Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) |
Betacommand (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1,241: | Line 1,241: | ||
:I reverted the blanking of a section that multiple other users agreed shouldnt be removed. so why am I getting punished? if your going to treat me that way MickMacNee should be serving at least a week block for edit warring, and disruption. [[User talk:Betacommand|β<sup><sub>command</sub></sup>]] 02:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC) |
:I reverted the blanking of a section that multiple other users agreed shouldnt be removed. so why am I getting punished? if your going to treat me that way MickMacNee should be serving at least a week block for edit warring, and disruption. [[User talk:Betacommand|β<sup><sub>command</sub></sup>]] 02:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
::You showed up from nowhere and used rollback in a content dispute. You were clearly in a dispute with him in an unrelated forum and decided to pop up and roll him back. Don't worry, I've already expressed my serious concerns about Micks unblock. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 02:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC) |
::You showed up from nowhere and used rollback in a content dispute. You were clearly in a dispute with him in an unrelated forum and decided to pop up and roll him back. Don't worry, I've already expressed my serious concerns about Micks unblock. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 02:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::if you look at my contribs I pop up a lot and edit random pages. [[User talk:Betacommand|β<sup><sub>command</sub></sup>]] 02:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:41, 7 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) |
|
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)
- Thanks for pointing that out, Clpo13. It is the Manual of Style, though, and not the Manual Of Rules Never To Be Broken If You Value Your Life. It is a collection of guidelines, hints, rules, procedures, suggestions and advice, covering the entire spectrum. If there were no problems with its interpretation, then any forum for discussion, such as this one, would become superfluous. Thank heaven Wikipedia still leaves some things to human judgement! Rotational (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I doubt anyone wants to hear this, and it will certainly be ignored by many editors who insist on strictly following the MoS without question, but Rotational's layout looks better than the standard layout. This is because in a stub article or near-stub article without sections in the body of the article, the sections at the bottom ("source", "notes", "references", "external links" and so on) look very big and therefore out of place. For that reason, the smaller headings used by Rotational are a better, more visually balanced choice.
Of course, I've been known to champion non-standard layouts for other, similar reasons of visual impact, balance and ease of use, which I reckon will now be brought up to devalue my comment. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looking specifically at List of florilegia and botanical codices which Rotational has rotated back to his style at the momemt, I have to agree that in this specific article his style is visually much more appealing, or I should say much less distracting. The header underlines count for nothing, and the resulting large amounts of whitespace simply don't help. That said, I have often cleaned up article headings that had been inserted at the wrong level, since in general they look bad.
- Unless ALL of Rotational's articles are lists of plants with images down the right side I can see no reason for always violoating WP:MOS. It exists for a reason, and I can understand an editor happening by and zapping thigns to match. But visual and textual flow is as important as factual accuracy (since poor flow can harm comprehension), and they both trump blind adherance to a set of formatting rules. On the numerous other points brought up above in the original discussion I make no comment.Loren.wilton (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- But visual and textual flow is as important as factual accuracy (since poor flow can harm comprehension), and they both trump blind adherance to a set of formatting rules. Thank you, I couldn't have said it better. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 08:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, a single editor's view of what makes for better visual and textual flow shouldn't overrule a style guide put together by many collaborating editors. In certain cases the Manual of Style is fit to be ignored. It says so itself. However, that usually requires a good reason. In the case of the articles in question, I can understand a different style. But as Loren.wilton said, that doesn't condone ignoring it all the time just because one's opinion of what constitutes proper style happens to differ from what the manual says. --clpo13(talk) 08:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right that the MoS is in most instances a valuable guide, and that it creates the framework for a unified look for Wikipedia, which is a valuable thing, but there's a tendency amoung many editors to consider it Holy Writ, and to expect that merely citing the MoS is sufficient to counter anyone who's actually taken the time to consider issues of visual impact and balance, ease of use, reader functionality, textual flow and so on. Dogmatic adherence to what is repeatedly stated is a set of guidelines and not absolutely rules is taken as a substitute for discussion of the merits of the specific instance, and that's a shame. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Even so, a guideline should not be ignored solely on the basis that it is a guideline. I can't speak for others, but I follow the MoS because I don't find anything wrong with it, not because it's there. --clpo13(talk) 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree entirely that ignoring the MoS just for the sake of ignoring it is wrong. Someone who uses non-standard formatting should be able, and willing, to justify their actions in discussion. Unfortunately, a lot of editors -- thankfully not all -- consider waving the MoS to be the end of the matter and are unwilling to engage in conversation. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Even so, a guideline should not be ignored solely on the basis that it is a guideline. I can't speak for others, but I follow the MoS because I don't find anything wrong with it, not because it's there. --clpo13(talk) 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right that the MoS is in most instances a valuable guide, and that it creates the framework for a unified look for Wikipedia, which is a valuable thing, but there's a tendency amoung many editors to consider it Holy Writ, and to expect that merely citing the MoS is sufficient to counter anyone who's actually taken the time to consider issues of visual impact and balance, ease of use, reader functionality, textual flow and so on. Dogmatic adherence to what is repeatedly stated is a set of guidelines and not absolutely rules is taken as a substitute for discussion of the merits of the specific instance, and that's a shame. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, a single editor's view of what makes for better visual and textual flow shouldn't overrule a style guide put together by many collaborating editors. In certain cases the Manual of Style is fit to be ignored. It says so itself. However, that usually requires a good reason. In the case of the articles in question, I can understand a different style. But as Loren.wilton said, that doesn't condone ignoring it all the time just because one's opinion of what constitutes proper style happens to differ from what the manual says. --clpo13(talk) 08:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- But visual and textual flow is as important as factual accuracy (since poor flow can harm comprehension), and they both trump blind adherance to a set of formatting rules. Thank you, I couldn't have said it better. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 08:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
(reset) And Rotational continues, diff and in one of his new articles, diff. I agree with the users above on opportunities to ignore the MoS, but Rotational has not presented any sufficient reason to not use the headings beyond his dislike for them. Could an uninvolved admin evaluate this for ownership issues and take appropriate action (whatever you deem that to be)? --Rkitko (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are no ownership issues here except in the fevered minds of those who want to hang a simple stylistic matter on a peg labelled "GROSS VIOLATION" of MoS. Rkitko has often objected to my rendition of an author abbreviation on the grounds that it did not automatically add the botanist's name to the List of botanists with author abbreviations. When I took care of that objection by manually adding the name to the category, it was promptly reverted. I maintain that if the information content of two styles is the same, then Wikipedia should be flexible enough to countenance both. I like my version more, because it doesn't surround itself with an unjustifiable box and stand out from the rest of the text like a sore thumb. As for the heading issues, I have never understood the alarm and hysteria at trying to avoid meaningless lines cutting across the article and making it appear like a schoolboy's first essay. If one could separate the headings from the lines I would embrace the headings, sobbing with gratitude. To summarise - surely it should be possible for a FEW reasonable versions of style to peacefully co-exist. That way WP would be more like an evolving organism investing in speciation, instead of placing all bets on one potential dinosaur. Rotational (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
- Find some pro-America sources that discuss anti-Americansim and include it. Look, I'm an American who recognizes that anti-Americanism exists in the world. There are many Americans who no doubt would like to learn more about anti-Americanism. Where does it come from? It it perceptual or genuine? Does it involve conflicting ideologies? Does it have a basis in reality? Is it part of foreign propaganda? Who knows. The point I was trying to make is that anti-Americanism is notable and that people may come to Wikipedia to learn more about it. Censorship doesn't solve the problem. Deletion of the page or cluttering it with unsightly warning templates, which Bsharvy has been doing, doesn't solve the problem. And it isn't constructive. There's a way to do it that doesn't make it POV -- it just involves being mature about it. Njfuller (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed with this advice, for what it's worth. Anti-Americanism is alive and well in many parts of the world, even mine (Australia) and Canada where it can be unexpectedly hostile. The whole phenomenon has been subjected to numerous academic studies so some of the questions Njfuller raises above can be answered with reliable sources that have been peer-reviewed. I think creating a dog's breakfast of tags creates more problems than it solves. Orderinchaos 06:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Find some pro-America sources that discuss anti-Americansim and include it. Look, I'm an American who recognizes that anti-Americanism exists in the world. There are many Americans who no doubt would like to learn more about anti-Americanism. Where does it come from? It it perceptual or genuine? Does it involve conflicting ideologies? Does it have a basis in reality? Is it part of foreign propaganda? Who knows. The point I was trying to make is that anti-Americanism is notable and that people may come to Wikipedia to learn more about it. Censorship doesn't solve the problem. Deletion of the page or cluttering it with unsightly warning templates, which Bsharvy has been doing, doesn't solve the problem. And it isn't constructive. There's a way to do it that doesn't make it POV -- it just involves being mature about it. Njfuller (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Now, all the warning templates are being blanked on a regular basis. No editor is allowed to express the opinion that the article is unbalanced or contains OR, etc. The fact that the article is not a work of consensus is being hidden. There really need to be some guidelines about how warning templates are supposed to work. At the moment, this is just an edit war. Bsharvy (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Templates aren't generally intended as a propetual expression of differing opinion. If the article doesn't represent consensus, edit the article. You should at least be able to add the occasional sentence that "Some People Don't Believe This." At least after you clean up the weasel words to describe who Some People are. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody PLEASE do something about this???? A group of editors in this article has decided that they are not going to allow the use of any templates. They delete ALL templates no matter what is tried. The number of warning templates has been reduced, the redundnats ones removed, and all these editors do is BLANK all the templates no matter what. Nobody has said ANYTHING about a propetual expression of a different opinion. Its just a question of whether the templates are allowed to be used AT ALL. Rachel63 (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rubbish! The editors putting tags on the article, when asked to be specific about the problems they are reporting with the tags refuse to do so. They spend so much time arguing for their inclusion but bugger all time deciding on what the actual problems are. The tags shown are particularly non-specific, generic and subjective so further explanation is necessary as to what they are there for. For example there's a tag accusing of original research, yet none of the taggers will say what they thinks is original research and why they think it's original research. So in my books under those circumstances the tag goes. Getting this point through to these editors is like nailing a jelly (jello for you yanks)to a wall! --WebHamster 13:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is endless discussion on that talk page about issues with the article. However, I am inclined to agree that the posters of those tags need to first write a section on the talk page that specifically refers to the issues raised, and then post the tags. I have often run across such tags with no followup comments, and my usual practice is to delete them, because they constitute groundless pot-shots. In this case, that may not apply. But the complainants need to first write the specific complaint, then post its tag. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- All of the issues in the tags have been discussed ad nauseum. I've probably written 1,000 words on why the article is unencyclopedic. It was just nominated for deletion, and several editors expressed their concerns about its validity as a topic. Even those who didn't vote to delete specified problems. The idea that the "unencyclopedic" tag hasn't been addressed is pure garbage. I've written several paragraphs on why the article lacks neutrality. As another editor said, the only objective statement you can make about this topic is a dictionary definition, and even that is inadequate since it logically includes things like pro-life activism, yet people don't usually call that anti-American. The suggestion that no reasons have been given for the concerns is dishonest obstruction. The only response we get from WebHamster and his cronies to these points is to announce that "we just don't like it" followed by deletion of warning tags to express the concerns we've described over and over and over again. Bsharvy (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're right. But if you have a section in the talk page that specifically answers his complaint, then you've got him. He would then have to invent another reason for deleting it, and help further the case for eventually blocking him due to disruption. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- All of the issues in the tags have been discussed ad nauseum. I've probably written 1,000 words on why the article is unencyclopedic. It was just nominated for deletion, and several editors expressed their concerns about its validity as a topic. Even those who didn't vote to delete specified problems. The idea that the "unencyclopedic" tag hasn't been addressed is pure garbage. I've written several paragraphs on why the article lacks neutrality. As another editor said, the only objective statement you can make about this topic is a dictionary definition, and even that is inadequate since it logically includes things like pro-life activism, yet people don't usually call that anti-American. The suggestion that no reasons have been given for the concerns is dishonest obstruction. The only response we get from WebHamster and his cronies to these points is to announce that "we just don't like it" followed by deletion of warning tags to express the concerns we've described over and over and over again. Bsharvy (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are four sections on the page that deal with the problems I've mentioned:
- 21 This Article Is Really Bad ....discusses reasons it is unencyclopedic
- 22 Copied from AfD ....discusses reasons it is unencyclopedic again
- 23 The First Step to Improvement ....I set out a basic task to make the article encyclopedic and neutral
- Also, in...
- 4 Intro reverts ...I go into more detail about neutrality problems with the lead.
- There are four sections on the page that deal with the problems I've mentioned:
This is ridiculous. The article was nominated for deletion. There is a whole page explaining why some people think it isn't encyclopeadic. Saying there isn't even a section just isn't right. Deleting templates because nobody has said why they want the templates isn't fair either. People have said what they think is wrong many times. There is a whole page about it, not just a section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Americanism Rachel63 (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can someone take a look at the edits of User:Servant Saber it looks like he is trying to OWN the article and deleting all chritisizm that is targeting America. The article title is Anti-Americanism so it expresses conserns and believes of the political consept that is Anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism article history Igor Berger (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have invited the user to come to ANI and comment on his edits User_talk:Servant_Saber#Anti-Americanism Igor Berger (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have removed sections that primarily violate WP:OR as unreferenced and the WP:MOS for being quotefarms. I also removed parts which implied that opposition to U.S. policies, politics, wars etc constitute anti-Americanism. I saw a shitty article and am trying to improve it, there's no sinister motives at all. --SABEREXCALIBUR! 09:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- The editor claims he knows what he is doing but I do not see his name on the article's talk page even once. I feel he is working his POV without fisrt getting a consesus from other editors who are envolved in editing the article. He claims WP:BOLD but I think BOLD does not imply WP:OWN Igor Berger (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, because edits like [1] are POV pushing ... --SABEREXCALIBUR! 10:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I did not know being pro-life is Anti-American! Is that something new? Keep on hacking it to bring home NPOV..:) Igor Berger (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Bsharvy has just commented on the Talk page: "Some problems are systemic and can't be fixed by simple editing". As editing is the way articles are improved on the wikipedia this must mean he wants the tags to remain on the article forever - as his POV message to all users of the wikipedia and as his way of discrediting it since his attempt to delete it was outvoted. He also makes vague statements that he has discussed the issues elsewhere but doesn't go into any details. The point is to discuss the issues on the Talk page now, not vaguely genuflect to some indeterminate 'elsewhere' to which other editors have no input. Contra Saber's POV the article is very good and well referenced. It is one of the best articles on the wikipedia IMHO. And for the record the absurd edit [2] to which Saber objected IS something new. It was a contribution from Bsharvy and was almost immediately reverted. A startling demonstration of his grasp of the issues here. Colin4C (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I did not know being pro-life is Anti-American! Is that something new? Keep on hacking it to bring home NPOV..:) Igor Berger (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, because edits like [1] are POV pushing ... --SABEREXCALIBUR! 10:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- The editor claims he knows what he is doing but I do not see his name on the article's talk page even once. I feel he is working his POV without fisrt getting a consesus from other editors who are envolved in editing the article. He claims WP:BOLD but I think BOLD does not imply WP:OWN Igor Berger (talk) 10:12, 6 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.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Ireneshusband also started a MedCab case, which was full of assumptions of bad faith and incivility.[21]
After these two edits,[22][23] I gave Ireneshusband a warning for trolling.[24], which he described as a "ridiculous threat" and suggested that I brush up on Wikipedia policy.[25][26]
Shortly thereafter, Ireneshusband made this edit[27], which, to his credit, he refactored[28] (although he should not have made a comment that he needed to refactor). However, today there has been more incivility and trolling.[29][30][31] He has also posted to the talk page of a new user, encouraging him/her to not accept the "indignity" coming his/her way.[32]
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)
How is this complaint malicious? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- But what if editors are banding together and charges of "bullying", "cabalism", "Wikilaywering", "lying", and "malicious" behavior are accurate? My feeling is that those charges are accurate, and when someone comes forward with the courage to point it out despite the policy of assuming good faith, they are breaking laws and rules for a very good reason. The arguments presented by IrenesHusband have been very good, and indeed have made me think twice about whether the mainstream account is complete, or even accurate. Dscotese (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you point to any instances of bullying, cabalism, wikilawyering, lying, or malicious behavior by anyone other than Ireneshusband? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, is it malicious to refer to a person as a "conspiracy theorist" rather than by name? This is done by several editors in this discussion. It is almost as if there is intent to discredit a person for seeing flaws in the mainstream account of the events of 9/11. If you want malicious, then just look at the edits of one editor who uses the term often (pick any one you want). If you want cabalism then look at them as a group. If you want wikilawyering then examine their application of policy references. I can't provide examples of Lying because I recognize the elusiveness of truth. Do you? Dscotese (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you point to any instances of bullying, cabalism, wikilawyering, lying, or malicious behavior by anyone other than Ireneshusband? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I read a number of the above listed "uncivil" arguments. Seems there's incivility on many fronts. That seems to be a tactic used to obscure facts. I appreciated IrenesHusband's message. I got one. There was nothing uncivil in it. Basically it said familiarize yourself with the policy, don't let me or Ice Cold Beer or anybody else familiarize you with what the policy means. Seems to me that's what Wikipedia policy is all about. In most of those snippets pointed out above, other than the bickering, I saw a lot of IrenesHusband trying to back up his points with references, trying to get them seen for people, not a person to judge. I think if anything, almost everyone mentioned was uncivil including the person who leveled the claim. Best thing would be for everyone involved to agree to be civil when it comes to discussing and editing this obviously touchy and heated topic. Seems to me if IrenesHusband were to be banned based on these claims, several others in these threads should be banned for the very same reason. I don't think anyone should though, I think the focus should be the article and not the people editing it. (Deminizer (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
- This dispute, actually, has remained fairly civil on both sides, with the only exception being Ireneshusband. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Accusing some good-faith editor of trolling is in itsself very incivil. I feel Ireneshusband should do wiser than to accuse any author of bad faith except when reporting an incident. But he is certainly not trolling, he is trying to uphold policy in my opinion. If you cannot win the debates with arguments, please do not confuse matters with complaining about something else. ICB, you have room for improvement in respect of civilty yourself, in my opinion. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:29, 6 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 [33][34][35][36][37]. LC has previously been sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for edit warring [38], was placed on revert parole and knows not to do this. In an unrelated incident, he even warned another user about 3RR [39]. He knows better. He seems to want to rant against our fair use policies (see [40][41]). 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 [42]. 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)
- 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)
- The oldest of those images is from 26 February 2006. The policy at the time did require a fair use rationale [42]. 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 [43]. --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)
- (reply to Gimmetrow)I was not blocking on the basis of the 2006 ArbCom, I am noting that the issues under which I blocked are essentially the same as 2006. I find that the editor has not moved on from the stances or behaviours which led to that process and those findings. Not only is that unfortunate, but also an indication that opinion and discussion of itself is unlikely to alter their behaviour. To remove that point of disruption I felt I had no alternative but to issue a block. Will the block change the editors opinion? Unlikely. Will it persuade the editor to discuss their opinion in more civil terms? Possibly, at least in the short term. Will it persuade the editor to consider that others opinions have just as much right to be aired and considered? Well, that is the hope. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:37, 4 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)
- Agreed - block seems unsound and disproportionate. Support unblock. Orderinchaos 08:00, 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)
- Having noticed Locke Cole's name as a subsection index - he once reverted an edit I made, if you were wondering, so I was curious - I have come across this discussion. Would someone be willing to explain to me which part of WP:HARASS LessHeard vanU was referring to when he cited this [edit as cause for a 48 hour block? Because this does not seem immediately clear to me. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've asked LHvU whether he would consider an unblock if Locke Cole would a) remove the statement as his first edit after unblocking and b) pledge not to make such a statement again. I think that would be reasonable - IMO a 48 hour block was harsh (ask him to remove it, first!). Neıl ☎ 11:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly concerned about the block itself, I mean, he'll be okay, regardless of whether it was fair or unfair or rash or unrash. I'm curious about the citation of WP:HARASS with respect to what he said about BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) and Hammersoft (talk · contribs) in the edit to his user page linked to above by Hammersoft (talk · contribs). It was initially opaque to me, not being familiar with WP:HARASS, and the connection is still unclear. There's a reference to user space harassment, but the language indicates that editing of a user's own talk page was what was under consideration.
- Just to be clear on motive, I'm not petitioning for his unblocking, and I'm not wanting to play gotchas with anyone. I'm saying that it isn't clear to me which aspect of the actual WP:HARASS document was being referred to (in providing a link to it as rationale for the block), and I was wondering if I had missed something, or if such references have become short form for "Okay, I see that Locke Cole is harassing people.[.. and this is the Nth time that he has done that in the past two weeks and it's always the same thing.]" 69.49.44.11 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've asked LHvU whether he would consider an unblock if Locke Cole would a) remove the statement as his first edit after unblocking and b) pledge not to make such a statement again. I think that would be reasonable - IMO a 48 hour block was harsh (ask him to remove it, first!). Neıl ☎ 11:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I'm deleting the image. It blatantly fails NFCC 8, "significant contribution to the article". It's clearly not being used for critical commentary or analysis, it's not referenced in the text, it hasn't even a recognisable relation to any particular plot element mentioned in the text. Its information value is zero. It just serves as a spot of color decorating the infobox. There is a myth among the pop-culture crowd that there is some sort of blanket allowance of one non-free image per episode page. There is not. Write something that is of encyclopedic value about the image, then and only then do you get to use one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- In general, NFCC#8 deletions are subjective and require discussion, and thus should be done through something like WP:IfD. Having said that, I agree with you in this case. The trouble is, if you allow things to be done this way, you will then get people deleting lots of stuff under "fails NFCC#8" claims that are more dubious. The thin end of the wedge in reverse. Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes and no. I agree there is a margin of subjectiveness, which may make some such deletions problematic. Nevertheless, the formal policy is quite clear: Failure to pass any of the NFCC, (including #8) is a speedy deletion criterion (WP:CSD I7), not an IfD issue. The image was already being discussed, here and elsewhere, the uploader was notified – though, I admit, not of this specific concern – so I believe I'm well within proper process here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion criteria have always had to be clear-cut, rather than subjective. How did the "any of the NFCC" wording get into the CSD page? Some of the NFCC are suitable for CSD, some aren't. Carcharoth (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Must have been in there for quite a while. Last time I6/I7 were slightly modified as in early September, when a sentence in I6 calling for the use of IfD (in some occasions, not all) was removed as self-contradictory. I7 itself seems to have kept the same wording for a good while longer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion criteria have always had to be clear-cut, rather than subjective. How did the "any of the NFCC" wording get into the CSD page? Some of the NFCC are suitable for CSD, some aren't. Carcharoth (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes and no. I agree there is a margin of subjectiveness, which may make some such deletions problematic. Nevertheless, the formal policy is quite clear: Failure to pass any of the NFCC, (including #8) is a speedy deletion criterion (WP:CSD I7), not an IfD issue. The image was already being discussed, here and elsewhere, the uploader was notified – though, I admit, not of this specific concern – so I believe I'm well within proper process here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Bots edit-warring with humans
To throw a suggestion out here: Bots must not edit-war with humans. If a bot action is reverted by a human, there should be a presumption that the human was acting intentionally and in good faith. (The bot may be operated in good faith, but the bot itself is a dumb machine and does not itself have any intentions whatsoever, for good or for evil.)
If a bot and a human get into an edit war, the bot is at an unfair advantage: being a bot, it can neither become bored of the conflict, nor can it feel guilty for having gotten into an edit war. Edit warring is always bad, but unless there is a presumption that the human is right, the bot will always win. (Especially when a human who engages in edit-warring can be blocked, but there is so much agitation against blocking a bot that does the very same.)
So, here's a proposal: all bots should live under 0RR, or 1RR at most. A bot that repeatedly reverts against a human editor should be considered to be defective, and disabled until fixed. Instead, if a bot does something and a human reverts it, the bot must leave it alone, or possibly flag it for further human inspection.
Consider:
- Bot tags an article.
- Human A removes tag.
- Bot re-tags it. (This is revert 1.)
- Human A removes tag. (This is revert 1.)
- Bot notices it's tagged article twice, and does not revert.
- Human B looks at article and determines that tag is appropriate. Human B tags article.
- Human A and Human B can now discuss instead of edit-warring.
Putting a second human into the mix makes discussion possible. Without this, there is only a bot edit-warring with a human, and that's a battle no human can win. --FOo (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nice idea, and one that assumes good faith on behalf of the human the bot is reverting. However, most of the editors who war with our bots are not editing in good faith - they're trying to get copyright decorative images into articles without doing the paperwork, or they are blanking pages or doing obvious vandalism, all stuff the bots pick up on. If a bot stops after 1RR, it would need to report the issue to somewhere/one. This would create instant backlogs and would be a backdoor way of stopping our slave bots from doing the very boring jobs we have them for. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 08:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - BCB's doing a job. Reverting its edits is violating a legal (not ethical) policy. Besides, it took me literally three seconds to fix that rationale. It takes longer to undo edits. Will (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, no need for this, but can we please stop waving the legal red flag? The non-free content policy is, as its name says, a content policy, not a legal policy. Our copyright policy is an example of a legal policy. Invalid claims of fair use are not copyright violations, they are invalid claims of fair use. To quote: "The need to minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content under strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately more restrictive than United States fair use law." Some of BCB's edits will help minimise this legal exposure, others won't. All BCB's edits will, of course, help improve compliance with the "name the article it is used in" part of WP:NFCC#10c (which is, remember, only a small part of the overall NFCC). Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree only in parts. Some of the non-free content issues, and particularly those that BCB is dealing with, indeed don't touch on real-world legal issues. Others do. Truly invalid claims of fair use indeed do constitute copyright violations (unlike failures to declare them properly according to NFCC10 etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- As a general matter, it may be preferable to avoid referring to any policy not written by a lawyer and explicitly adopted as a 'legal policy' by the Wikimedia Foundation by such a name. Just to provide as stringent a divide in everyone's minds as possible, and avoid confusion. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree only in parts. Some of the non-free content issues, and particularly those that BCB is dealing with, indeed don't touch on real-world legal issues. Others do. Truly invalid claims of fair use indeed do constitute copyright violations (unlike failures to declare them properly according to NFCC10 etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, no need for this, but can we please stop waving the legal red flag? The non-free content policy is, as its name says, a content policy, not a legal policy. Our copyright policy is an example of a legal policy. Invalid claims of fair use are not copyright violations, they are invalid claims of fair use. To quote: "The need to minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content under strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately more restrictive than United States fair use law." Some of BCB's edits will help minimise this legal exposure, others won't. All BCB's edits will, of course, help improve compliance with the "name the article it is used in" part of WP:NFCC#10c (which is, remember, only a small part of the overall NFCC). Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed with this proposal. Orderinchaos 13:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - BCB's doing a job. Reverting its edits is violating a legal (not ethical) policy. Besides, it took me literally three seconds to fix that rationale. It takes longer to undo edits. Will (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we at least all agree that it's understandable when someone mistakenly thinks that "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law." is a "fair use rationale" under a common-sense understanding of the term? Having a tag like {{logo}} alone was the accepted practice in 2006 and earlier, even if it wasn't in line with a written policy that nobody read at the time. —Random832 14:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Instead of limiting the amount of reverts that a bot can do, I'd suggest that if the bot could recognize if the same editor has reverted them more than once on an image, they leave a message pointing them towards the copyright help desk or the media copyright questions page.
“ | I'm a bot simply doing what I was programmed to do. I can’t be bargained with. I can’t be reasoned with. I don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And I absolutely will not stop, ever, until the image is compliant or deleted. While it is possible that I've made a mistake in this case, it is more likely that a simple formatting or spelling error is preventing me from correctly parsing the rationale. Please bring your concerns about this image to the copyright help desk to get more input from other humans regarding this image's fair use rationale. | ” |
If we don't want to put it on the editor, maybe a subpage of WP:ICHD or WP:MCQ for the bot to report the disputed image to along with a message to the editor pointing to that report, and asking that the editor refrains from further reverts until another person has a chance to look into it.
OK...the terminator rip-off might be a little much...but could the rest be something to work with? I know BCB currently mentions Wikipedia:Media copyright questions in his notification note, but I think a message that was tailored just to specifically point out that there is a forum for questions would be more noticeable. I just don't think we should be limiting the bots, who seem to usually be right even if they are a bit strict. --Onorem♠Dil 15:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's precisely because bots can't be reasoned with that they need to be limited in their ability to revert human users. Otherwise we might as well just say that Wikipedia policy is whatever the bot authors decide it is, and that there's no sense ever disagreeing with a bot. Insofar as policy is an expression of community consensus, it needs to remain a matter for human discussion, to be worked out by human beings when there is a dispute -- not for one side of that dispute to automatically triumph because it has a bot on its side.
- Claiming that this is purely a legal issue, as Will did above, is simply erroneous. The law doesn't speak to the presence or absence of specific machine-readable tags on image pages It deals with fair use, not with "fair use rationales" ... and certainly not with tags. Tags on Wikipedia pages are markup for human consumption, for human editors to use in helping to decide whether something belongs here or not. A tag cannot make or break compliance with the fair-use provisions of copyright law. --FOo (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I recently censured this editor for violation of WP:NPA per two recent edits which accused two established editors of sockpuppetry and WP:COI violations. However this account, ironically, turns out to be a 2nd account itself (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophelia Benson and this conversation). Using an alternate account is not reason for sanction in itself, but an examination of the user's editing history reveals many more abuses of NPA (the last sentence of this, from yesterday is revealing; typical others include [44] [45] and a quick scan of the Talkpage history shows the relentless incivility with which the editor responds to others). This is not to mention an editing history which involves a WP:POINT spree of tagging porn biographies for speedy deletion and a 48-hour block for harrassment. The whole history of this account is poor enough for a single account, but is completely in violation of the good hand bad hand rules. Thoughts? Black Kite 15:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Block the user until we're given a suitable explanation. We did the same to Eyrian. Will (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've had run-ins with this user in the past as well, and it seems she dropped off the map shortly after her 3RR block in January and only resurfaced today. As far as the alternate account goes, is there any evidence that it's in violation of WP:GHBH? I don't believe Vivian has publicized the name of the original account (although it's possible that she notified Arbcom per WP:SOCK#Alternative account notification), but--putting aside the fact that this particular assumption
of good faith results in a head-splitting paradox--isn't it just as likely that the behavior on the original account is no better than the behavior on this one? --jonny-mt 16:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't care much for head-splitting paradoxes. Just as an intellectual exercise, how would your treatment of VivianDarkbloom differ between the case of her alternate account being a second bad hand vs. being a good hand?Kww (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Technically, I am actually assuming good faith by assuming this is the bad-hand account of a good one. It is of course equally likely that the other account is just as tendentious. Black Kite 16:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to sound like I was suggesting that you're not--I just wanted to mention that in the absence of evidence one way or the other, the two possibilities are equally likely.
- With regards to Kww's question, the answer is that two tendentious accounts would mean that we have an honest issue with the user's approach to editing, and so the standard dispute resolution process (probably WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U) is probably the best place to turn for a solution. A good hand/bad hand set up would mean that the user is cynically trying to game the system and disrupt the encyclopedia, which means that blocks and bans should be considered to prevent further disruption. BUT...all of this is hypothetical at this point :) --jonny-mt 16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- It could be argued - and I would - that a second account being used so tendentiously is not sanctioned at all by the legitimate uses defined in WP:SOCK, though. Black Kite 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree - I don't think WP:SOCK gives anyone license to use a second account in such a disruptive manner. I'd block the account indefinitely, with the autoblock disabled, and ask this editor to restrict themselves to their primary account. Either their primary account is better behaved (in which case it's a good hand-bad hand scenario), or the primary account is just as bad (in which case they're running multiple disruptive accounts). Either way, I'd start by blocking the VivianDarkbloom account and restricting them to whatever other Nabokovian account name they might be using. MastCell Talk 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- It could be argued - and I would - that a second account being used so tendentiously is not sanctioned at all by the legitimate uses defined in WP:SOCK, though. Black Kite 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: I will let this discussion run for a while longer before taking any action. Black Kite 20:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah... I reviewed the matter, concluded that it was appropriate and enacted the indef block. I commented at User talk:VivianDarkbloom#Indefinite block for abuse of alternate account, linking back here for the rationale. Since the block is enacted I think you should proceed from here. I shall take no further part other than to accept responsibility for making the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. To be honest, I don't think this is a particularly controversial block. Black Kite 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I have had a number of encounters with this user; all unpleasant. I've just been reading this all over and from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophelia Benson went to Ophelia Benson where is says Ophelia wrote under the name 'Kassandra' — which is really odd as many of my encounters with Vivian have been over City of Bones (Cassandra Clare novel) by Cassandra Clare which was created by User:Cassieclare oldid. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Black Kite, in that diff you supplied, VivianDarkbloom actually did not accuse an editor of sockpuppetry, but you have however. What's the reason for an indefinite block? You assume this is the "bad hand account" of a good one so where's your evidence? A civility warning may be appropriate (along with a warning to several other editors in that arbitration case), but an indefinite block is going overboard. --Pixelface (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Florentino floro
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
This section has been blanked as a courtesy. —Random832 02:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Betacommandbot
User:Cult free world -- persistent personal attacks despite 5 warnings
Cult free world (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a user who makes "harmonious editing difficult or impossible" and demonstrates "a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia." As proof, he repeatedly attacks anyone who has expertise or an interest in eastern spiritual traditions as being members of cults and labels even simple meditation groups cults, in order to promote his very strong "CultFreeWorld" POV (consistent with his username).
He has been warned multiple times, yet still continues to escalate his attacks and lies, most recently accusing me of being "paid" by a "cult" to work on Wiki when I'm not even a member of this group. Here are his warnings:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASahaj_Marg_India&diff=195631919&oldid=195624393
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASahaj_Marg_India&diff=195647299&oldid=195644852
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASahaj_Marg_India&diff=195786209&oldid=195783290
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASahaj_Marg_India&diff=195835390&oldid=195834925
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACult_free_world&diff=195648124&oldid=195646785
Here are some examples of personal attacks and offensive labeling of groups.
- Here he calls an admin with expertise in eastern spiritual traditions a "cult-promoter" and intentionally mis-states facts and tells lies in order to mislead other editors (i.e., asserting that people want to hide information, saying that admin Jossi deleted the original article when can't sleep clowns will get me did, etc.)
- Here he adds anti-cult blogs, promoting his POV and in violation with WP:RS and WP:V.
- Here he labels a meditation group a cult; this is on par with going onto an Islam page and calling all muslims terrorists.
- Here he adds an anti-cult blog source to a legitimate article; again, in violation of WP:RS and WP:V.
- Here he attacks the administrator again, calling him a cult member and making false accusations.
- Here others note his tendency to troll and call names.
- Here he calls me a "cult-promoter" and makes false accusations, when I've never even interacted with him before (unless, of course, he is a sock of previous editors involved in edit wars on the deleted pages, which I strongly suspect; please see User:Rushmi and User:Shashwat_pandey).
- Here he bolds "cult member" after being warned three times for WP:NPA, showing his intention to continue to attack.
- Here he gives a blanket statement calling all people who disagree with him "cult members."
- Here he moves a heading in an attempt to subvert the process and further promote his views on cults. (I had created a header for sources where an admin had stated the guidelines for what would be good sources, and CultFree assumed poor faith and moved it as a further show of disruptive editing.)
- Here he starts lying outright, accusing me of being a member of "this cult" (which I am not) and expanding his untrue accusations, saying I am a "paid" to edit this page.
- Here he attacks me as being mentally disturbed.
These diffs show a clear and persistent pattern of disruptive editing and personal attacks in line with his username, in order to promote his POV.
I have tried following procedures regarding his username, which others have found offensive too (e.g., see this), and again he fails to make any meaningful attempt for discussion, see this. When I attempt to work on the article he is creating, he says, stop and wait (see this), then he recruited someone to help him write the article consistent with his POV (see this). There is not attempt at civility or cooperation in developing articles.
I request CultFreeWorld be banned from editing articles of an eastern spiritual nature, given his stated purpose and pattern of posts that promote a strong negative POV toward these groups. Wiki is not the place for agendas (and certainly not in their usernames!) and those who derogatorily label whole groups or classes of people do not belong here. He has demonstrated an unwillingness to cease engaging in personal attacks (and even escalated his attacks in the face of warnings by making false statements). In addition, he has now recruited a person to write a POV article while not allowing opposing viewpoints voice. None of this belongs on Wiki. Renee (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody else has warned them, and the two of you seem to be battering each other a bit. That said, I agree that they're over the line, and left a level 3 NPA warning on their talk page.
- It would be best if you disengage from discussions with them except in article talk space, to avoid aggrivating the situation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- The personal attacks to me were concerning enough to merit a one week block. If anyone has issues with this, feel free to undo it.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Why did this even merit a discussion. User's name implies an SPA. User makes personal attacks in support of his POV. User has few to no constructive edits otherwise. A week seems too short to me. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Should we issue a indef until his username is changed? personally I feel that pushing propaganda can be considered either disruptive or promotional, both of wich are listed in WP:IU. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Adult-child sex article lives at User:VigilancePrime/Userfied/Adult-child sex
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
• VigilancePrime • • • 16:31 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
Since the CSD tag I posted will probably be turned down, I'm posting about this here to get additional eyeballs. I don't have all the links in my brain at the moment, but this article was:
- Deleted in an AfD [46]
- Endorsed at DRV [47]
- Deleted in userspace
- Overturned at DRV
- Deleted in userspace, again, via MfD [48]
- Endorsed at DRV [49]
And, I'm sure I'm missing a few. The userspace MfD can be found here and the current version of the article can be found here. As you can see, only one edit has been made since this page was created. There are boxes at the top of the page saying it is an "article in progress" and exempt from CSD because it is userfied content. Well, it isn't in progress at all, and I don't see how userfication gets content out of deletion when it was last deleted while in userspace. There has been amply demonstrated consensus that the community does not desire to have this article anywhere on Wikipedia - and the fact that it is being recreated yet again should be regarded as disruptive. Avruch T 04:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think that there should be some sort of community sanction for re-creating this in userspace after so many XfDs and DRVs. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Bye bye. ViridaeTalk 04:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- would it be acceptable to keep the material in user space under a different title? I am somewhat disappointed in the DRV being closed after less than the full period. I do not think it impossible to construct an acceptable article out of this material. I suggest that especially in the most contentious XfDs and DRs, there is good reason to allow to allow full time for discussion.DGG (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Guess what's back? seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you (all) for notifying me of this ANI, as is (used to be) customary.
- The page is significantly different from those shown above. Also left out was the original AfD that resulted in a keep.
- The page is userfied in accordance with policy. I have made no attempt to hide its presence (in fact it is listed in the header template for every userspace page I have).
- The page had most of the work done offline so that it would not be a "substantially identical" page. Care was taken to follow WikiPolicies in this matter so as to not be disruptive.
- The goal is to take this term which has been used by the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News, and The Washington Post and create a truly neutral article.
- I think that among all thus far, DGG has shown the most good faith in this and I agree with him that it is not impossible to construct an acceptable article out of this material. That's the entire purpose of this and the core of Wikipedia.
- I am not being disruptive. If anything, the harassment that I and (to a far greater extent) others have endured because we seek to better Wikipedia through the use of sourced information is disruptive. That I have had to post about this and re-defend it over and over has been disruptive. That I am doing so civilly and in good faith is not disruptive.
- Bottom line is that this is a potentially encyclopedic topic and the page is not substantially identical to a deleted page.
- • VigilancePrime • • • 05:04 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
Related XfD links for reference:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (Oct. '07)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination) (Jan. '08)
- Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Adult-child_sex (Jan. '08)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VigilancePrime/ACS (Jan. '08)
- User:VigilancePrime/Sandbox#ACS_00 (speedy deleted)
- User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (speedy deleted)
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 28 #User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (closed)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (Feb. '08)
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 9#User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (closed) (Feb. '08)
--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Cool! Thanks, Jack! That gives reference to the original keep AfD as well as the closed-by-WP:IAR MfD. Anyway, as has been stated, the article in question (which can no longer be seen but by admins) was not "substantially identical" to the deleted pages. It contained much of the others, but also have a great deal (about half the "current page") new/never-deleted material. • VigilancePrime • • • 05:53 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
- So, you missed all of the many suggestions made during those many, many discussions that you take the material off-Wiki and work on it there, rather than trying to do multiple end runs around consensus? Let me make it once again: Take it off Wiki and work on it there. Then bring it back for discussion and see if consensus that the topic is encyclopedic, acceptable and not a fork as so many people have said about it. Problem solved! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was off-Wiki. Now it is back on, very much improved.
- The POV-fork allegation was summarily discounted over and over. It is and was nothing more than an irrational emotive argument, as demonstrated by the many references in the now-deleted text. The so-called consensus never existed, either.
- You say to bring it back to Wiki... but I did and you haven't seen it because it was inappropriately speedied. I can't bring it back because it's been locked. The suggestions and the actions are diametrically opposed.
- The constant references to non-existent "consensus" or the inaccurate portrayal of "POV fork" are nothing more than emotionally-charged pseudo-arguments. The recommendations were to take it off-Wiki (which is not what policy states) and then bring it back when it has been bettered. That has happened. Problem solved! • VigilancePrime • • • 06:35 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
I have been asked to comment here, so I'll throw my 2 cents in--my own thoughts about the topic notwithstanding, we all have to abide by policy and guideline. I think that if the article is substantially different and has been worked on outside of wiki, than the new version may be placed in user space, temporarily, for final markup and editing work before it is brought back to article space. Once in article space, it should not be speedily deleted as a G10 until an admin can verify whether or not it is significantly different than the deleted version, Lastly, if it checks out that way, the article should be allowed to go through a normal AfD, with the twin caveats that on the one hand wikipedia is not censored, but on the other, not every incident or situation is ipso facto notable. Should the article be deleted under this last AfD, then the topic should be salted for a significant amount of time (six months to a year) unless consensus can be shown to have changed. -- Avi (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist is needed?--Hu12 (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
We can already salt deleted pages on wiki by protecting the title, if that is what you mean. -- Avi (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- The Title Blacklist extension allows the block or creation, movement and upload of pages which title matches one or more Regular expressions, Its broader protection than salting a static deleted page.--Hu12 (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's all I am asking here. Let the page be worked on. It is significantly different from the formerly deleted versions. It's one of many articles I have on the worklist, but the only one that is being thrown around. (Incidentally, the title is already protected, for undisclosed reasons, but that's a bridge to cross when there's an actual encyclopedic article with which to place.) I don't think I'm asking for too much here... just a little WikiPolicy and a little lattitude so that neutrality and the verifiability may be properly served. Thank you. • VigilancePrime • • • 06:56 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
The page was salted (by another admin) following the DRV close by Mackensen who wrote in concluding the rationale paragraph after noting consensus found the article to be a POV fork (emphasis in original): "... deletion endorsed, editors remanded to the existing articles on the subject." --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly. No amount of rewriting is goign to get around the fundamental problem that this is a POV-fork of existing articles whose major problem, in the eyes of the advocates of the fork, appears to be that they follow the dominant mainstream view that adults having sex with children is abusive. Sorry, we can't fix that, and WP:NPOV rather indicates that we shouldn't even try. Sure, pro-paedophile activists don't like the term paedophilia, don't like the term child sexual abuse, and don't like the fact that close to 100% of reliable sources agree that adults having sex with children is a Bad Thing. Wikipedia is not the place to fix that. Has consensus changed in the last month to allow recreation of this fork? Not likely. Should Wikipedia allow people an indefinite number of kicks at the can? No, thanks all the same. Just as with other serially-recreated content on subjects which repeatedly fail to achieve consensus for inclusion, the best solution if advocates really want an article is to go away for a good long time. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Guy, I don't think anyone is arguing that adults having sex with young children is a bad thing. Has it happened in the past? Yes. Is a young adult having sex with an old child a bad thing? On that there is debate. But you seem to be intent on labeling any attempt to discuss this as pro-pedophile activism and barely stop short of name-calling anyone who would seek to work on something like this. You sound as though you are just full of bile toward anyone who would not blindly agree with you. From what I've seen and read, you are just as much a POV-pusher as those you attack. • VigilancePrime • • • 20:48 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
- Endorse deletion of this POV fork yet again; I'd recommend a block for a user who recreates it again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
JzG and Morven are spot on. VP is being disruptive and needs to heed the consensus of the community. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. This is just going too far. VP's being trolling for this article for weeks. Will (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Trolling for weeks? Care to explain what you mean by that, cause I have no idea what I've been doing regarding this article "for weeks". And personal attacks? Were I to accuse you of trolling (such as with that comment), I'd be blocked for sure. Are you blocked for the personal attacks? Of course not. Why is that? • VigilancePrime • • • 20:48 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
- I endorse the deletion as well and recommend that any recreation should garner some form of disciplinary/preventative action. I am against the contention, though, that bringing up the subject or "not letting it go" necessarily constitutes a disruption. To prevent a disruption one need only ignore it. Don't answer the would-be disruptor, and chances are, you'll have taken away his power to disrupt. Of course, if he starts multiple discussions in multiple places continually, that could then be cause for action, but that hasn't really happened yet. So here's my solution: VP, the answer/consensus appears to be a resounding "No". You can reply again but you've already been given the answer, so there's really no need, and hopefully, no one will bother to answer you again. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:47, 5 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- enough, I've followed (but not commented on) this matter over a period of time. VP knows the community position on this, continued defiance of the community and those bits of wikilawyering we are seeing here should result in swift removal of material and progressive longer blocks. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's already an article on Child sexual abuse, which one would think would cover this subject sufficiently. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- "editors remanded to the existing articles on the subject" - there is no existing article as it was deleted. Guy and Jack are always going to side with the WP:IDONTLIKEIT group, and I agree with Eq that it's not the page that is disruptive but some of you all's single-minded determination to delete anything even resembling the well-sourced content. This is a great example of WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:V all being met and yet, we force deletion and harass the editors for reasons of WP:IAR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you look at the other pages I have userfied, can you tell me what the difference is between this one and those? They all need work or are unencyclopedic or have other articlespace problems. In point of fact, this one that is so hated because people make incorrect assumptions about it is the most article-worthy, the best sourced, and the most likely to become, one day, a good article. What is it about the other userfieds that is any different that singles ACS out as forbidden thought?
- Lastly, if everyone agrees that the CSA article "would cover this subject sufficiently", as Bugs has stated (is that what everyone agrees to?), then it should be safe to assume that the vast maority of this content can be placed into that article (obviously the sourced material, which is almost every word), eh?
- I'm all up for a legitimate compromising solution, but would prefer one backed up by policy and precedent. • VigilancePrime • • • 15:37 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
- well head over to the CSA page and make your suggestions about what should be incorporated from the RS's that you have - that requires no administrator input or action. Isn't that the simple solution? --Fredrick day (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I could do that. Or I could just add content where it is relevant. Oh, then there's the whole Drive off anyone we hate from this article hrough personal attacks, harassment, and threats from a limited number of "established" editors to that article. Having been through that already once (and of course some admins fully support and even participate in this sort of behaviours), I'm not exactly highly motivated to contribute. • VigilancePrime • • • 15:45 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
- Oh-by-the-way, the article where all the information was has been forcibly removed, destroying all that research and information... can someone undelete it for me so I can extract the information (gradually) into the CSA and other relevant articles? • VigilancePrime • • • 15:47 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
- Hang on a minute, what you appear to be saying here is that you went to the articles on child sexual abuse and/or pederasty and/or pedophilia, attempted to insert content that fitted your POV, failed to achieve consensus, and so you created a new article to better reflect your POV. Is that what happened? It would certainly explain why so many otherwise uninvolved parties identified it as a POV-fork, because that is pretty much the canonical definition of one. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- what is it you want from this conversation? nobody is going to give license to create your POV folk - that conversation is done (and yes we know you don't consider it a POV folk), so you can either move past that or well you can just move on past wikipedia. I don't see what more needs to said. The "issue" here has been dealt with - I suggest this is marked as resolved (because the central issue has been resolved - it's deleted, it's staying deleted) and VP gets on with editing and we all see where that goes. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that the alleged "this article is covered in" argument in invalid as they clearly are not the same topic. And ANY changes to those articles that are not in line with the SPOV grouping is immediately reverted and the contributor harassed until they leave. No, I have not gone to those articles with this content because it is beyond their scope. The above has instructed to add this content to expand, significantly, their scope. Nice attempt at an argument, Fredrick, but the problem is that you have your conclusion that you want and then go about finding a way to "prove" it. Try it the other way around sometime... • VigilancePrime • • • 20:48 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
- well head over to the CSA page and make your suggestions about what should be incorporated from the RS's that you have - that requires no administrator input or action. Isn't that the simple solution? --Fredrick day (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know, maybe something based in logic. But that not possible, I'd be thrilled to see someone that says, "Personal attacks for editing neutrally? THat shouldn't happen! Look, don't edit in fear... if someone is personally attacking you or name caling and the like, let me know and I'll take care of that." You know, equality on Wikipedia? I know it's a long-shot hope. You see, there's this rock and hard place. Rock: No ACS article. Hard Place: Harassment for editing an article someone else owns. All I seek is someone to reassure me that, since "we" don't allow one article, that the legitimate content really can be added elsewhere. You've all said as much, but nobody has promised it. The natural outcome right now is the end of the ACS page (I accept that) and then a sweeping under the rug of any negative actions that happen as a result of following the instructions in this discussion.
- And a policy-based reason would be neat, but I'm not holding my breath. WP:IAR seems to be sufficient. Long as we all admit that, okay. • VigilancePrime • • • 15:56 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
I would like to ask for an XML export of the deleted article (all versions, generated from this url) or a list of contributors from the history page (cut and paste), for GFDL reasons for use of this content off-wiki. -- Ned Scott 19:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Whay would that be? Interested in adding a list of contributors to another hate site such as Wikisposure? Just curious why you're interested in the contributors (rather than the actual content). • VigilancePrime • • • 20:48 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
- He already explained. In accordance with the GFDL, a list of contributers must be included with any reproduction of the article.
- And for the record, I strongly support the eventual recreation of Adult-child sex on Wikipedia. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that, but he said the article or a list of contributors of contributors. What would one be able to do with a list of contributors without the article itself? Maybe I'm a little paranoid, but if so that's based on experience, both direct and vicarious. • VigilancePrime • • • 21:15 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
- To assume: perhaps he already has the article and only needs the contributors' list? --SSBohio 22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, I have a copy of the article, but not of the history page or any past versions. -- Ned Scott 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Please excuse the somewhat paranoid pessimism... having been a victim of a hate site once already, I'm on-guard for possible repeat instances. As for the revision history of the userfied version, it only had me and the Speedy deleters. The original article was in Wikispace and had man, many editors. That was deleted LONG ago. Check the above links from Jack-A-Roe for that page's original location and thus history placement. • VigilancePrime • • • 00:05 (UTC) 6 Mar '08
- No problem, and I can relate to the concern. Since you are the main author of the newer and better version then I have no need for the history of the old one. I figured it might have been possible to help you (or anyone else who wanted to work on the content) to be able to satisfy the GFDL without more DRV commotion. I was unaware that you had restarted from scratch. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 01:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Please excuse the somewhat paranoid pessimism... having been a victim of a hate site once already, I'm on-guard for possible repeat instances. As for the revision history of the userfied version, it only had me and the Speedy deleters. The original article was in Wikispace and had man, many editors. That was deleted LONG ago. Check the above links from Jack-A-Roe for that page's original location and thus history placement. • VigilancePrime • • • 00:05 (UTC) 6 Mar '08
- Indeed, I have a copy of the article, but not of the history page or any past versions. -- Ned Scott 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- To assume: perhaps he already has the article and only needs the contributors' list? --SSBohio 22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that, but he said the article or a list of contributors of contributors. What would one be able to do with a list of contributors without the article itself? Maybe I'm a little paranoid, but if so that's based on experience, both direct and vicarious. • VigilancePrime • • • 21:15 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
- Whay would that be? Interested in adding a list of contributors to another hate site such as Wikisposure? Just curious why you're interested in the contributors (rather than the actual content). • VigilancePrime • • • 20:48 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
- Well, I thought that this matter was closed hours ago. I have no desire to fight the good fight or truth and neutrality on this issue. I was hoping for some sort of rational, policy-based explanation, reasoning, or comparison, but to find none. I accept that.
- If anyone is in need of a dead horse to beat, though, there's more room in this thread...
- • VigilancePrime • • • 20:48 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
- I've asked this question before, but I've never had an understandable explanation: How is the article a POV fork? If it's been explained previously, just point me to the diff. I've seen plenty of people say it's a POV fork, but what I see is a value-neutral etic approach to a topic that's as old as humanity itself. Even if the title is POV, the content can be used in other articles, so why delete it? --SSBohio 22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Adult-child sex" is a euphemism (for child sexual abuse), and any article titled "Adult-child sex" is prima facie assumed to be apologistic for child sexual abuse. Exactly as if someone took an article "Nazi genocide" and retitled (or made a fork) entitled "Nazi demographic adjustments". We understand that you don't agree with this but if you still don't understand it then you had better look to yourself. Herostratus (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly as Hero said. As a contemporary example, Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide. One is just a fancy name for the other. • VigilancePrime • • • 03:41 (UTC) 6 Mar '08
- I don't see the logic of that. Adult-child sex (the term) goes no further than plain description. I can see where some editors were trying to insert POV material about child sexual abuse into the article, but I don't see how it logically follows that the term itself becomes a euphemism for child sexual abuse. The term itself can advance no agenda. It is materially different from the genocide = demographic adjustments example, which may invoke Godwin's law. As for VP's example, ethnic cleansing means something different from (but related to) genocide, just as adult-child sex does with child sexual abuse. The repeated assertion has been made that the term itself is POV. Where is the POV in it? Since this seems not to be much of an AN/I question anymore, I invite replies at my talk page. --SSBohio 14:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
In my thinking this user has kidnapped articles Pagania and Tvrtko I of Bosnia and because of that I am asking that he is not allowed any more to edit this articles. On talk page of article Pagania there is consensus that population of that state are not Serbs. Users Marinko ([50]), 83.131.246.108 ([51]) ,Afrika Paprika ([52] ), 193.198.128.12 ([53]) ,Marinko8 and Kubura ([54]), 24.80.118.62 and 193.198.128.12 ([55]), Linguae Latinae ([56]) . All in all on talk page vote is around 10:1 (HolyRomanEmperor is second name of PaxEquilibrium) that Serbs nationality need to be deleted from article, but Pax is always reverting changes.
In talk page of article Tvrtko I of Bosnia vote is 4:1 that we need to have other version of name writen not only Serbian version and then comments he is sometime called... Users EmirA , [57] ,Aradic-en [58] and Rjecina [59] [60] are asking that Croatian version of name is added. User 78.3.33.176 has demanded that Ikavian version of name is added [61], but User:PaxEquilibrium are always reverting article to his version which speaks:Stephen Tvrtko I (Stefan, sometimes translated as Stjepan, Stevan,...) is only right version. In begining on talk page even he has recognized that all Bosnian rulers are called Stjepan [62] but latter he has forget that.
He has writen best comment about his editorial style when I have declared on his talk page that I am only interested in legal arguments (about article Podgorica Assembly). His answer has been:"I am not interested just in legal argument I want to gladly inspect the situation as a whole." [63] . Because his editorial style and working against consensus I am asking that he is not allowed anymore to edit articles Pagania and Tvrtko I of Bosnia --Rjecina (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I can't see anything about PaxEquilibrium's behavior offhand that warrants administrator intervention; there's no edit warring going on, just a lot of talk page discussion. If you need further help resolving the issues, you should review Wikipedia's dispute resolution. Shell babelfish 05:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Counting banned users and nationalist pov-warriors in your "vote" count of a discussion from 2006 does not help your case any. Argyriou (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This contributor is personally attacking me on the Wikipedia board here, calling me "You are immature, fooling around articles, with your childish adding". I never said the words that he is adding and never used "he-he" in my comments. I prefer not to respond to him, but the contributor is also Wikistalking my talk page edits and has been attempting to WP:HARASS before that [64]. The contributor is a party to ArbCom case, and is currently under a parole and supervised editing [65]. Atabek (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:AIV is appropriate after repeated violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT. Suggest warning the user a final time. Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I dropped a message on the user's talk page directing him/her to this discussion just in case. They should be aware of it. Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is a repeated violation. Prior instance of warning for incivility for this contributor is available here [66], this is among numerous other warnings on revert warring, two ArbComs, and a parole. Repeated lenience only results in confidence of the offender and sophistication of attacks. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I overreacted, I should have only ignored Atabek's disruptions, as answering to them will usual lead me being reported here. Anyway, I'll do what MarshallBagramyan does and ignore Atabek and his disruptions.VartanM (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how accusing me in return of "disruptions", is at all reconsideration for a repeated personal attack. If this leniency towards incivility is going to continue, it certainly may set a bad precedent for many others. I am personally tired of spending my time to contribute to articles with references and then listen to VartanM's insults for no reason. Atabek (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
NPOV of an arcticle
Hi, I couldn't find anywhere to place this, so I am going to enter the problem here: the arcticle about Kosovo's Independence that I came across "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence" is extremely biased. Three editors, GreenClawPristina, Mareklug, Ijanderson977 are doing whatever they want, no matter how other editors and viewers vote. After reading the discussion page, I believe that the neutrality of the article is severely flawed. For instance the article's title was "Diplomatic Reaction to Kosovo's Declaration of Independence" and the trio, with no support from anyone, changed it to "International Reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of Independence". In addition they re-did the whole map to their whims. We need a an NPOV and unbiased moderator there, FAST, because soon the whole article will turn into an edit war. On of the most neutral editors made this comment: "All right what is wrong with this article. Why is almost every editor here pro-Kosovo independence and against Serbia. Some of you even insulted Serbia talking about genocide. You have attacked again and again editors that are not of your opinion who want to add countries that are against the independence of Kosovo to the list. You remove those countries again and again from those lists and put them to the neutral list." Serbian "genocide" has yet to be proven, kinda like WMDs in that one place, so asserting it in the faces of the other editors is POV. So again, please send someone who has no stake in Kosovo's Politics one way or another to help us with this article, or delete the whole damn thing, but it's as much NPOV as the Communist Pravda used to be. 68.166.135.163 (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi 68. This problem seems to concern a content issue and does not need the attention of administrators, who have no powers to intervene other than in cases of abuse. There was a small revert war yesterday afternoon (UTC), but it seems over now with some signs of agreement between the parties. If you still feel there's a problem, you might find following the steps at dispute resolution useful. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 10:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- And in any case, the accusations and finger-pointing are misplaced, partly groundless, not supported by evidence from revision history. For one, I did not participate in the article re-architecting, its actual renames (I made a proposition which was disregarded, "Recognition of the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence"), or instituting/editing the new map (or even, editing the old maps). Ironically, the new version was conceived of, discussed, and implemented by Avala/ljanderson, who if anything, represent the pro-Serb/pro-Kosovar viewpoints and are working together. :) Anyway... while I remain agnostic as to which version must be adopted, the new one, in a constructive reaction to edit warring that occurred earlier and caused page protection of both the page and its maps, avoids much POVing and ORing, by eliminating interpretation on the part of editors. The fact, that POV edits continue to be made (see: Uruguay) speaks for this version and its new map, as it is easier to correct POV in this version, apparently without engendering vicious revert cycles, or POV beyond hope of fixing. --Mareklug talk 14:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, a NPOV noticeboard was just set up to examine articles and determine whether or not there are NPOV violations. Unless you need specific administrative action, that might be the place to take it. --jonny-mt 14:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not take part in changing the name to "International Reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of Independence". Please check the page history in future before accusing me of thing I didn't do. I have never mention "genocide" in the article or in the talk page either. Yet again, please check the page history before accusing me of thing i haven't done. I am NPOV in all my editing, to prove this i have worked with User:Avala on many occasions on editing the page. He happens to be pro Serbian and I am pro Kosovar. So since I've been working with him, he is going to notice if i write anything Pro Kosovo, and i will notice if he writes something Pro Serbian. So we represent both view points and work together neutrally. So get your facts correct before blaming people. Also user:Mareklug has not done anything he has been accused of either, because i have checked the history on him and there is no sign of him editing of what you have accused him of doing. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of pages tagged {{notenglish}}
{{discussiontop}} {{resolved}} -- Yes, this didn.t meet speedy criteria so shouldn't have been deleted out of hand but DS has tacitly acknowledged this by undeleting the articles and userfying them so the author can translate them in their userspace. I seriously doubt whether a DRV would have come up with a different solution. What more do we want here? Blood? This is not the wikipedia complaints department and this incident appears resolved. Spartaz Humbug! 13:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday, March 4th, three pages which were tagged {{notenglish}} were speedy deleted by admin DragonflySixtyseven with the message "wrong language." These pages were Traganje za rentom, Rawlsova teorija blagostanja, and Teorija drugog najboljeg rješenja. It was impossible to tell if these pages failed any of the criteria for speedy deletion since they were not in English. I was under the impression that pages tagged {{notenglish}} were not supposed to be deleted for two weeks after being tagged and then only if they had not been translated. Speedy deletion of pages in foreign languages, simply because they are in a foreign language, right away does not give page translators enough time to see if the subject is notable or not.
Kubek15 brought this up on DragonflySixtyseven's talk page here but DragonflySixtyseven's response was simply to move the pages into Kubek15's userspace, which, to me, is still unacceptable since this only gives one user the opportunity to translate pages and any other user who speaks the language is not aware they exist. I ask that the actions of this admin be reviewed and the pages restored and relisted at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for a period of two weeks in accordance with policy. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Redfarmer (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dragonfly undeleted and userfied all three yesterday when the user requested undeletion, and that is a perfectly reasonable response. They can be moved back to mainspace at their English titles once they've been translated. There were no interwiki links, no references and nothing else to make them useful or intelligible to English readers, and as far as I know there's no bar to listing user space article workups at articles for translation. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- The grievance is that the pages were arbitrarily speedy deleted to begin with. Once a page is tagged notenglish and listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, it is usually given two weeks to be translated by someone who knows the language before it is listed for deletion. No where in the criteria for speedy deletion does it say a page can be speedied merely for being in a foreign language. It just isn't a criteria for speedy deletion. It's great that Kubek15 is willing to work on these in his userspace, but he shouldn't have to do that. That's why we list pages at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Incidentally, I realized after posting here I probably should have taken this to deletion review instead and am willing to do that if no one has any objections. Redfarmer (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Three unreferenced unlinked foreign-language articles were moved to userspace. I fail to see how that is bad for the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- If this is the way we are going to handle foreign language articles, we might as well shut down Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. If foreign language articles are speediable, then there is no sense in having a page to translate them. Redfarmer (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've got to line up behind Redfarmer here. Being in a foreign language isn't CSD material. That's why we have Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English.Kww (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing for a change in policy, and I don't see why these can't be added to the awaiting translation list, but neither do I see what the problem is with deleting or userfying context-free unlinked foreign language articles at foreign language titles (i.e. wrong content, wrong format, wrong title). We're not that desperate for content these days. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
{{discussionbottom}}
- If someone wants to translate a page, wouldn't it make more sense for them to post it in their own space ("userfy" it) until that user actually translates it? Or better yet, just keep it on their own PC until they've translated it? Otherwise it's basically clutter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- What more do we want here? Blood? - no, but getting everyone on the same page about policy would be nice. Do we have any assurance that it won't happen again? Userfication isn't an ideal solution because that puts all the burden of translating it on one user - like Redfarmer said, why not just shut down WP:PNT in that case? —Random832 14:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
So the solution to avoid an article being speedied for being patent nonsense, or an attack on others, is to put it in some semblance of a foreign language? If we can't speedy anything that doesn't appear to be English, that's really opening up the bean jar. --Golbez (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are foreign language articles and foreign language articles. Articles copied form other language Wikipedias, with some references, links and often a link back to the native language project, and created at the right English language title, are completely unproblematic. At the other end we have tirades in non-English languages which even monoglot Anglophones can recognise as twaddle using mechanical translation tools. And somewhere in the middle we have these three articles, whihc have been userfied. The primary objections seem to be process (my views on which are probably well known, begin with "f" and end with "uck process"), and the fact that they are not listed at articles for translation. What nobody has yet answered is: (a) why can't we list a userspace article at articles for translation and (b) why should we expect someone to eb able to create an article in a foreign language with a foreign language title, no links, no clue what it's about, and expect someone else to fix it. At the very least it needs an English-language title and some hint of what we're looking at. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Gotta agree with Guy here. If his description isn't policy, we should change policy. --barneca (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree to a policy change only if it incorporates the term "twaddle" from above. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Guy also. It makes no sense to me to post what looks like gibberish for no reason whatsoever and expect it to be kept, and translated by someone else. Why would I go to the Urdu Wikipedia, and post an article in Swedish with no incling of what it is about or why is it posted there to begin with, and expect it to be kept and translated? Makes no sense, does it? -- Alexf42 17:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- It seems rather short-sighted to accuse a foreign language article of being "gibberish." With WP:AGF, it could have been a simple mistake on the part of the contributor. The least we can do is help transwiki it to the proper Wiki. If we can get it translated and see if there's anything we can use, though, all the better. Redfarmer (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Gotta agree with Guy here. If his description isn't policy, we should change policy. --barneca (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just want to note that this is also at DRV, here. I'm off to inform the admin of that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I should post this at the Village Pump, but here's an idea: What about moving such articles into project space, making them subpages (or whatever technical jargon may be more appropriate) of WP:PNT itself? That could be especially useful for the kind of articles Guy is talking about, with non-English titles, etc. The page would be out of article space (where it really shouldn't be if it isn't in English) but it would still be in a "public" space that is not in the domain of any particular user. Maybe there are technical issues with this, but if they can be overcome, it seems like a good idea to me. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- If feasible, I like the idea. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Meanwhile, If actual pages that need immediate deletion are written in a foreign language, we have enough people here -- even some admins -- who can read most anything & decide. We're not helpless. DGG (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I have no problem with foreign language articles being deleted if the admin speaks the language and determines they are gibberish. Redfarmer (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please locate and block
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Unknown User:134.88.190.217 vandalized my userpage. How do we go about locating the computer and blocking this address if it is a private computer? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 15:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- whois says the IP originates from the Physics Department at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. The IP only has 2 edits, but I'd say that last one was fairly disturbing. It might be enough to go with a school block. --Onorem♠Dil 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've blocked for 1 year. I've allowed account creation, but I don't believe we need the individual who posted that to be able to hide behind an ip. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Tis a shame that was on your user page for 4 hours, DRosenbach. That aggregiousness should have been caught sooner and dealt with by someone other than you. I've watchlisted your userpage, FWIW, in case he/she returns. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think that comment should be reported to the university, its disgusting, and since a school block isn't going to affect whoever they are too badly, let Massachusetts Uni discipline them--Jac16888 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- This sort of vandalism is absolutely horrifying and is one of the few cases where a report to authorities (school authorities) can actually exact and effect punishment. Such a report should proceed without delay. BTW, I worked in University IT (doing lots and lots of networking and sysadmin) for several years and I can attest that whois records are often incorrect. Internal records are likely to be much more correct. A quick host on the IP resolves it as h018f86e4681.res.umassd.edu, which seems to imply residential. There is a *lot* of IP squatting happening in universities. As such, I don't completely think it came from the physics dept. FYI:
- I think that comment should be reported to the university, its disgusting, and since a school block isn't going to affect whoever they are too badly, let Massachusetts Uni discipline them--Jac16888 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Tis a shame that was on your user page for 4 hours, DRosenbach. That aggregiousness should have been caught sooner and dealt with by someone other than you. I've watchlisted your userpage, FWIW, in case he/she returns. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've blocked for 1 year. I've allowed account creation, but I don't believe we need the individual who posted that to be able to hide behind an ip. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Administrative Contact: Joyce Rosinha System Access & Security Manager University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Computing & Information Technology Services 285 Old Westport Road North Dartmouth MA 02747-2300 UNITED STATES (508) 999-8528 abuse@umassd.edu
Bstone (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- As an FYI, I decided to ignore protection policy and protect the userpage and usertalk page for a month. See the talkpage for context. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent use of IAR. Bstone (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've dropped the abuse department a line. John Reaves 06:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent use of IAR. Bstone (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow...I'm impressed. I thank everyone for their contribution to the resolution of this situation. As an aside, I didn't even notice it. It way my parents who like to check out my additions to Wikipedia (especially my dental photos) and they noticed it and called. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Disruptive behavior of Anon
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
An anon editor 205.156.188.254 is continuously adding non - notable content to the article Awan (Pakistan) even he was given enough warnings and a comprehensive explanation was given on the talk page of the article by User:Green Giant regarding that issue. Also I must mention here the editor also made a comment here about this issue. --SMS Talk 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just a comment, seeing as though this is a content dispute and the user is more or less violating WP:3RR, you could report them there as well for a temp block. Looks like just robotic reversions without usage of an edit summary. I'll let an admin decide what's appropriate action to take here though. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- No no, it's cool. I was just giving you my opinion. Remember, a user doesn't have to revert three times in 24 hours to violate the policy. It's also the dynamics of the reversions. It was just a suggestion, moot now that the issue is resolved due to the blanking vandalism noted by Evil Saltine below. Cheers! Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- These ([67], [68]) and the lack of other comments did it for me. Blocked. Evil saltine (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a herd of bored kids...
My watchlist is suddenly populated with vandalism edits from the 167.128.220.xxx range, and the reverts thereof. I count 4 IPs simultaneously originating from "Linn-Benton Education Service District" and I'm thinking some study-hall is having a Wiki-party. Anything we can do, other than warn, revert, block? Gladys J Cortez 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thankfully, study halls generally only last an hour. Warn, revert, block (and let us know, or AIV, if any damage is done that warrants a block.... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If it gets really bad, you can file a report at Wikipedia:Abuse Reports.--{{Wikipedia:Glossary}}Yjgn33 (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, perma-blocking vandal IPs isn't done. Better have the vandalism than make users actually make a login. So goes the WikiCommonSense. • VigilancePrime • • • 00:06 (UTC) 6 Mar '08
- WP:WikiCommonSense now that is something that can be made notable. Igor Berger (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, perma-blocking vandal IPs isn't done. Better have the vandalism than make users actually make a login. So goes the WikiCommonSense. • VigilancePrime • • • 00:06 (UTC) 6 Mar '08
Possible source of conflict/drama/ZOMG in re: User:Jimbo Wales
While I am uncertain as to the veracity or accuracy of the article in question, the San Francisco Chronicle has published an article discussing possible allegations of abuse of power on the part of Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs). The article was linked from Slashdot as well, meaning that we may see some vandalism as a result of the article's high exposure. Good times, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- *Moan*. (just read the article) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- That was my reaction as well. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- You should check out the discussion on Jimbo's talk page. Good times all round! Tony Fox (arf!) 22:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- *double moan*. Even worse. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- You should check out the discussion on Jimbo's talk page. Good times all round! Tony Fox (arf!) 22:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- That was my reaction as well. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Jimbo was a bit slow with his expenses? That'll bring the Government down, no question. What a shame there's nothing important going on in the world. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
People should be aware that this story (and variations) is being picked up by the Associated Press and other highly reputable newswires and media sources. Vassyana (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Still gets a big "so what" from me. We've had massively worse problems with expenses than that at work, and Brad's been interviewed and said Jimbo was all square with the Foundation financially. Silly gossip. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Everything's fine, nothing to see here. Drink your Kool-Aid." Jtrainor (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I sure hope that was some good steak. --Pixelface (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
216.186.63.137
Could somone block this nut for awhile? [69] Thank you! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- You should report him at WP:AIV. DiligentTerrier and friends 20:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Or I could just let him keep doing it while I try to figure out the form on that page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Baseball Bugs - if you need some pointers on how to use the AIV page drop me a note on my talk - I understand it's a bit funny the first few times, and I'll be happy to help. Pedro : Chat 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll look at it this evening. Meanwhile, hopefully that guy has gone away. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- You should just get Twinkle. It makes the whole job a lot easier! DiligentTerrier and friends 21:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Baseball Bugs - if you need some pointers on how to use the AIV page drop me a note on my talk - I understand it's a bit funny the first few times, and I'll be happy to help. Pedro : Chat 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Or I could just let him keep doing it while I try to figure out the form on that page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I second that. Twinkle is a very efficient tool - but be careful using it in the beginning. It has a tendency to turn users into robots for certain applications (partly facetious). However, you'll definitely beat people to the punch without having to follow the cumbersome instructions for certain report procedures. To make sure it's appropriate. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous IP addresses 99.235.43.93 and 24.36.9.241 continuing to make personal attacks
After vandalizing Wikipedia pages and my userpage, User talk:99.235.43.93 is on his third block, this time for a week. Despite being warned about removing notices from talk pages, he continues to do so, and he also adds strange notices to his talk page like "Starbucks has bad coffee". Now he is resorting to personal attacks on his talk page, and after denying that he did any vandalism, now is saying that I deserved it when he vandalized my userpage. Because of the complex edits he makes to templates, it is obvious that he is actually an experienced user. Maybe we can file for Checkuser? Another IP address, User talk:24.36.9.241, which is also been associated with vandalism on the same pages at the same time, is now also making personal attacks on User talk:99.235.43.93. The IP address User talk:24.36.9.241 is most likely a friend that User talk:99.235.43.93 recruited to help him out with the vandalism, and make the personal attakcs. Please extend block for both users and protect talk pages. Thank you. (If you have to respond to me for anything, please do so on my talk page. Thanks!) DiligentTerrier and friends 19:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I answered the above on WP:AN - although I wish I'd seen it here first, 'cos over there I recommended you take vandalism to AIV and I see you recommending the same a couple of sections above... Anyhow, please don't multipost the same complaint as it may tie up more sysops than is needed. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Picture of Obama's house
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Ddweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first and only contribution is a picture of Obama's house in south-side Chicago. While this is arguably relevant as a current news issue, does anyone else have privacy and/or safety concerns with this? Ronnotel (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Barack obamas house.jpg is on Commons, and they will deal with t - the description page is complaining already wit issues about the image. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- As a serious presidential candidate, Obama is already under the protection of the Secret Service. I think any additional threat to his security imposed by posting a picture of his house on the Internet will be negligible. There may of course still be relevancy concerns as to why the picture is in the article, but it does not logically rise to the level of an invasion of privacy. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Adding the image to the Tony Rezko article seems to be a violation of WP:WEIGHT, though, and seems to have been done for political purposes. Corvus cornixtalk 21:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's also no source listed for the image, and the PD:US Government tag is thus dubious. FCYTravis (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c) To be fair though, there is an entire paragraph or two that addresses the (alleged) impropriety with property sales, and the image caption explains why it's there. I don't have a particular preference as to whether the picture stays or goes, but I don't think it's necessarily a weight issue. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's also no source listed for the image, and the PD:US Government tag is thus dubious. FCYTravis (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Adding the image to the Tony Rezko article seems to be a violation of WP:WEIGHT, though, and seems to have been done for political purposes. Corvus cornixtalk 21:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with FCYTravis. Biographies of Living People should be written "conservatively". When in doubt take it out.Momento (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Image deleted as a copyright violation, see the Commons log. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ssj5perfect cell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has blanked the RFCU for Kane584. Corvus cornixtalk 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
IP hopping vandal
220.227.218.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 132.247.16.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are performing the same acts of vandalism, but 220... resolves to Dhirubai Ambani Knowledge City in Mumbai, while 132... resolves to Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. How does that happen? Corvus cornixtalk 00:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Open proxy, perhaps? —Travistalk 00:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
User Xiutwel has blanked page "The Money Masters"
A full wikipedia page describing the documentary has been blanked by user "Xiutwel"; I am not a Wikipedia expert, however I am a frequent user and look forward to contributing in the future when I feel I understand the policies well enough.
Having read the previous edit of this article, I am unaware of any political bias it has as it merely describes the documentary (which bases itself in verbose historical fact, and is presented in a professional manner).
I was tempted to merely undo the changes this user has made, however I have noticed that they are also involved in the editing of other potentially controversial articles on the site, and therefore feel obliged to ask that this user be investigated as a heavily biased contributer.
My apologies if this is an inappropriate post- as I said I am not an expert in the various interfaces and channels wikipedia uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.179.136 (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Have you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Money Masters? And why are you claiming that Xiutwel "blanked" the page? There is no page at The Money Masters. Corvus cornixtalk 00:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I am a a novice user, so that may possibly explain why I have not seen the "articles for deletion" page. And as a novice user, I found my way to the page from google (try searching "money masters wiki") and as such found it to read "Blanked" with the previous history naming the user, whom having read their profile, I deem to have less than neutral views based on he fact that every article they involve themselves in is based loosely around the web of conspiracies that surround 9/11/01, i.e. free energy suppression, independant news and world government.
Also, following a link from the users personal page I was confronted with a link to "Save the Internet — http://www.dontregulate.org/" which gives a very one sided debate which amounts to no more than a slanderous assault on Net Neutrality.
Futhermore, having read the terms of removal (WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS) I submit that Bad Taste (the film) has not been removed because there are no verifiable space aliens in New Zealand, and niether has the article on the film "Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman" due to lack of notability or reliable sources citing killer snowmen. Surely these terms of removal are in place to stop me from telling people that chickens are six foot tall lizards with twenty legs, rather than to enable someone to remove a documentary they disagree with.
I strongly urge reconsideration of this verdict, however I will not clutter this page anymore than I have, as I believe the above turn of events has left me "posting in the wrong forum". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.179.136 (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you feel that the deletion of this article was unjustified or poorly motivated and feel that the consensus reached could be undone/changed/overturned etc..etc....then visit WP:DRV. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- What happened here is the The Money Masters was deleted following the above discussion. However, Xiutwel wanted to work on it, and so had it userfied to User:Xiutwel/The Money Masters. He since blanked this page, which is presumably what the IP user is talking about. This userpage space is now the top hit for the search the user suggests, and it's understandable that it could be confusing. I've had my conflicts with Xiutwel, but he's done nothing wrong here. Perhaps all that needs to happen is a {{userpage}} notice be added. --Haemo (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the anon user is aware that the article can be read through the page's history. The last version is available here Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
User claims to have founded Wikipedia, on their userpage.
From User talk:Discombobulator:
I am the founder of Wikipedia.
Impersonating Jimbo? ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I know a user who has "I am an alien" on his userpage. So what?--Docg 01:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) I assume he means co-founder. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- (EC)"Impersonating" would be copying his userpage or something, but just saying you are the founder? I think almost everyone knows who the founder is.... Tiptoety talk 01:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is this section a joke? Are we now needing WP:V on userpages? My apologies if this was merely for amusement; but it probably shouldn't go here. Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Removed. You could have just done it yourself though.... Ryan Postlethwaite 01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, and without indignation, I oppose this removal. I might be missing a relevant policy, and if so, I would appreciate it if someone pointed it out to me. However, are we seriously to be policing userpages for untrue claims? Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Founder of Wikipedia" is a pretty lofty title around here, any user saying they are, other than Jimbo, needs to stop making these claims. — Κaiba 02:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)Perhaps the user could have been advised that this was misleading, but in the same way that we deprecate usernames that imply some non-existent power or authority here, I think this might at least be confusing. You are correct in pointing out that "policing" claims on userpages is somewhat nugatory, but in this case, it might have been unhelpful. I much prefer the more verifiable
... and goodnight. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe he was just trying to be bold. Sometimes you founder on the bolders. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, and without indignation, I oppose this removal. I might be missing a relevant policy, and if so, I would appreciate it if someone pointed it out to me. However, are we seriously to be policing userpages for untrue claims? Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a throwaway account to me, or someone's sock...[70]--MONGO 07:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, I consider myself the founder of an infinitessimal fraction of 1% of Wikipedia. --SSBohio 14:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course, there is always the possibility that the user really is Al Gore. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Does it really matter if he says "I am the founder?" Does it hurt anyone? ^demon[omg plz] 15:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. WilyD 15:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Special:Listusers/founder. Daniel (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again, with no disrespect to opposing opinions, I think that this removal sets a dangerous precedent. This wasn't even the user page; it was the user TALK page. Not only should we not have to police user talk pages, but if we are going to start removing false material, where is the line? Do we remove userboxes that aren't quite accurate? Do we make users prove claims? As someone pointed out above - "founder of wikipedia" is a lofty claim - so what? People can claim to be the King of Siam - and should be allowed to. I understand that a user talk page still belongs to the Wikipedia community as a whole, but by tradition, this page is allowed to be "controlled" by the registered user... Tanthalas39 (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Shouldn't founder be removed from user Jimbo Wales as well since he is the co-founder, not founder of Wikipedia? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again, with no disrespect to opposing opinions, I think that this removal sets a dangerous precedent. This wasn't even the user page; it was the user TALK page. Not only should we not have to police user talk pages, but if we are going to start removing false material, where is the line? Do we remove userboxes that aren't quite accurate? Do we make users prove claims? As someone pointed out above - "founder of wikipedia" is a lofty claim - so what? People can claim to be the King of Siam - and should be allowed to. I understand that a user talk page still belongs to the Wikipedia community as a whole, but by tradition, this page is allowed to be "controlled" by the registered user... Tanthalas39 (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Special:Listusers/founder. Daniel (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- 1.Hello, this user is yet again uploading copyrighted images, he has been repeatedly warned about this, and many of his images have been deleted, as well as copyvio text. Now he is uploading a bunch of images of ships, licensing them as PD-Self, when this is absolutely not the case, he is stealing them all from Hueybravo.net. An example Image:PS35.jpg (stolen from http://www.hueybravo.net/images/Navy/ps35drydock.JPG) he even drew a box over the copyright notice written onto the image.
- This is illegal, against policy, detrimental to the encyclopedia, and instead of just deleting his images over and over again, and saying "now now, this is not nice", you should block him. This is deliberate bad faith licensing, it's not an accident or somebody who doesn't understand copyright, he is covering up the copyright notices with a white box drawn over part of the image! The fact that he blanks the previous warnings from his page (as is his right) does not mean you should ignore them. Deliberate copyvios from users who understand and have been warned before need to incur some kind of deterrent. If you blocked users who do this, you would save much trouble in the future.
- 2. He is creating articles about separate items that contain exactly the same text, apart from the first line which contains the name of the object. For example compare PG 116 BRP Nicolas Mahusay and PG 115 BRP Ramon Aguirre apart from the name of the article, everything is exactly identical. Jackaranga (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Articles are identical and lack notability info. possible copyvios? ThuranX (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Many of the images were lifted either from Huey Bravo, The Unofficial Philippine Defense Page, GoldenCorps and other sources. As for images of the medals, I can't find where he lifted those from, but I highly doubt that he took the photograph based on prior contribution history. seicer | talk | contribs 04:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Check some of the captions. I ran across one that read, "Present Day Gala Uniform worn by Class '02 Corps Commander C/Col Mark Oliver Dela Cuesta 1CL and his Corps Sponsor C/Col Olive Francisco 1CL.(Courtesy of: Benjamin Joseph E. Velarde, Class 1992)." Yet the license stated that he was the author of the work. seicer | talk | contribs 04:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Here's an idea - how about making a fake user whose userpage is identical to Chewygum's except for perhaps a couple of his/her "contributions" or awards? Perhaps Chewygum might get the message then. As for the pictures, I suppose we should probably go to the admins on this, seeing as this page itself isn't a dispute resolution page (we all have a dispute with a user's conduct, don't we?), as it says waaaay at the top.Ecthelion83 (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Many of the images were deleted based on numerous copyright vios. from various web-sites. If you check the logs, you can see that he has uploaded hundreds of images, the majority of them copyright vios. This isn't an isolated case either; it dates back to 2005, and it makes any content that he does upload seem rather dubious. I also think I CSDed two pages based on copyright vios.; you may want to check his other contribs. to ensure that additional contribs. were not vios. seicer | talk | contribs 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- It seems all the images are gone; cleaning out the articles now. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- The images he uploaded recently, at least. Evil saltine (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think this user should be given a final warning, and if he uploads one more copyright violation he should be banned. This was not an accidental mis-application of pd-self to a found-it-on-the-web-somewhere image, it was a deliberate attempt to obscure the rights ownership to get around copyright and fair use policy, and that really is not acceptable. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makeoutclub
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Why in the hell are we semiprotecting AfD pages??? AfD is supposed to be open to anyone who wants to participate, and alleged meatpuppets will be discounted naturally by the closing admin. I strongly object to preventing people from participating in AfD debates. -- RoninBK T C 03:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've had to make AfDs semi'd because of severe disruption of the AfD by sockpuppets. If there's such a concern here, then the semi is warranted. -Jéské (v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife) 03:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- The protecting admin's notes say because of tenditios editing from IPs. It's only semi protecting, so only IPs and users with account under 4 days old can't edit. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll also note that, typically, IPs and new editors who wish to make a serious, good faith contribution to the discussion can post on the talk page of the debate. It's not the same, true - but they can still contribute. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- IPs were inserting libelous statements about a user who in turn complained to OTRS where I handled the ticket and in turn protected the page and purged it's history. Also, my talk page would have been the sensible place to start, not ANI. John Reaves 03:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ticket #2008030410017099 for those with access. John Reaves 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)My apologies, for acting out of process, John, and for jumping to conclusions. Not knowing the OTRS situation, I was led to believe that the protection was placed to prevent alleged meatpuppets from debating. I withdraw my assumption of bad faith -- RoninBK T C 03:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- IPs were inserting libelous statements about a user who in turn complained to OTRS where I handled the ticket and in turn protected the page and purged it's history. Also, my talk page would have been the sensible place to start, not ANI. John Reaves 03:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll also note that, typically, IPs and new editors who wish to make a serious, good faith contribution to the discussion can post on the talk page of the debate. It's not the same, true - but they can still contribute. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Requesting permanent block on User:Kylesandell
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Kylesandell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) uploaded a libelous image (which has since been speedy deleted) and added it to Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, in the process making vandalistic and libelous edits to that article. When presented with a final vandalism warning, Kylesandell stopped editing, and 150.135.66.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) started making the same vandalistic edits, and in the process, making death threats - [71] and [72]. When 150.135.66.38 got blocked, 128.196.191.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) started up with the vandalism. Both the 150 and 128 IP addresses resolve to the University of Arizona. Kylesandell has a Userbox indicating that he is or was a student at the University of Arizona. Obvious quacking here. I request that Kylesandell be permanently blocked. Kylesandell had not edited since November, and seemed to be a useful editor until today, so I'm thinking compromised account. Corvus cornixtalk 05:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked the account indef pending an explanation of those edits, semi-protected the article for 7 days. Black Kite 07:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:OWN -- User:Ultramarine continuing to edit war despite the repeated protests of muiltiple editors on multiple pages.
Please see the discussion and edit history of these two pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_terrorism_and_the_United_States#Page_Break.2C_Pt_III
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism_and_the_United_States&action=history
On the Sandinista page, Ultramarine is insisting upon the inclusion of content that is clearly outdated and superceded by more recent, thorough, neutral, and accurate material. Some of the material he wishes to draw from include a poorly sourced self-published article from a self-published journal from a non-accredited school (since then, the journal has undergone major changes in staff and the school has become accredited, but at the time the article was published all of the above was true. Others include thirty year old articles from Time magazine which are directly contradicted by later articles from human rights groups and academic sources. The content in question has been re-worked several times to present an appropriately neutral point of view, but each time he has rejected the changes and seeks to revert the material. This has been going on, now, for over seven months, with Ultramarine as the only long-term editor on the page who has defended the edits. During that time, all other long-term editors on the page -- some six or seven people -- have rejected his arguments with carefully reasoned appeals to wikipedia policy and guidelines; even so, he insists upon reverting the changes and including his content.
On the State Terrorism and U.S. page, the title has been changed with the explicit aim of giving him a broader space to include material. Unfortunately, as one can see with only a quick glance at the discussion page, Ultramarine has presented virtually no new material and is instead continuing to insist upon highly questionable deletions, the introduction of obviously irrelevant material whose sole intended aim is to use obviously skewed, unencyclopedic (and often ungrammatical) language to cast aspersions upon the material already posted to the page, and to demand the removal of vast numbers of sources based upon specious appeals to WP:SYN and WP:OR.
Only a quick glance at the latter will reveal that, for the last two weeks, the page has been engaged in an Ultramarine-against-all debate where the same few points have been rejected with the every conceivable appeal to wikipedia guidelines and policy. It has gotten to the point where a few editors (myself included) have openly stated that they question whether Ultramarine is maintaining good faith in his activity. The simple truth is that no editor acting in good faith for the betterment of the article could have so many people make so many of the same arguments for so long without concluding that they themselves may indeed be transgressing policy and guidelines.
I would like to emphasize two things: in both cases, the editors in question have, perforce, gone to great lengths to reason and negotiate with Ultramarine. These entreaties have all been rejected in favor of an edit war; similarly, in the State Terrorism... article, the title was changed specifically to address the objections he is raising (inclusion of more material arguing in support of U.S. Gov't, etc).
The editors on this page are truly stymied: on the State Terrorism page it is now impossible for anyone to move forward with the development of the page solely because of Ultramarine's disruptive activity. On the Sandinista page, editors there are forced to daily police the page for Ultramarine's reverts.
All of this seems an unfortunate development for the articles in question. Both could stand some improvement, but the editorial energies are now all being wasted on circular arguments that are repeated, ad infinitum, regardless of their validity or relevance, and used to support threats to delete masses of material that would violate even the least controversial of Wikipedia norms. Stone put to sky (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- This wouldn't have anything to do with User:Ultramarine filing a checkuser on you, would it? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 05:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, actually. I would rather suggest that the reverse is true: User:Ultramarine filed a checkuser on me because it is clear that his arguments aren't succeeding. Stone put to sky (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I will just point out that Stone put to sky was recently blocked for 3RR violations, using multiple sockpuppets, personal attacks against me, and violating WP:Username by making attack accounts on my name.[73] He was warned again for personal attacks against me just two days ago.[74]Ultramarine (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, actually. I would rather suggest that the reverse is true: User:Ultramarine filed a checkuser on me because it is clear that his arguments aren't succeeding. Stone put to sky (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- As a note here, Stone put to sky repeatedly displays civility issues and WP:OWN issues when people disagree with him (as can be seen from both the above and from the talk page of State terrorism and the US). Ultramarine is trying to do some long-overdue cleanup and getting significant flak for it from people who are determined that certain pages maintain a certain POV. Jtrainor (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I find it disappointing that editors here seem more intent on airing Stone's faults instead of addressing the issue itself. --clpo13(talk) 06:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Except that in multiple people's opinions, the problem is Stone. If there are ownership problems, this needs to be taken to dispute resolution and not to the administrators noticeboard. Shell babelfish 06:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- When Stone has created multiple usernames meant to attack Ultramarine, it's pretty difficult to take this complaint seriously. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- But that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a problem. A person can be a sockpuppeteer and still report a legitimate issue. That's all I'm saying. --clpo13(talk) 06:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand. I just don't feel bad for Stone if people just brush this complaint off. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- But that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a problem. A person can be a sockpuppeteer and still report a legitimate issue. That's all I'm saying. --clpo13(talk) 06:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- When Stone has created multiple usernames meant to attack Ultramarine, it's pretty difficult to take this complaint seriously. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. There already is a case on Stone's behaviour; it would be better if this section was used to take a look at Ultra's. For my part, as one of the "multiple editors" in question, I'm stuck in the middle, having problems with both sides, and I'm not sure this is the right place for any it, but since it has been brought up, I'd welcome an outsider's input. — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- After skimming the contributions and the talk pages, I don't think that there's been much disruptive behavior. I think dispute resolution is the way to go. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- It will take some investment of energy into the content of the discussions to reveal the real disruptive nature of Ultramarine's participation on the article page. Much of it revolves around really artificially creating disputes that go around in endless arguments, arresting progress. I think it falls under tendentatious editing or POINT violations. Let me give you a reoccuring example: Ultramarine argues that abortion is State Terrorism and should be in the article. He cites a religious source of a someones personal opinion from some religious right website that says abortion is "terrorism against the unborn" to make his case.[75] He says if Chomsky can call the foreign policy actions of the United States against Nicaragua "international terrorism" then he can include the abortion material, and failure to so is a double standard:[76] Of course the abortion issue is not related in any way to the concept of State Terrorism, the abortion material does not talk about or ever mention State Terrorism. Yet, Ultramarine pretends not to understand this, and we go around in endless circles repeating why this is not allowed, and how its completely different than how we use the Chomsky source on State terrorism. I don't know if anything can be done but this kind of behavior is disruptive to meaningful progress on the article, and I have to believe that Ultramarine is smart enough to know really believe the line of reasoning he frequently employs. The other thing that he repeating does is make claims about what the sources say or don't say that are simply false. Then I go and read the source and find out that out, and he moves on, repeating the pattern. There are many examples of this, if anyone is interested. Again, could this pattern be a reason to assume bad faith editing?Giovanni33 (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- False presentation. I am just demonstrating the misuse of sources in this article. Most of the sources do not mention terrorism or state terrorism at all. The article is just a dumping ground for all kinds of criticisms against the US (or allied governments with sources often not even mentioning the US at all). Just pointing out that according to their own standard, someone could, for example add, this view[77] by a high Catholic Church official in charge of Catholic doctrine that abortion is terrorism and then start adding sources criticizing abortion but not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. Or someone could add that militia groups argue that for example the Waco Siege is terrorism by the US government [78] and then start adding sources criticizing policy against militia groups but not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. That is the method used in most of this article.Ultramarine (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually your presentation/claims are false here. As I and other editors showed, all of the claims are supported by sources which do mention State Terrorism, and accuse the US govt. of supporting State Terrorism. Some of the sources use alternate wordings such as international terror a terror campaign, etc.--but all are anchored in multiple reliable sources based on the claim of State Terrorism. Clearly this is about State Terrorism, whereas your Abortion argument is not. But you and all sensible people know the difference, and that is my point: you keep arguing around and around, ignoring consensus, and this is in fact disrupting wikipedia in order to make a point. Also, do you deny that several times you make claims that the source does not mention state terror, and that this claim has been proven false? Yet you keep claiming it? I recall one editor commenting that your control F key must be broken.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Simply false. Here is one of your sources quoted in the article. The Amnesty report[79] does not mention the US at all, only the Philippine government, so it cannot be accusing the US of anything. The word "terrorism" is not in the report anywhere.Ultramarine (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the US is mentioned ten times in this report, and while the word "terrorism" does not occur, the words "terrorist" and "terror" occur
six, sorry, eight times all told. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC) - Does not mention the US at all? Like I said, your Control F key must be broken, and you must not be reading the source before making up the claim. Also, I will point out that the claim tying this action to one of being State Terrorism, using that exact term, is anchored in other sources, as it is with all the contents of this article. Thus your claims of SYN/OR have always been proven false, whereas your intention to add abortion as state terrorism, is in fact SYN and OR, as with other attempts to add information that you think belongs but is in fact not supported by the sources. Anyway, this is not the place to argue these points. I bring it up because you are disruptive, and it seems to be motivated by your desire to make a point. This is because you continue non-stop, seemingly in bad faith, while ignoring consensus on the issues.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hm. I searched on "terrorism" and "United States". "terrorist" is another term of course. "US" does give some hits. Not anything accusing the US of terrorism. The quote actually used in the article only accused the Philippine government, not the US.Ultramarine (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are better off reading the article than looking for just specific key words, but even then you get it wrong most of the time. You make blanket claims, and unless someone fact checks for you, they assume you are telling the truth. Unfortunately, repeatedly you are not. This is just one small case in point. Also, the US is implicated, and other sources make the claim directly, that its State Terrorism that the US is implicated in by supporting the Phillipines counter insurgency efforts against its civillian population. This is just two excerpts from this AI paper on the point, which is used to provide background information on the conflict:
- "Major Points in the tit for tat struggle against the US-directed war of terror, Ang Bayan, 29 July 2006. The CPP also continued to call for a resumption of peace negotiations and implemention of the CARHRIHL and other agreements."
- "US-led global "war on terror", within which the Philippines is seen an important US regional ally, influenced the government’s anti-insurgency approach. In January 2002 a new five-year anti-insurgency plan, Operation Bantay-Laya (Freedom Watch) took effect. In August 2002 President Arroyo issued a "Nine Point Guideline on the CPP" which emphasised the "terrorist" acts of the CPP-NPA and welcomed the US terrorist listing. Following an August 2002 order for a redeployment of the AFP against the NPA, the government appeared increasingly to place military counter-insurgency operations over the peace process. This approach became explicit during and after the 2006 State of Emergency. In June 2006 President Arroyo and other officials called for "all-out war" to crush the CPP-NPA within two years."Giovanni33 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Those are not the material quoted in the article which only mention the Philippine government. These new quotes do not accuse the US government of possible crimes done by some by persons employed by the Philippine government.Ultramarine (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are better off reading the article than looking for just specific key words, but even then you get it wrong most of the time. You make blanket claims, and unless someone fact checks for you, they assume you are telling the truth. Unfortunately, repeatedly you are not. This is just one small case in point. Also, the US is implicated, and other sources make the claim directly, that its State Terrorism that the US is implicated in by supporting the Phillipines counter insurgency efforts against its civillian population. This is just two excerpts from this AI paper on the point, which is used to provide background information on the conflict:
- Hm. I searched on "terrorism" and "United States". "terrorist" is another term of course. "US" does give some hits. Not anything accusing the US of terrorism. The quote actually used in the article only accused the Philippine government, not the US.Ultramarine (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the US is mentioned ten times in this report, and while the word "terrorism" does not occur, the words "terrorist" and "terror" occur
- Simply false. Here is one of your sources quoted in the article. The Amnesty report[79] does not mention the US at all, only the Philippine government, so it cannot be accusing the US of anything. The word "terrorism" is not in the report anywhere.Ultramarine (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Personal Attacks on the State Terrorism Discussion Page
Shortly after filing my AN/I request for a review of Ultramarine's behavior, he began an attempt to discredit my appeals by casting aspersions upon my person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_terrorism_and_the_United_States#Notification_for_Ultramarine
There can be no clearer example of a "personal attack" than this.
I would respectfully remind the administrators here that i protested the block mentioned to the fullest possible extent and continue to deny the description of those events. Regardless, none of this has any bearing upon the validity of my current requests for action. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's not a personal attack. All he said was, "Yes. I have also noted that it is you who have been blocked for edit warring, personal attacks, sockpuppets, and attack accounts. Not I.". Nothing attacking in there at all. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 06:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are you making a mountain out of a molehill? Please have some tea. Igor Berger (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. This was not a response to the complaint. It was a clear attempt to cast aspersions upon the legitimacy of the complaint with an ad hominem argument. There is no more egregious type of ad hominem than this sort. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you don't like comments like that, then don't make attack accounts. It's that easy. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. This was not a response to the complaint. It was a clear attempt to cast aspersions upon the legitimacy of the complaint with an ad hominem argument. There is no more egregious type of ad hominem than this sort. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are you making a mountain out of a molehill? Please have some tea. Igor Berger (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at that revision history, I suggest it would be a good idea if both sides stepped away from the article for a while. Black Kite 07:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Using Wikipedia as an IM service
A thread on this cropped up a while back - I don't know if anyone recalls the spate of star-crossed lovers using Wikipedia as a method of communication? Well, guess what...two of them are back, at User talk:MCD26 and User talk:Shp26 (despite, and I quote, the best attempts of the "Wiki overlords" to stop them). The thing is, however, that User:MCD26 was indefinitely blocked on 25th February, yet appears to be happily editing away...on their user talk page, of course...without even noticing. I have protected the page accordingly, and have blocked User:Shp26 and protected her talk page. Just thought I'd let you know. GBT/C 07:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- For the sake of completeness, the original ANI thread is here. The public face of GBT/C 09:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose lovers using wikipedia to correspond is far better than them using it for messy break-ups ;) --Docg 10:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked users can edit their talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 16:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Just curious. What's wrong with people using their User Page to chat? I thought the user pages were allowed to be used for whatever We felt like using them for. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, we already deleted some pages that were exclusively used by friends or lovers. Every page in Wikipedia should be aimed at working towards our main goal (to be a free encyclopedia), including user and talk pages. Using a talk page just to chat between stuff that has nothing to do with Wikipedia will not help us become a free encyclopedia. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's lots of stuff you can do on your user page that'll get you blocked, so while you have some latitude you can't use them for anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBealeCocks (talk • contribs) 11:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site". On the other hand, a certain amount of chatting about unrelated matters between people who are also contributing to the encyclopedia helps promote positive working relationships among those people. See SOW/REAP. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- The thing is that there are many better alternatives to carrying on conversations other than WP talk pages, most of which don't piss away our server load and bandwidth. My guess is that sites & tools like IM/Myspace/Facebook/etc... are blocked by school network admins, but Wikipedia is accessible -- as it should be -- for research projects. So kids use WP to chat and pass the time at school under the guise of using WP for projects. Caknuck (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- At least they have not figured out the ways to use Wikipedia as an IM service that are really really hard to stop. (1 == 2)Until 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Caknuck - that's true to an extent, and some of the activity I've seen has clearly been bored schoolkids, but a fair bit of it is where one party is travelling, and the other isn't. We've got the star-crossed lovers that started this thread, I've seen a mother and daughter where one's on a boat cruising around the coast of Africa, and any number of others. The thing that surprises me is not just that they choose Wikipedia when there are so many sites out there they could use instead, which wouldn't be blocked to non-school users - I mean, what do they do - sit hitting refresh all the time? When Skype is free? Why? The public face of GBT/C 17:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- why don't they just email each other like we used to do bitd
- I remember these two. I created a second post about them. Requested a check to see if there were sleepers. Anyways, these two will never learn. We suggested to them and even told them to use email, blogs and even their Wiki. At this point I think blocking and then protecting the talkpage should be automatic. By the way the answer is that they find it easier. Rgoodermote 21:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
David Shankbone's secret admirer.
Banning hasn't worked, blocking singular IPs hasn't worked, and saying "fuck off" to them hasn't worked. In order to stop this rather annoying troll, we need to either:
- Semi-protect WP:AN (I asked Riana to do so last night, and she deferred it to #wikipedia-en-admins. Evidently not popular)
- Block the IP ranges that he's editing from
- 71.127.196.0/18
- 72.68.114.0/21
- 72.76.0.0/17
Thoughts? Will (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's discussion on this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Support for rangeblock. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 09:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I semiprotected AN, we should leave it so until the Shankbone threads are archived. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Fresh after having their article nuked at an AFD and upheld at DRV -- what, two weeks ago? -- the supporters of self-published crank author G. Edward Griffin are taking another run at getting their man into Wikipedia. The latest batch of argumentative SPAs and usual suspects may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (3rd nomination). --Calton | Talk 16:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused - if it was deleted and the that was upheld at DRV? why is there an article to go to AFD? --Fredrick day (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it under {{Db-g4}} and salt it. — Κaiba 17:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's asserted that it's not the same article, and that the issues have been addressed, so it looks like this wouldn't be an appropriate use of CSD G4. —Random832 17:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Opinions requested at WP:AN/B
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Block of BetacommandBot reinstated. Opinion seems divided at the moment. More opinion would be nice, though please don't all pile in and overwhelm the discussion. Also, I think separate incidents like this should be noted here for the record. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- WjBscribe really did not need to wheel-war for BC, when all BC needed to do was promise to undo the damage. Inexplicable, as always. El_C 20:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- And I suppose I'll be seeing lots of image-related queries now, as seems to be the case whenever I criticize an action by BC et al. El_C 20:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- As someone who has participated at that discussion, I was frankly very surprised that WjB unblocked with no consensus, and no actual unblock request, nor any on-wiki promises to remedy the behavior that led to the block of the bot. Bellwether BC 20:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Amaechi Okoli
I'd like for someone to look into Amaechi Okoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I've long suspected this to be a single purpose user, who often vandalises when logged in by creating redudant redirects (see cute rabbit and Neoster) and recreating links that have been previously deleted (see The greatest quest of all). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
WQA regarding Ronz promoted per WP:HAR
Regarding this wikiquette alert and Cheeser1's conclusion, I'm promoting to this AN/I (rather reluctantly). I want to make plain that what I perceive as an identifiable syndrome of inconspicuous sophistry, with an aggregate uncivil effect, is more important to me than whatever may be considered noisome in Ronz's behaviour to me personally.
The last part of the WQA (with Cheeser1's summary followed by my belated response) may serve as summary for this AN/I, followed by links (the particular feud has a long and verbose history). Pete St.John (talk)
From the conclusion of the WQA:
...
- Pete, it doesn't matter - the point is that unless it constitutes harassment, he's allowed to post on your talk page. You have every right to ignore him, delete his messages, tell him to stop posting there, whatever, but "he posts on my talkpage frequently, and I don't want him to do so at all" is not incivility. Please review WP:HAR and let us know if he's crossing these lines, but if he isn't, I suggest you simply move on, take the high ground, get back to positive editing, and ignore anything unconstructive messages that he might post. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Cheeser, three things: I advocate that in particular, posting unwelcome to a user page should be considered uncivil. I advocate the programmatic solution of allowing users to block specified other users from their own space, by analogy with locking rooms in MOO. That advocacy I'll take elsewhere.
- Second, I believe there is a serious syndrome (maybe call it, Don't be a submarine) where any individual bit of rhetoric falls within the threshold of civility, but the aggregate effect does not; making it difficult for oversight by neutral parties. That syndrome should be identified and addressed, but I'll take that elsewhere also.
- Finally, OK. From the WP:HAR link:
- Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment. [emphasis mine]
- So prima facie it would seem that WP:HAR applies, but presumably is a matter of degree. Personally, I can live with (insert pejorative here) annoying me, it's the syndromes that concern me. Ronz has a "legal" (that is, viewed as unactionable) way to harass people, which he exploits to the detriment of constructive editting (but which presumably he means to the detriment of disagreeable editting). I just don't want such people to believe that their ends justifies their means; but they do believe that.
...
Background items:
- The last WQA Result: not WQA, if anything WP:HAR
- This diff regarding the first WQA (only comment: too complex, move to RfC; see RfC below)
- The RFC relocated to my user space here (result: no comments)
- early sample of arguement at my talk
- The shortest explanation of why I don't respond to Ronz at my Talk.
- Where I was perfunctorily blocked by admin Connolley on account of rude language directed to Ronz.
I'll certainly be happy to answer any questions, dig up any specific diff, elaborate yet more spam :-( if anyone would be kind and patient enough to address this issue. Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel like I'm jumping into the middle of a conversation here. I, and probably a lot of other people, completely ignore WP:WQA. So, can you start from the beginning and succinctly explain what the problem is (without acronymitis)? Below is a spot. Avruch T 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I attempted a single paragraph in the indicated spot below. The basic important point about this whole mess is just what you've fingered: ithe behaviour is not DIFF-able, it's diffuse, the accumulated effect of little things; and that's how it evades oversight. Pete St.John (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is, for those of us who don't follow WQA
?????Am I missing something? Why is this header here when there's nothing below it? Corvus cornixtalk 21:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah. In the comment at the end of the preceeding section, is the explanation that this blank section is for me to explain the issue succinctly, for the sake of those who don't follow WQA. I have to think about this. Pete St.John (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- My answer. Ronz uses diffuse, inconspicuous bits of bad rhetoric (fallacies, insinuations, refusals to answer questions or to be specific...) on user talk pages (characteristically) which in individual isolation are not actionably over the WP:CIVIL threshold, but which cumulatively are like Chinese water torture. I made a Wikiquette alert item (called "too complex" for WQA), then an RfC (completely ignored), got blocked perfunctorily by an admin who appears to merely responded to Ronz's call of uncivil language (I had indeed lost my temper), then this last WQA (construed as outside the bounds of WQA but possibly covered by WP:HAR) and now finally this AN/I. I don't so much care about the (faceless) individual as the pattern of abuse and its immunity to oversight. Pete St.John (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As an uninvolved third party who stepped in during the WQA complaint, I'll try to give a short explanation. This is basically part of an ongoing bad relationship between two editors (there is, after all, no WP:YOUHAVETOBEFRIENDS). So Ronz posts messages and other things on Pete's talk page, and Pete doesn't want him to. I haven't seen anything posted there that was uncivil, but Pete is concerned that cumulatively it might constitute harassment. I don't really want to investigate it to the extent it would take to decide whether it was harassment, and if it were, it's really better for an administrator (better, more than one administrator) to come to that conclusion. I advised Pete to just remove messages he doesn't want to be there (per WP:BLANKING), and that if he honestly thinks this is harassment, to report it as such. Please note that Pete's RfC was not ignored - he didn't file it properly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- NB, after the RfC was re-filed correctly, it was ignored; as I answered below, I'm just trying to keep the logic linear to avoid superficial judgements. Pete St.John (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I was reading through the first few requests from Ronz to refactor incivility and thinking that the civility complaints against you (Pete) might not have much weight. I read a little further, and discovered that indeed they do. So, I'd have to say that I endorse the block against you as a first point. Not that you weren't provoked, or that your insults weren't unusually erudite (mostly) but still - insults, incivility, etc. after warnings gets a block. Let me read on, and I'll see about the rest. Avruch T 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- NB, block perfunctory, I concede incivility, see below. Pete St.John (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- On the RfC, certification means that a user conduct RfC requires at least two people (the filer and additional) to certify the basis for a dispute - that is, the dispute has to involve 3 people. Other options prior to that are WP:3O, maybe MedCab. Although it looks like this is at least tangentially related to Quackwatch, and I even see ScienceApologist involved here a bit, and that is a whole other bag of dangerously venomous worms. (Not SA or Quackwatch, just the situation in general).
- I introduced the RfC with a description of involved parties I had contacted and reference to specifically the requirement for certification. I got no response at all; not even that the conditions for certification were unsatisfactory. Pete St.John (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Last point, Cheeser1 is right. If you don't want specific comments on your talkpage, and they aren't clearly in violation of some policy, then you can feel free to remove them. You could ask someone (politely) that they not post there - the talkpage isn't a forum for general discussion, its a page specifically for communicating with you. If someone repeatedly and without good reason refuses to honor your request, that might be cause for asking an admin to issue a "ban."
- WP:HAR mentions (quoted in the above section) merely unwelcome posts to user pages. Yes, repeatedly and without good reason. (not that sometimes he doesn't have good reason, e.g. policy required notifications, I don't complain about that. I'm willing to debate him, just not on my talk, where I believe he is evading oversight to exploit that Chinese water torture effect of accumulating bad logic. Pete St.John (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
What I'd suggest is that you avoid future communication with Ronz, as you two clearly don't get along. You might find other pages to edit, or avoid responding directly to his actions/comments when there are others with your view that might do so. If it develops into a larger problem, more options will be available to you - but in order to use them successfully, you must have kept your cool and avoided future blocks. Not sure if my advice helps at all, perhaps others will chime in on this thread if there is some disagreement or more diffs provided as evidence of bad acts. Avruch T 21:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Avruch: My complaint regarding the block is that it was perfunctory, not that I was not uncivil. The admin, apparently responding to Ronz (not to the actual talk page where the incivility occurred), blocked me without any investigation of the context or (for that matter) a warning or a question.
- Cheeser1: Regarding the ignored RfC, I answered that elsewhere in this mess, but indeed, it was ignored; yes I had originally filed it incorrectly, but then I corrected it, and then it stood in the right place for the full duration of the allowed time. Without any response. The RfC enjoyed the full time allowed for responses, after it had been misplaced, and then correctted. Pete St.John (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaking the circumstances, uncertified RfCs typically don't get much if any attention. Only an uncertified RfC has a time limit, so I'm guessing that yours was removed after it waited for 48 hours or so without being certified. This isn't the same necessarily as ignored - the RfC filer usually needs to find at least one other person to certify the RfC and generally endorse the summary. Avruch T 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- (narrowly missed EC with the above, catching up to Avruch) Regarding "last point" specifically: "If someone repeatedly and without good reason refuses to honor your request" holds, exactly. Cheeser1's view (if I'm paraphrasing him correctly) is that posting on my talk page is not actionable in these conditions. Ronz posts repeatedly and unnecessarily on my Talk; I believe that the main reason is to evade oversight, but it's unmannerly IMO. Pete St.John (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Have you notified Ronz of this thread? (That is standard for AN/I reports). I'd ask him to respond to the issue that he is posting on your talkpage despite your requests to the contrary. I should note that, in general, if what he is posting is mainly warnings/requests regarding posts of yours that he thinks are uncivil it might be a weak basis for requesting an actual ban from your talkpage. Avruch T 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I've notified Ronz (obviously), Connolley (the admin who blocked me on Ronz's behalf), Seicer (who commented "too complex" on the first WQA), Cheeser1 (who responded to the last WQA), Hans Adler (who responded when I complained about the perfunctory nature of the block), ScienceApologist (ally of Ronz, with whom I have less bad relations), Levine2112 and Anthon01 (who have similar experiences with Ronz; again, what's important to me is the behaviour, not so much defending myself from it, particularly. It's disruptive). I think I've been reasonable in light of CANVASS (restricting myself to concerned parties) but whatever my faults may be, I mean to be open. Pete St.John (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Ceauntay and socks using userspace and user talk space as hosting service
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- I think. Most pages (except those with ban notices) deleted and user blocked. - Philippe | Talk 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
A user, or set of users, are using a broad array of user pages and talk pages as some sort of a hosting service for a fictional universe. It's possible this is some sort of class project, but I doubt it. The fictional universe is based around "Jane Hoop Elementary" which is a real school in Cincinnati [80]. However, the only mention I can really find of "Ceauntay" via google refers to a 14 year old boy from that community youtube channel for this person. Thus, I think it's one person.
Here's a list of user and user talk pages being used by this person for this fictional universe:
- User:Ceauntay
- User:Ceauntay1
- User:Ceauntay2
- User:Ceauntay3
- User:Ceauntay4
- User:Ceauntay5
- User:Ceauntay6 - This one was wiped by User:Kevinalewis with "this is not meant for workspace"
- User:Ceauntay7
- User:Ceauntay8
- User:Ceauntay10 - Just says "see User talk:Ceauntay16."
- User:Ceauntay13 notes the user is banned indefinitely.
- User:Ceauntay14 notes the user is banned indefinitely.
- User:Ceauntay15 notes the user is banned indefinitely.
- User:Ceauntay17
- User:Ceauntay18
- User:Ceauntay19
- User:Ceauntay20
- User:Ceauntay21
- User:Ceauntay22
- User:Ceauntay23
- User:Ceauntay24
- User:Ceauntayc noted the user is banned indefinitely as a sock of Ceauntay13
- User talk:Ceauntay
- User_talk:Ceauntay1
- User talk:Ceauntay2
- User talk:Ceauntay3
- User talk:Ceauntay4
- User talk:Ceauntay5 - This one was wiped by User:Kevinalewis with "this is not meant for workspace"
- User talk:Ceauntay6
- User talk:Ceauntay7 - This one was put up for MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Ceauntay7)
- User talk:Ceauntay8
- User_talk:Ceauntay10 - was moved by User:Ceauntay16 from User_talk:Ceauntay16 to User_talk:Ceauntay10 and then back again, where it appears to be used as a regular talk page.
- User talk:Ceauntay13 - was being used similarly, but is now a redirect to User:Ceauntay13 which notes the user has been blocked indefinitely as of 1 October 2007. [81]
- User talk:Ceauntay14 - is being used as a regular talk page now, but was used to host something [82]. This user was banned 18 February 2008 [83] and the talk page notes this.
- User talk:Ceauntay15 - similar to 14 [84] and also blocked 18 February 2008 [85]
- User talk:Ceauntay16 - see talk 10
- User talk:Ceauntay17 - not used for hosting, but the only editor of the page (Ceauntay) and his IP) appear confused.
- User talk:Ceauntay18
- User talk:Ceauntay19
- User talk:Ceauntay20
- User talk:Ceauntay21
- User talk:Ceauntay22
- User talk:Ceauntay23
- User talk:Ceauntay24
- User talk:Ceauntayc - used as a talk page.
Actual accounts and status:
- Ceauntay - created 22 February 2008, not blocked.
- Ceauntay1 - created 24 February 2008, not blocked.
- Ceauntay2 - created 22 February 2008, not blocked.
- Ceauntay3 - created 23 February 2008, not blocked.
- Ceauntay4 - created 23 February 2008, not blocked.
- Ceauntay5 - created 23 February 2008, not blocked.
- Ceauntay6 - unknown creation (does exist), not blocked.
- Ceauntay7 - created 25 February 2008, not blocked.
- Ceauntay8 - created 25 February 2008, not blocked.
- Ceauntay13 - created 28 September 2007, blocked 1 October 2007
- Ceauntay14 - created 17 February 2008, blocked 18 February 2008
- Ceauntay15 - created 17 February 2008, blocked 18 February 2008
- Ceauntay16 - created 18 February 2008, , not blocked.
- Ceauntay17 - created 20 February 2008, not blocked.
- Ceauntay18 - created 20 February 2008, not blocked.
- Ceauntay19 - created 22 February 2008, not blocked.
- Ceauntay20 - created 22 February 2008, not blocked.
- Ceauntay21 - created 2 March 2008, not blocked.
- Ceauntay22 - created 5 March 2008, not blocked.
- Ceauntay23 - created 5 March 2008, not blocked.
- Ceauntay24 - created 5 March 2008, not blocked.
- Ceauntayc - created 13 October 2007, blocked 13 October 2007
Also note that User:71.72.229.143, User:72.49.190.124 and User:208.102.100.209 all appear to be one and the same person. And, the following redirects to userspace created by this user need to be deleted:
I think all the user pages should be deleted, and all talk pages not actually being used as talk pages need to be deleted. Also, the unblocked socks all need to be blocked indefinitely. Perhaps the IPs as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you warned him on his talk page just an hour ago. But he should have realised from the blocks on the other accounts. DGG (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- The warning's moot, as you note. That's why I came here after realizing how deep it went. He's been blocked multiple times before for doing what he's doing. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI, there is an archived AN thread about this subject as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- That thread vaguely concluded that this was the efforts of a group of students. It isn't. It's the effort of one kid named Ceauntay. I located a diff where he self identified himself, but I won't reveal it here due to him being a minor. This kid is now evading 4 indefinite blocks. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- blimey - the quickest way to delete with this is for an admin to go in and delete all of the content - hopefully that will make think it's too much effort to recreate. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's equally troubling that over the last week he's thrice created redirects in article space to his userspace pages via page moves. He's still, in effect, creating hoax articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh and block every single one of the accounts - that is a real walled garden - the removal of that material will also save a lot of effort for the rest of us having to go through and remove article cats on a separate basis. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can I upgrade my "blimey" to "oh my fucking god!" he has created those articles by cutting and pasting massive accounts from existing articles (from the look of it, harry potter articles) there could be all sorts of GFDL (and BLP issues if he ascribes comments to individuals that don't exist) can I just say we need a nuke strike and we need it now, leave nothing alive. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm deleting some of these pages! Bearian (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I deleted a lot of them, and it looks like JzG's got the blocking mostly done. - Philippe | Talk 20:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Someone might want to block User:71.72.229.143 as well, as the latest IP used by this kid. With account creation blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'll do it. (Guy, glance at the deleted contribs). - Philippe | Talk 20:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- D'oh. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm late to the party, but will point out that I deleted a bunch of these things, created by an IP in article talk space on November 22 last year - there may be more out there, and I would be on the lookout for more talk space crap. Acroterion (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- D'oh. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do it. (Guy, glance at the deleted contribs). - Philippe | Talk 20:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
IP blocked - per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ceauntay - Alison ❤ 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Neve Gordon
I'm not sure if action needs to be taken, but it appears there is a user with sockpuppets creating BLP problems on Neve Gordon, while also making personal attacks. An admin may want to take a look. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- The style, content and MO of these editors is strongly reminiscent of Zuminous's sockpuppets and suspected sockpuppets, of Truthprofessor and of Runtshit. Can anything be done to finally block this serial libellous vandal? RolandR (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I warned the user about WP:BLP - if it continues the user may be reported to WP:AIV. WP:POINT, WP:SOAP and violations of WP:BLP are subject to blocking/sanctions. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Apparent from my suggestion, I would definitely like to see an administrator check into this a little deeper and take the requisite action. Unfortunately, without opening a WP:SSP case, WP:RFCU, or unless the user violates WP:3RR, the user really can't be blocked unless the disruption continues unabated after repeated warnings/violations. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I originally filed an RFCU, but the original accounts are too stale to check against [86], so going to report here instead.
I strongly suspect John celona (talk · contribs) is a sock of a proven puppetmaster Rastishka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Both accounts have a history of pointlessly (and disruptively) adding people's Jewish background to biographical articles when it is irrelevant to the article. For example:
Rastishka - [87], [88]
John celona - [89]
They also have a history of falsely accusing others of stalking:
Rastishka (see edit summary) - [90]
John celona - [91]
And finally, referring to other edits as "Communist propaganda/apologists"
Rastishka - [92]
John celona - [93]
They've also both made claims amounting to Holocaust Denial. This really looks to me like a case of WP:DUCK -- Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would think it would be elementary to determine that I have continually posted with the same IP since I signed up and that my geographic area is not the same as this Rastishka. Furthermore, if someone would look at the accusations user Nobody of Consequence makes instead of taking them at face value they will be seen as patently false. Nowhere does this Rastishka post anything that can be suggested as "holocaust denial", I did not "gratiously add people's Jewish background" to articles. I am half-Jewish. ANOTHER USER added the David Cicilline article to the Jewish-American categories. A third user deleted that category, claiming no sources. Since I have been to Cicilline's Temple I know very well he is Jewish. I restored that category and ADDED 3 verifiable sources to the article. I have not "falsely accused others of stalking". I have truthfully accused users David in Dc and Jpk212 of stalking as part of their jihad of censoring the well-sourced fact that one hit wonder pop musician Peter Yarrow was jailed on a child molestation conviction. They have stalked posts I have made from the day I joined Wikipedia, even though they are totally irrelevant to the Yarrow dispute.
- User Nobody of Consequence should be blocked for his blatantly false and misleadin attempts to villify me as a sockpuppet. John celona (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- The writing styles look too different to me for them to be the same user. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's not a reason to block someone, celona. JuJube (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at the other suspected/confirmed socks of Rastiska, you will see numerous times that he says the "holocaust is a hoax" in various forms, using the word "hoax" repeatedly. User John Celona had used much the same verbage on his own talk page in an attack on another user. In looking at many of the edits, I believe the writing/edits are VERY similar. --Jkp212 (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I deny the charge of jihad.
- "Since I have been to Cicilline's Temple I know very well he is Jewish. I restored that category and ADDED 3 verifiable sources to the article." Why? How is it notable? Relevant? Other than to the agenda of somone obsessively counting Jews, I mean.
- "one hit wonder pop musician" Ok, now we've hit lala land. How do you argue with self-parody?
- Finally, I think the "the final solution is a hoax" language in the two users' history is telling. David in DC (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comments like this [94] are CLASSIC Rastishka. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's so great and fair of you to NOT include the complete comment [[95]] which clearly shows my parents and grandparents personal experience in occupied Paris as Jews who were not bothered by Vichy or the Nazi occupiers. Sorry if that doesn't reinforce any mythology you may have been taught. They were in no position to have knowledge of the massacres which occured in the east, Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc. As far as "counting Jews" somebody else listed him in that category, not me. Wikipedia has an agenda for counting Jews, as they have a category for it. Your hero Peter Yarrow is in that category and I sure wasn't the one who put him there. If you want to delete the whole category, go ahead. I will vote with you.John celona (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah - I won't waste my time defending the person who wrote that, or even asking for additional evidence. Someone else can deal with it. Avruch T 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't exactly a spot-on Rastishka Holocaust Denial, but it's along the same lines (I'm at work and don't have time to dig through the comments of his various sockpuppets). [96]. Here he equates Holocaust statistics to the Loch Ness Monster. More later if I can find them. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As a way of avoiding some of the problems related to User:BetacommandBot (see ANI/Betacommand) a new bot has been created to run with the same code: Non-Free Content Compliance Bot (talk · contribs)
The general principle of the separating the writing of the code from the operation of the bot seems to me to be a good idea, and to have been generally welcomed in the discusion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot, although many of the details have been queried.
I don't want to drag all the discussion into ANI, but there are two issues which I want to raise here:
- Shared account
Non-Free Content Compliance Bot is to be operated by three users, which seems to me to be a clear breach of Wikipedia:User account policy#Sharing_accounts, which says "User accounts must only represent individuals. Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked."'
The two replies ([97] and [98]) appear to me to confirm that this is indeed a role account.
It seems to me that either this account should be blocked as a breach of Wikipedia:User account policy#Sharing_accounts, or the policy should be amended to permit role accounts for bot use.
- Discussion curtailed
This bot was approved only two minutes after the discussion opened[99] and the discussion was closed almost only 13 minutes later[100].
The discussion was subsequently re-opened, but archived again less than 24 hours after it opened[101].
A further comment was added below the archived text[102], which was promptly reverted[103] and the discussion then closed again[104], with the comment "Closed discussion, users who are adding comments have nothing constructive to add".
I accept that BAG currently has authority to authorise bots, but the repeated closure of this page deprives other editors of the opportunity to discuss the authorisation of this bot, and to express concerns which should at least be considered by BAG. May I ask some uninvolved admin to re-open the discusion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- As the user who added the comment below the archival (in accordance with the instructions of the archive box), I must say that I've rarely been treated worse than I have been by the BAG members in this instance. I tried to bring up BC's antagonistic "all or none" language regarding his proposal (which included derogatory and inflammatory language about those who have questioned him in the past). This new section was removed as "trolling." ST47 then issued a veiled block threat when I questioned his misuse of the tools in page protecting a page he was deeply involved in, simply to stifle discussion. Something has to give here, in my opinion. Bellwether BC 23:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is an interesting case. What exactly is a computer program account? I think this is only a account to register the program's changed to our pages. For example, AWB is program run on thousands of accounts. But it would be run on one account, it would still represent a program. So would there be any difference if the three operators ran the bot on separate accounts. IMO, the only difference would be that there would be more confusion with three different accounts registering the edits of the same program. Maxim(talk) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- As you say, AWB is one program, but it is run on thousands of difft accounts, so the precedent of one program->many accounts is already well-established. In practical terms, having NFCCbot1, NFCCbot2 and NFCCbot3 doesn't seem to me to cause any confusion: it would restores the normal situation that there is a single user responsible for each bot, who is responsible for the bot's actions. If this three user-bot runs amok, which of the three users is responsible?
- Also, we don't know how the bot's code is structured, but it seems probable that there is some degree of user control over it beyond an on/off switch. Knowing which user is behind it may be relevant if there are problems with the bot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- there are only two controls the operator has, on/off and what file groups the bot will work on. (its two numbers between 1-59) each number represents 5,000 images. so 1-10 is the first 50,000 images in alphabetical order. thats about the extent of operator control. βcommand 23:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then how will the poor n00b know who to ask about the problems? If Operator 1 tagged their image, they go see Operator 2 by mistakes. Operator 2 becomes as confused the poor n00b and there are even more problems than we have now. Maxim(talk) 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would hope they would all uniformly implement the myriad of suggestions already forthcoming regarding bot integration with better and wider NFCC enforcement project communication suggested repeatedly recently, the kind of cooperation you don't get barnstars for I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- They should probably just operate it on separate accounts. Since it is different people using the bot at different times, those contribs should be separate for history purposes. As far as the stifled discussion goes - I guess the purpose of the page is for BAG to approve or not approve bots. Anything other than discussion leading to those results is probably considered unnecessary, but perhaps a discussion should be had on WT:BAG about an outside discussion period concurrently with and after a formal BAG process. Avruch T 23:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to accept the shared user account. However, I had opposed that bot as my questions on how it was implementing the different phases and if it would be NoBots compliant weren't answered. If it is not NoBots compliant, I must question why a BAGer closed against the community consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand#Community_proposal. MBisanz talk 23:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think the community consensus element is the judgment of BAG, which exists to provide a level of technical expertise and bot experience not found in the general community. Sort of like a 'crat intermediary in RfX, except only crats get to vote. Avruch T 23:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Avruch, I follow that the BAg interprets community consensus and what not, but at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand#Community_proposal the consensus had trended 8/0 that BC's bots should be NoBots compliant to some degree. To say that BAG can go against such a firm consensus in light of its technical expertise and bot experience not found in the general community is something I'd disagree with. MBisanz talk 23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note that the discussion was not just closed, but the page protected. ST47 reverted and then immediately protected. Is this normal procedure at WP:BAG? Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- And he was one of the Bot Ops seeking approval for that bot to boot. Sorta like protecting your own AfD nom. MBisanz talk 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- It seemed like a pretty obvious misuse of tools to me, but when I approached him on his page, he issued a veiled block threat, and that was that, I guess. Bellwether BC 23:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yikes [105]...that's over the top. We need much better communication skills as BAG conducts it's business. RxS (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I consider what he did a gross misuse of tools, and a misuse of power in his veiled threat of a block. However, I've rarely seen much happen to admins who behave in such ways, so I didn't bother to bring it here until now. Bellwether BC 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I guess the BAG folks could have just ignored everyone and the page, once it was closed, but both steps (protecting and/or ignoring) would be seen as rude. The point is that the BRfA is a specialized process to achieve a specific outcome, when it did, and the reaction of the BAGers was against non-BAGers trying to bring other Betacommand related issues into a process not designed to deal with them. Bring your issues here, to RfC, or to WP:AN/B where they belong. Avruch T 23:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- And he was one of the Bot Ops seeking approval for that bot to boot. Sorta like protecting your own AfD nom. MBisanz talk 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Review of Bot approval process (User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot)
I'm concerned with what has taken place at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot. There appear to be legitimate concerns there (over the bot's name, the bot's role, the bot's function, and how it would be operated), yet the discussion was shut down, the bot speedy approved (for the second time), and the page protected to prevent any further edits to the page. Is this acceptable? Does the bot approval group have the authority to do this if there is not yet agreement on how this new kind of bot (possibly a role account) should operate?
A bit of background and a brief timeline:
- Over the past days and weeks there has been ongoing discussion about User:BetacommandBot and its functions and operations. One of the issues identified (and which had been known for some time) was that the multi-task nature of BetacommandBot complicated discussions and block/unblock decisions. For example, discussions about one task would often get sidetracked as people arrived and started talking about how the bot and its operator performed at other tasks. One of the tasks that generated the most discussion was the NFCC#10c non-free image tagging of older images (which, for the record, is mostly finished now). Still, there is an ongoing need for this to be done for new image uploads, and it had been suggested that this function be split off to a separate account. Betacommand was, I believe, in the process of doing this even before the latest round of discussions in the past few weeks, but it seems that this either hastened the process or Betacommand is now ready to do this (he has, legitimate in my opinion, concerns about restricting access to the code to those he trusts to not give it away to anyone).
- During all this, I had created the proposal Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance, in an attempt to plan things better for future use of bots to help ensure Wikipedia's images (and sounds and videos and texts) are compliant with the non-free content policy. It has been confirmed that this inspired the name of the bot that was created to take over the non-free content work of BetacommandBot, namely User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot.
- This bot account was submitted for approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot. The bot was speedily approved two minutes after the page was created. I queried this as it didn't seem like enough time for discussion to take place. The request was re-opened and discussion continued over the wording of the request and the details of what would happen and how this would work. The details can be seen on the page, but concerns (as I said above), include the appearance that this is a role account, that the bot name implies that it is enforcing the NFCC (per my proposal), when in fact it is only enforcing a small area of NFCC (I would like to see a whole range of bots developed for various NFCC purposes, and having one named this way is misleading).
My questions are:
- (1) Is it possible to object to the approval of this bot, and if so where? If WP:BAG refuse to review any appeal, what then?
- (2) Is it possible to object to the name used, and if so where? I would propose renaming it to User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot (10c), or User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot (Betacommand), or allowing other NFCC-compliance enforcing bot codes to be run under this account (that would be a genuine role account).
At the moment, it seems that a bot has been created and speedily approved with an official-sounding name that implies that this is the bot that is intended to carry out (where possible) bot-enforcement of WP:NFCC. But with one slight problem. Betacommand insists (and WP:BAG seem to agree with him) that he is the only one to be allowed to write code to run on that account. This also raises the wider question of whether it is acceptable to have bots with "official" policy names. eg. User:BLP Bot, User:NPOV Bot, and so on. My concern is that the name implies "official approval" at the policy level, and I would like to see this discussed before the bot account makes any edits. I've just found out that an incident report has already been filed about this, so I'll stop here and save this, but the urgent thing is this: please can things be put on hold with regard to that bot until more discussion has taken place? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- As this is obviously a disputed/contested Bot approval and the Bot flag was based on the original 2 minute debate, I'd urge a crat to review the situation at the approval page to see if this Bot actually has the consensus and approvals in order to keep this flag while this is being discussed. MBisanz talk 23:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- As I commented on my talkpage, I simply do not think a bureaucrat has the authority to do that. The community has entrusted the approval of bots to the Bot Approval Group not to bureaucrats, who only have the technical ability to flag bots. In the same way that controversial AfD or FAR discussions cannot be reviewed by bureaucrats, I do not believe Bot approvals can be. If the community wants bureaucrats to play a supervisory role in the approval of bots, that is going to require changes to policy and process. WjBscribe 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- WJBscribe, I disagree. 'Crats are here as a safety valve, if not, every BAGger would probably be able to flag bots. Maxim(talk) 23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- As I commented on my talkpage, I simply do not think a bureaucrat has the authority to do that. The community has entrusted the approval of bots to the Bot Approval Group not to bureaucrats, who only have the technical ability to flag bots. In the same way that controversial AfD or FAR discussions cannot be reviewed by bureaucrats, I do not believe Bot approvals can be. If the community wants bureaucrats to play a supervisory role in the approval of bots, that is going to require changes to policy and process. WjBscribe 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the sole barrier to operation for a bot is the approval of a single BAG member in a BRfA. If that is indeed the standard, and it was achieved, then the process appears to have proceeded as it was designed. Whether there should be a time period for discussion or other mechanism for input from the non-BAG community is a separate question, something I would support. But BAG serves a purpose that has generally been pretty uncontroversial - that of a technical check of a bots function and code (in the case of an open code or a new botop, I think?). If BAG is also supposed to determine community support for a bot function, then its membership needs to be drastically revised. Anyway, I'm not sure where the 'crats come in on this conversation except as admins and members of the community. Avruch T 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- As MBisanz says, it has never been the bureaucrat role to determine whether or not a consensus exists for a bot to run, that is also within BAG's remit. If the community feels that BAG is acting improperly in approving bots that would be a fairly serious manner, requiring a reconsideration of how Bot approval on the English Wikipedia works... WjBscribe 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I support putting this bot on hold until the issues are sorted out. It's a great pity that BAG appears to have been so keen to close off community input on this bot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Concur. BAG-ers need to understand that even they are accountable to the community. Bellwether BC 23:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- BAG approves the technical aspects of a bot and bot task. They don't interpret community support (although, in this case, there seems to have been overwhelming community support for the idea that others be given responsibility for operating this particular bot). If there is to be a discussion about the nature of the accounts and the name of the bot (which is what seems to be the primary issue here, other than some folks feeling spurned for being shut out of the BRfA process) then it should take place separately - that is, outside the context of reviewing a BAG action which I don't think is the function of AN/I. Avruch T 23:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Avruch, please read Wikipedia:Bot policy: "The decision to approve a request should take into account the requirements below, relevant policies and guidelines, and discussion of the request." - that clearly didn't happen here - there was little discussion of the request, and what there was was shut down and stifled. Furthermore, the requirements are that the operator show that the bot "adheres to relevant policies and guidelines". There are concerns that the name of the bot (using a policy name), and the mode of operation (three users) is outside of normal policy. More discussion is needed and the bot flag should be removed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've read it - the approval requirement is the assent of a single BAG member, and input from non-BAG members is not solicited or required for approval nor does it appear necessary that it be taken into account. The place for discussing issues not specifically related to the approval of a bot's code or task is here, not BRfA. Avruch T 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- So there is no way to appeal the approval of a bot? That's just silly. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've read it - the approval requirement is the assent of a single BAG member, and input from non-BAG members is not solicited or required for approval nor does it appear necessary that it be taken into account. The place for discussing issues not specifically related to the approval of a bot's code or task is here, not BRfA. Avruch T 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Avruch, please read Wikipedia:Bot policy: "The decision to approve a request should take into account the requirements below, relevant policies and guidelines, and discussion of the request." - that clearly didn't happen here - there was little discussion of the request, and what there was was shut down and stifled. Furthermore, the requirements are that the operator show that the bot "adheres to relevant policies and guidelines". There are concerns that the name of the bot (using a policy name), and the mode of operation (three users) is outside of normal policy. More discussion is needed and the bot flag should be removed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but in this case, who would you appeal it to? BAG? It has BAG approval, which is unlikely to change based on the non-intersection of their perception of the BAG role and your concerns about the bot. WjB has expressed above that he does not feel he has the authority to revoke the flag, which in any case would only slow the bot down and not stop it. Avruch T 00:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also, from WP:BRFA: "an approvals group member will approve or reject the bot approval request after a reasonable amount of time has passed for community input" - what was reasonable here? As for the role of ANI, see the bot policy, which says "If you have noticed a problem with a bot, or have a complaint or suggestion to make, you should contact the bot operator. If the bot is causing a significant problem, and you feel that more urgent discussion is necessary, you may also wish to leave a message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, indicating where you have notified the bot operator." I'm not entirely clear who the bot operator is here, but I will notify the four people involved. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- discussion here was moot. it is a clone of already an existing bot. βcommand 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are issues with the name of the new bot and how it operates. Where should those be addressed? Wikipedia:Changing username? Wikipedia:Role account? Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- the name is moot. it does part of the NFC enforcement. the name reflects that. as for how it operates what grounds do you have? none. βcommand 00:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is a big difference in name between "BetacommandBot" and "Non-free Content Compliance Bot". The former is obviously a bot run by Betacommand. The latter has the look and feel of an "official" role account - it is debatable whether any account names (bots or users) should use policy names (I will start a new section on that). It is also misleading because BetacommandBot only enforces a part of NFCC#10c non-compliance. If another bot started up and was enforcing NFCC#3a or NFCC#3b, why should your bot get to to be called by the name it has instead of the other bot? They are both helping to enforce NFCC, but different parts of it. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- the name is moot. it does part of the NFC enforcement. the name reflects that. as for how it operates what grounds do you have? none. βcommand 00:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are issues with the name of the new bot and how it operates. Where should those be addressed? Wikipedia:Changing username? Wikipedia:Role account? Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
ST47's comments
This is a clone of an existing bot. The only reason people even care about it is because BetacommandBot is the cool thing to pick on and block nowadays. Which is pretty stupid. And is also pretty much the cause of this bot request. People complain about it being a role account. Here's the solution: As I've stated before, we plan on putting a log in the bot's userspace stating who is running it, and what they're doing with it. Also: The bot has a user talk page, you know. You don't NEED to go to the operator. You can leave a message on the bot's talk page, and we will receive it.
People say they want to object to the approval of the bot. These are the same people who are carrying out the witchhunt to block betacommandbot every chance they get. I'm willing to debate any point regarding the implementation of this bot. I am not willing to debate the wording of the request. I am not willing to debate the basis of the request. These are petty complaints. These were the only complaints raised - or at least the main ones - on the BRFA. I believe someone even brought up Betacommand's behavior. I'm not here to debate that, I'm not here to argue over policy. I'm here to enforce policy and the foundation resolution. If there is a problem with the way that the bot handles this, I'd love to hear it. If you disagree with the wording, or don't like it because Betacommand wrote it, and Betacommand is the devil's spawn, then I'd love to not hear from you. Actually, not hearing from you would probably improve the chances of the real issues being resolved.
So, what are the real problems? It's a role account. I will be the main operator of this bot. We'll be using a log to record who does what. I think I'll eventually try to post my plans ahead of time, once I get a feel for the bot. Let's ignore policy for just a moment. Are there any other concerns with this bot having more than one operator than need to be addressed? Are there any other concerns that need to be addressed? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- One comment about the approval. BAG does not want the bot request pages clobbered up by the sort of complaints that were issued there. I do not want to be clobbered by them here. As I said above, I will respond to any questions regarding this bot. If this section is swamped by immaterial complaints, I will choose not to wade through it. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Does WP:BAG really want community input or not? It says at the top of WP:BRFA that "Please remember that all editors are encouraged to participate in the requests listed below. Just chip in - your comments are appreciated more than you may think!" So what is the point in that when a request is posted, approved and removed, all in the space of two minutes? Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy approvals happen. Maybe not always at the right time. However I really get irritated when I have to wade through kilobytes worth of irrelevant content on a BRFA. As I stated above, I'm interested in hearing real issues with these bots. I'm not interested in reading an anti-betacommand flamefest, or incessant argument over petty things such as the wording of the request. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Give me a moment to extract some real questions. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy approvals happen. Maybe not always at the right time. However I really get irritated when I have to wade through kilobytes worth of irrelevant content on a BRFA. As I stated above, I'm interested in hearing real issues with these bots. I'm not interested in reading an anti-betacommand flamefest, or incessant argument over petty things such as the wording of the request. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Does WP:BAG really want community input or not? It says at the top of WP:BRFA that "Please remember that all editors are encouraged to participate in the requests listed below. Just chip in - your comments are appreciated more than you may think!" So what is the point in that when a request is posted, approved and removed, all in the space of two minutes? Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, can you diverge it into three accounts instead of one? Since the code doesn't reside inside the account, and its handy to separate who is doing what, I think that is a low-cost approach to solving the technical violation of the role account policy. Avruch T 00:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see why we need to go through unnecessary steps for "technical" policy violations. That's what IAR is for. Mr.Z-man 00:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)An even lower cost approach would be to ignore the role account policy. Is there a reason, other than the technical, that we can't do that? I am concerned about splintering the bot's user and talk pages - and contribs - the easier it is for people to keep track of it, the better. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- While you are at it, could you please rename the account altogether? I was initially pleased that it had taken the name of my proposal, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance (this was confirmed by MZMcBride), but if this is just to be a BetacommandBot NFCC#10c clone, rather than the overarching, multi-task NFCC bot that I thought it would be, then please use a different name. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing it as such a big deal. Do you have another suggestion that would satisfy you? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are you stonewalling me? It is not clear whether any accounts should have "policies" in their names. Is that clear enough for you? Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I just haven't thought of a better name... --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- User:BetacommandBot2? Or User:ST47Bot2, or whatever. The point is that the bot, if it is just a shared clone of BetacommandBot, shouldn't have the official-sounding "Non-free content compliance" as its name, as that is highly misleading. That makes it sound like the one-and-only role account specifically designed to enforce official policy, when in fact it is just one of many potential bots that could help deal with NFCC stuff. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I just haven't thought of a better name... --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are you stonewalling me? It is not clear whether any accounts should have "policies" in their names. Is that clear enough for you? Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing it as such a big deal. Do you have another suggestion that would satisfy you? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- While you are at it, could you please rename the account altogether? I was initially pleased that it had taken the name of my proposal, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance (this was confirmed by MZMcBride), but if this is just to be a BetacommandBot NFCC#10c clone, rather than the overarching, multi-task NFCC bot that I thought it would be, then please use a different name. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is this bot NoBots compliant? MBisanz talk 00:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm currently trying to gather more information on that before forming my opinion. I am aware of the concerns of the community, and Beta has stated that if a user has a valid reason, he can manually opt them out. Users active in image work, for example, can be opted out because they do not want to be spammed for every image they resize. However we want to allow as good a chance as possible that the tag will be noticed and fixed. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If it's so goddamn easy to run the non-free tagging code on a different account than "BetacommandBot", then why was Betacommand dragging his feet on splitting that function from the other tasks that run on that account? —Random832 00:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because it would be running on a different machine. All of my code uses the same login. having the code switch between accounts depending on which script is running is very difficult. if its on a separate machine the code will only be working with a single username and not multiple which is the problem that I am trying to fix. βcommand 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, the alternative is the nuclear one which would sort out all our problems; ban fair-use on enwiki. Other wikis seem to cope perfectly well, and it would have numerous other bonuses which per NPA I won't go into now. Black Kite 00:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not helpful. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, not in the slightest helpful. But probably the only resolution to the problem that exists, frankly. Black Kite 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not helpful. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
ST47, you say that you are "here to enforce policy". So please can you enforce Wikipedia:User_account_policy#Sharing_accounts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Addressed above. Your complaints there are based on a technical point where there is no reason other than policy to complain. WP:IAR. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, for the purposes of the bot policy and others (like repairing bot created damage, spamming talkpages (!) etc.) can we consider you to be the bot operator 100% of the time regardless of who is actually using it? Avruch T 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- A valid point. I would hope that I can trust martin and sql to not abuse the use of the account. Of course, checkuser can be used to determine the source of any wrongdoing, if necessary as a last resort. If there is a problem with one of the users, edits can be reverted and passwords can be changed. Until someone proves that I cannot trust them, I'd rather have the convenience. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, for the purposes of the bot policy and others (like repairing bot created damage, spamming talkpages (!) etc.) can we consider you to be the bot operator 100% of the time regardless of who is actually using it? Avruch T 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused. Wikipedia:User account policy#Sharing accounts says "Exceptions to this rule are limited to accounts that directly represent the Wikimedia Foundation or internal Wikipedia committees, though none are currently active, and bot accounts that are maintained by more than one contributor, provided the existence of such an arrangement is made clear and has consensus." So where's the problem? --Conti|✉ 00:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- "...has consensus." Avruch T 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, there should be consensus for every bot, of course. But you cannot say "This bot should not be run because it's used by multiple people". There's no problem with that, as long as there's consensus for the bot in general. --Conti|✉ 00:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thats not my reading of what you quoted above. Its the multi-user arrangement that requires consensus. The bot itself requires BAG approval, unrelated to consensus. Avruch T 00:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, for now I only heard that this isn't allowed by our policy, not that we need consensus for that. So, does anyone actually disagree with this bot being run by multiple people? If so, why? "It's not allowed per policy" is not a valid reason. --Conti|✉ 00:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I still object to the name of the bot (though User:MBisanz/Botlist (thanks MBisanz!) shows that many bots have "official-sounding" names). I think the bot should be renamed to be more accurate. If I had known that this was going to happen, I would have created the account myself to prevent people copying the name of my proposal at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance. I may still create the following: User:NFCC Bot (3a), User:NFCC Bot (3b), User:NFCC Bot (7), User:NFCC Bot (9), User:NFCC Bot (10b), User:NFCC Bot (10c). Do you understand now how the creation of this bot and Betacommand saying that only he will be allowed to supply the code to run it, is effectively him saying that he is the only person who should be allowed to program bots to enforce WP:NFCC. If he doesn't think that, then he won't object to a rename. Do you object to a rename in light of what I've said? Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure who this comment is directed at, but I don't have any objection to renaming the bot at all. I don't think its terribly necessary, but I don't object to it. Avruch T 01:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Whether the question was directed at me or not: I don't see any reason not to rename the bot, either. Have the creators of the bot commented on this (If so, I can't find the comment(s) right now)? And while we're at it: Do you object to let multiple people operate this bot? :-) --Conti|✉ 01:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest a rename to User:NFCC Bot (10c), as that is a more accurate name. Who would have to agree to this and where would the rename be requested? And no, I don't object to this being run as a shared bot account. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- The bot operator (account holder) and the request goes to a bureaucrat, either directly or on the rename page. Avruch T 01:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll ask all three and Betacommand as well. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- The bot operator (account holder) and the request goes to a bureaucrat, either directly or on the rename page. Avruch T 01:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest a rename to User:NFCC Bot (10c), as that is a more accurate name. Who would have to agree to this and where would the rename be requested? And no, I don't object to this being run as a shared bot account. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I still object to the name of the bot (though User:MBisanz/Botlist (thanks MBisanz!) shows that many bots have "official-sounding" names). I think the bot should be renamed to be more accurate. If I had known that this was going to happen, I would have created the account myself to prevent people copying the name of my proposal at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance. I may still create the following: User:NFCC Bot (3a), User:NFCC Bot (3b), User:NFCC Bot (7), User:NFCC Bot (9), User:NFCC Bot (10b), User:NFCC Bot (10c). Do you understand now how the creation of this bot and Betacommand saying that only he will be allowed to supply the code to run it, is effectively him saying that he is the only person who should be allowed to program bots to enforce WP:NFCC. If he doesn't think that, then he won't object to a rename. Do you object to a rename in light of what I've said? Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, for now I only heard that this isn't allowed by our policy, not that we need consensus for that. So, does anyone actually disagree with this bot being run by multiple people? If so, why? "It's not allowed per policy" is not a valid reason. --Conti|✉ 00:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thats not my reading of what you quoted above. Its the multi-user arrangement that requires consensus. The bot itself requires BAG approval, unrelated to consensus. Avruch T 00:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, there should be consensus for every bot, of course. But you cannot say "This bot should not be run because it's used by multiple people". There's no problem with that, as long as there's consensus for the bot in general. --Conti|✉ 00:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- "...has consensus." Avruch T 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Were you ignoring all rules when you page protected a page to simply prevent a couple of non-admins who were trying to ask a few questions about the bot approval process? What about when you issued a veiled threat to block, and accused me of disruption? As to the bot itself, will you be open to having talented coders contribute improvements to the code? Is there any possibility that the bot could be designed in such a way as to actually help the user understand what was needed, and perhaps add the name of the article (the most usual "violation" found by BCBot)? Bellwether BC 00:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Questions about modifying the code or allowing access to it for other users still need to be directed to Betacommand. Avruch T 00:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- So, the answer is no. BC has a long history of secrecy and unwillingness to allow his code to be improved upon, tweaked, or whatever. Bellwether BC 00:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Questions about modifying the code or allowing access to it for other users still need to be directed to Betacommand. Avruch T 00:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Carcharoth
ST47 asked for some clear queries, so I've posted this in a new section. All quotes from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot.
- I supported the proposal initially - "For the record, though I thoroughly support this proposal, I was taken aback by the rather biased wording used above ("Anti-fair-use people would be shielded from attacks" - this should not preclude criticism, and criticism should not be confused with attacks). Also, the terse "as long as the users in question follow my directions" should be modified to indicate that Betacommand is part of a collaborative editing project where he has to work with other people. Also, "People will find it much harder to demonize or blame if there's a trusted group of BAG people versus a single individual" should be removed or rewritten. Finally, "Betacommand and his bot are vilified for the work they do tagging images." should be rewritten as "Betacommand feels that he and his bot are vilified for the work they do tagging images.". I note that this page was created and then approved two minutes later. That is insufficient time for the community to participate in discussion of the wording used here. Please could WP:BAG re-open the request so that the more extreme wording can be toned down?"
- Wording of the request - "Now this request has been reopened, is it acceptable to change the wording of the request, or not? My proposed changes are above. Anti-fair-use people do not have a special status on this project, and do not need shielding from anything except the normally unacceptable stuff. Furthermore, fair use is needed for a free encyclopedia, and making references to "anti-fair-use people" is divisive. Anyway, it should all say "non-free-use" rather than "fair-use", and the bot name in the proposal doesn't match the name of the actual bot, unless someone has created User:FairUseBot."
- Is it a role account or a shared account? "The point is that people can then submit their own code, as an improvement, and request that it be run instead or in parallel. That was impossible with BetacommandBot, but might be possible here. A bot with multiple operators and programmers might seem like a nightmare, but BetacommandBot already has multiple tasks, so it is not as silly as it sounds. As long as the operators make clear which code is running at what time (as any organised bot operator should always do), then it will be fine."
- The misleading nature of the bot's name "Then would you mind changing the name of the bot to include your name? At the moment, the name makes it sound like a general purpose NFCC-compliance bot. There are other people who can write bots to deal with NFCC-compliance stuff, and it would be nice if a stable of NFCC-compliance bots was built up, with this one (the obvious name) being the group-operated one."
I hope this makes my concerns clear. ST47, would you be able to respond to any of these points? Carcharoth (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not ST47, but I'm not sure I understand what effect the wording of the request has. Can you explain? Avruch T 00:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's incivil, which is an issue I tried to raise, but was continually reverted by a BAG member (ST47), who quickly page protected it to prevent any further discussion from non-admins. Bellwether BC 00:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- As Bellwether says, it was incivil language. Need I remind you that a page got MfD'd recently as an "attack page" merely because someone got upset about the wording used. How is this page, which uses words like "demonize" and "vilified" any different? Bur really, that was the least important of the concerns I raised, Avruch. Would you like to comment on the other ones? Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- On a related issue, Carch, Maxim has now blocked Mick for a week for daring to suggest that an RfC on BC be started up. He tried to ban him for 6 hours (for some odd reason) from the ANI/B page, and then levied a week long block. One of the more egregious misuses of tools I've seen for awhile. Bellwether BC 00:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- It looked to me like the first two paragraphs (more than half your comments) were about the wording of the request. I guess there is a place for a request for a civility refactor, although I wouldn't say it requires the revocation of the bot flag/halt of the bot. As far as the others, I figured the questions were directed at ST47. Avruch T 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've put together a list of bot names that sound official to me at User:MBisanz/Botlist. Feel free to use it if it helps in some way. MBisanz talk 01:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll note that Conversion script and Pending deletion script actually are official, and neither is active. —Random832 02:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Philippe
Well, here we go again. Here's the situation as I see it: BAG felt like it was appropriate to speedily approve a non-controversial bot. OK by me. Thing is, it wasn't non-controversial, clearly, which means the premise isn't solid. Since it's clearly controversial, what harm is done by taking a moment to breathe and work these issues out without everyone getting so worked up, huh? The way this is headed, I can only see one possible outcome and it's the one that - frankly - none of us want: I think this is going to end up at with BAG at MFD again, and I don't think THAT will be a fun conversation. - Philippe | Talk 01:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct, though I would suggest that particular outcome appears to be exactly what certain people in this thread actually want. Black Kite 01:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your point may be accurate, but I certainly hope not. - Philippe | Talk 01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BAG reform, not deletion. WP:BAG are good at approving non-controversial bots, or finding technical problems, but as soon as anything more complex comes up, or there is a hint of community consensus not being there after all (and WP:BAG don't check this, like they should), then it is incredibly difficult to get things undone. The usual line is "only needs one member to approve", or "we only check technical stuff", or "ask the bot operator about the problems". And the bureaucrats defer to WP:BAG. The real problem is that there is no clear way to flag up problems with a bot that operates within policy, but that the community at large wants to be operated in a different way. WP:BAG should make much clearer that bot operators need to work constructively with others and that if they don't, the bot flag may be withdrawn even if the bot is operating within policy and on-task. ie. Collaborative editing and working with other people, not the "my way or the highway" approach seen here sometimes. Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I support the principle of WP:BAG reform, not deletion. A narrow technical focus on the operation of bots is clearly insufficient, and there needs to be some mechanism whereby community input can be considered on whether a technically-correct bot complies with other policies and guidelines, and in how its modus operandi interacts with the rest of wikipedia. Something has gone very badly awry when all such input is simply rejected by protecting the page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Why was this page unprotected?
The vandals were at it again. Let's leave it for a while, please? Corvus cornixtalk 00:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've protected for 12 hours. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks like someone posted on an external web site (per an anonymous tipster [106]) asking for J Milburns talk page to be vandalized with a rather rude message. The vandalism has been un-relentless for the last couple of hours forcing me to protect the page for an hour. Once the protection was up, they where right back at it. Should I protect it again seeing as it is a talk page and all. Tiptoety talk 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because the vandalism is coming from multiple IP addresses, semi-protection for a day or two is probably the way to go. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand rollback
I've removed Betacommands rollback, specifically for this edit. Now I'm no fan of MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his recent editing of WP:AN/B, but Betacommand has blatantly gone through his contributions and clicked rollback to antagonise him - he came from nowhere and had no reason to revert him. I would appreciate a review of this actions. I'll happily reinstate it in a few days if I have assurances from Betacommand that this won't happen again. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I reverted the blanking of a section that multiple other users agreed shouldnt be removed. so why am I getting punished? if your going to treat me that way MickMacNee should be serving at least a week block for edit warring, and disruption. βcommand 02:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- You showed up from nowhere and used rollback in a content dispute. You were clearly in a dispute with him in an unrelated forum and decided to pop up and roll him back. Don't worry, I've already expressed my serious concerns about Micks unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- if you look at my contribs I pop up a lot and edit random pages. βcommand 02:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- You showed up from nowhere and used rollback in a content dispute. You were clearly in a dispute with him in an unrelated forum and decided to pop up and roll him back. Don't worry, I've already expressed my serious concerns about Micks unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)