to encourage working more productively and congenially within community norms. If you behave in this way again, blocking may well be necessary, whether to make those points or simply to protect the community against inappropriate behavior. While your attack was launched against me, given your own admission here at AN/I that we had never previously interacted, I do not consider that I am in any more conflict of interest cautioning you than I would be handling any random vandal. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- All right enough is enough - I just removed some a new editor's (user:I.want.to.tellyou attempt to make a point. Tom I am coming to your page to give you a final warning - I trust you will take it in the spirit that it is meant to be taken - that is Personal Attacks will lead to blocking. Okay?--VS talk 05:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay - final/only warning posted with comments in the edit summary linked to this thread. Now could another admin please close this discussion.--VS talk 05:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Folks, we have a sock farm here. Check out
- I.just.saw.a.face. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- Teg.kcab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 165.228.1.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
...For a start. There may be more. Antandrus (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay - but I suggest let's deal with him quickly as a sock-puppeteer and close this magnet.--VS talk 06:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why bother with closing this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- From my perspective the commencing reason for the thread has been dealt with. Why keep it? - we are just feeding the troll by keeping it - and he has stated that it was his intention to get us to talk and talk and talk (read the post by I.want.to.tellyou. (Mind you I won't die in a ditch over the answer one way or another)--VS talk 06:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- A sockpuppet case has now been opened. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- From my perspective the commencing reason for the thread has been dealt with. Why keep it? - we are just feeding the troll by keeping it - and he has stated that it was his intention to get us to talk and talk and talk (read the post by I.want.to.tellyou. (Mind you I won't die in a ditch over the answer one way or another)--VS talk 06:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why bother with closing this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets
I should've raised this issue as soon as I found out the above matter two weeks ago. I have reported several RFCU files on suspicious editors who vandalized Japanese-Korean related articles. Even before submitting RFCU files, I've been stalked by several Japanese editors such as Mochi (talk · contribs), Kusunose (talk · contribs), Amazonfire (talk · contribs) since last December.[6],[7][8], [9][10], [11]
Recently, editors set up for a poll for naming title of Sea of Japan. As the poll was getting stale, a lot of new users suddenly came to to vote for oppose after Feb. 14th. So I googled my name and found out the 2channel's plot for the poll. It is not one time project, it has been going on since 2004. ウィキペディア (Wikipedia)英語版に挑む 04/05/28
- Talk:Sea_of_Japan#Rename the Article
- Talk:Sea_of_Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia(ウィキペディア)捏造に対抗せよ 21
- User talk:LordAmeth#Need a guideline
http://academy6.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/english/1085704624/
On 2channnel, Japanese editors who involve in Wikipeida have posted and discussed which Korean editors to stalk, which admins to watch, which articles the Japanese need to watch and revert, which Japanese editors to support.
- Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Azukimonaka
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou
- Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yuan.C.Lee
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Saintjust
- Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Opp2
These are the RFCU files on some of them and I have also a list of 2channel's threads. I think to resolve Japan-Korean related issues and to prevent misconducts from meat/sock puppetry, more admimi's watch is appreciated for for long time. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously, Endroit is trying to turn the issue from admins' attention with several blatant lies. That is sad. --Appletrees (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- How am I related to all of this? As I made it clear here, I do not condone canvassing by 2channel users, and I am not related to 2channel. Please cease your personal attacks, Appletrees.--Endroit (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't make personal attack on me just like you have done so. Switching links and altering my comment is a big no no. Well, I saw your name mentioned at 2channel. And you're the one who makes series of bogus RFCUs per your history and accused me of being a socks of Appleby or others with just your assumption. --Appletrees (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Did not I ask you why you keep silence about the big meatpuppetry incidnet from Japanese 2channel unlike your past experience at ANI? I think I gave too many times to Japanese editors to stop disruptions.--Appletrees (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't make personal attack on me just like you have done so. Switching links and altering my comment is a big no no. Well, I saw your name mentioned at 2channel. And you're the one who makes series of bogus RFCUs per your history and accused me of being a socks of Appleby or others with just your assumption. --Appletrees (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- How am I related to all of this? As I made it clear here, I do not condone canvassing by 2channel users, and I am not related to 2channel. Please cease your personal attacks, Appletrees.--Endroit (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Template:JaChallenge to English Wikipedia [12] (2004-05-28)
- Template:Ja Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 16translated by google (Liancourt rocks vote)
- Template:Ja Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 17translated by google
- Template:Ja Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 18translated by google
- Template:Ja Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 19translated by google
- Template:Ja Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 20translated by google
- Template:Ja Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 21translated by google
- Template:Ja Watch out on Chosenjin's fabrication part1translated by google
These links are achieved and stored at 2channel which are only partial and as you see, the number in the title says about it is series of discussion for meatpuppetry plots. The 18th is for naming change of Liancourt Rocks. They said about a lot of admins, some of which is against Japanese side such as User:Nihonjoe. --Appletrees (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. This is the first time I've been called biased against both the Japanese "side" and the Korean "side" by the same person. I guess I must be doing my job if both sides think I'm against them. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's it? Got it -_-;; --Appletrees (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that Wikipedia is a major topic in 2ch [13]. Considering people talked about Wikipedia article as meat puppet is nonsense.--Mochi (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- In your dictionary, stalking is a just fun and worthwhile job? You should change your book. At least have a shame on your misconduct.--Appletrees (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Nanshu's dubious behaviors
Although Nanshu and Endroit have strongly denied their relation with 2channel, famous Japanese bulletin board. However, Nanshu had not edit English or Japanese Wikipedia for 2 months, but suddenly came to warn User:LordAmeth of not listening to Korean's saying and ignoring 2channel meatpuppetry at Talk:Sea of Japan poll fraud which is very weird. He appears to be always on center of controversial disputes with questionable behaviors as well. To the contrary of Nanshu's argument, I identify Nanshu on the 2channel. His reports at the two place happened around 9 pm in Japanese time. See the green letters. (Japanese time is 9 hours faster than UTC) http://mobile.seisyun.net/cgi/read.cgi/society6/society6_korea_1198939173/
Original text from 2channel[14] | Translation |
---|---|
cuのリクの濫用ってどこに投げればいいの? |
Where would be a good place for reporting abuses on Checkuser? |
>558 アドミンのーてぃ酢ボードでしょ。 |
>558Incident board of Administrator |
>563 投げてみた。計画なく動いてるんで |
>563 I throw it (reported it). I did without any plan and haven't think about how to do with the case further.[15][16] |
Engage31 (talk · contribs), a sock account, or friend of Endroit (talk · contribs) and Saintjust (talk · contribs)/Hermeneus (talk · contribs) from 2channel visited to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page with this obvious sock account. The sock wrote ex post facto rationalization which is rarely used by non native English speaker unless they are related to the area. Hermenus/Saintjust are very knowledgeable of political philosophy according to talk page info. I googled it and the only result I got is not surprisingly, Nanshu also did get involved in the dispute with Poo-T (talk · contribs) and Hermeneus.[17]
If any checkuser looks into Engage31 and the possible "friends" at the same time, I think the possible relation of their meat or sockpuppetry can be confirmed. --Appletrees (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Chosenjin's Wikipedia : fight against the fabrication 20
I translated small part of one thread which has information about their blatant meatpuppetry and filled with personal attacks on any editors who are not pro-Japanese side. So look into the contents in the table.
Original text | Translation | Engagements |
---|---|---|
Ethnic issues in Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
|
Ethnic issues in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) |
>>12 According to the calculation of [[R.J.Rummel]], と情報源を明示しておいた。 |
|
|
Eugenicsの件、ポイントがサッパリ分からんのだが、1〜2ページ で概要つかめるまとめみたいなのはないの? |
| |
>>17 Flying-Tygerはこう書いた The purposes of this law are to prevent the birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point of view, and to protect the life and health of the mother as well ← ココ重要 「母体の健康を保護する目的」っていうのを丸ごと削除して引用している。 それから、戦前の国民優生法が定義した範囲は、遺伝性疾患(mental retardation)のみなのに、mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions と拡張している。(これは戦後の優生保護法の適用範囲) なんで、こんな滅茶苦茶な資料の引用したのかを聞いているのだが、Flying-Tygerではなく、ZayZayEM というユーザーが 「失礼な書き込みだ」「あなたが母体保護について追記したいなら追記すればいい」などと回答して、Flying-Tygerは沈黙。 |
The purposes of this law are to prevent the birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point of view, and to protect the life and health of the mother as well ← important He concealed "and to protect the life and health of the mother as well". and emphasized inferior. "while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions..." is also wrong. Source #1 is written, Only "hereditary disorder (遺伝性疾患)". Source #2 is written, "or hereditary malformation, or the spouse suffers from mental disease or mental disability". However, this is an explanation of The Eugenic Protection Law approved in 1948.copied from Azukimonaka's comment I asked why this absurd citation like betting on drinking tea, ZayZayEm (talk · contribs) said that your asking is a uncivil comment instead of Flying tiger, and if you want to add the protection of the mother, you can add the info.[18] And Flying tiger was silent on that.[19] |
Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Involved Japanese editor in meditation Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) |
>>27 それじゃあ、お話になりませんなあ。 |
| |
>>27>>36 きちんとよんでないけど、まず虎とそれ以外のソックを疑うべきでは? CUはアルビでは必須だっけか? |
| |
あずきよ、あんまりカッカして虎のペースでメイン記事のリバート合戦はいかんぞよ。 むしろ、虎は必ずリバートする典型的コリアンだから、ノートなり、メディエーション なりで「見てください!この虎のリバートのひどさを!!」ってやった方が有利だぞ。 一生懸命ノートで議論しようとしてるのに、虎は合意に達していないのに強引に リバートしてる、って構図を作らんと。 |
| |
そうね。メイン記事はとりあえずここに通報して誰か有志が 対処してくれるのに任せた方がいいね、当分は。 で、聞くけど、今の優生学の日本関係の記事は何が問題? |
| |
>40
問題点はなるべく単純にした方がいいぞ。 |
|
|
昭和の優生学に気をとられていたら、メロン爆弾がSo Far from the Bamboo Groveにちょっかいを出してきてるね。 コリアンは油断すると沸いてくるなぁ… |
Koreans keep coming when I'm off my guard! |
|
飛ぶ虎がGreater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere(大東亜共栄圏)の大幅改修にとりかかってるけど Eugenics in Showa Japanの議論は終わったの? |
|
|
メディエーションの仕組みがよう分からんから、なんとも |
|
|
ついに果物まで…… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Korean_fruits |
|
See the whole contribution" 211.3.120.150 (talk · contribs) |
>>112 直リンク貼るとかえって行き難い件。 でもこれはカテゴリ削除議論が効きそうな気もするなあ。 イランのフルーツという前例はあるけれど、余程の固有種でも ない限り各国別に分けるのはナンセンスなような。 カテゴリに含まれる記事数も、それほどないだろうし…。(´Д⊂ヽ #ちなみに、朝鮮塩辛が香具師の手により日帝の支配下から独立してます。 |
However, the discussion for deletion of the category seems to work. As far as I've know, the only case categorized by country was Iranian fruits. However unless very unique fruit, Korean fruits that are not even indigenous, so the category is ridiculous. It don't have enough articles as well. and... By the way, jeotgal is segregated from Japanese imperial control.Applebee |
|
So Far from the Bamboo Grove (ヨーコの話) にメロンがはりついてるね 歴史修正主義 のカテゴリに分けろとか、韓国に都合の悪い部分の削除とか、色々としてきてる |
with this divided categories and deletes anti-Korean side, or do something various. |
|
>>112-113 とりあえず「韓国の果実」だけを追加した理由をトークページに書いてくれとリバートした。 >>115 So Far from the Bamboo Groveについては、「反韓感情」や「歴史修正主義」の根拠を示せって 議論ページに書いても平気かね? ヤブヘビにならなきゃいいが |
>>115 As for So Far from the Bamboo Grove, doesn't he even care If I demand the ground for including cthe ategories, Anti-Korean sentiment and History revisionist |
Saintjust (talk · contribs) nominatior
Kusunose (talk · contribs) |
あれ、馬駄蟹は食い物専属だと思ってたが…ああ、履歴追跡して 流れてきたのね。何やってんだか。 |
|
|
英語版の梨が学名に改名されたけど、英語版って学名を優先する規則でもあるのかな。 |
| |
>>125 Asian PearかKorean Pearが多い。個人的にNashiは見たこと無い。 |
| |
>>117 リバート合戦になってるぞ。明らかに、あっちの理由はおかしいがな…… |
| |
>>127 アメリカ北東部だけど、AsianかJapanese Pearしか見たことない。 |
I live in northeast of the US, but have only seen either Asian or Japanese pear here | |
"Korean Pear" の検索結果 約 874 件中 1 - 100 件目 ID:nanqkawtはこの前からいるプチコリアンナショナルリストだろ。 |
Results by "Korean pear" 1- 100 of 874 ID Badagnani has been in Wikipedia long time ago, might be a Korean nationalist. | |
"Asian Pear" の検索結果 約 184,000 件中 1 - 100 件目 アジアンが一番多いね。 |
| |
ググるよりも、文献あたったほうがいいかも。 |
| |
>>133 google testってウィキでは一般的方法なんだよ。 |
| |
>>130 うちも北東部。ちょい内陸で日系スーパーは無いところ。韓国系は(どこにでも)あるw
Korean Pearは中国スーパーで売ってる。そこではJapanese Pearも見たこと無いなあ。 |
| |
報復依頼w |
| |
梅だの柚子だのって本当に韓国のフルーツなのか? |
Ume and Yuzu are really Korean fruits? | |
何をもって「の」とするかが定義不能だけど、食ってるのは確か。 柚子茶とか有名かな。 まあ、宗主国様のサブセットだし。 |
By what definition is unidentified , they certainly eat them Well, it is only a subset of the suzerain. | |
ところでメロンとリンゴ木って同一人物かな? |
By the way, are Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs) and Appletrees (talk · contribs) the same person? | |
>>148 朝鮮人は皆あんなものだとすると、やつらとはやはり共同作業できないな。下らないし、ネチっこいし、自己中だし。相手するのが疲れちまう。ウィキのシステムから. 朝鮮人は追い出して欲しいもんだよ。 |
>>148 If Chosenjin are all like them, I can't cooperate with them. Childish, catty, self-orientated. It is tiresome to deal with them. I wish Wikipedia expels Korean editors | |
>>149 検証のために一斉にぐぐっていきなりココがヒットしたらアレなんで。(まあ、先にあほほどあるウィキのコピーサイトに埋もれるとは思うが) まあそのうちいつの間にかどうにかなってると思います。 |
| |
>>156 フライング虎が今度は池田信夫さんのところに噛み付いてるね。 優生学の記事は、『自分の主張どおりで保護されたから、mediationに参加する意味はない!』 ってことなんだけど、mediationってそういう場所なの? |
Flying tiger is now sticking to attack Ikedanobuo (talk · contribs) The article of Eugenics in Showa Japan is protected by his claim, he says participation in the meditation is meaningless, but the meditation is such place like his saying? | |
なんかイケダノブオって集中砲火浴びてるな。なんとか耐えて冷静な姿勢を保って欲しいが。 |
Ikedanobuo is on the center from attack. I want him to keep calm though.
|
Talk:Comfort women (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Comfort women|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ikedanobuo (talk · contribs) |
にゅーりんごって典型的な狐狸庵ですな。(´Д⊂ヽ |
Appletrees is a typical wicked fox. |
dion ip61.202.37.174 (talk · contribs)[44][45] |
Talk:Comfort women http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comfort_women なんか、日本人が反論する代わりに親日派の外人さんが身体を張ってくれてるのが申し訳ない・・。 慰安婦問題に詳しい人って、ハングル板にいるならサポート頼みたいな |
I feel a little sorry for a pro-Japanese foreigner who defends instead of Japanese rebutals If there is one who know of the issues on Comfort women in Korean Wikipedia, I would like to ask for support. 208.103.143.6 (talk · contribs) | |
>>188 サポートを頼むとかかくのは肉ソックととられかねないから控えてくれ。 |
>>188 Please refrain from saying or writing "Support this!" which is likely to be accused of doing sock or meat puppetry. |
|
>親日派の外人 J読み? |
>Pro-Japanese foreigner J Readings (talk · contribs) ? | |
リンゴ木の千年に対する粘着ぶりは見てて気持ち悪いな。 |
I feel bad to see Appletrees' obsession at Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) |
|
もう早速削除決定したアドミン茶髪娘のトークページに |
Now (already) Appletrees rushes to the talk page of the admin, BrownHairGirl who deleted the category. |
|
というか、カテゴリー削除議論のページで天皇陛下のゆかり発言 |
Is he out of mind to speak of the Japanese king at the CFD page? |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%8Ddai-ji 「東大寺」の英語版なんだけど、下の方"Notes"の4なんですが、建設したのが韓国人となってます。 |
|
|
脚注の中身は、その脚注を参照している本文側にあるので本文側を編集して。 で。件の「国中連公麻呂」は百済系帰化人の子孫だというのは確からしい模様。 http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/国中連公麻呂 ただ、高麗以前の歴史なのにKorean Baekje Kingdomってのもおかしいんで、Baekje Kingdom in Korea Peninsulaとでも しておいたらいいと思う。 |
Edit the main article if the citation is in the article. According to the source, it is certain that Kuninaka Kimimaro was a descendant of a nationalized Kudara people. However, it is pre history of Goryeo period, the intention of written as Korean Baekje Kingdom looks weird, so I think fixing it to Baekje Kingdom in Korean peninsula would be better. |
222.3.78.58 (talk · contribs)[47] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikuhiko_Hata 秦が日本の戦争犯罪を全否定してることになってる。数ヶ月前まではスタブ記事だったのに不良外人がんばるなwww |
|
Ikuhiko_Hata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jjok (talk · contribs)[48][49] |
217 2007-11-26 05:52:13 ID:qmK3Vesy]
>>217 なんなんだろな、アイツ。ともかく日本の悪口を書きたくて |
Well, it may be that the editor wants to write a bash on Japan. If he so dislike, leave Japan. | |
千年もリンゴ木とか基地外だけ相手にしとけばいいのに。 |
It would be nicer if Sennen goroshi and Appletrees only edit out of our important articles. | |
>>218 朝鮮総連や中国から雇われてるんじゃないのか? VANKとか。 |
||
たしかに金もらって英語ウィキ専用活動してんのかもな。 |
He is highly likely working in English Wikipedia and get paid. | |
>>225 おれは部屋系はやっぱり良友達だと思うね。ちなみにメロンも良友達とほぼ同タイミングで 出没するから、同系とみる。 また、新説としてリンゴ木=機械の疑いを持っている。機械がヤバクなってから 急にリンゴ木の活動が活発になったし、千年への粘着も機会っぽい。 |
I think Room218 (talk · contribs)'s socks are related to Good friend100 (talk · contribs) as well. Judging by the similar time records, Melon could be Good friend100. I come up with a new theory that Appletrees is Wikimachine (talk · contribs). After Wikimachine is banned, Appletrees suddenly begun vigorous and his obsession at Sennen goroshi is the same as Wikimachine's. | |
>>226 部屋系=友達系はサポート。 めろんは除外していい。過去にまとめてチェックユーザ済み。 りんご木は朝鮮語版に垢がある。それによるとかなり前から あと、機印はマジックワードがある。スラッシュ挟んだ例の3文字略語。 |
Room's socks = Good friend100. Besides, the latter comes to edit Goguryeo. Are these are all coincidences? You can exclude Melon in the list because he was clear by the past CU. Of course there may be other ways, but due to the record, we can't persuade a third person with it. |
|
>>225 CUをその理由をつけて求めてみればいいんじゃないの? |
>>225 When you request for check user, add the reason to the report? | |
CUは別に何回やってもいいはずだし、 |
Submitting CU seems okay in a several times | |
なんか、良友達の子供たちみたいなのウジャウジャ騒いでて |
Somehow, presumably socks of Good friend 100 are making fuss. It's getting notable. | |
CUかければいいじゃん |
Include them in the CU file. | |
Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Eugenics in Showa Japanなんだけど 冒頭陳述を書いてきました。よくない部分があったら教えてください。 初めての経験なので慣れていません。 客観的に評価していただけると助かります。 |
I bring in a statement about Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Eugenics in Showa Japan |
|
りんごはちょっとマジで精神病院通いのような気がする。 ずいぶん前に「千年がムカついて夜眠れないニダ!」とか言ってた |
I feel like Appletrees is a little a mental patient in real life. So weird such persecution maniac. Once he said that he couldn't sleep because he was so upset at Sennen goroshi. |
|
>>236 良友達は直接の依頼理由が作れないよ。 |
>>236 I can't make a direct rationale for the request. |
|
cuのデータはそんな長い期間保存されないから、 |
CU data are not preserved for a long time |
|
あ、もう他に大量に見つけられて無期限ブロックくらってるわ。w |
Ah, already discovered that it has a lot of socks to be blocked for indefinite. |
|
>>256 いや、絶滅させてないす。 |
The comparison with Room's case, the possible period time for checking appears to be up to 6 months. |
|
>>269 構内LANからプロクシ経由で外に出て行くような感じでしょうか? ところで朝鮮料理のごたごたが仲裁委に提訴されてるんだけどw |
>>269 By the way, the whole mess-up of Korean cuisine is requested at arbicom. |
|
>>271 いいんじゃねえ?コリアンまとめてバンされればいい。 |
>>271 Isn't it good? Blocking Korean after the matter is sorted. |
|
「"I'm not Caus***"」とか、同じくらいつたない英語で |
It is so laughable to see the denial of Bason0 written in poor English at admin's talk page like "I'm not Causxxx" |
|
身障者を真似る踊りという肝心の記述を消しておいて、 |
He deleted the important description that Byung shin chum is a dance to minic disabled people, but suddenly claimed that it is not for discrimination on those people which is non sense. |
Byung shin chum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yeongeunmun Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Saintjust (talk · contribs) |
ニュー場損のブロック解除要請に対するアド民のコメントが笑える件。 |
It is so hilarious! The new Bason0 requests for protection of the article. | |
英・迎恩門の土下座のソースはないの? |
Is there any source that kings of Korea knelt down and groveled in the dust? | |
>>347もう引退するみたいなこと言ってない? |
Didn't he say that he already gave up? | |
>>348 無限にソック作るやつの約束なんて無意味だろうに(w |
He seems to promise indefinitely. I think any promise with him sounds meaningless | |
しかし、オマンコマークの管理者さんのように、長期間特定のバトル項目を |
However, considering that the admin Marckensen has been in charge of the specific controversial articles for a long time, we can see how irrational Koreans are... | |
>>352 まあ来たら来たでどうにかなるかなと…。
しかしブロックされたきっかけが千年のコメント依頼への闖入→完璧が |
Well, if he comes again, there would be a way... | |
場損はまず英語をマスターするべきだな。 |
Bason0 should first master English | |
てーか奴はいったい何歳くらいなんだろうね。中高生くらいと思ったけど。 いや、中年盛りであんなことやらかしたとは思えない。つーか思いたくない。 |
How old is he? I guess he is a middle or high school student. | |
なんでコーリアンは下関条約で「Independent」したという言葉を使いたがらない のだろう?どうして歴史を直視できないの? |
How do Koreans reluctant to say that they're "Independent" by Treaty of Shimonoseki? Why don't they face the history? | |
というか韓国人は大部分の人が5000年前かられっきとした独立国 |
Most of Korean people believe that they're descendent of the great independent nation since 5000 years ago. Therefore, if they hear the independence, they would likely respond like "Independence? What are you saying? Are you mistaking with Dokdo? | |
359 2007-12-02 22:42:46 ID:BC08A7xa]
>>359 神話信じちゃってるからねえ |
They believe myth. In part the country does not permit criticism on sources or study. | |
コリアン食い物編は紛糾しているねぇ、相変わらず。 |
Korean cuisine article is disputing as always. |
|
リンゴ木、良友達のいるところは常にヒートアップ。 |
Anywhere around Appletrees, Good friend100 is always heated. Therefore, the two violate WP:OWN. |
|
>>379 日帝による歪曲を正すことがミンジョクの使命だからです。 パイティングフォーエバーって誰のソックだ? |
It is their nationalistic duty to fix the distortions by Japanese Imperialism. Whose sock is Fighting forever? |
|
Korean dance で 日本帝国の文化弾圧によって、ほとんどの韓国舞踊の教室は絶滅させられました。って書かれているけど、どこまで本当なの? |
Of Korean dance, written that due to the cultural suppression by Japan during the Japanese occupation, most of the dance academies died out and some dances were lost... to which part is true? | |
`∀´> 「日帝」は本当に便利な魔法の言葉 |
`∀´> Japanese occupation is a convenient term. | |
コリアンの議論における行動パターンは、いつも
お決まりだな |
As for Korean typical patterns on a discussion, they always
| |
機会亡き後はニューりんごがプロジェクトを背負ってるんですな。 機会と同じ方向に突き進んでるような気もするけど。 |
After Wikimachine's death, the new apple takes over the project. He seems like going to the same direction as Wikimachine did. |
|
>>388 しかも、ものすごいスピードで。 |
Besides, at very fast speed | |
>>388 同一人物じゃないのかなあ。 |
>>388 If the two are the same person? | |
>>390 おれも最初そう思ったけど、多分ちがう。機械はもっと自分の言葉 で反論してきた。コイツはただガキみたいな反論しかしない。 |
>>390 I first thought so, but looks different. | |
林檎byは? |
||
byは基本的に議論しないでリバートオンリーだろ。編集合戦が |
Appleby only reverted without discussion. | |
りんご木がんばるなぁ。専門外の筈なんだか。 |
Appletree is working hard, isn't it his real job? | |
アイリス・チャンの本の英語版。これ日本語版に記事無かったのね。 |
The English version of Iris Chang's book. Japanese wikipedia has no article. But Iris Chang article is there. |
The Rape of Nanking (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) |
アイリスチャンの本は注釈をつけるのに本人が反対して、注釈つけられなければ問題がある記述があってだせなかったような。その後どうなったんだろう。 日本語の本がなくてもページ作ってもいい気もするけど。 |
Iris Chang disagreed that notes are added to her book, but without notes, her book seems to have problems (in Japan) Although no translated book into japanese, I think making a page on her book would be good. |
This thread is likely going to the next archive page after a day per my ANI experience so far, but this is for the record and caution for Korean editors to prevent further abuses by 2channel and Japanese editors. Meat doll free Wikipedia. :D --Appletrees (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Notable victims of the Babi Yar massacres
User:Galassi has created Notable victims of the Babi Yar massacres, containing largely the same information as the deleted Known victims of the Babi Yar massacres. I tagged it for speedy deletion as a memorial, and Galassi is getting pretty upset about it, making threatening comments and now canvassing other users for assistance. See also the Talk:Babi Yar page for relevant discussion. This appears to be a contentious issue in general, so some input from other admins would be helpful. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised the author is getting upset. "Memorial" is not a valid speedy reason per WP:CSD, and it should go to PROD or AfD instead. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I made a comment on his talk page about his incivility. I'll wait to see how he responds and if nothing else, it should go through a full AFD. I suspect it'll be a "voting" nightmare but this will give everyone a chance to discuss it. The article could be done {Category:Lists of victims), but it's style is just wrong. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If someone else could list it that would be great -- someone's head might explode otherwise. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I tagged the article for Prod under the condition that it is a replica of a previously deleted article. However, if the user removes the tag and you feel strongly about it, bring it to AfD and make your case. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I removed the prod. Again, the previous deletion was a violation of WP:NOT which is not a speedy reason. At noted on the talk page, there are other lists of victims out there, so there is a possible precedent. If it were an AFD, I might reconsider, but the article's still very new. Whew, this is moving fast! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, around and around we go! On to the AFD! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, "memorial" is not a CSD reason - but "recreation of deleted material" is. Was the new article sufficiently different? If not it have been best to keep the speedy and let people try DRV; it could have been explained there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it is not. Only recreation of susbtantially the same article after an AfD that does not address the reason for deletion. Logically, if the original speedy was correct and the new article doesn't address the reason, then it's speedyable under the same reason as the first, no need to introduce the question of procedure. If the original speedy was wrongly done, or the new article overcomes the objection, then it's a completely new ballgame and the original speedy doesn't establish any precedent. Wikidemo (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry I missed this yesterday. The article is a POV fork of Babi Yar, an attempt to get a named list of Ukrainian nationalists killed at Babi Yar into an article. (The 60,000 Jews massacred there are, for the most part, forever anonymous). There is barely an attempt at answering questions of notability, eg "Numerous other less prominent writers, such as..." followed by a list of nine names. Currently listed at WP:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Babi Yar massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd2718 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Possible sockpuppetry/abuse on Council on American-Islamic Relations 2
RE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive377#Possible_sockpuppetry.2Fabuse_on_Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations I did not get a response. Why was this archived away? M1rth (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- A bot archives things immediately. See "If no comment, or no further comment, has been made after a 48-hour period, your post and any responses will be automatically archived." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yet some of the archived threads have posts dated today. I suggest Misza be asked about his bot but meanwhile M1rth, suggest you copy the thread back here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Copying below: M1rth (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Copy from last time |
---|
Editors:
These appear to (possibly) be the same user edit warring. Additionally, Kahmed appears to be an abusive account; established to create a single page in 2007, a single edit in January, and then does not appear until edit warring today. Immediately, Kahmed has threatened someone with "banning" and is characterizing a conflict dispute as "vandalism" repeatedly, as well as removing material that has a citation. I have preemptively reminded ForeverFreeSpeech (talk · contribs) to be calm about this, to prevent things worsening. M1rth (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
|
When I click "first entry in the "Open cases" section at WP:SPP, I don't have that, but I'm curious why no one has even bother to post a comment on the user talk pages. Why not at least give them the basic warning templates, point them to the talk page, something? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to add a short semi-protection on the article and see if that helps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the protection's over and it seems calm. Actually the wording they were fighting about seems to have gone their way. Another example of why incivility can be counter-productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Ownership and accusations of wikistalking
I've been dealing with a user, Rotational (talk · contribs) for some time now on his style preferences for the articles he creates. In the style dispute over WP:HEAD and {{botanist}} usage, I asked for a WP:3O (here) but got a rather weak reply that offered wise advice on compromise, but didn't really address any of the substance of the dispute. I know ANI can't resolve content disputes, but it has become a bit more than that now. This user, in my opinion, is now violating WP:OWN by continually reverting changes to his preferred style. diff, diff, diff, etc. This display of ownership also appeared in his other sockpuppets (see case) when asked to alter style or consider changes. Since it's become an ownership issue and because this editor has accused me of wikistalking (previous diffs), I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this. What to do when one is accused of wikistalking? Is this a clear case of ownership? I've since cooled it as I don't want to continue edit warring and was hoping the TO would be helpful. Appreciate any advice. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's the MOS. He needs to follow it; if he wants another style, he should argue for it and see if he can get consensus. Otherwise, I'll personally mercilessly edit the article to follow it. If not, someone else will. I've informed him of the discussion as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- This user, in my opinion, is now violating WP:OWN by continually reverting changes to his preferred style I don't think that editing to conform to one's preferences shows ownership - that would make us all guilty - but Rkitko seems to forget that every edit of mine is countered by a revert on his part. He, of course, feels that his interpretation of the MoS is the only correct one, which puts him slightly below Jimbo Wales and God. Fact is that he does stalk the articles I work on and I resent being targeted by him, especially since I don't dog his footsteps making a nuisance of myself. I don't vandalise articles and I try to make useful contributions, which is sometimes difficult in the face of a vendetta. I've since cooled it is typical of Rkitko's doublespeak, since he immediately trots off and turns his dissatisfaction into an Administrators' noticeboard/Incident. His grievances go back to his accusations of sockpuppetry and his attempts to have me permanently blocked. When that failed, he made a special mission of watching my every move. It would be nice if he could get off my back. Rotational (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I couldn't care less about the argument. Rotational, you are putting article with headings at level 5, and have been told about WP:HEAD. I understand the content you provide, but you have to know the formatting by now. Unless you read "primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on" from WP:HEAD completely different than me, it's fairly clear. If you don't want to format articles, just put a {{cleanup}} notice and let somebody who's into that sort of thing take care of it. I've cleaned up some of your articles (and I'll just say that List of florilegia and botanical codices was a ton of useless work because you don't follow any of the structure here), and you should follow the style. It just makes more work for others. I don't understand the desire to put articles in your personal preference, as it will be edited out anyways. Also, Rotational, please provide diffs of reverts from him. The last 10 or so articles you have in your contributions have no edits from him, so he isn't reverting every edit of yours. He pointed to diffs, and it was clear what was going on. It's only fair to ask you to do the same. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I'll note that this is first edit from Rkitko to this noticeboard since September. It looks to me like he asked you to not do that, he went to 3O, he got a 3O response, he came here, specifically about the stalking allegation, it seems. I really don't see him following your around, Rotational. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I do admit to going through his contributions every once in a while, but that alone is not stalking. Rotational's articles sometimes show up on the User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult page, which leads me to see if any of his other contributions need a clean up. But there is no intent to harass. In posting this here I was seeking advice on how to work with a user that was involved in an edit war with me but refused to discuss the issue with me. Thanks for responding to my request for advice, Ricky. --Rkitko (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that you "couldn't care less about the argument". The background and history of the affair is interesting, because it shows up both Rkitko's stalking and his hypocrisy. I agree with jossi that it is "amusing". This whole matter is a storm in a teacup, but it's a storm which Rkitko insists on blowing up. He's determined to have his way and not interested in reaching any compromise "I admit I'm a bit stubborn on this point, but there is no other acceptable position than to follow the MOS and to use the botanist template." and rejects the 3O advice of jossi. Rotational (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The long and short of it is that the Manual of Style exists for a reason, Rotational. If your edits aren't conforming to it, they're likely to be changed. As the Wikipedia edit page says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it." --clpo13(talk) 06:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Strange behaviour at an article
A bunch of accounts suddenly started messing with the John Brooke-Little article. What should be done with those accounts? Gimmetrow 06:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- First protect then warn. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 06:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Strange that they're so close together; looks coordinated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, 6 accounts in 7 minutes, and two sets of two names are connected. All but one account looks like a single-edit throwaway. Should these be considered socks, if so of who, and should they be blocked for a single edit? Gimmetrow 06:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think that it's plausible it is a coordinated attack, but we should wait before going for a block. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 06:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Very weird. My hunch is that there are two friends working together to do this; it seems unlikely that one person would be able to log in, open an article, edit it, log out, and repeat this process over and over, that many times, in so few minutes. But I suppose it's possible. The "Hiderek" name suggests to me that the editor is probably not named Derek and that if there are indeed two vandals, Derek is his/her partner in Wikicrime. Jonneroo (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think that it's plausible it is a coordinated attack, but we should wait before going for a block. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 06:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Anybody sticking goatse on articles should be indef. blocked until they explain and promise not to do it again. Corvus cornixtalk 06:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd suggest protection but I'd rather these guys come out and get themselves blocked. If it goes too fast, lock it down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
User creation log. Gimmetrow 14:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Puppets all indefinitely blocked. I left the puppeter unblocked for now, but anyone else in the mood can go ahead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please go ahead and block the puppeter now; he/she is vandalizing again and was given a final warning yesterday. Jonneroo (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, thanks. He came by my talk page to remind me himself. If the article starts up again, I'd recommend a checkuser to flush the whole mess out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Of the known accounts involved, only hiderek is not blocked. I'll keep an eye on it. Gimmetrow 06:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
removing other editors comments from AFD
I'd like to report well... me. I removed this comment from the AFD (which is going to get closed as SNOW) of Norman Bettison (head of West Yorkshire Police). As many of you will be aware, media sources in the UK have covered the fact that he is unhappy with the article (see here and here),and some of his staff have been in touch with us to try and work something out and deal with his concerns. I have therefore removed the comment (but left the !vote!) on the basis that a) it's a basis breach of BLP and b) it's very counter-productive when we have the media watching the article and related activity. Am I wrong in my actions in this matter (I'm asking for admin input because removal of comments at afd can get quite heated) --Fredrick day (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Very rarely are comments allowed to be refactored. Either they may be struck out or in this case, a note should be inserted that a BLP violation was removed and the original vote can be viewed in the history. Also it may be a good idea to leave a short note on the user's talk page as well that AFD comments are to be made free of personal attacks/BLP violations before reporting it on places like ANI. As far as your last concern, no you were not wrong however, I would strongly recommend leaving a note on that user's vote due to refactoring the user's comment. Hope that answers your questions.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I did leave the !vote in but will follow your suggestion, I left a comment about the removal on the user's page. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Will do. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- editor has returned and has reverted back in his personal attack which is in breach of our BLP policies - please see here. While I'd rather not get into an edit war, I also rather that the press coverage of this matter does not extend to how we let people take such pot-shots at living figures. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- AFD has now been closed anyway, so this should not recur, but I have reminded this editor of the importance of core policy. I will be keeping an eye on his edits. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Mass/drive-by de-proddings by User:Pixelface
Today I noticed that an obscure article I had prodded due to a lack of reliable sources, Omega (1987 computer game), was de-prodded by a user indicating that "discussion on the talk page has indicated there might be some controversy over its deletion." Excited at the prospect that there might have been some discussion on the topic, I rushed over to the talk page only to find that, no, the only discussion was by me and by someone else who explicitly said they weren't challenging the prod.
I then looked at his contributions, and saw that he removed the prod template from about 20 other articles, most of which he has had no involvement in. I undid the edit and asked Pixelface to clarify what he meant. He then re-de-prodded, and said "Sorry, I misread, I'm contesting the prod" (with no indication of why).
Look. I know that the prod template says that anyone can "challenge" a prod, but it seems a bit WP:POINTY to do mass, drive-by de-proddings of articles that not only aren't you willing to contribute to, but you probably don't even know what they're about when you remove the template. That doesn't seem like good faith behavior to me. Am I off base here? Can I get some third-party input? Nandesuka (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- The PROD system does rather leave itself open to this kind of abuse. For the moment I'd make an AFD for the article you wanted deleted (a discussion can't hurt, anyway) and hopefully an admin will come along to warn him against this kind of behaviour. Naerii (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nandesuka, when I looked at Talk:Omega (1987 computer game), I glanced at "contesting at this time" and that's why I initally removed the {{prod}} tag. I can remove a {{prod}} tag for any reason. If there is really consensus to delete the article, that will be evident during the AFD process. Discussion never hurt anything. --Pixelface (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight: you are contesting a prod because you misread the words "not contesting the PROD at this time" as "contesting the PROD at this time"? You're serious? This isn't a joke? Nandesuka (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Pixel, what is your reasoning for removing all those other prods? Naerii (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can removed prod tags from as many articles as they want for any reason and they are not required to provide that reason. If you still want it deleted, afd it. ViridaeTalk 13:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, no, that's not quite accurate. Bad-faith wholesale removal of PRODs has been successfully challenged at AN/I with reversal and warnings. I was involved in one such, as a matter of fact, when someone started going alphabetically through the PRODs and dePRODding them, hitting one I had placed. -- Michael Devore (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I believe pixelface was well within their rights to remove the prod from this article. There are reference on the article and discussion on the talk page. There is significant room to allow that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I reviewed the article and it's references and beleive the correct action is to take it to afd. Jeepday (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- My remark was meant to address the comment that PROD tags can be removed for any reason or no reason whatsoever. Taken too literally, the rule invites miscreants to game the system, or inhibits the less-experienced user from seeking relief for a bad-faith removal. In this instance, bad-faith does not apply, so AfD would be, as you say, the proper resolution. -- Michael Devore (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is also important to note that on 18:27, 26 February 2008 this article was not a candidate for the Prod by Nandesuka Diff, as Nandesuka had removed a prod from the article in July 2007 Diff which per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion made WP:AFD the only avenue for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at Pixelface's recent untaggings, they don't seem to have been unconsidered or random. He usually addresses the reason for detagging in his edit summary: "removed prod template, Wikipedia has articles on many upcoming films and the director's blog indicates it's in production", "removed prod template, the news article and entry at Gamespot are valid sources", "removed prod template, comments on the talk page indicate deletion may be controversial". This is good, thoughtful work, and not in any way bad editing. "Proposed deletion" is only for deletions that aren't at all controversial. Pixelface's removal of a prod template doesn't imply that the article mustn't be deleted, but that it is more appropriate to discuss before deleting. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- The issue here isn't that specific article -- I think we can all agree that reasonable people can disagree on one article. I specifically have a problem with the drive-by nature of it. Some of Pixelface's objections indeed seem appropriate, and others do not. When I spot checked several of the "comments on the talk page indicate..." claims, I noticed that there were, in several cases, no such comments at all. In other cases, he indicated that deletion "may be controversial", and again there is no indication on the article talk pages or that edit summary that it is controversial. Any edit may be controversial. That's not an adequate rational to unprod in bulk, in my opinion. That's what concerns me here: unprodding for the sake of unprodding, rather than because of any good faith rationale. Nandesuka (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- The way Prod was set up, it's enough that the person removing the tag thinks deletion may be controversial. Pixelface and I have occasionally (more often than that, truth to tell) had disagreements, but I don't think his honesty is in doubt. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have to admit that when I first removed the prod from the Omega (1987 computer game) article, I hadn't had any sleep in quite a while. I had just removed a prod and used the edit summary "removed prod template, comments on the talk page indicate deletion may be controversial" and when I saw the talk page of the article (with Nandesuka saying the game was just as notable as another game, or maybe not?) and glancing at the word "contesting", I pasted in the edit summary I had just used. I was tired. I wasn't unprodding for the sake of unprodding. I unprod when I think the matter deserves wider discussion (or when a subject obviously has third-party sources like Sacred Underworld or Blinx 2: Masters of Time and Space). The {{prod}} template is only for deletions that would be totally uncontroversial, like for example How to write an APA Methods Section. --Pixelface (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The issue here isn't that specific article -- I think we can all agree that reasonable people can disagree on one article. I specifically have a problem with the drive-by nature of it. Some of Pixelface's objections indeed seem appropriate, and others do not. When I spot checked several of the "comments on the talk page indicate..." claims, I noticed that there were, in several cases, no such comments at all. In other cases, he indicated that deletion "may be controversial", and again there is no indication on the article talk pages or that edit summary that it is controversial. Any edit may be controversial. That's not an adequate rational to unprod in bulk, in my opinion. That's what concerns me here: unprodding for the sake of unprodding, rather than because of any good faith rationale. Nandesuka (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- While myself and Pixelface don't agree on much, most of these de-proddings look reasonable to me; I have re-added one though, because the article is a duplicate of another. Black Kite 18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed that one to a redirect. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- It can probably be deleted under CSD/R3 actually - no-one is going to type that in as a search term. Black Kite 20:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the actual article title is even less likely to be used as a search term... — Edokter • Talk • 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- That article has incoming links, though. The other is an orphan. Black Kite 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- The traffic stats suggests the other does get a few hits per day, makes no difference to me if it stays or goes. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- *shrug* leave it. Redirects are cheap. Black Kite 21:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't we recognize this as the bad-faith harassment that it is? The Prod polioy page says quite plainly If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense). If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Nandesuka (who, not coincidentally has been on the other side of the TV episode/character controversy from Pixelface) violated that policy, and filed a phony charge against Pixelface. This sort of thing happens fairly regularly to people who argue convincingly against deletions, and certainly should raise sock/meatpuppetry questions.. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Need a range block done
Hi all. I've been reverting this user all day and they just seem to keep changing their IP. Because I'm not familiar with range blocking, can I get someone to block the range of these IPs.
- 64.228.128.71 (User talk:64.228.128.71)
- 64.228.130.220 (User talk:64.228.130.220)
So its from 64.228.*.*. Thank you in advance, — E talk 13:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that we're dealing with a lot less than 64.228.*.*. I think that 64.228.128.0-64.228.131.255 should be enough. And a range block over 2 IP addresses is a bit excessive. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct CIDR range is 64.228.128.0/22. — Werdna talk 13:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Since others might also wonder, here's some info to help. You may wish to block the IP range, or semi-protect the pages. Since I assume you know how to do the latter, here's some quick tips on the former:
- If you visit http://arin.net and enter the first IP, you'll find that's part of an ISP range covering 64.228.128.0 - 64.228.131.255. In fact this covers both IPs in question. [if the ISP wasn't in that part of the world, it would mention RIPE or APNIC or such - links are on the bottom, again you paste the IP into their website to see what they say]. You can then check quickly what CIDR range this would be, at this calculator for example. Enter the lower IP and choose a number of bits in the drop-down box. See what range that covers. By trial and error, you'll find that 22 bits covers it, and the CIDR box on the right will then show 64.228.128.0/22 as covering 64.228.128.0 - 64.228.131.255. This would be the range you block. You'd remember not to block IPs too long, since every user on that range would be affected.
- This works better for me: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=64.228.128.71 — pick the most specific range, and look under 'CIDR'. — Werdna talk 14:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes, you may wish to minimize the collateral damage, and then you may need to chain together a few blocks. For example, the suggestion at WP:ANI#Notice of range block. In that case, however, the original blocking admin had good reason to block the entire 65,536 range. -- Avi (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- You all should make some notes at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Range_blocks for future reference. Jeepday (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- All you lazy slow-pokes like me can use rangeblock-calculator. It even tells you what ranges are safe to block without major collateral damage. Maxim(talk) 15:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Old talk page comments and notices
So I came across Talk:Jr. Food Mart and Talk:Jitney Jungle - both of which are Mississippi-founded companies.
- Jr. Food Mart had 2 Fair Use Image notices for 2 different images, both images of which have been deleted. So in the process of placing the WikiProject Mississippi tag on the page, I removed those Fair Use Image notices. User:Tkynerd has reverted me each time, including removing the WikiProject Mississippi tag.
- Jitney Jungle has 2 comments from July 2006, both by the same user, Tkynerd and 2 comments from 2007, one by Tkynerd in July and one by an IP in September. So in the process of placing the WikiProject Mississippi tag on the page, I removed those old comments. Tkynerd reverted me twice, including removing the WikiProject Mississippi tag. To satisfy him by not deleting the old comments again, I created an archive and moved them there. He has taken them back out of the archive and put them back on the talk page.
Would someone handle this matter and let me know what the policy is on old comments and deleted image notices for images that have been deleted. I called myself doing the right thing but since Tkynerd wants to edit war over it, I'd like to get some admin takes on this. If I'm wrong, say so. If he's wrong, please tell him to leave it alone. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 16:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why remove comments? It's bound to antagonize users. Apologise, restore them and the tag with it. Write a brief line of apology on their user pages, and they may accept your tag. The thing is, the discussion about the images or other issues may seem resolved at the moment, but having the discussion on the talk page may stop a user new to the page from restoring them. See what I mean? Special Random (Merkinsmum) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Disclosing personal information as punishment, sockpuppeting, POV pushing, edit warring, single purpose harassment accounts
Note:This was recently archived without resolution or comment. If there is some problem with it, please let me know. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Requesting a block on Willdakunta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and suspected sockpuppets for habitual edit warring and per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Protection "disclosing personal information" (see also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Willdakunta).
This user was previously blocked 1 in the Nhguardian incarnation for edit warring with Jrclark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and for related 3RR process disruption; in fact, this user's entire purpose here on Wikipedia seems aimed at disrupting the edits of that user. See edit histories of socks for details. Commonality of edit history and talk page rhetoric is blatantly apparent. This has been ongoing for many months now with small periods of inactivity between.
User engages in exposing of personal information of other users as punishment for disagreeing with him, here most recently on my talk page as Willdakunta 2, here as Isp 71.168.80.203 3 here as Nhguardian, 4, and here as Isp 71.181.68.181 5.
- Suspected sockpuppets
NHguardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Freeskier328 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.181.68.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.168.80.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.181.62.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.181.51.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
47.234.0.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.181.48.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
(Note: User has been simultaneously reported on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets) for sockpuppetry.
Thanks. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I asked him to stop, and discuss what he was doing.
I asked another wikipedian who had made several dozen large excisions I considered controversial, and poorly explained to stop, and discuss the issues with me.
They did leave a couple of comments. But, within 25 minutes, they continued with the same kind of edits. As of right now they made six further similar excisions.
Is this OK? Isn't this a breach of WP:NOT#wikipedia is not a battleground?
Now maybe his or her point is completely correct? Maybe if we had a real discussion, at the end I would say openly acknowledge I was convinced that their position was correct, and I had been wrong. But a reasonable request to pause for discussion shouldn't just be blown off, should it? Geo Swan (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please be specific. Exactly who did exactly what on exactly which article? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Multiple articles about Guantanamo Bay detention camp detainees contain boilerplate relating to the legal background of Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Boards. These two administrative procedures of Guantanamo also have their own articles. In many cases the boilerplate appears to be padding introduced to bulk out the article. The boilerplate doesn't relate specifically to the article subject in such cases, as the subject is the detainee name per the article title, not the detention procedures. I am replacing the boilerplated text with links to the articles that discuss the procedures. I see this as a cleanup issue. I have attempted to explain my viewpoint to User: Geo Swan, and await any justification he might offer for keeping such misplaced boilerplate in several tens if not hundreds of articles. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 19:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- User:DMcMPO11AAUK writes that he or she "...await[s] any justification he might offer...". That is the point of my query. User:DMcMPO11AAUK is not waiting. He or she plunged right back into these excisions, without providing the time for a reply. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- No need for adminstrator action here. Please discuss on the relevant talk pages, or pursue dispute resolution. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Legal claim
A new user claims ownership of a nickname on the Eli Manning pass to David Tyree page, his claim is here [52]. Redrocket (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ignore him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done but he is definately trolling see his deleted edits. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- If it helps, that sort of phrase wouldn't be automatically trademarkable, nothing is showing on the US trademark office as being a trademark anything along those lines, and there's no such lawyer cropping up on Google searches. All in all, probably a load of old tosh. GBT/C 22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm now I don't mind a little sillyness but revert warring isn't on. I've indefblocked the sock, reverted all edits and protected Eli Manning pass to David Tyree for a bit to put a stop to it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- If it helps, that sort of phrase wouldn't be automatically trademarkable, nothing is showing on the US trademark office as being a trademark anything along those lines, and there's no such lawyer cropping up on Google searches. All in all, probably a load of old tosh. GBT/C 22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Even if a generic phrase like that could be trademarked, which is doubtful, there is no reason wikipedia couldn't freely refer to it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- And in case you didn't guess, Google reveals no connection whatsoever between that phrase and anyone named "Leone". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- That attorney's name sounds awfully familiar... maybe another threat in the past has used that "lawyer" as a front? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The attorney does not show up in Martindale-Hubbel, but there are 60 trademark applications filed in her name, the last in 2005 I think. Some other info re. attorneys at the address given in the message but out of BLP concerns I won't go into detail, because there's no sense dragging them into this if they aren't involved. Wikidemo (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- That attorney's name sounds awfully familiar... maybe another threat in the past has used that "lawyer" as a front? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Request sanity check
Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules#Edit warrior. Am I going insane? Has wikipedia changed in some way, and have I managed to miss the memo?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a lot of attempts to add stuff - sanger's quote, extra formatting - and a consistent theme to keep it simple and direct, with other versions at most on a sub-page (which are the edits and reverts by multiple users you're seeing).
Any use? FT2 (Talk | email) 21:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are many attempts to insert the "nervous and depressed" wording, or other newly-coined wordings, on the page, but consensus seems to favour the twelvewordversion, at this time. So, tends to be a lot of reverting. Situation normal, pretty much, nothing to be seen here. Newbyguesses - Talk 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect that there might not be consensus, and that the perception is bent by edit warriors. Hence the sanity check. --Kim Bruning (talk)
- I suspect that there is a pretty strong consensus, but I can sympathize if Kim feels that the principle is being given short shrift. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Point of order - is it really reasonable to describe the "nervous and depressed" version as "newly-coined"? —Random832 16:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect that there might not be consensus, and that the perception is bent by edit warriors. Hence the sanity check. --Kim Bruning (talk)
- Content dispute - no need for admin. action, then. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a content dispute with edit warring result in full protection until said dispute is resolved? FunPika 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Which means the edit-warrior wins. We covered that ground sometime last month ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Does seem to be a catch-22. Either the version stays as is (purported consensus) or is locked down as is (forced status quo consensus version). Either way, no changes can be made. I actually liked the version with the the longer explanation below, because some editors really don't get 'IAR' means IAR only when it actually helps the project, and vandalism doesn't fall under IAR. I think such a version would be great. The notebook handwritten version is clever,because using a photo of a policy is ignorign the rules, so... it's spiralling in cleverly, but that doesn't avoid the very confusion i remarked on above, so it's not the kind of change we need. That said, there is an admin there with Draconian OWN problems. However, per the new admin standard, admins operate under continual IAR, so that's acceptable now. ThuranX (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well put. This is why I've stated that there's no difference between page protection and knee-jerk reverting to the same version - both have the same effect, that edits cannot be made without prior talk page discussion and consensus. And if you've seen that talk page recently, you'll understand how impossible that is. - Chardish (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Does seem to be a catch-22. Either the version stays as is (purported consensus) or is locked down as is (forced status quo consensus version). Either way, no changes can be made. I actually liked the version with the the longer explanation below, because some editors really don't get 'IAR' means IAR only when it actually helps the project, and vandalism doesn't fall under IAR. I think such a version would be great. The notebook handwritten version is clever,because using a photo of a policy is ignorign the rules, so... it's spiralling in cleverly, but that doesn't avoid the very confusion i remarked on above, so it's not the kind of change we need. That said, there is an admin there with Draconian OWN problems. However, per the new admin standard, admins operate under continual IAR, so that's acceptable now. ThuranX (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Which means the edit-warrior wins. We covered that ground sometime last month ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a content dispute with edit warring result in full protection until said dispute is resolved? FunPika 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure that i agree that there is any problem of OWNership, at Ignore all rules. Most edits, even if they seem interesting, do not take, and there are lots more than one editor who reverts back to the 12word version.
- I like to look at these interesting proposals, but, if possibly dozens of editors are ready to revert to a stable version, that is in no way edit-warring, in my opinion. I see the page has been protected, yet again, but there is scant evidence of "recent" edit-warring. That is OK, I guess, but progress on the page was being achieved, and the discussion reasonably fruitful. There is also Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Workshop, where more radical experiments can be, and are being made.
- I reckon the page protection could be lifted, safely. I do not know who requested it. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I would lay most of the blame for the page being protected on a certain User who appears to want to WP:OWN the page, and that user's unsuitable edits being reverted, and then whined about on the discussion page, I think. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Newby - you're getting confused. Mishandling of content is routinely an admin issue. But only when there is an actual problem. That's what this thread is discussing - if there is one. It's arbitration that routinely does not handle "content disputes". As for this page... if there is a dispute then maybe a talk page "straw poll" (if that's not already been done) to see what kind of views come up and see what basis of concern exists? FT2 (Talk | email) 14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The confusion might stem from advice to the contrary at the top of the page, as well as frequent admonitions that admins have no particular status in a content dispute and can typically intervene with an admin action only as a response to conduct. Avruch T 17:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, i was confused, and still do not know what to do. Some fresh eyes at Ignore all rules would certainly help, at the moment the issue seems to be being avoided, basically two users, each of whom MAY have WP:OWN problems, but civility is getting in the way of addressing the problem, which actually stems back to at least July 2007. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Banned user back again with sock puppet
Cody Finke is Back! Codyfinke10000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Other aliases:
- Codyfinke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Codyfinke2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Codyfinke6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 March 2008
- Blocked indef. per ban. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Continuous incivility by User:Imbris
Constant & repeated incivility and semi-personal attacks from this user, despite warned repeatedly on his talk page.
- Here: "Now they have set their minds to a new adventure - creating exactly the same (design wise) flag for Montenegro's Crnojevic Family. Because they do not want to contribute encyclopeadical content, they want to stirr up troubles and fabricize history to meet their agenda. Please take this matter under consideration because this is a blatant hoax."
- Here: "Now they have set their minds to a new adventure - creating exactly the same (design wise) flag for Montenegro. Because they do not want to contribute encyclopeadical content, they want to stirr up troubles and fabricize history to meet their agenda."
- [53] Where are your sources, in some medieval festivals perhaps. An for that matter unsupstaniated material is unencyclopaedical."
- Here: "Easy, isn't the flag yellow with red eagle or you are changing your mind very quickly. Today you say that it is red flag with a white eagle and tomorow you will realize that either hadn't even existed)"
- Here: "but cannot stand your clear fabricizations."
- here: "Stop your deliberate disinformation crusade,"
- Here: "to bad yours is so negative and greaterxxxxxxx".
- here: "Stop your POV pushing and greaterxxxx politics".
It has been very difficult to communicate with this user. After I cited sources for several facts he held questionable, he aggressively responded and accused me without basis that I am a falsifier of history. He demanded scanned pages of sources. After I indulged his demands and scanned them, uploading them to his talk page, he started to accuse the sources themselves for falsifying history, as he did here: "Is it some picture-book for 3rd graders. It is most clear that you and Nikola have different souces, his low-res part of that map looks very much different. Also the page you scanned looks not-clear and funny like it was manipulated. I am not accusing you but the author who clearly manipulated with the image." He also accused the even-uploaded books as irrelevant for being "3rd-grade alike" and complained that my scans were poor and barely viewable.
I don't want to seem wrong out of this - but I need a 3rd hand opinion. Am I doing anything wrong? How to stop this continuous impoliteness, incivility and lack of any constructiveness? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The entire ordeal came to be when Pax uploaded a file without sources on February 28 this year.
I found this to be somewhat strange because on commons user must fill the chart (a small table with sources and other data).
Then I decided to seak deletion and claimed OR and UE which were misinterpreted by Pax.
It is not sourcing when someone shows you a one detail that is unrecognizable. The source Pax provided is a very strange picture-book that offers no factography in a form of citations and quotes from documents and older publications.
Because we are dealing with a middle age topic and because one might say that even Flag of Denmark as the oldest if from a 1600s (legends from 1200s) but sources from 1600s. I have everyright to be suspicious.
What should I said to myself when Pax constantly changes every word that I contribute to his POV. Everyone has a POV. I offered him my collaboration and sources about the Constitional matter of passing the Law with simple majority.
Will write some more fact soon.
Imbris (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you think it's a picture-book, and more why very strange? :) I am writing here about your personal insults and the opinion of others. Are you trying to justify incivility? Let me also remind you that here you have claimed: "Your tactics is to ask eveyone about the nationality and claim that have something against you personally." Could you please back up these claims? Thanks, --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
First I must say that in this discussion I am not neutral. Because of different thinking (and editing) PaxEquilibrium and I are having agreement that he will not edit Croatia related articles and I will not edit Serbia related articles so we are having only few points of dispute. One of this points is article Podgorica Assembly where Pax are deleting, reverting any version of article which is not saying that Montenegro is and has always been Serbian land.
Because Pax has used example to show Imbris in bad light I will show similar example from talk page of Podgorica Assembly:
My comment:"Book writen in reference (by Pax) is speaking about Serbian agents which are working on Montenegro territory for union between state from 1866. This is not allowed to be writen in article"
Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"The link is not necessary a reference, I myself put the external links to every single source"
My comment:"Similar to that books from reference in article are speaking how serbian military has not allowed return of members of Montenegro military and royal family before election has ended. This is not allowed to be writen in article"
Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"It may be written, however carefully because the statement itself is biased" (it is not writen)
My comment:"Writing in article that parliament has voted under serbian military "protection" is not allowed"
Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"What does that precisely mean?"
My comment:"About slaughter (of Montenegrins by Serbian forces) read you can read Tribune of 1 september 1919"
Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"That is a journalist article, normally far-fetched - but killings did occur, and they were indeed horrible. According to some (possible overestimates, but still), almost 3,000 Montenegrins died in the tiny civil war. But the Serbian Army itself, had little or none at all part in that conflict." (it is not in article)
Point of this example is to see that Pax is not neutral editor which is showing data from neutral books. It is not possible to trust his books when even he is not accepting data from his obscure books if they are having bad data for his line of thinking.--Rjecina (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please elaborate what you're trying to point out and what is the relevance of this post? If discussion regarding those precise posts is needed, I will be more than willing to start it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- This sounds like a content dispute. --Haemo (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I do not agree because edits in this section are another example of PaxEquilibrium editorial style. He has moved my comments from section Continuous incivility by User:Imbris to another section so that 2 cases are seen separately but they are connected or better to say I have writen comments about Pax editorial style so that administrator can better understand situation between Pax and Imbris. Only possible mistake of user:Imbris is that he has lost nerve during "discussion" and provocations of User:PaxEquilibrium because of his insistance that only he know true history of Montenegro and only his "sources" are right sources.--Rjecina (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- ..because I have no idea what this has to do with Imbris... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I do not agree because edits in this section are another example of PaxEquilibrium editorial style. He has moved my comments from section Continuous incivility by User:Imbris to another section so that 2 cases are seen separately but they are connected or better to say I have writen comments about Pax editorial style so that administrator can better understand situation between Pax and Imbris. Only possible mistake of user:Imbris is that he has lost nerve during "discussion" and provocations of User:PaxEquilibrium because of his insistance that only he know true history of Montenegro and only his "sources" are right sources.--Rjecina (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- This sounds like a content dispute. --Haemo (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- So, in other words it's a content dispute over which sources you guys can agree are acceptable. --Haemo (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, we are discussing that - the problem is in Imbris' pick of choice and personal attacks. I have no problem in continuing the discussion with him at all and it will be useful to the Wikipedia, but only if he stops attacking other users. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- During last hour or something more I add Pax has been talking on talk page. In that difference between 2 of us has become clear. In looking historical events I look only legal arguments (I really try to do only that). He is looking all picture. My and Pax discusson in article Podgorica Assembly will end with RFC. I will win in similar way in which I have been "winner" in RFC if Jasenovac has been Holocaust extermination camp. With that discussion about article will be closed.
- We are not having content dispute about sources because he is refusing even his sources if they are not showing right picture. Let say for example I am using like source this Chicago Tribune from 1919. Pax is saying this source is bad, but I am having books which are showing this event. After reading his books I start to add information from pages 50-52 in article. Answer on that from Pax is:"This part of book is not good source". This situation for me is frustrating because he is refusing even his sources. For me this is POV editing.--Rjecina (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- ...and the relevance of that in here is..? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, we are discussing that - the problem is in Imbris' pick of choice and personal attacks. I have no problem in continuing the discussion with him at all and it will be useful to the Wikipedia, but only if he stops attacking other users. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- So, in other words it's a content dispute over which sources you guys can agree are acceptable. --Haemo (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Anti-Americanism
This article is not yet at an official "incident" stage, but it's headed that direction, and also raises some interesting questions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Americanism There is a small, potential edit-war starting over the warning tags on the page. I put a bunch of warning tags on the page, and someone keeps deleting half of them. His reasons for deleting them are variously that he doesn't agree with them, and (just recently) that they are redundant. What I find interesting about this is his idea that warning tags should undergo the same editing/consensus process as article content. It seems to me one of the purposes of warnings is to express a minority view. For example, several (but not a majority) of editors wanted the article deleted. So I put up a warning that says "An editor has expressed concern that this article is unencyclopedic and should be deleted." He keeps deleting the warning, on the grounds that people voted not to delete the article. It seems to me warning tags don't belong to the same consensus process as article content: the warning doesn't say "This article is unencyclopedic" it says that concern has been expressed. Am I supposed to work toward consensus on whether I (and others) actually have that concern? The Talk needs some clarification, before an edit war breaks out. Bsharvy (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are always expected to work towards consensus. Adding tags does not usually require consensus, but they should not stay on against consensus, and they require reasonable explanation on talk. The tag about deletion should go after a failed AfD. No, tags are not there to express minority views. Relevant minority views should be integrated into the article. Fringe views deserve no representation at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not quite true that fringe views deserve no representation at all. A few fringe views are notable enough to be discussed, although that is rather unusual. Natalie (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but in that case do not report the fringe views ("The Earth is flat"), but on the fringe views ("George Bush believes the Earth is flat"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not quite true that fringe views deserve no representation at all. A few fringe views are notable enough to be discussed, although that is rather unusual. Natalie (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
A second editor has just deleted all the warning tags. I am not sure what to do. The standard mantra on Wikipedia is "There is no excuse for edit warring." but in my experience this is generally unaccompanied by any helpful alternative. The alternatives that do exist often are ignored, e.g RfC (when I request, nobody answers....). But even that doesn't really apply to warning tags. Warning tags are not encyclopedia content. The other editors working on the article seem to think that the placement of warning tags should follow the same procedure as editing content: if there is no consensus that the article has weasel words (for example), then the warning for weasel words should be deleted.... Bsharvy (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are there any other "Anti-[substitute nation or ethnic group here]" articles, or is this the only one? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are plenty of others. See Category:Anti-national sentiment - 52 Pickup (deal) 12:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see. And all of it looks like a POV mine field. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are plenty of others. See Category:Anti-national sentiment - 52 Pickup (deal) 12:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's an absolute POV minefield. Even this description, from Category:Anti-national sentiment is not so good: "This category contains articles about criticism of or unfavorable sentiment directed at a particular nationality" According to some usages, it also includes criticism of policy, not just "nationality." So anti-war protests are anti-Americanism. In theory, then, being pro-life is anti-American (hostility to American policy), but try writing that and people will scream. To some, the term denotes prejudice (like anti-semitism) to others it doesn't. There is no way to put all these different ideas in one article, which is why there are so many appropriate warnings regarding POV, neutrality, unencyclopedic content, etc. But, now, they being immediately deleted.... Anyway, I am going to restore them. Somebody will probably accuse me of edit-warring.... Bsharvy (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- "POV minefield"? Is this a joke? Whether you want to admit it, there is definite feelings of hostility towards America around the world. Seriously... do a quick search. Here's a Gallup poll that shows three-out-of-five Lebanese have negative feelings towards the United States. Search "anti American" in the NY Times or Washington Post sites and you'll find hundreds of articles. It's definitely worth inclusion. The purpose of the article is to help understand where these ideas may come from. And it should be written in a manner that takes all sides into account, and it certainly doesn't benefit from Bsharvy's heavy-handedness. Njfuller (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- So, are there any pro-American citations in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Serious Conflict of Interest - User:Igorberger
During this MFD it has become clear that User:Igorberger has advertised in his private businesses that he is supported and authenticated by the Wikipedia.org. As I am involved in the MfD and have at times asked Igorbeger to stop spamming in other areas I bring this issue to ANI for further discussion. I note that he has listed those businesses as being his on his user page so there is no "outing" of new information in this ANI.
- See here for examples:
- His business IVB solutions IT states it is a consulting company providing solutions for the diverse IT market - including Wikepedia.org [54], and
- His business PHSDL - Project Honeypot Spam Domains List [55] - (which was his first creation on Wikipedia and is mentioned in the current MfD) states is has been authenticated per Wikipedia.org [56].
- I realise of course that it is difficult for us to stop a non-wikipedia editor from making these type of "puffery" comments but I seek the community's view on what request we can gain or impose on user:Igorberger in relation these claims and the edits that he is making in these areas of interest? I close by noting that Igorberger has indicated (in the MfD) that if at ANI it is determined that my reference from PHSDL to Wikipedia is inapropreate[sic] I have no problems removing that reference (and I assume others of a similar nature).--VS talk 00:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note Igorberger has commented in relation to this ANI here and has been asked to post that comment here also.--VS talk 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't this more of a Foundation problem than someone users can figure out? Leave it the lawyer, perhaps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Igor has indicated that he will remove claims on his sites that suggest or imply some kind of relationship with Wikipedia that goes beyond a normal volunteer editor relationship. I think he ought to go ahead and do this. Otherwise this should referred to the office. Sarah 10:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have not made any statements that I am employeed by Wikipedia, on my Websites.I just made reference to Wikipedia because I spend tons of hours here as a volunteer editor. Igor Berger (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your site listed wikipedia under current project - I run my own consultancy business and when you list another company or legal entity you are saying something about the relationship that exists. No relationship exists between IVB solutions and wikipedia. A relationship exists between you and wikipedia but not the relationship where you claim the project as a "customer". --Fredrick day (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I nether meant to imply that there is some sort of a relationship between IVB and Wikipedia. I just wanted to say that I am participating in the project. I can add I am an editor at Wikipedia to clarify the relatioship. The whole Website is just one page and it just lists what I do. So if you think it is okay I will amend it. Igor Berger (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your site listed wikipedia under current project - I run my own consultancy business and when you list another company or legal entity you are saying something about the relationship that exists. No relationship exists between IVB solutions and wikipedia. A relationship exists between you and wikipedia but not the relationship where you claim the project as a "customer". --Fredrick day (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The site now reads "WikiPedia.org volunteer editor". If Igor is proud of his involvement here, let it be I say... no harm done, now. -- Longhair\talk 10:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for making the change so swiftly, it's much appreciated. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, I did not want to make a big thing of this. I am volunteering here and I am proud of it. It actually looks better than before..:) Good Karma! Igor Berger (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I also appreciate this change Igor and now no harm done there (as Longhair says) however could you please also adjust this other site of yours as it still says PHSDL has been authenticated per Wikipedia.org as notable ...--VS talk 12:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay give me a little time to think how to do it aesthetically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 12:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Igor - let me know if you need help. Would also appreciate you indicating here so that we can all close this thread off. Best wishes.--VS talk 12:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The second Website has been addressed here Igor Berger (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Igor - let me know if you need help. Would also appreciate you indicating here so that we can all close this thread off. Best wishes.--VS talk 12:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I also appreciate this change Igor and now no harm done there (as Longhair says) however could you please also adjust this other site of yours as it still says PHSDL has been authenticated per Wikipedia.org as notable ...--VS talk 12:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Argh, aesthetically? Is your page designed to be viewed in a 1997 time machine? ;-) Avruch T 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not clame to be a web designer so it is not fancy. But PHSDL is a free service that I provide to users who have problems with Zlob Trojan Malware Spam on their forums and blogs. Igor Berger (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- It still implies a corporate relationship here, as it reads as if IVB Solutions ("we") is involved in a volunteer capacity assisting WP, rather than an individual. This implies some sort of donation of services rendered, which is misleading and self serving for the company. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Fred Hollows
Please semi-protect Fred Hollows --David Broadfoot (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The correct place to make these request is requests for page protection; I'm not going to protect it because there's minimal edit warring or vandalism. --Haemo (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
"See you in court soon enough gentlemen as this now has become personal attacks, slander, harassment." - sounds like a legal threat to me!
[57] purportedly from Comraderedoctober --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- definitely a violation of WP:LEGAL. i think that thea admins will be by here to take this guy down. usually we get a lot of these things but the people who mkake them never actually bother to do anything because they dont know that they know that they ahve no legal defenses imaginabile for what they do here. Smith Jones (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- (EC2)) Blocking -Jéské (v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, do not block. The threat was made by an IP a few weeks ago, and there is no explicit connection between the IP and the account. At least, I haven't seen one yet. —Kurykh 01:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The IP's talk page (User talk:76.122.45.99) has a tag that states that it is indeed Comraderedoctober. -Jéské (v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew) 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, do not block. The threat was made by an IP a few weeks ago, and there is no explicit connection between the IP and the account. At least, I haven't seen one yet. —Kurykh 01:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Smith-Jones, with "legal threats" it's never a matter of "[they] never actually bother to [sue us]", but rather "they were blatantly trolling from the get-go". — CharlotteWebb 02:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- (EC2)) Blocking -Jéské (v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Banning a persistent vandal/harasser
Could I ask an admin to add Mr. 72.76 to Wikipedia:List of banned users, so that I won't feel quite so controversial when I revert his contributions on sight? He's still up to his antics, and, according to this ANI thread, the vote to ban him by the community seems unanimous. A range block, apparently, is far more tricky, but at least let's ban the user, if not the IP range.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with the above. This situation needs more admin attention. R. Baley (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't see a section on WP:RPP suitable for this particular request - it's a request that the space be salted once the article is deleted. It seems to be quite a popular page for reloading. -- Roleplayer (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Mostly because they have a very popular Youtube thing going on. I believe we had a similar thing going on with Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 02:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
TiconderogaCCB
Keeps deleting opinions that are contrary to his opinion in an attempt to build a consensus. It can be seen here [58] where this opinion was deleted "J.Delany agreed to this verions [59] - I agree to this verion as well [60] 63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)" his reason was vandalism and he says discussion was deleted when it was simply moved from the top to the bottom to go in chronological order(after he moved it). Also he asked for an opinion on which version is better [61] to which i was notified [62] and so was he [63] . When the third opinion came in [64] he simply ignored what the third opinion was and simply reverted the page [65]. I thought we had a compromise and would listen to the 3rd opinion, but now i'm really starting to wonder if there can be any compromise with him. Uconnstud (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC) I could mention the fact that he has been going to articles thru my history and stalking me commenting after me when he was never ever ever in the previous listed article at all. [66] Uconnstud (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is the fourth time this issue has been posted here in the last few days (see 1, 2, 3, in the archives). Is there any administrative action required here, or is this something that can be handled by further dispute resolution? --jonny-mt 04:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Both editors have extensive modifications to the article in mind, and I think it's possible that there are good items in each version. I'll have a look at coming up with a third option that might serve as a compromise. The article is fully protected for a week, which I will extend if needs be. There is a third opinion, which appears to have been disregarded in favor of a renewed revert war - that third opinion is a starting point. I don't think the conduct issues here (on both sides) will be workable until the article is stable, so that's step one, I think. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Possible pointy moves by newer editor
Cooljuno411 (talk · contribs) seems to be a newer editor and has moved several articles effectively wiping out histories. I recall there being a splice help page for such concerns but would appreciate an outside editor's take on this and bringing up the issue as I have had previous dialog and I doubt much I present would be received well. Also any suggestions for restoring the lost histories would be nice. Benjiboi 03:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen; methinks there should really be a shorter title for these things. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Deletion log
I speedily deleted Eric crespo using twinkle, but there's nothing in the deletion log. Is this some kind of software glitch? Spellcast (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed deleted edits on Klenow today but that also lacks/ed a deletion log. ViridaeTalk 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- However I am assuming that is something to do with the deleted edits being from 2004. ViridaeTalk 03:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Editor keeps adding to AfD
There's an AfD for Ase Card, which is here. User:Blazetrackz keeps adding more and more comments onto the page. There's no specific warning for this, and I guess he or she is allowed to keep adding, but isn't there some point where it's just redundant? Should anything be done? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, don't worry about it. The closing editor should know how to weight the comments in the discussion. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't consider the number of comments by Blazetracks to be excessive. Some of them are replies to other comments. As the page now stands, there are I think five comments by Blazetracks, one of which is a primary comment, three of which are currently formatted as replies to that primary comment, and one of which is formatted as a reply to a comment by someone else. However, as I've noted on that page, I object to the deletion of one of Blazetracks' comments, calling it "vandalism", (although the comment was improperly formatted), and I object to the moving of one of Blazetracks' comments from where it appeared to be a reply to the comment immediately above it, to somewhere else on the page (although again it had been improperly formatted). --Coppertwig (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- So I saw. I restored the comments. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't consider the number of comments by Blazetracks to be excessive. Some of them are replies to other comments. As the page now stands, there are I think five comments by Blazetracks, one of which is a primary comment, three of which are currently formatted as replies to that primary comment, and one of which is formatted as a reply to a comment by someone else. However, as I've noted on that page, I object to the deletion of one of Blazetracks' comments, calling it "vandalism", (although the comment was improperly formatted), and I object to the moving of one of Blazetracks' comments from where it appeared to be a reply to the comment immediately above it, to somewhere else on the page (although again it had been improperly formatted). --Coppertwig (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The rule of thumb I use is that editors can comment, debate, and reply at their pleasure, so long as they do so in a manner and to a degree that does not prevent further debate. Replies, even multiple replies, are OK. Long, rambling diatribes, extraneous section headings, and comments about the nominator and not the merits of the nomination's claims are all removable - and, even then, they should go to the talk page of the AfD, unless clearly personal attacks or trolling. But, in many cases, it's a discretionary thing. If comments are unhelpful, but don't damage the debate, I'll see them kept more often than not - as noted above, the closing admin can discount such comments as needed. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks. I'll keep that in mind for next time. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- You might like to welcome the new editor to Wikipedia, and gently point them to the five pillars etc. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems that he's simply engaging in discussion; it's natural that in a vote people make only one expression of opinion, whereas in a discussion they respond to others' points-of-view. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Active Vandal
74.210.57.209 - block ASAP -- SECisek (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're looking for WP:AIV. John Reaves 07:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You are right, I was. Never the less, somebody saw my request here and shut him down. -- SECisek (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks/vandalism
I'm a little fed up with attacks from User_talk:194.189.32.65, four in the past hour ([67], [68], [69] and [70]). The use has a decent block record, but keeps deleting warnings. Can someone else ask him to desist? Many thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked for a month. Repeat vandal and troll with no useful contributions recently.--Docg 10:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Charles Stewart
User:Charles Stewart has been generally disruptive for a sustained period, so I thought I'd bring it up here to see if you think action needs to be taken. The user has been blocked before for these edits ([71], [72]), and recently did a similar thing here and here, suggesting the user has not learned from their block. User has also been warned for biting the newcomers, violating NPOV and attacking other editors (as seen here). User:Charles Stewart has also previously changed all instances of the word "Honour" to "Honor" on that article ([73]) and then made a WP:POINTy edit after being informed of Wikipedia's policies of regional variations of English ([74]). Finally, today he posted four items to WP:ITN/C, which, having made several edits to that page before, he knows full well don't fulfil the criteria, and then proceeded to delete opposing edits by another user and then changed the same user's comments to make it appear as if they had supported the suggestion. Thanks for your attention. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely. Absolutely unacceptable abuse of other editors and manipulation of process. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I have put the indif block template in his userpage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- At what point did he think moving another user's userpage to "User:Gigantic Cunt Douche Faggot Bitch" would be acceptable? Deary me. Neıl ☎ 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Birth certificate
This issue has come up before, and although it is basically an edit war, it doesn't belong on the 3RR page as it is not only two users involved. It seems to be a community issue. On the article Birth certificate, there is an image of the alleged birth certificate of a Russian porn star. Although I have previously voiced my opinion on the matter, I have stayed out of the edit warring that has been going on over the last few weeks. The image is being constantly removed and then put back. In my opinion, it contributes very little to the article and is basically some free promotion for the said porn star. I request that an admin step in to end this edit warring. See discussion at talk page. Thank you. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I can't see how it qualifies as "free promotion". The caption does not even state whose birth certificate it is. That article hasn't been edited since the 29th. Seraphim♥ Whipp 17:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- But you can see that warring has been going on. There needs to be a final consensus as to whether or not the image is allowed, so that the image can be removed or left alone once and for all. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is a content issue that needs to be discussed on the Birth certificate page, not here. Horologium (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- It has been discussed. It appears that a general consensus has been reached, but is being ignored and is ineffective without admin intervention. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI: This is related to the entry Banning a persistent vandal/harasser above; see the IP list link provided by R. Baley. The person whose passport this was has been at the center of a controversy across several articles. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, all I can see is a persistent IP agitating for the removal of the image, which I've no doubt is related to the edit-war on a different article. The image should stay unless a better free version is sourced; it's very difficult to get free images of birth certificates, for obvious reasons. Black Kite 18:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- If the IP editor at the center of this is community-banned (although I'm not sure how that will be accomplished) this will be a non-issue. All of the edit-warring is the result of his bizarre crusade against the subject of the article. Horologium (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently a commercial user of no good intent, he repeatedly creates content on his user page, containing links to http://sceneryincostarica.blogspot.com and, then creates external links in Costa Rica to point to them. Kww (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The underlying IP is now getting in on the act. Probably the simple product of him not being logged in, but it might be worth keeping an eye on. --jonny-mt 18:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Incivility, trolling by User:Ireneshusband
Ireneshusband (talk · contribs) has recently been active in discussing name and content changes in 9/11-related articles. Without a doubt, these changes are being pushed by him to advance a pro-9/11 conspiracy agenda. Those who oppose ththis user's attempts to add conspiracy POV language to articles have been met with incivility and trolling on both article talk pages and user talk pages.[75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92] Ireneshusband also started a MedCab case, which was full of assumptions of bad faith and incivility.[93]
After these two edits,[94][95] I gave Ireneshusband a warning for trolling.[96], which he described as a "ridiculous threat" and suggested that I brush up on Wikipedia policy.[97][98]
Shortly thereafter, Ireneshusband made this edit[99], which, to his credit, he refactored[100] (although he should not have made a comment that he needed to refactor). However, today there has been more incivility and trolling.[101][102][103] He has also posted to the talk page of a new user, encouraging him/her to not accept the "indignity" coming his/her way.[104]
I, and I believe many other users, am tired of dealing with this user's constant incivility. Perhaps an involuntary vacation is appropriate here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have to concur with Ice Cold Beer's assessment of the situation. I am particularly disturbed by the message placed on my talk page (which several other users received one as well) warning that I misunderstood Wikipedia policies; moreover, having been warned, should I continue my arguments, I would be guilty of willfully misrepresenting policies. Combined with this user's assumptions of bad faith as documented above, I see this as an attempt to chill discussion of the topic. Disagreement on policy is one thing, but accusing users who disagree with you of dishonesty is quite another. I don't mean to be overly dramatic, but isn't that the reason we take such a hard line on legal threats? // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I shall respond to these charges in more detail when I get time. Suffice it to say for the moment that a number of editors, IceColdBeer included have been indulging in disgraceful tactics to prevent proper discussion of issues and to intimidate editors who threaten to undermine their authority. One of these tactics has been to knowingly misrepresent wikipedia policies over and over again in order to make a lot of irrelevant noise and thus make any intelligent debate impossible. I have not said this until now, but this behaviour is as bad as lying. It is plainly done with the same intent as lying. Haemo, who is an admin no less and therefore must be very well-versed in wikipedia policy, has been one of the worst offenders, which is why I left such a strongly worded message about it on his user talk. When he then repeated the offense, I left another message. Even though my wording was very strong, I made a point of not actually making a threat. At the same time I left a more mildly worded message for IceColdBeer (which he promptly deleted) because he had just committed the same offense as Haemo and all those other editors. It was just after that that he decided to leave his threatening message. His threat was marked "final warning" even though I had not received any warning before. That in itself shows an aggressive attitude. That his complaint was ostensibly about my message to Haemo, making no mention of the message I had left him that he had immediately deleted, was sneaky. He was pretending to be a third party standing up for the ill-used Haemo when he was actually pursuing a personal vendetta.
Basically there has been a culture of bullying, lying and and malicious wikilawyering that has been going on at 9/11 conspiracy theories and related pages at least since I first tried to get involved in editing the page at the end of 2006. My first experience of this was so horrible that afterwards I spent nearly a year without even logging into wikipedia. My message to the new user that IceColdBeer has brought up in evidence against me was for the sole purpose of making sure that he does not get bullied out of wikipedia the way I was and probably a good few others have been. I told him that he would not get the gentle introduction to editing that users get in other areas of wikipedia because that is a plain fact. I told him to get himself well versed in wikipedia policy because that is what I have had to do to survive the shamelessly devious wikilawyering of the group of editors I have been talking about. I did not advise him to be obnoxious. I simply advised him not to be naive. I certainly did not name names. However now that this complaint has been brought against me, it is time to name a lot of names. I am utterly sick of the way things are, as are many other editors, not to mention those who knows how many who have left wikipedia, disillusioned, and have never come back. Put simply, editors who endlessly cry WP:THIS and WP:THAT, often fraudulently and often in unison, but who absolutely refuse even to consider the significance of or the spirit behind policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Common sense or Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, cannot be up to any good. Something must be done about such conduct. Such editors should certainly not be allowed to continue goading other editors whom they consider to be threats to their authority so that they can gather enough dirt to file a patently malicious complaint like the one that IceColdBeer has just filed against me. ireneshusband (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I stand by my statement that I originally made when these accusations against my character, and my editorial judgment were first leveled:
Again, you misunderstand my argument and instead focus your ill-conceived venom upon for the impertinence of disagreement. Your belief is based in the fact that you don't understand my argument, and have instead taken to a vain attempt to brow-beat me, and other editors who disagree with you, into submission. In short, until you cease this incivil and misplaced attempt to claim some kind of highground to which you are not entitled, and instead try to understand what the people who disagree with you are really saying — instead of what you want to believe they are saying — I have nothing more to say to you. --Haemo (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Suffice to say that I disagree with the accusations made against me, and against all other editors who have disagreed with ireneshusband on this issue. In my opinion, ireneshusband has spent nearly all of his time here pushing conspiracy theorist POV on a number of related articles. Repeated appeals to "commonsense" and "ignoring all rules" should set off the POV alerts in experienced editor's head as indicative of trying get around policies because they do not suit them. This is all well and good — Wikipedia puts up with POV editors on many subjects, and I don't expect the tolerance of this to stop.
- What is not well and good are the continual personal attacks and incivility he has leveled against editors for disagreeing with him — charges of "bullying", "cabalism", "Wikilaywering", "lying", and "malicious" behavior are evident even on this very page. I have told him before, as have other editors, that it is not acceptable and not appropriate — these have fallen on deaf ears. Or, perhaps, ears that know the Truth™ and do not need to listen to others. I did not want to bring this here, because I am tired of this drama — but, as they say alea iacta est. Since I have been mentioned by name, I thought should at the very least offer my opinion and defend my name against accusations I hold to be totally invalid. I leave the actual actions to uninvolved admins. --Haemo (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Besides having gotten his User and Talk pages in an absolute Page Move mess about a week ago, Shaunwhim2 (talk · contribs) keeps adding the fair use image Image:The Mouth of Sauron.jpg to his Talk page. I have removed it three times now. And now I see it's on his User page too...Corvus cornixtalk 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for the headache here, CC, and thanks for the heads up. (Don't go all 3RR about it though:-) This particular user is on my watchlist now, and I'll be adding my own $.02 to his talkpage shortly. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales
Just a notification of an incident involving the article Jimmy Wales. I removed what seemed to me to be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE (if not indeed WP:BLP), only to be reverted several times by user RFerreira. This user either did not explain the reversions or tried to conceal them with other edits, or used specious reasoning and accusations. See the following sequence of edits: me, him, me, him, me, him. This user then left a comment on my talk page accusing me of vandalism. The article on Jimmy Wales has now been protected by user Doc glasgow, which seems like a justified solution at this stage, so the issue may be resolved in the short term. However I felt it still worth notifying this forum about the matter. The same issue may well arise at Rachel Marsden, and protection may be a good idea there also. BCST2001 (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- For all those who care, some background. Rachel Marsden was fully protected an hour ago. Woody (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Both are now protected. And I suggest they remain so until a genuine consensus can be reached on the talk pages of what if anything should be added that complies with BLP UNDUE RS etc.--Docg 19:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
BCST2001, Why did you edit war with the user, rather than starting a talk page discussion, or getting others to revert the user, thus demonstrating consensus? You win content disputes more easily that way, you know. Making the same edit repeatedly and helping to trigger protection is the hard way to get things done. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, this story is gaining traction in the mainstream media. --A. B. (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
OMG, I think I'm in an edit war...
Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
...which is very much unlike me, but here goes. Over time, several individuals have added a section to the article Caillou about a supposed "controversy", which apparently manifests itself in an online petition stating that the show should be taken off the air because the main character is "whiny" and a "bad example". An IP has joined the debate recently, and seems determined to have this information included. At first the users included this info with no sources at all; this IP, at least, is sourcing (a fact which I acknowledged the first time I mentioned it on the userpage--at least they're TRYING) but the sources are user-posted reviews and blogs which don't, IMHO, meet WP:VER in any way. [105] I tried to be polite [106], but the user is apparently outraged that I would demand such rigid sourcing--and is now accusing me of ad-hominem attacks, which I don't believe I've made. [107]. Am I being unreasonable in saying that these sources don't meet WP:VER? Gladys J Cortez 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think WP:UNDUE applies here also. Evil saltine (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because I'm striving for absolute clarity here, would you do me the favor of explaining exactly what you mean by that?? I'm trying to make sure I understand the relevant policies, and to be honest I'm not sure if I'm on the right side of WP:UNDUE--it's a minority viewpoint, but does that argue for or against its inclusion??? Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that no reliable sources exist supports exclusion, just like the example given where the Flat Earth viewpoint is not mentioned in the article Earth. Evil saltine (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because I'm striving for absolute clarity here, would you do me the favor of explaining exactly what you mean by that?? I'm trying to make sure I understand the relevant policies, and to be honest I'm not sure if I'm on the right side of WP:UNDUE--it's a minority viewpoint, but does that argue for or against its inclusion??? Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I must admit that I'm tempted to semi-protect the page, this user is reverting explained policy based removal citing "vandalism", the only reason that is holding me back is the fact that I don't want to engage in a conflict of interest since I already removed the section twice. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protected for 1 week. After that expires, let me (or ANI) know if the IP continues. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone up for some WP:CSD#R3 deletions?
Special:Newpages was just flooded with a number of redirects created by Ted Ted (talk · contribs) linking to Mother insult (see recent article contributions). Some of these are useful, but a lot of them can be speedied under WP:CSD#R3 as implausible typos. So rather than go through them all trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, I thought it'd be best to post the whole bunch here in case anyone wants to get some speedy deletion practice in. I mean, redirects are cheap, but this is kind of going overboard.
I've already notified the user, and he seems to have given it a rest. I'll stop by and let them know about this thread as well. Thanks! --jonny-mt 21:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, wow, look at his contribs. I'm on the case! *Cop show music plays* Justin(Gmail?)(u) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- What about the 91 (if I counted correctly) redirects to Italian profanity he also created? —Travistalk 22:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Locke Cole and fair use edit warring
Since February 20, User:Locke Cole has been engaged in a slow edit war with myself and BetacommandBot on Image:Buffy606.jpg. The image has repeatedly been tagged with {{dfu}} for having an insufficient fair use rationale per WP:NFCC #10c. LC has made five removals of the warning template without fixing the problem [108][109][110][111][112]. LC has previously been sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for edit warring [113], was placed on revert parole and knows not to do this. In an unrelated incident, he even warned another user about 3RR [114]. He knows better. He seems to want to rant against our fair use policies (see [115][116]). Help, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I looked and I don't see the problem with the rationale. And as I said in my last revert, IF YOU SEE THE PROBLEM, WHY AREN'T YOU FIXING IT? Is Wikipedia getting collectively lazy or is it just me? BTW, nice poisoning the well there by dredging up my over a year old RFAR... —Locke Cole • t • c 22:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Burden of proof is on those wishing to include. Hammersoft has no obligation to add rationales. Will (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- If he sees the problem and I do not, then he either needs to fix it (since apparently it's obvious to him) or he needs to stop reverting. End of story. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, not end of story. The person seeking to include the picture has the burden of making it compliant with all policies. If that person chooses not to, it can be deleted. Its that simple. Locke Cole is in danger of violating 3RR over this issue. The issue all goes away the second Locke Cole adds a valid fair-use rationale to the article that is compliant with policy. Then, its not a revert, but an improvement. However, if he simply reverts even one more time, he is likely to be blocked for edit-warring. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- As a point of information, what is the problem with he image's fair use rationale? I took a look and it's not obvious to me. The burden of proof may well be on the uploader to provide an appropriate rationale, but if someone tags it as insufficient, then they certainly must have grounds for making that assessment, and it would seem only right to share those grounds. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's that the image does not fulfil fair-use as it's not referred to in the text of the article where it's used and appears to be being used merely for decoration and is therefore not a fair use, and the rationale does not address this. That's my take on it, anyway. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't obvious to me either what the problem was. And instead of helping resolve the issue as he should have (by taking it to the talk page, if he's so unwilling to fix it himself) he chose to revert war over it. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- (after multi-ec) No, this was a "10c" tag. The image page needs to have the name of the article(s) where the image is used. This doesn't need to be a wikilink, but it needs to be the exact name or a redirect to the exact name. Any listing in "File links" is dynamic and doesn't count. Gimmetrow 22:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- As a point of information, what is the problem with he image's fair use rationale? I took a look and it's not obvious to me. The burden of proof may well be on the uploader to provide an appropriate rationale, but if someone tags it as insufficient, then they certainly must have grounds for making that assessment, and it would seem only right to share those grounds. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, not end of story. The person seeking to include the picture has the burden of making it compliant with all policies. If that person chooses not to, it can be deleted. Its that simple. Locke Cole is in danger of violating 3RR over this issue. The issue all goes away the second Locke Cole adds a valid fair-use rationale to the article that is compliant with policy. Then, its not a revert, but an improvement. However, if he simply reverts even one more time, he is likely to be blocked for edit-warring. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- If he sees the problem and I do not, then he either needs to fix it (since apparently it's obvious to him) or he needs to stop reverting. End of story. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Burden of proof is on those wishing to include. Hammersoft has no obligation to add rationales. Will (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
LC has a number of other fair use images missing rationales entirely:
- Image:Dolby-Digital-Plus.svg
- Image:Dolby TrueHD.svg
- Image:Silk.stalkings.logo.svg
- Image:LaserDisc.svg
- Image:D-VHS.svg
- Image:S-VHS.svg
- Image:LD-mark.svg
--Hammersoft (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- You'll notice that 90% of those images were uploaded before fair-use rationales were mandatory.. or maybe you won't notice. BTW, stop wikistalking me. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The oldest of those images is from 26 February 2006. The policy at the time did require a fair use rationale [117]. All of those images were uploaded out of compliance with our then policies. Sorry. As to wiki-stalking; hardly. You have a contributions log for a reason. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- My contribution log is not for you to go fishing looking for anything and everything you think I've ever done wrong. Whether or not it was policy back then, it certainly wasn't preached as being necessary like it is now. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you think reviewing your contributions log constitutes stalking you. It isn't. Noting additional problems with your uploads does not constitute harassment. Fair use rationales were certainly required back then, and you've continued to make uploads that do not comply with that policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The oldest of those images is from 26 February 2006. The policy at the time did require a fair use rationale [117]. All of those images were uploaded out of compliance with our then policies. Sorry. As to wiki-stalking; hardly. You have a contributions log for a reason. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This is pleasant. Cough. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have issued a 48 block on the grounds of WP:HARASS per the diff provided above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- That seems inappropriate here. Gimmetrow 22:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- A 48 hour block for an act of incivility on one's own talk page? This looks to be out of proportion on both sides (though the incivility is more on one side than the other, obviously). I spent a few minutes and added use rationales to the first two logos and ms. pac man. Not much effort at all. We all know that the method of deleting and tagging old images that were uploaded before we enforced a use rationale requirement is controversial and has raised anger and stress. No need to get into a stand-off over it. Actually, there is a directive to fix images rather than delete them. That's a lot simpler than making a big deal of it.Wikidemo (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)In what way? The editor has a history of aggressively pursuing agenda's at odds with WP policy, targets individuals who apply said policy, had an ArbCom back in 2006 on similar grounds, is unrepentant over their conduct, and ironically provides other contributors with lots of work in trying to accommodate their POV. Please note that (AFAIAA) I have never encountered this editor previously, and only acquainted myself with their history from the links provided here. Naturally, I am content to be guided by consensus but I would like to know the grounds for differing opinions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The 2006 arbcom is old enough to be irrelevant. LC said he didn't see what the problem was, and Hammersoft failed to communicate it. Gimmetrow 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The warning tag, which I referred to twice, clearly stated why the image failed WP:NFCC. You can see for yourself [118]. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- And LC said he didn't understand. So one would naturally explain it to him, right? Gimmetrow 23:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- (ec X 2)
- I'm not questioning anybody's judgment, just commenting that it's easier to fix images than get into disputes over them. For (relatively) important articles like Ms. Pac Man, laserdisc, and Dolby Labs products, it's easiest to just add the rationales and be done with it. Those articles are for the benefit of the encyclopedia, not the image uploader, so it's in everyone's best interest to get them fixed. We have a finite number of noncompliant images left to go, and they'll all be either deleted or fixed within a month. For stuff like a particular episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer where the image won't comply even with a use rationale, maybe easiest to nominate it for deletion or simply delete it if the uploader had their 2 days' notice (they proved they got the notice by deleting it). Now, if the editor keeps uploading new images without rationales to make a point, or games/edit wars by removing valid image tags without fixing the images, that's an ongoing problem that has to be dealt with. Wikidemo (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The 2006 arbcom is old enough to be irrelevant. LC said he didn't see what the problem was, and Hammersoft failed to communicate it. Gimmetrow 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- That seems inappropriate here. Gimmetrow 22:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
So are we unblocking LC or not? Gimmetrow 23:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think the block was a good call. It prevented further escalating disruption (what with the edit warring, the bad attitude and the increasing incivility). I have no history of this user before this event so as an outsider, it just looks like a culmination of mounting frustration at a process and behaviour that he disagrees with. It seems directed at specific editors as he engaged in very civil conversation with me. However, venting frustration in the manner he had been doing is unacceptable. Seraphim♥ Whipp 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Cool-down blocks are not a good idea. Gimmetrow 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't suggest it was a cool down block. I said it prevented further escalating disruption and I think prevention is the #1 on the list of reasons to block. Seraphim♥ Whipp 00:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen no evidence that stopping and explaining to LC would not have been successful. That's the #1 way to prevent problems. Gimmetrow 00:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't suggest it was a cool down block. I said it prevented further escalating disruption and I think prevention is the #1 on the list of reasons to block. Seraphim♥ Whipp 00:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Cool-down blocks are not a good idea. Gimmetrow 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Two points: 1) I endorse the block on civility and NPA grounds. He was getting quite ugly about it. 2) Yes, it is a noble act for any user who comes across an improperly used or labeled image to fix it so that the image page is compliant. Such users should be commended. However no one is under any obligation to do so and we should not hold anyone to that standard. It is still the responsibility of the person who added the image to an article to make sure that the image is compliant to all Wikipedia policies; if they don't understand the policies, they shouldn't be uploading images or adding them to articles. Its that simple. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you're going to edit war to enforce policy, then you damn well better explain the policy to the person who doesn't understand it, or you're doing nothing to de-escalate the situation. I see Hammersoft has not notified LC of the disputed images, and in fact has never edited LC's talk page. Gimmetrow 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Locke Cole's talk page is filled with warnings and about mis-labeled images. He was given ample opportunity to responde to these warnings, and continued to act in willful ignorance of them. That Hammersoft did not specifically leave any of the warnings does not mean that Locke Cole had not been informed that his actions were in violation of policy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I fail to see where he has been informed about certain specific images. I disagree with this block. Hammersoft aggravated the situation by continuing to edit war himself, and did not stop to explain to LC exactly what the problem was. Gimmetrow 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looking through his talk page now, I see that there are NINE notices about inappropriate uplaods or incomplete fair use rationales. That doesn't include any he may have archived or deleted. Could Hammersoft have given him ANOTHER warning? Yes, perhaps. But given that he was warned NINE times already, what good would that have done? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- We'll never know, because it apparently wasn't tried. A human dialogue explaining the problem might have worked better than a bunch of bot messages, when it was becoming clear the bot messages weren't working. (BCB has 17 edits on LC's talk page.) Gimmetrow 00:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- And it wouldn't matter because Locke Cole has indicated that this isn't about not understanding, its about someone not fixing it for him instead. Shell babelfish 00:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again, if he doesn't know what to do, he can't do it. So you either explain it to him (as Saraphim has started doing), or fix it. Gimmetrow 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- All well and good, but if he doesn't know what he is doing, he shouldn't be encouraged to continue. Yes, good experienced editors should leave a nice, human written, explanation of what the problem is. However, even in absense of that, that he received 17 warnings (as noted above) shows that he had no desire to stop UNTIL he understood. I am not argueing, as you seem to imply, that people should have avoided or tried to NOT explain what the problem was. Of COURSE the best situation involves an editor being nice and explaining the situation. No editor should be forced to do so, however. He obviously knew he was doing something wrong in his image uploads, and yet he STILL continued to upload them. He doesn't have to know how to fix them to know that he should stop UNTIL he knows how to fix them... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Has LC uploaded any FU images since the first disputed FU warning? If so, I don't see it. His first BCB warning was 29 June 2007 for an orphan FU, but his first disputed FU was 26 October 2007, which is vague and doesn't mention 10c. LC has not uploaded any FU images since 16 October 2007 that I see, except for reverting one FU image with an unrelated policy issue. Gimmetrow 01:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- All well and good, but if he doesn't know what he is doing, he shouldn't be encouraged to continue. Yes, good experienced editors should leave a nice, human written, explanation of what the problem is. However, even in absense of that, that he received 17 warnings (as noted above) shows that he had no desire to stop UNTIL he understood. I am not argueing, as you seem to imply, that people should have avoided or tried to NOT explain what the problem was. Of COURSE the best situation involves an editor being nice and explaining the situation. No editor should be forced to do so, however. He obviously knew he was doing something wrong in his image uploads, and yet he STILL continued to upload them. He doesn't have to know how to fix them to know that he should stop UNTIL he knows how to fix them... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again, if he doesn't know what to do, he can't do it. So you either explain it to him (as Saraphim has started doing), or fix it. Gimmetrow 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- And it wouldn't matter because Locke Cole has indicated that this isn't about not understanding, its about someone not fixing it for him instead. Shell babelfish 00:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- We'll never know, because it apparently wasn't tried. A human dialogue explaining the problem might have worked better than a bunch of bot messages, when it was becoming clear the bot messages weren't working. (BCB has 17 edits on LC's talk page.) Gimmetrow 00:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looking through his talk page now, I see that there are NINE notices about inappropriate uplaods or incomplete fair use rationales. That doesn't include any he may have archived or deleted. Could Hammersoft have given him ANOTHER warning? Yes, perhaps. But given that he was warned NINE times already, what good would that have done? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- In addition to the points raised by Jayron32, the response LC took was inappropriate. Not understanding the problem with the image didn't give him the right to act in the way he did. He could have taken it to the talk page or contacted Hammersoft and asked why the image was tagged. Seraphim♥ Whipp 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- So block them both. Not one. Gimmetrow 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hammersoft did not engage in the same behaviour that LC did. Seraphim♥ Whipp 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- (EC) Lets make this clear here. Locke Cole was not blocked for the edit war or for the FU problem. He was blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Hammersoft has not once yet been incivil, and deserves no block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hammersoft did not do exactly the same thing, but his actions certainly contributed. Normally, in such a simple dispute we would tell both parties to have a tea and discuss, and would forget about any minor incivility. Gimmetrow 00:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- (EC) Lets make this clear here. Locke Cole was not blocked for the edit war or for the FU problem. He was blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Hammersoft has not once yet been incivil, and deserves no block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hammersoft did not engage in the same behaviour that LC did. Seraphim♥ Whipp 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- So block them both. Not one. Gimmetrow 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I fail to see where he has been informed about certain specific images. I disagree with this block. Hammersoft aggravated the situation by continuing to edit war himself, and did not stop to explain to LC exactly what the problem was. Gimmetrow 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Locke Cole's talk page is filled with warnings and about mis-labeled images. He was given ample opportunity to responde to these warnings, and continued to act in willful ignorance of them. That Hammersoft did not specifically leave any of the warnings does not mean that Locke Cole had not been informed that his actions were in violation of policy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you're going to edit war to enforce policy, then you damn well better explain the policy to the person who doesn't understand it, or you're doing nothing to de-escalate the situation. I see Hammersoft has not notified LC of the disputed images, and in fact has never edited LC's talk page. Gimmetrow 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Wcfirm and Channing Tatum
This user is adding POV-style edits for a site that is supposed to be an official one for the actor, but is a blogspot. The way they describe it comes across as advertising. As can be seen from their talk page, this has been going on for a while, and reasoning doesn't appear to help. I don't want to get into an edit-war over this, and didn't know where else to report this, so I thought I'd try here. Thanks, and here's hoping. -Ebyabe (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Use of arbcom in content dispute
It appears to me that User:Fennessy is using the fact an issue has been disputed in an arbcom Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, namely use of the Ulster Banner, to justify reverting me on Template:Bus transport in the United Kingdom, which arbcom decisions are not used for. In fact it appears that is all he is logging in for at the moment, in an apparent attempt to go slow to avoid 3RR. MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Anon IP 74.xx.xx.xx claims persistently blocked
74.15.4.18 posted to me (see User talk:Davidruben#Account blocking) that repeadly now blocked following a good faith edit to List of medical abbreviations (this one) that I had reverted (I gave no direct warning nor any block for this). However presumably if blocked as a range block, would not then have been able to send me the query to my talk page as Special:Contributions/74.13.81.92. Is there/was there any sort of range block at 74.xx.xx.xx, and if so, how does one find out to confirm or unblock for a anon editor (obvious if a fixed IP, one just goes to User:IP and looks at block log) ? David Ruben Talk 23:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rangeblock helper doesn't show any block that would apply to that IP. Evil saltine (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, not seeing the block either. Tiptoety talk 00:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the replies (and for the Rangeblock helper link) :-) David Ruben Talk 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
E.O. Green School shooting again, help please
E.O. Green School shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a tragic in-school shooting incident involving 1 or 1 year old victims and suspects. An editor or possibly more than one keeps adding the suspects name, which is covered in RS. However, from the Corey Delaney (that Aussie party teen) deletions I was under the impression that minors' names are left out, generally, in presumption in favor of privacy. Editors have sought help on both the help and BLP boards but the article still seems to include the teen suspects name. Even if that teen is responsible for murder shouldn't we at least wait for the trial? And then come to a consensus on this? Benjiboi 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting problem, but what administrator action do you seek in this issue? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BLP is rather clear to me; until such time as a minor suspect is convicted, it's not appropriate to name them in an article. I've removed the name, according to the Privacy of Names section, I'll note so on the talk page, and will keep an eye on the article. — Coren (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've also left a note on the editor's page explaining my reasoning, and I notice the page has been protected by other admins in the interval. — Coren (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, usual routes of dialog and BLP noticeboard didn't seem to be getting a minor's name removed. As a involved editor I didn't feel I was going to get much traction and I felt wikipedia was in a gray area in a current high-profile murder case involving minors. Benjiboi 01:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've also left a note on the editor's page explaining my reasoning, and I notice the page has been protected by other admins in the interval. — Coren (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BLP is rather clear to me; until such time as a minor suspect is convicted, it's not appropriate to name them in an article. I've removed the name, according to the Privacy of Names section, I'll note so on the talk page, and will keep an eye on the article. — Coren (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)