Line 727: | Line 727: | ||
:[[User:Rvcx|Rvcx]] has clearly made four reverts[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=274204022&oldid=274045986][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=prev&oldid=274241097][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=prev&oldid=274243677][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=274325045&oldid=274322378] and has violated 3RR.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&curid=3741656&diff=274333288&oldid=274288924] [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|talk]]) 03:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC) |
:[[User:Rvcx|Rvcx]] has clearly made four reverts[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=274204022&oldid=274045986][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=prev&oldid=274241097][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=prev&oldid=274243677][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=274325045&oldid=274322378] and has violated 3RR.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&curid=3741656&diff=274333288&oldid=274288924] [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|talk]]) 03:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
:: I considered the repeated wholesale rewriting to be blatant vandalism. There's not a single issue raised by QuackGuru on the talk page which has achieved consensus. [[User:Rvcx|Rvcx]] ([[User talk:Rvcx|talk]]) 03:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: I've left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=274305814&oldid=274210211 several] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=274327280&oldid=274305989 comments] about this behavior on [[User_talk:QuackGuru]] (including warning templates) but they were immediately deleted. Tried raising the problem in initiating discussion as a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive58#QuackGuru_seems_to_want_ownership_of_the_Larry_Sanger_page wikiquette issue] but was referred (back) to RfC. [[User:Rvcx|Rvcx]] ([[User talk:Rvcx|talk]]) 03:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:36, 2 March 2009
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) |
|
Disruptive editing by User:Ohconfucius and User:Tony1
Closing. Daedalus, if we see a performance like this from you again, you're likely to find yourself topic-banned from ANI. Bishonen, 12:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
- Note: I've removed the archive templates on this. I request that people please stop that nonsensical practice of "archiving" threads that are still active. None of us gets to tell everybody else to stop talking. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC).
- Well, not resolved as such, more that there is nothing to resolve. Silly spat, go out for a beer and come back tomorrow, it will all seem trivial. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC) - (unstriking) Maybe I did happen to see a breezy kerfuffle fluttering by on my talk page, I guess it's been shooed off to another meadow now. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)}}And I'm striking this through because it isn't resolved, this thread was created to have other eyes look in upon the disruptive editing, and incivility, by the two aforementioned users. Just because the thread on Gwen's page is closed does not make the issue resolved.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
All involved parties have been notified, please give them the chance to comment on this issue.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Although I would just love to try and summerize events.. Well, I don't exactly trust my fingers with such at thing at this very moment, so instead, I'm going to ask for the extreme patience of several admins and users to just look over this thread at the admin Gwen Gale's talk page.
Besides that page, I would also like to point out these last two diffs, which first show Ohconfucius changing his name to Osomething, clearly making fun of me when I couldn't remember his name during a thread creation, as seen here. Secondly, please look at the following diff, which shows Ohconfucius responding to another user in a mocking manner: Oh, quelle surprise to find you here. In need of friends perhaps?.
This is all I have to say for the moment, I'm going to go take a break from anything in regards to this thread, so I can force myself to calm down.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are you upset that Ohconfucius posted the Wikiquette alert? You need to brush that off. People were clearly in your camp; you should have read it and laughed it off. Posting this to yet another forum is simply giving Ohconfucius and Tony - trolls, as far as I'm concerned - more loudspeaker time. Tan | 39 23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- And you want us to do... what? seicer | talk | contribs 23:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Although I am sliglight miffed at that, that is not the reason for this thread, but, as stated, their behavior at Gwen Gale's talk page. Apparently they seem to have the idea that on wikipedia, a user is guilty until proven innocent, and they don't have to provide any evidence at all to back up their claims.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- To Seicer, I would at least like to see some comments on the matter, at most, a short block for the obvious disruptions on Gwen's talk page. Either way, I want some outside opinions on what transpired, and if anything should be done about it. In my opinion, this behavior is outright disruptive, and shouldn't be allowed to take place again.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I personally went to Gwen Gale's page this morning to ask a question, and saw the exchange - it reminded me of 2 coyotes and a deer I saw yesterday. Gwen's patience is incredible. The actions/interactions on Gwen's page and their continued actions on the WQA are truly not the type of actions we want to see on Wikipedia. Oh, and someone should teach them what "Plaxico" means - they seemed to think that was a serious warning of some type. Gwen Gale's comments on this are vital. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- No comment. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
BMW is it your position that user disagreements and complaints are disruptive? If so, WP might need to find a way to replace human editors with computers. ("2 coyotes and a deer"? Could spell out your meaning? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's a waaaayyy big stretch there. There is a significant difference in "could you please explain what happened here" and "you fucked up (even though you have proven you didn't) and I expect you to resign NOW!!", followed by a pile on by others with the same misunderstanding (or possibly an axe to grind). One is a disagreement/complaint. The other is a pure, unadulterated multi-prong attack. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- BMW, I understand that you have worded your position strongly because you are sure that you and Gwen Gale are completely in the right. In fact, I admit that I do not actually understand the issues involved in this particular dispute. I am not taking sides on that. What worries me is the attitude the anyone who disagrees with BMW, or with Gwen Gale, or with just about any administrator, can go shit in his hat. More over, even if you actually are completely right and Ohconfucius and Tony1 are completely wrong (which I doubt), I still do not see why the very occurrence of talk page argument over an administrator's actions was brought to AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually Malcolm, I really don't care who's right in the entire situation because my point was to let others decide right/wrong. I accidentally stumbled upon an absolute mugging - it was pretty vicious and vindictive. It was not a discussion, it was pure attack. I rather loudly stated that based on the type of "discussion", the place for it was NOT on a talkpage as it had progressed well past bloodshed, and if they had actual concerns, they belonged in a place like here. In fact, I challenged them to have the same discussion in view of admins, make their point, and let admins deal with it by consensus, rather than the coyote2-deer event that was going on. I had no dog of my own in the fight. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- "absolute mugging"? Give me a break. Gwen Gale is an experienced administrator and knows how to take care of herself in an argument. Moreover, she had at least two other users defending her, and throwing plenty of their own accusations. I think that her defenders were actually rather personally abusive, while her accusers seemed to stay focused on the issues. What I see in this thread is administrators putting down a revolt by a few the wiki-peons, who should have been out in the wiki-fields editing instead of complaining about the whippings handed out by the overseers. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest you take a look at your own posts here, Malcolm. Instead of doing something constructive, you thought it necessary to add yet another "give me a break" opinion to the mix. The argument was/is dying down, people are going about their business now. Try not to re-flame the forest fire, okay? Tan | 39 15:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- "absolute mugging"? Give me a break. Gwen Gale is an experienced administrator and knows how to take care of herself in an argument. Moreover, she had at least two other users defending her, and throwing plenty of their own accusations. I think that her defenders were actually rather personally abusive, while her accusers seemed to stay focused on the issues. What I see in this thread is administrators putting down a revolt by a few the wiki-peons, who should have been out in the wiki-fields editing instead of complaining about the whippings handed out by the overseers. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input Tanthalas. Did you really write your edit just to let me know that you have nothing to say? (I see above that you called some other users "trolls"....and that now you are worried about me igniting a fire.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Admins closing ranks?
Please note that the convo on Gwen Gale's page which is referred to above is now in her talkpage history: here it is. So what's going on there—administrators closing ranks? Tony1 is admittedly a little long-winded, which is caused by his quoting WP:ADMIN (apparently an offense in itself) but he's a very hard-working and respectable editor, and it's completely weird for GG to blow him off with statements unsupported by a single diff and without mentioning a single name, and altogether making it nightmarishly difficult to check up on anything that she says. Instead we get from her "another admin"; "a member of arbcom" (let's all hold our breaths in veneration); "three admins"; a blank refusal to reveal where and when she warned the user; and a claim, hanging out there without evidence of any kind, that "All your points have already been thoroughly addressed, whatever you might assert otherwise."
Admins are supposed to set an example. The most important principle to come out of RFAR/InShaneee, which reminds me to a quite spooky extent of this argument, and this self-righteousness on the part of an admin, is that
- "Administrators must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their administrative actions in a timely manner."[1]
Please discuss in a timely manner, Gwen. Don't blow off users. Not even if you think they should have requested info in a meeker and humbler fashion, as you complain here:
- "Had the editor begun this thread in a civil, polite, AGF way, asking for diffs of warnings and blockable behaviour (along with why the behaviour was taken to be blockable by at least three admins), I would've been happy to give them and talk about it but this kind of wanton incivility and lack of any assumption as to good faith throws off strong hints of wikilawyering, with the whole thing spinning off into a disruptive waste of time."
The accusation of "wikilawyering" presumably refers to Tony's quotes from WP:ADMIN; I honestly don't see what else it could be.) Compare another RFAR/InShaneee principle:
- "All Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Administrators are expected to lead by example in this area rather than criticizing inappropriate behavior. Further, administrators are expected to keep their cool even when dealing with editors who disregard policy and community norms. While personal attacks are prohibited by policy, administrators are expected to endure them without retaliating. Any response to a personal attack should come from a member of the community who was not a target of the attack."[2].
Not that I see any PA in Tony's posts. GG is being excessively touchy in speaking of wikilawyering and disruption.
Epithets such as "troll" (from Tan), flung at Tony in the course of the dialogue, are shameful IMO. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC).
- Your opinion here does not change my thoughts, just for the record. As far as I am concerned, both these editors in question were trolling. Ergo, trolls. It's a pretty good thing I couldn't care less if you think this is "shameful". Tan | 39 17:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to be interested in helping to drive the drama that surrounds these two editors. seicer | talk | contribs 17:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
He began that thread with the section title Breach of admin policy without a shred of AGF. The blocked editor had already been warned twice, had rm'd the warnings from his talk page (acknowledged), was blocked for edit warring with the arbcom clerk and coming out of that block, uploaded a cropped joke image of the clerk with a caption meant as a personal attack. I blocked the editor three days for a long pattern of incivility. The editor knew he had been warned twice and was fresh out of a block for edit warring in the same arbcom project space. Nevertheless, the editor went on the attack as he had before (I could care less about that) and was then blocked for a week by a member of arbcom who also shut down his email and talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gwen Gale, it is possible that I misunderstood, but it seems to me that what Bishonen requested was diffs and names. What you have given above is just a repetition of what is already on your talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gwen Gale, you are very welcome. Does your reply mean that you do not intend to supply the names and diffs to support you statement above? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Malcom, since you seem to have the idea, that the diffs and names do not exist. Why don't you try a bit of hunting. It shouldn't take long. I found the diffs already. The reason, in case you may not have gleamed it, that Gwen is not responding to you, it is because you are asking for the diffs in a rude manner, a manner that assumes bad faith, and to respond to an incivil question like that would be to feed the trolls. You don't give a user what he or she wants because he or she is being rude to you. You deny the request until he or she can learn to keep the incivility to his or her self.
As I have stated so many times before, if you're going to accuse someone of doing someing, back it up with diffs. The burden of evidence to the contrary is on the accuser. If you're going to accuse someone of abusing their admin status/powers, then you need to make sure that you are right, and search for a lack of warning, if you are arguing about warnings. You need to make sure that you are not wrong in your accusation, and assuming you don't, and someone else does, you need to admit that you were wrong and/or drop the discussion.
Besides the two warnings presented above, there is simply the incivility in the edit summery of the first warning, obviously showing the user didn't really care to stop the incivility he was warned against, or should I note the picture? It was a cropped image of an arbcom clerk drunk, with the caption of Notwithstanding the caption on his userpage, this Wikipedia Administrator was clearly not at work when this picture was taken. There is no way you can argue that that was civil.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Daedalus969 you misunderstand my question. I know nothing about the incident that started this argument, and I am not particularly interested that incident either. What does interest me is administrators who, when asked to explain their actions, do not; who say there were other administrators involved (including a member of the arbitration committee), but decline to name the other administrators who were involved; and who likewise decline the requests to supply diffs. The fact that you have give some of the requested information (not requested by me, but by others), and that Gwen Gale has not, still leaves me with the impression of an imperial administration that, despite all claims to the contrary, is very separate from WP editors and not very accountable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think the problem comes from trying to prove a negative. It is simply much easier for the offended to present, clearly, what they are offended by. This allows the offender a solid accusation to reply to rather than having to "swing in the dark" and hope they are defending the appropriate action. Also, the approach taken was apparently hostile from the get go. It has been offered by Gwen that if the editor had simply asked for clarification on what Gwen was doing she would have had little to no problem responding. It's the "coming out of left-field with accusations" part that make others shut down and stop communicating. Padillah (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Possible misuse of administrative power
There has been a related discussion on Wikiquette alerts [3], in which Tanthalas39, a highly involved party in the dispute from its very beginning, closed the discussion [4] over protests. Since he is an involved administrator, closing such a discussion gives the appearance of misuse of administrative power. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm aware this thread exists; no need to notify me. Anyone who actually looks over the issue - starting on Gwen's talk page, hopping over to Witiquette, and ending here - can see that I am not "highly involved", nor did I even use any "administrator power" at any time in the proceedings. Both contentions, shot to hell. As far as I'm concerned, this entire issue is one big farce. Tan | 39 19:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agree completely. This entire thread, including anywhere else this discussion may pop up, is nothing more than a huge waste of time. Seal the vault, and everyone go about their regularly scheduled business. Dayewalker (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Tanthalas39 was involved from the beginning, as can be seen in the discussion on Gwen Gale's talk pagehere
- When an administrator closes a discussion it is not likely to be thought of as anything but an administrative action, and that reverting it could lead to a block. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, I WAS THE EDITOR THAT CLOSED THE DISCUSSION. Apparently telling you this in the discussion page wasn't enough. I closed the thread, not once, but twice. I asked the editor point blank why they wanted to keep the thread open and there response was an unacceptable because some users might want to talk about it. Well, that is unacceptable so I closed the thread and asked the user to please stop posting, the issue has been dealt with. In my opinion this is a simple ploy to keep the drama flowing. After having ignored the numerous pleadings I have issued, both on the WQA page and my talk page, they continue to stir the pot. I don't imagine they will stop short of blocking. Padillah (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- No. I removed the template you added and Tanthalas39 restored it. I gave a diff, above.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- The capital "O" in my "NO" was a typing error, when I did not take my finger off the cap key in time. Sorry about that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Who are "they" that you'd like to see blocked Padillah, and why? Because they don't agree with your assessment of the situation? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I use "they" in an effort to remain gender neutral. I mean you. You have been asked as plainly as possible what you want and still did not answer (but did manage to attack "the system"). You have shown no signs of stopping this tirade and have not expressed what you expect to get out of it other than a continuation of being allowed to be on a tirade.Padillah (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Who are "they" that you'd like to see blocked Padillah, and why? Because they don't agree with your assessment of the situation? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see. So you want to see me blocked because I don't agree with you, and because you believe that I have attacked a system that you apparently believe to be perfect? I'd suggest thinking very carefully before you persist with that line of reasoning, and make more of a fool of yourself than is absolutely necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, I want to see you blocked for the express reasons I gave above. You show no signs of stopping this tirade and have given no reasons for wanting to continue this other than being allowed to have a tirade. As I said below, the evidence of your horse beating is perfectly valid. I have no issue with people that disagree with me I take issue with someone arguing for the sake of arguing. Padillah (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see. So you want to see me blocked because I don't agree with you, and because you believe that I have attacked a system that you apparently believe to be perfect? I'd suggest thinking very carefully before you persist with that line of reasoning, and make more of a fool of yourself than is absolutely necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I owe Malcolm a huge apology. I am very sorry. I got you confused with the editor User:Malleus Fatuorum. I have not had dealings with you to the degree that I have with the other. Editing an admins contributions should not be taken as blockable but I do believe we are beating a dead horse at WQA. The evidence I presented should still stand, it's simply the direction that had me confused. Again, my humblest apologies for any slight I may have made. Padillah (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This series of edits has me more confused the the whole rest of the long story combined. For instance, I am not sure what Padillah has apologized to me for; but, whatever it is, the apology itself is remarkable. I have been called things on AN/I that might make anyone, who does not actually know me, assume that I am a total weirdo, and wiki-criminal too boot. And, previous to now, with never an apology. So, Padillah, I want you to know that I have respect you as one of those rare individuals actually willing to say, "sorry". Bravo. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- The apology was for calling for "your blocking" under the misconception that you were a different user. I had a recent exchange with User:Malleus Fatuorum and conflated the two names thus confusing you with them. Padillah (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me just restate my original point, so that it will not get lost. There was, parallel to this thread, a discussion on Wikiquette concerning some very uncivil remarks made by Daedalus969 against Ohconfucius and Tony. Tanthalas39, who is an administrator, who was also highly involved in the dispute, closed the discussion over protests. It appears to me that, under those circumstances, it was a possible misuse of his administrative authority for Tanthalas39 to close the thread. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be acceptable if a different editor closed the thread? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would not have been happy about it in any case. The users who brought the complaint consider the issue unresolved, and I think rationally so. But, if it was done by an uninvolved administrator, I would not now be complaining about it here on AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think that WQA has done all that in can do in this case: the issue has been raised and discussed. That's why I have re-archived that WQA thread. Remember that WQA is a non-binding / informal discussion venue. Any outstanding requests for sanctions should be made here. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Tell me
What is wrong with being frustrated with two users who act like the whole of wikipedia answers to them; so they take a particular a comment as a threat, a particular comment, mind you, that told a user to stop refactoring my comments. Did I miss a meeting where such was allowed? Are we to stop warning users who are obviously violating policy? Last I checked, that is what we are supposed to do. Tony1 acted as if I were to answer to him, for warning Ohconfucious against refactoring my comments. Given that he had previously refactored my comments, twice, I was a bit frustrated. Now, given the manner in which he spoke to me, I was close to losing the restraints I had on my anger.
As far as I can tell, Tony1 and Ohconfucious started the WQE, and the thread on Admin Gwen Gale's talk page with a single goal in mind: To get her to step down from being an admin, or somehow get her, and myself, blocked. Tony already made a call for Ryan, the Arbcom Clerk, to step down. Please, bug him for the diff, I'm pretty sure he has it locked away somewhere. Well, if I were him, I would. I hope he does, because searching for it, simply, would be a pain in the ass. But as I was saying, Tony and Oh and out of line. They are doing nothing here, and the WQE but disrupt to try and achieve their own ends.
They have been warned against such behavior -constantly-, and due to their obvious goals, I do not see it stopping any time soon.
Would any of you uninvolved admins mind giving them a cool-down block perhaps? Tell you what: Assuming that you do, I can bet you that their unblock requests will not address the issues why they were blocked, but instead attack the admins that blocked them, like they have been doing to every user that joins in on this conflict.
Yes, I realize I lost my temper, and I also realize there is no exuse for losing it. Now, that aside, I have to ask the goal in mind of the WQE. I'm obviously, if you look over my contributions, usually cool headed. I don't have long patterns of incivility. So what, I blew my top once. In my opinion, the WQE was nothing but disruptive and a waste of everyone's time.
Now, I'm going to hit return after I push r in the edit summery, and sit back, and watch. There is nothing more I could really say in regards to this matter.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wow! Our intention was explicit, whereas you implied a hidden agenda which I can debunk straight off. You certainly credit me with too much power, because I am a mere minnow - I am not even an admin, nor do I have any friends. Secondly, the "refactoring" was innocent (one correction of grammar and of one of a factual nature), and I swiftly apologised when I realised your objection. FYI, your warnings did not show up until I had posted the second amendment to your post. I would have let it ride had you simply apologised for losing your temper when you wrote those remarks, but now you launch this ANI case against me, which renders me less inclined to be forgiving. Before anyone misquotes me, it doesn't mean I won't forgive, but that you just have to grovel that little bit harder. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Tony1 and Ohconfucius are clearly trying to exact revenge on Gwen Gale for having blocked Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a central part of their tag team in the date delinking issue. I would suggest that any admins looking at this issue take some time to investigate the depth and volume of behavioral complaints made against all three of these editors before taking any action. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 04:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I am forced to raise the matter here, as per Sheffield's invitation. I would state for the record that I do not feel the issue of Daedalus969's incivility has been resolved. OK, sure, one or two people friendly to him may have left him gentle messages, or otherwise paid lip-service, saying that he may have overstepped the mark, making it not even a slap on the wrist. Perhaps it is "resolved" from the viewpoint that WQA is only a talking shop, so I was perhaps wrong to follow the above instructions to post it there. For your recollection, possibly three (1, 2 and 3) of the most direct and uncivil comments I have ever read on WP all within centimetres of one another on the monitor are the central subject of this dispute. "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. (quoted from WP:NPA)". Notwithstanding, the discussion which was taking page in Gwen Gale's userspace, was propelled a series of blatant attacks when they ran out of substantive arguments. Moving the discussion/censure into this ANI [of Tony1 and my "disruption"] is frankly a bit arse about face, and merely sidelines the incivility of Daedalus, whose words put a certain cantankerous old man into the shade with his abuse. Sure, Tony and I ("Greg L's fanboys" -courtesy of my dear fiend User:Earle Martin) were angry at Gwen's block, we made certain accusations which I feel did not cross the boundary of incivility, but were treated to this torrent of abuse from Daedalus and this comment from BMWilkins. Let;s not forget how he referred to me as "the other user who's username starts with an O", and then appears affronted when I replied using that same name he used on me, and starts bringing this vexatious case against me. Please... Ohconfucius (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - I don't believe you. The three comments I left, which you have problem with, are hardly uncivil, neither are they the most uncivil. I have seen far worse, and I doubt you haven't.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Secondly, I am offended because you were obviously mocking me there, and I referred to you as such because I could not remember the spelling of your name.
The only thing you are doing is looking to find fault in anything I do. This is disruptive behavior, and I honestly think wikipedia would be better off without you, Tony, or Greg.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Even if those three remarks were not uncivil (and that is a pretty big 'if'), the above comment certainly is. In your place, I would certainly engage in some stress-reduction before posting more of same. Has it ever occurred to you that I would find it offensive to be referred to as "Osomething"? Honestly... Ohconfucius (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's called assuming good faith, a policy you should try familiarizing yourself with.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Somebody you're having an argument with comes along an refers to you as "the user who's (sic) name begins with a 'D'" or "Dsomething", would you be able to, hand on heart, drop your hostility and assume good faith? BTW, nice abusive edit summary for for this entry. You've received plenty of helpful advice to bring the temperature down, I suggest it would be a good idea to heed it. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- There's nothing more to discuss. I suggest you give up on whatever goal you have, because you aren't getting it. I refuse to discuss this any further with you because, as said, there is nothing to discuss. Any further comments below this post, in regards to me, or even above it, are disruptive. You aren't getting your way, and in fact, due to your behavior in this thread and others, the only thing that you might get isn't going to be something you want. Or haven't you noticed that you don't have any support outside your little circle? Either way, everyone disagrees with you but you and yours, so unless you want to dig your hole deeper, mayhap reach the other side of the globe, I suggest you keep talking, but I am no longer going to reply to trolls. I've been warned against feeding the trolls before, I'm going to take that advice now, because this discussion is going nowhere fast.
- It's called assuming good faith, a policy you should try familiarizing yourself with.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Again, that torrent above ("the other side of the globe") was not called for. I already told you above that I don't have any friends, so on that point we are agreed. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Daedalus969, it is time for you to leave this discussion behind. Your comments have been uncivil and unhelpful, and if you intended for this thread to accomplish anything you are distracting from it by your increasingly intemperate participation. Avruch T 15:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Daedalus969, I agree with Avruch. I and many others know you want only to help, but you've been uncivil in going about it and this has done much more harm than help. There is no way anyone can helpfully talk about anything on a wiki unless these kinds of stirred up feelings have settled down altogether. Please try to learn from this.
Now, seeing the words reach the other side of the globe made me think of Gravity_trains, I don't know why I've always found this such a fun notion to daydream about :) Dig a hole through the earth at any angle (good luck), take away any friction (good luck), drop something into it and about 42 minutes later it'll show up on the other side at a very brief standstill, ready to be plucked away. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Call for Daedalus969 to be blocked for a week, and for Gale to undertake not to breach the admin rules
Clearly the agressive abuse meted out to me on Gale's talk page requires a block—of up to a week, I'd say:
Incivility by the above on the talk page of Gwen_Gale. Diffs of aggressive and hostile comments follow:
- Accusations against Tony1 (talk · contribs) and Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) of baiting.
- "back the hell off, try reading WP:DICK yourself, as you really are being one"
- "Please just shut up now, I'm sick of this disruptive trolling of yours on this talk page"
It is in the high end of incivility, and the perpetrator apparently shows no remorse. It is appropriate for the community to teach him that this is unacceptable behaviour.
Gwen Gale has clearly breached the admin rules and I believe she needs to provide a written undertaking to adhere to WP:ADMIN in all future such incidents. If she refuses to do this, I believe moves should be made to have here desysopped. Several policies are at issue in her behaviour. Tony (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Accusations = not blockable
- Dick comment = uncivil, warning already applied, not blockable
- Shut up/troll comment = uncivil, nothing to block over
- This needs to stop now.
Do not try to pull any wool over anyone's eyes in order to avoid your own block. No further action needs to occur, unless Tony1 or Ohconfucious decide to continue this disruptive train of action. Let's all stop playing blame games, and ensure we're acting according the adult status I am sure we all have. The drahma has truly gone on long enough - there are articles to be written. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)- "Do not try to pull any wool over anyone's eyes in order to avoid your own block." A stunning comment in its nastiness. If someone is calling for a thread to be closed, that is not the time for this kind of personal attack. I know I'm repeating myself, but that is not the BMW I used to know. And I am at a loss to come up with a plausible explanation.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Tony, as I've mentioned to others before, the solution to being uncivil is making the user stop being uncivil. Daedalus has stopped (I hope for good this time), so please consider this over. If an editor continues being uncivil and they will not listen to reason then they would be blocked as a means of forcing them to stop, not as punishment. Blocking is not supposed to be used as a form of punishment, but as a means to an end (forcing the editor to stop). Padillah (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Reasonable advice from Padillah and sounds sensible to me.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Move on already.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Tony, if it's any help heres a list of Admins always keen to block for even the slightest suggestion of incivility [5]. I;m sure at least one of then will be thrilled to block for some real incivility. Probably nest to start alphabetically, that way you won't show favouritism because I'm sure some of them are on commission. Hope this helps. Giano (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Here is another admin who likes to block for incivility Giano User:Deacon of Pndapetzim, maybe we should draw up alist of admins who don't like breaches of civility because at the moment it just depends who you get and your previous interactions with them BigDuncTalk 17:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Dunc, but where are all our beloved Admins, normally if they see my name here within a hundred kilometres of the word "incivility" we normally have at least 50 opining on the horror of it. Perhaps they are all quarrelling on IRC over which one of them gets the prize for blocking first. Giano (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Move on already.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Reasonable advice from Padillah and sounds sensible to me.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
For curiosity's sake, does anyone intend to answer the initial charges? It seems like a simple answer from Gwen at the start could have avoided this entire episode, and even now those answers would appear diffuse this situation. As an uninvolved editor, I am once again shocked an appalled by the cabal which does not exist. I note there is a good deal of silence from the usuals here at ANI. Why? Charles Edward (Talk) 19:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are you selectively reading? Gwen doesn't need to respond to uncivil demands which are just looking for reason to cry admin abuse. The answers you are looking for in the thread, I'm pretty sure I'ved posted them several times now. She isn't in breach of anything. I am not posting the links again, they are not far up, please take the time to find them yourself.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I read both the threads here and the talk page in their entirety. That is why I posted this. The original questions were never answered. I don't see the original questions as uncivil, just quite frank. Although it is certainly reached an uncivil stage at this point. Just because a question is not civil (I am not saying it was uncivil) does not make it invalid. Would not answering them clear the air? Thats all I am saying. Charles Edward (Talk) 20:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- The question has already been answered, by me, multiple times. It doesn't really matter, at this moment, whether the question was valid or not. Users are taught to not give into demands that, nor are they taught to give into demands just because a user is broadly calling for admin abuse. Tony was proved wrong, by me, multpile times, but now we still see he's on the same track of mind, despite the evidence to the contrary. Gwen didn't do anything wrong. She warned Greg as many times as she said she did, then, following a cropped picture that was uploaded to make fun of an ArbCom Clerk the users in question were edit warring with, she blocked him for a long pattern of incivililty. Tony and Oh came to Gwen's page demanding she explain her actions, even though she clearly did in the block notice, and on Greg's page, several times. The question you're looking to be answered has, please read through the thread, it is there.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Uh huh. Happy editing. :) Charles Edward (Talk) 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I read both the threads here and the talk page in their entirety. That is why I posted this. The original questions were never answered. I don't see the original questions as uncivil, just quite frank. Although it is certainly reached an uncivil stage at this point. Just because a question is not civil (I am not saying it was uncivil) does not make it invalid. Would not answering them clear the air? Thats all I am saying. Charles Edward (Talk) 20:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Tony, you request a block of Daedalus for incivility, while he hasn't been warned, it's apparently the first time he shows signs of incivility, and he stopped when advised. But in the same time, you claim admin abuse from Gwen Gale for having blocked Greg L for a pattern of incivility while given several warnings. This appears incoherent to me, could you clarify this ? I'm not commenting on the validity of the block or its extension but blocks are supposed to be preventive, Gwen Gale blocked because she felt it would stop recurring incivilities (again, deliberately not commenting on whether it was justified or not, but rather on how Gwen Gale thought she applied policy). But blocking Daedalus here would achieve nothing and would indeed be in clear violation of the blocking policy (being rather a punishment). Cenarium (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- "you claim admin abuse from Gwen Gale for having blocked Greg L for a pattern of incivility while given several warnings." Nope, please read what I said: it's her breach of at least one admin policy requirement—that concerning communication before and after the block, that was the subject of my complaint. Greg really has nothing directly to do with that. Tony (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Communication prior and after blocking with the user in question is indeed vital (essentially to avoid blocking, then explain and justify it), this has happened as visible in the talk history (warnings prior to block, and also a post-block discussion that has then be prevented from continuing when another admin protected the page). It seems that you initially said she had breached admin policy for failing to "provide the appropriate user(s) (so the blocked user) with suitable prior warnings and explanations of their administrative actions". She then replied that she had done so and diffs were later given by another user. You also questioned the preventive/last resort nature of the block, which triggered my question above. I have the impression that your initial comments were made lacking information and based solely on the thread and the block rationale (and I agree that at first sight, it looked confusing, although the blocked user was aware of the background). If her explanations do no satisfy you and you feel she failed to communicate on this occasion (and to provide relevant diffs), then you are free to start a RFC (although I would advise to wait a little before continuing on this path if you are resolved), but ANI isn't the place for dispute resolution/user conduct RFC, and users are given leeway to close discussions on their talk pages (and are not held, even admins, to continue to respond to inquiries when explanations have been given, which I think was the case, even though you may consider them insufficient). (See also my comment below, but I have no intention to continue discussing in this thread.) Cenarium (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- "you claim admin abuse from Gwen Gale for having blocked Greg L for a pattern of incivility while given several warnings." Nope, please read what I said: it's her breach of at least one admin policy requirement—that concerning communication before and after the block, that was the subject of my complaint. Greg really has nothing directly to do with that. Tony (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I reckon this one here (07:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)) would suffice as a civility warning. As to incivility after the warning, I was wondering how "I honestly think wikipedia would be better off without you, Tony, or Greg" or "You obviously have a superiority complex" in an edit summary (both yesterday and on this page) would be defined? These seem to be quite a bit more powerful than "troll", which many wikipedians would draw the line at, but perhaps not quite as strong as "fuck off". Ohconfucius (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- This still seems week grounds for a one-week civility block to me, and the warning was not from an admin. No doubt Daedalus needs a break, but this is due to a very localized issue (defending someone he knows against accusations) and I don't see it reflecting a pattern of incivility. A block at this stage appears unwarranted since if Daedalus withdraws from this issue or it dies down, it is very likely that incivilities will cease. It is very unlikely that an admin will block Daedalus on such grounds at this stage so this matter is virtually closed. Cenarium (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting take on the situation: I am unaware of any requirement for civility warnings to be the exclusive purview of admins, although admittedly many throw these around like confetti. Giano is right - 'where are all those trigger-happy admins when you need one?' ;-) Furthermore, I wonder how many more instances of incivility one needs to see to warrant a block? there were at 3 on Gwen Gale's talk page and two here right before everyone's eyes. He remains totally repentant for his actions, for all I can tell. I agree that this thread is getting tired, and it is my considered opinion that it should never have been started. I only added some comments after my thread in WQA was closed down as if no 'unpleasantries' had ever been muttered, and discussion forced here. It also seems that I am the only one to apologise so far. The one who opened this threat continues to participate in this lame accusation of disruption against Tony and myself, despite advice from all quarters, including myself on tow occasions. I can't help but feel there has been a very liberal application of soft soap here in regards Daedalus. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Tony
This is the last time I am saying this. You keep saying Gwen violated admin policy. Now, in less than 500 words, why don't you tell us specifically what she violated. If your argument is that she didn't warn Greg, like she said she did. You are wrong. In fact, I have proved you wrong several times now. Now, besides that, tell me where on WP:ADMIN it says that sysops should immediately cave to the demands of all users. Now read that carefully: demands. Not inquiries, but demands. You and Oh did not politely inquire as to what she did, you demanded that you be answered. As far as I've seen, admins at least have been taught to not answer demands, as it would make them appear easily manipulated or something.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- e/c Daedalus, this is the last time I'm saying this; I said it above. Please read the arbcom principles from RFAR/InShaneee. You don't have to dig the case out or anything; just please read, and try to take on board, the principles I quote. Alternatively, please try to show with quotes these demands that Gwen immediately "cave", and this supposed "disruptiveness". Without evidence, diffs, or illustrations, your ample repetitons of your anger and resentment remains... hmm... remains... [casting about for civil description here...] well, it remains, that's all. Remains up in the air. Remains pointless. And apologizing to everybody except Tony and Ohconfucious for your discourtesy is ... [casts about again].. is very bad behaviour. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC).
- Sorry, but using diffs is how I roll; nowhere in that above diatribe is there any hint of a polite question, which Gwen would have answered. I also don't feel that "I do hope that you feel able to cooperate." Is a polite request to supply the diffs either.
- Now, besides the demands above to supply diffs and cooperate, as can be seen above in this thread, Tony is calling for Gwen to be desysopped. I have to ask the reasoning, and I do mean specifics. If he wants what he does, he should provide specific diffs explaining where she breached policy; that is of course assuming, she did at all, as I already personally crushed his original argument that she didn't warn him.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Daedalus, may I politely suggest that you completely disengage from this? You are doing yourself no favours. If there are valid concerns about the behaviour of others (I am not commenting on that one way or the other), they will be overshadowed by your increasingly aggressive posts. I suggest you turn off the computer, have a cup of tea or a martini, watch a movie, play a game, something. Just leave for a little while and let others look everything over. //roux 21:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Tony, I agree that BMW's notion that you're trying to "avoid your own block" is wild and weird; but there's no point in calling for de-sysopping or similar on WP:ANI. As for requesting some kind of undertaking from Gwen Gale, since her attitude to those kinds of requests is made sufficiently clear above, and on her talkpage (=consisting of blowing them off), yours can be considered made and ignored. Dispute resolution is what remains, and RfC would be your next port of call for that. Though I would point out that you'd need more substantial grievances than one outbreak of personal attacks from Daedalus (however egregious), and one instance of administrator nonchalance from Gwen Gale (however persistent); in fact, for RfCs to be meaningful, you'd need to show patterns. I don't know if there have been such. Bishonen | talk 20:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC).
To Gwen, Avruch(sorry if I got that wrong), and others
I realize I have been uncivil, and I realize it isn't the way to go. I've been dealing with off-wiki stress as well, so I'm sure many of you know this isn't how I normally am. I am not using off wiki stress as a way to exuse my behavior, I'm just saying, that all this stress at this one time, well, it's hard to keep my cool. At the moment of typing this, I have a level head; personally, I don't think the 'globe' note to be uncivil, it was, in case it was not gleamed, an analogy depicting that Oh and Tony were digging their hole very, very deep by keeping this thread at the top so to speak(traditional forums if you didn't know(active threads are bumped to the top of the page)), rather than letting the issue drop.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- ... right. You show no intention of apologizing to the people you've actually been insulting, and in your opinion, Tony and Ohconfucious have kept this thread at the top by keeping it "active", rather than letting the issue drop? Have I got it right? OK... not sure I've counted the mess right (please check, people) but this is what I make it: Ohconfucious has posted five times in this thread. Tony1 has posted once. Daedalus has posted 18 times. Now, Tony, shame on you, when are you ever going to let the issue drop?? Daedalus, do get that cup or gallon of tea. Right now. Please. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- What does it matter what Bish's goal is? Your general hostility isn't helping at all... Can't you still see you are excessively wound up. I would reiterate the advice that I, and several others here, have already given to you to go and fool off somewhere quiet. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- It matters, because his behavior isn't all that civil either. And Bish, to answer your question no, I will not ever, ever, did I meniton ever? Apologize to people like Tony and Oh, especially after this: "Before anyone misquotes me, it doesn't mean I won't forgive, but that you just have to grovel that little bit harder."— Dædαlus Contribs 02:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Heard you the first time, which is why I never –did I meniton (sic) never?– reiterated my slightly tongue in cheek mention of you grovelling. Apology implies sincerity, and you have made it clear AGAIN that you have no intention of apologising, it can be read that you were deliberate in insulting me and Tony in the past, and you still mean it. Fine. Also, what's "not all that civil" - I don't see any mention of WP:DICK, or superiority complex, or stupid? I'm not going to refactor your comment for the possible errors above since the last time you bit my head off for so doing, but presumably by "he", you mean "he/she"? Oh (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- It matters, because his behavior isn't all that civil either. And Bish, to answer your question no, I will not ever, ever, did I meniton ever? Apologize to people like Tony and Oh, especially after this: "Before anyone misquotes me, it doesn't mean I won't forgive, but that you just have to grovel that little bit harder."— Dædαlus Contribs 02:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- What does it matter what Bish's goal is? Your general hostility isn't helping at all... Can't you still see you are excessively wound up. I would reiterate the advice that I, and several others here, have already given to you to go and fool off somewhere quiet. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
But, as to letting it drop, I'm sorry, but you're wrong in this issue: Number of replies means nothing in this, because Oh and Tony are -still- accusing Gwen of admin abuse despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That is the issue that they are not dropping. I guess I wasn't very clear when I tried to get that message across. As said, and I do know I repeat myself; The matter of issue was Gwen's admin behavior. They have been proved wrong, in that Gwen did not abuse her powers, and they have been asked over and over to let the issue drop, so yes, they are the ones who will not let it drop.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- But Daedalus, this can be argued without your involvement, and don't worry, Gwen Gale won't have her admin bit removed for that. It may be frustrating but the best thing to do for you now, and in the interest of finding a resolution or at least settle down the dispute, is to let other editors deal with it. Focusing too much on this kind of things doesn't help and there are more satisfying things to be done on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Please, let it go. Cenarium (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Would somebody please close this thread? This is accomplishing nothing. We're talking about edits that are three days old in this thread of bad faith. The original argument on Gwen's page is dead, the WQA is dead, and this one should be. I won't start to detail the things that are wrong in this report because I don't want to continue this mess, but suffice to say this one isn't going anywhere. Can we be done with it yet? Dayewalker (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) My apologies for taking so long to strike the comment about a certain product of sheep that is often used in sweaters, as I have been packing for an assignment out-of-country. The comment was, indeed, inappropriate while attempting to call for a close in a discussion that truly is going nowhere. After days of dicussion, my original statement on Gwen Gale's page stands: I said that the Talkpage of an admin was no place to discuss removal (voluntary or not) of admin status, and if Tony1 and Ohconfucious had a real gripe, then I invited them to take it to ANI where a bunch of admins will see it, and take (or suggest) action as necessary.
At this point, dozens of admins have now seen the entire situation - both the supposed "misuse of admin" by Gwen Gale, the discussion by Tony1 and Ohconfucious, plus the increased anger of Daedulus. A few other editors (such as myself) under good faith attempts to assist have been drawn into an increasing spiral.
That said - what I recommended in the first place has happened - it came here to ANI. As expected, no additional action has been taken, and I expect that none will be.
Can we close this now? It's run its course. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Closed. Daedalus, if we see a performance like this from you again, you're likely to find yourself topic-banned from ANI. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
- Preformance like what? I realize I was at fault, but I am not the -only- one at fault, and since you have an obvious bias in regards to this situation, you shouldn't be warning me of anything; you're obvious in support of the above users; you shouldn't have blosed this either, some uninvolved admin should have, in fact, I'd be thankful if Guy of all people closed this, but you, you who are personally involved, should not be issuing threats, or closes.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Petition To re-open, then have the thread re-closed by an uninvolved party, who has no clear bias to the situation at hand.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Although this is a fairly minor issue, I amended the close with a neutral statement regarding this entire thread. There is nothing left to argue now. Cenarium (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Harout72
I accidentely ran into an edit war on Luis Miguel between Harout72 and an anonymous user.
At the moment I made my first edit to that article I was aware that some edit war was going on, but didn't pay attention to include the source preferred by Harout72. After he reverted my edit, I wrote him on his talk page that he shouldn't be deleting sourced material. We have continued the discussion a little. Today I proposed a compromise on the talk page of the article. Not between me and him, because I do not see myself as an involved party and have not changed the article after that first time, but between Harout72 and the anonymous user. Harout72's reaction to my proposal warrants an official warning, I feel.
- He is not responsive to my appeals for compromise. In stead he continues the edit war.
- He is implicating me personally of having ulterior motives.
- He is completely convinced that he is 100% right in all his arguments, and does not give any merit whatsoever to counter-arguments.
- He is using belittling language to me (in my perception at least), by stressing his experience on Wikipedia as opposed to mine.
In short: he is being confrontational in that conflict and uncivil to me.
After placing {{adminhelp}} on my talk page with precisely this same information I was referred to this page by Ten Pound Hammer.
- First, User:Debresser, please remember to sign your comments. This took an unbelievably long time to figure out. Second, looking at Talk:Luis_Miguel#Sales_figures, I see that Harout72 wants to keep the current 50 million sales figure based on Warner Music's Germany division while an anonymous user has been edit-warring for 90 million based on a single press release at the University of Texas at Austin's performing arts department. Is the issue that he here questioned why you are questioning him removing those sources and not the anonymous users? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Also, as to your trespassing comments, Debresser, could you point out diffs of exactly what you are talking about? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I am really sorry about forgetting to sign. That doesn't happen to me usually, and if it happens I almost always remember it right away. I raised 4 points above. Let me try and find the relevant diffs.
- Here I put up a notice right in the middle of the contested information reading "Please wait a minute before editing here, and read my proposal for a compromise on the talk page (section Sales figures). Try to solve the issue between you on the talk page, and not in live editing." In spite of that Harout72 28 minutes later continues the edit war.
- Here Harout72 is questioning my motives at the end of his edit. I can't even understand what motives he might be referring to. They for sure can't be of a personal nature, because I don't even remember having crossed one of his edits before (our interests are in different subjects).
- This answer to me on his talk page just completely ignores any of my arguments. Here he addresses the subject of reliable sources, but does not pay attention that his doubts as to the accuracy of the source do not diminish its reliability, at least not any more than it diminishes the reliability of the other source, or at least not per definition. (Although I agree that in this case I would tend to believe Warner Music more than the University of Texas myself, I still think we have to consider the University of Texas a reliable source.)
- In this edit Harout72 says "You seem quite new to wikipedia". On what basis? Apart from disagreeing with him, all I have done is call upon him to not delete sourced information and to seek compromise. And all of that I have done in the most respectful of words (see e.g. this edit). And again here he calls my comment about deleting sourced information "a ludicrous rebuke of this kind" and stresses that "I am not new to wikipedia, so please invest your time in giving lessons to people who may need it". Debresser (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
What I find interesting is the fact, that a third party reliable source (published in German) was removed twice by anonymous IPs and replaced by less reliable sources while you only left messages for me. First removal by anonymous IP [6], and here is you noticing and fixing the citations but at no time deciding to leave a message for the anon. (like the one you later left for me. Here another or maybe the same anon. IP removes the same German-language source which I had placed back (to make it as it was originally) and again you chose to leave no explanatory messages of any kind for the anonymous IP, but, instead, you chose to bring the issue here after I changed it back the second time. You claim above "I accidentely ran into an edit war on Luis Miguel between Harout72 and an anonymous user", such; however, wasn't the case as you were there fixing citations almost 15 hours after the anon. IP had replaced the German Language source with the artist's official site [7]. Judging from your movements, your involvement suggests that your intentions were other than to prevent editors from removing sourced statements. --Harout72 (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Debresser, (1) I'm having a hard time calling it an edit war when one side consists of a number of random IP addresses constantly removing legitimate sources without an attempt at explanation. That looks more like vandalism to me. I don't think of it as a simple edit war between two people compromising and discussion their views. (3) Your responses are the same: somehow we should be keeping a source that claims a sales figure almost twice the other ones and removing it somehow is equally as concerning to you (or greater I guess since you don't seem the others) as the attempts to remove the other sources. I don't see what the point of that either. As for (2) and (4), Harout, how about assume good faith and move on? Discuss it at the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Even now Harout72 doubts my words, saying "You claim above 'I accidentely ran into an edit war on Luis Miguel between Harout72 and an anonymous user', such; however, wasn't the case". Have a look at my contributions! I was fixing broken citations from Category:Articles with broken citations which I do all the time when I ran into this case.
This kind of behaviour from his side is why I want Harout72 to receive an official warning about being confrontational and uncivil. He should know he can't go on like that in a civil place like Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been on the talk page and have no problem with your last changes to the article. Don't forget, I'm here to discuss the behaviour of Harout72, and do not consider myself a party in the discussion about the article at all. Debresser (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
As to the question why I didn't post a warning on the page of that anonymous user as well. Apart from the fact that he after all was the one to revert my one and only edit in this article. Frankly speaking, I'd seen a lot of vandalism andother dubious edits from anonymous user that day and posted warnings on most of them. But to see a registered and experienced user (if I remember correctly 4 years on Wikipedia) who maintains an edit war made me decide to write him in this case. He should have known better. In stead he till this moment maintains his position stubbornly, that he is right in everything he did in this case. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I honestly don't care. You start to get into an argument about someone else's edits, want them warned for some reason, and then when asked about your actual opinion on the content, you claim you're not a party and don't have an opinion. I'm sorry, but until the actual party to the incident stops playing games by removing content and starts real discussions, I'm not interested either. As I noted at Talk:Luis Miguel, him removing a link to a source that isn't accurate isn't immediately wrong. It's an extra citation. If you want to claim he's wrong on something, would you like to become a "party" to a discussion and say what it is? If you want to warn Harout, go ahead yourself. I don't think other admins want to and frankly, that's not a part of the job description. Would you agree to just move on? If you are actually interested in a discussion on content, the article talk page is available. If you want to further go on about Harout's behavior, I guess Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is some of appropriate but this was what two days ago? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Let's bury it. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you wish to call it that, be my guest. I wouldn't mind an outside admin's (or anyone else's) opinion though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Neither would I. It is I who raised the subject after all. It is upon your urging that I am willing to let it pass. Debresser (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Request permanent block and talkpage protection
Please block me permanently and protect my talkpage. I no longer see any merit in the project. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry you feel that way, but we don't block to enforce wiki-breaks, permanent or otherwise. You may want to look at right to vanish--Tznkai (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- You might also want to try WikiBreak Enforcer and set it to let you log-in in 2050 or similar. §hepTalk 05:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Silly rabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This looks like a case of storming off in a huff because of not getting one's way. (If that's too soon, try a minute and a huff.) I went through something like that a couple of years ago. Getting priorities in order is important. You're not always going to win, even when you're right. There are a brazillion articles here, so there are plenty of areas where contributions are possible. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Build the web
- Sadly the predicted warring has come to pass, so please consider this report active.
Background: there was until recently a guideline page called WP:Build the web. In January, following extensive discussions, it was merged with two other guideline pages to make the page WP:MOSLINK. This merger was well received and (once a few niggles over wording were sorted out) unanimously supported. Then a week or two ago someone decided unilaterally to resurrect the old text of BTW and mark it as a separate guideline again. There was edit warring over this; the page was protected for a week, and the text was restored, but marked as "status under discussion". The discussion took place at WT:MOSLINK#Resurrect this guideline?, and a clear majority of contributors (and, I would suggest, the clear weight of the arguments) supported the status quo, i.e. that the guidelines should remain merged, with the old text of BTW being kept but marked as historical or an essay. Discussion continued at WT:Build the web as to exactly how to label it, although some of those who wanted it still marked as a guideline decided to keep arguing for that, denying the previous consensus. Now, I see that one other editor (possibly not fully aware of the full history) has again unilaterally marked the page as a guideline (and I have reverted it; knowing those involved, a new edit war will almost certainly break out now).
Requested action: I am NOT asking for this page to be protected again at some random version, as this clearly doesn't work. I would like a neutral uninvolved admin to settle this dispute, in accordance with the procedure (still perhaps largely untested) described at WP:Policies and guidelines, whereby the existence of consensus to change the status of guidelines is to be judged by an outside individual. Then perhaps the arguing will stop. If someone would agree to do this, then we can show them where the discussions are on which the claims of consensus are based. If no-one will do this, then please protect the page, but at the version that was supposed to be stable during the discussion, i.e. the one which says that the status of the page is under discussion at the talk page. Random protection is not appropriate in these cases (I'm sure it says in some policy that you should, or at least can, go back to the last stable version). --Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest that administrators read through WT:Build the web before taking Kotniski's claims of "unanimity" and "majority" at face value. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 15:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- The substantive discussion was held (as Earle well knows, since he was there) not at that page (although it was well advertised there) but at the talk page of the merged page, namely WT:MOSLINK#Resurrect this guideline?. I make it a 12-6 majority, with consensus confirmed by the strength of arguments (no-one has disputed the "against resurrection" arguments at all, while the "for" arguments see, to boil down to little more than "I liked it". The discussion where there was unanimity will be found in the most recent archives of WT:MOSLINK, just before the merger (although there had been similar discussion with similar results at earlier stages).--Kotniski (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
threats/jokes about committing physical violence against editors
Koalorka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has threatened/joked about drilling a hole in my skull on an article talk page. i removed it, he added it back. i asked him on his talk page to remove it, and he refused [[8]]. this is the same editor who recently called another a moron, a zipperheads. more morons, and ugly trolls. i ask that an outside editor remove his physical violence threat against me, as it adds nothing to improving the article, and makes me uncomfortable, even if it was intended as some sort of joke. if i removed it again, he'd surely edit war, based on his response. if an outsider removed it, i doubt he'd war Theserialcomma (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have issued a formal warning to this Koalorka. Lets see if he heeds it, or perists in such personal attacks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you had blocked this user for a good week, it would have been a decent block. This guy's behavior is very very far from being acceptable. You were very lenient Jayron, and I think in light of that leniency a long block should be awaiting Koalorka if he continues. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, and I would have no problem with that if he continue. I think that in most cases, with established users, I am uneasy with blocking someone unless they have been told "you will be blocked if you continue". I think that the blocking policy makes clear that we should at least try other avenues before blocking someone, and the "stop or you will be blocked" message should at least be tried once. If he continues, by all means, block away! In fact, if he continues, and I am the first to notice, I myself would issue the block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Threats of violence are obviously unacceptable. Even granting that such a comment is sometimes intended metaphorically or quasi-humorously, insisting on it or restoring it after the other editor has complained is certainly beyond the pale.
On the other hand, on IRC, I have been stabbed many times, including by several well-respected administrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- There's a difference between banter between two people who have a good working relationship, and aggression that tries to hide behind a claim of humor. The edit summary when Koalorka restored the 'joke' was not a friendly statement. DurovaCharge! 19:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Koalorka needs to read WP:CIVIL and WP:DICK. Exxolon (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree 100% with the statements of Newyorkbrad and Durova. Because I had the same sentiments as you two, I informed him that further incivility would result in a block. I agree 50% with Exxolon. Remember that the key of WP:DICK is that you cannot refer other editors who are being WP:DICK, lest ye be thought a WP:DICK yourself. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Koalorka needs to read WP:CIVIL and WP:DICK. Exxolon (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've worked with him and I'm afraid Kaolorka is a bit of an ass, but at least he has the interests of encyclopedia at heart.--Pattont/c 23:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- People need trepanation like they need a hole in the head.
... ... ... Oh, wait. 00:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- A review of the relevant talk page material quickly shows two things: (1) there's no threat here, and (2) Serialcomma is behaving disruptively and obnoxiously, and ought not to be rewarded for it. Looie496 (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hey! When we want your opinion we'll beat it out of you.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, the editor has been blocked for 48 hours by Jayron for further comments. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's too bad an experienced editor chose to push the envelope on his first edit after the warning. Regardless of anyone else's behavior, steering an article talk discussion away from content and toward personality conflicts with a snark is not the way to go. I had noticed that edit last night, wondered whether to mention it here, and decided not to. But can't disagree with the block. Here's hoping a couple of days' break cools things down. The editor has an odd reaction to the block announcement, though.[9] DurovaCharge! 16:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Good block, I may have chosen 1 week, but still good. Threats of violence, even joking ones, especially when re added after removal, do not need warning and probably should not have warnings. People already know this is unacceptable they don't need to be told "Saying your going to hurt someone isn't allowed". Chillum 17:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Block length vary considerably depending on circumstances and the admin. I may have chosen a different length, but the length chosen was well within reason. I would have done differently, but I do not disagree. Chillum 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- On the one hand I agree completely, and wouldn't have objected if a longer and/or earlier block had been implemented. Perhaps there's an advantage, though, to the course this has taken: Koalorka is probably reading this thread and seeing unanimous agreement--and that if anything he's been given lenient treatment. That doesn't leave a blocked editor any leeway for complaint and may motivate him to improve his conduct. If problematic behavior resumes there will probably also be swift agreement for a longer block. DurovaCharge! 21:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have a serious procedural concern here. Theserialcomma and I have a 'history' where he reports me, doesn't get me banned, reports me for the same thing, doesn't get me banned, then badgers and baits till he gets somebody to listen to him. He's been badgering and baiting Koalorka for a while now. He also jumped to the admin's talk page rather than posting it here because he didn't get his way here. Isn't there a sanction for asking mommy after daddy said no? Are we going to continue to reward Theserialcomma for disruptive behavior and skirting on the edge of stalking, baiting, badgering, forum shopping, etc to muscle his opinion through? This is really sick. It was mentioned earlier that you are rewarding Theserialcomma for his disruptive behavior because he's driven others to the point that he can forum shop and get a supportive admin to take action against him? Really not cool. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- If there's a case to be made regarding Serialcomma, please start it separately and back it up with diffs, etc. DurovaCharge! 03:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Durova, if you have a case, make it. Otherwise, throwing out unsourced accusations won't make your point with anyone. As for Koalorka, the current discussion on his talk page [10], the leniency in his block hasn't sunk in to him yet. Dayewalker (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, though it may be little more than some face-saving bravado, that conversation is a bad sign. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Theserialcomma's editing on some of the military and firearms pages has been less than optimal from a consensus point of view at times in the past. Mildly disruptive at times without approaching the blockable level at all. However, he's been amenable to discussion, and I've kept monitoring both sides on and off. There's a lack of collegial behavior on both sides of the debate but it had stayed civil enough and consenusly cooperative. I haven't caught up on the last few days worth of changes and the particulars of the incident that led to this ANI report, but through last week didn't see anything suggesting or requiring action.
- However, perhaps fresh eyes will see a problem where I didn't - I was ok with where it settled down, but perhaps I was too close to see the longer term pattern evolve. Someone else taking a look may suggest a better balance point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, though it may be little more than some face-saving bravado, that conversation is a bad sign. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Durova, if you have a case, make it. Otherwise, throwing out unsourced accusations won't make your point with anyone. As for Koalorka, the current discussion on his talk page [10], the leniency in his block hasn't sunk in to him yet. Dayewalker (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- If there's a case to be made regarding Serialcomma, please start it separately and back it up with diffs, etc. DurovaCharge! 03:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have a serious procedural concern here. Theserialcomma and I have a 'history' where he reports me, doesn't get me banned, reports me for the same thing, doesn't get me banned, then badgers and baits till he gets somebody to listen to him. He's been badgering and baiting Koalorka for a while now. He also jumped to the admin's talk page rather than posting it here because he didn't get his way here. Isn't there a sanction for asking mommy after daddy said no? Are we going to continue to reward Theserialcomma for disruptive behavior and skirting on the edge of stalking, baiting, badgering, forum shopping, etc to muscle his opinion through? This is really sick. It was mentioned earlier that you are rewarding Theserialcomma for his disruptive behavior because he's driven others to the point that he can forum shop and get a supportive admin to take action against him? Really not cool. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Page moves by Zonly
Zonly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made numerous page moves, often contrary to naming conventions and punctuation rules, including [11], and these two after final warning: [12], [13]. He/She NEVER discusses moves or responds to warnings, despite many pleas to do so and warnings to stop, including this final warning. I suspect he/she does it sometimes just to be annoying. I reported this at WP:AIV; the response was that this is a "content dispute" rather than vandalism. I don't consider nuisance page moves to be a "content dispute", especially with no discussion or response to attempts at discussion. I'm seeking opinion(s) from an admin, and possible action, even if it's just a comment from an admin on Zonly's talk page. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Zonly made some useful contributions to Buckethead related pages ([14] [15] [16], amongst many other music related pages [17] [18]), therefore I invited him to join our project, which he did ([19]. He's only around since December and may not speak English well since he's from Brazil and quite active on his own language's wiki ([20]). So please be at least a bit patient with him. Give him a clear but friendly last warning or a short lasting block, but please give him another chance.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 03:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- He's had several warnings (including a final warning) and many requests to discuss his page moves. It's his absolute refusal to discuss moves before he makes them or to discuss concerns expressed by other editors (and not just me) that is problematic. Not understanding that's he's making mistakes is one thing; refusal to discuss or pay attention to messages is more serious. If he does not understand English well enough to comprehend the warnings and messages he receives, then he needs to be adopted by someone who can help him. But he has to want to cooperate for that to happen, and I see no evidence that he intends to listen to anyone. Maybe some of his edits are good, but his inappropriate edits need to be addressed, and he needs to respond. If you have interacted with him, maybe it would help if you sent him a message about this discussion and try to get him to respond. I have no interest in "punishing" him if he will stop his pattern of moving pages inappropriately and without discussion, but if he stays on the same path he may need to be blocked to get his attention. Ward3001 (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- He seems to have made only one, relatively harmless page move ( [21] moving GG Allin to G.G. Allin ) after the warnings. And only one other disruptive act (a page blanking) since then, which on first impression was probably just an editorial mistake.
- Please read WP:BITE policy - we are supposed to make a good effort to talk to and educate new users. That includes new users who are blundering around a bit and need to slow down and get into the groove to avoid disruption by accident. He's only had the account for three months, and there doesn't seem to have been all that much constructive feedback left on his talk page so far other than that set of warnings, which clearly slowed him down somewhat.
- ANI is for hard cases where someone is either seriously disruptive in the short term, or corrosively so in the long term. This is not evidently someone out to break the encyclopedia - yeah, he's done some damage, but he needs and deserves more friendly mentoring before we start to consider him a menace or anything.
- I left him another notice explaining what issues he's gotten into. If more people try to talk to him constructively it would also help. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
(Correction: He made two inappropriate page moves after I gave him a final warning. Look at my message above.) He got a standard welcome and several polite requests. If that's biting the newcomer, then let me clear the air a bit. With all due respect Georgewilliamherbert, no wonder Wikipedia is the laughing stock of the world. When I had been registered only a couple of weeks a few years ago, I got a block for a 3RR violation, and with almost no prior warnings. But I didn't complain about biting the newcomer. It was a justified block, and it had its desired effect of teaching me a lesson and making me a better editor. But over the years I have become an embittered editor because of incidents like this. I won't belabor this point because this is not the appropriate venue. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, is there maybe anyone who's capable to talk to him in Spanish/Portuguese? I've got problems enough with English, not to talk about German or French and do not want to try out some sort of online babel fish...--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 09:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- If anyone knows how to find a user from Portuguese Wikipedia, that might be possible. But I honestly doubt that would help. I think he realizes he is receiving warnings. If I got a standard warning in any other western language, I probably would recognize it as a message that there is a problem even if I didn't understand many of the words, simply because of the standard images contained in them and the bold font. I suspect he simply doesn't wish to go to the trouble of figuring out the problem so he can continue doing things his way. But I think explaining things in Portuguese is a good idea as a last resort if that could be arranged. Ward3001 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Some editors who participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal probably know the language, if anyone is interested in trying to contact someone. I, myself, will not do so because I don't think it will change anything, but I would like to be wrong about this. Ward3001 (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I did, but I have not much hope left: see [22]... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 18:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, and I agree it does not look good. I don't think he wishes to change his editing pattern. If he continues the page moves and an admin will do so, it may take a block just to get his attention. But I would like to hear from another admin or two. If he is blocked, I hope it can be explained in both English and Portuguese, just to be sure all the bases are covered. Ward3001 (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- There's a high chance he'll be pretty fluent in Spanish as well. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw the notice in WikiProject Brazil talk page and I'm interested in helping. I'm not perfectly fluent in English, but I've got enough skills to communicate, I suppose. Just tell me exactly what you guys need me do do. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I think the most important thing is to convey to Zonly is the seriousness of the above discussion and ask him to respond here. He needs to explain whether he understands the many warnings he has been given, understands why some of his page moves are inappropriate, and whether he intends to stop making page moves without discussing on the article's talk page first. If you could also explain that if he does not respond here and continues his same pattern of editing (especially page moves) that he almost certainly will be blocked. Then we can see whether he responds and figure out what to do. It might be easier for him to respond in his native language, and, if so, we might need your help. Many thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll contact him. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
GeorgeWilliamHerbert has a point. We should do everything possible to ensure a valuable contributor such as Zonly remains. Think of all the wonderful work he could do, adding malformed pidgin-English to that handful of pages here which are sadly lacking in terrible prose. And in case my point is not perfectly clear, might I relate my wonderful experiences back when I worked at the U.S. Mint? In the course of my position, hiring manager in charge of engravers, I'd make sure to hire any people suffering from Parkinson's disease that I came across, to reassure myself and my co-workers that we truly were a welcoming work enviornment. Sure, it was a lot of work correcting all the horrific errors they would scratch on the dies in their many uncontrolled muscle spasms, and yeah, I guess you could argue there are plenty of jobs better-suited for somebody with that particiular skillset, but occasionally they'd engrave perfectly acceptable circles. Eventually I got to having some of the more skilled fine-motor enabled engravers hold the hands of those with Parkinson's. And that made all the difference. Until my jerk supervisor claimed I was wasting the productivity of the fine-motor enabled engravers and fired me. Anyway, now I'm working with UPS, I've got to train this blind guy who I hired as a driver. I'm sure en.wikipedia would approve =) Badger Drink (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- WP:SIRH.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've left a Portuguese language note at his talk page, giving a brief panorama of the situation and asking what Ward3001 suggested me to ask. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- George William Herbert does have a point, indeed. "Pull up the ladder, Jack. I'm on board!" is not an attitude that we foster, and new people who contribute badly in good faith can, and often do, improve once they learn from those people who have been here longer. Drawing a parallel between simply not knowing the ropes well and having a crippling disease is both absurd and highly muddy thinking. Uncle G (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I must ask: are you really as intellectually impotent as the last half of your statement makes you out to be, or are you just trying for some sort of vague, unwritten, "So There" points? In terms of contributing content to an encyclopedia (an encyclopedia, for those of us unaware, being a collection of knowledge in written form), written in the English language, I would daresay that an inability to communicate in English is, in fact, a crippling attribute - just the same as blindness would cause one to be rather ill-suited for the act of driving a truck, or Parkinson's rendering one at a disadvantage when seeking a job as an engraver. I'd even flat-out call it a "crippling disease", inasmuch as it pertains to creating an English-language encyclopedia, but unfortuantely I'm not so sure we're yet emotionally or intellectually equipped to handle such levels of intense metaphoric imagery. Cheers - Badger Drink (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Preceding "are you stupid?" with "With all due respect" doesn't transform the insult into a civil statement. Neither is "your thinking is absurd and highly muddy" anything more than a dressed-up "you're being stupid". I suggest you both follow WP:CIVIL or disengage. -kotra (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was perfectly civil. I have no idea whether Badger Drink is stupid, and if I'd intended to say that, I'd have written it. Of course I wrote no such thing. What I actually wrote, quite clearly, was that that parallel was muddy thinking — i.e. that it was a very badly thought-out argument. It's the argument that's being addressed here, not the editor, and the point stands that the argument is poor in the extreme, and ill-conceived. Uncle G (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, we don't know how good his English really is. But if he's ignoring a warning in his own language we certainly know that he's unwilling to play by the rules - which would be very similiar to your behaviour here...--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 04:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- And actually, he's still doing useful edit, see [23].--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 14:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. He knows that Wikipedia punctuation rules are different than many other writing styles, but he doesn't know (or appears not to know) punctuation rules in moving articles. Oh well ... if he'll stop moving pages he'll probably be fine. Only time will tell. Ward3001 (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ignoring the ad hominems and addressing the remaining substance: There are plenty of people here whose communication skills in English are less than a native speaker, it being their second (or third, or Nth) language. See Category:User en-1 to Category:User en-4, for example. Some have even reached administrator status. They do useful work, in translation and other areas. You don't even have any idea of what this person's ability in the English language is. That's just guesswork at this stage, and your whole argument, in addition to drawing a highly absurd parallel between not knowing the Wikipedia ropes (such as our naming conventions) and having a crippling disease (and an equally bad parallel between not being an English speaker and having a crippling disease), is a house that is build on the sand of HexaChord's guess that this person doesn't speak English. The only evidence so far that could support that guess doesn't in fact support it.
We encourage people that don't know the ropes, and thus contribute badly in good faith. We teach them the ropes, so that their good faith and enthusiasm leads to good contributions. We encourage people whose skills might be of service in translations, accessing sources in other languages, accessing material in other parts of the world, and so forth. We don't pull the ladder up behind us, now that we ourselves may have learned the ropes. And we don't bite the newcomers. Uncle G (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Preceding "are you stupid?" with "With all due respect" doesn't transform the insult into a civil statement. Neither is "your thinking is absurd and highly muddy" anything more than a dressed-up "you're being stupid". I suggest you both follow WP:CIVIL or disengage. -kotra (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I must ask: are you really as intellectually impotent as the last half of your statement makes you out to be, or are you just trying for some sort of vague, unwritten, "So There" points? In terms of contributing content to an encyclopedia (an encyclopedia, for those of us unaware, being a collection of knowledge in written form), written in the English language, I would daresay that an inability to communicate in English is, in fact, a crippling attribute - just the same as blindness would cause one to be rather ill-suited for the act of driving a truck, or Parkinson's rendering one at a disadvantage when seeking a job as an engraver. I'd even flat-out call it a "crippling disease", inasmuch as it pertains to creating an English-language encyclopedia, but unfortuantely I'm not so sure we're yet emotionally or intellectually equipped to handle such levels of intense metaphoric imagery. Cheers - Badger Drink (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I made the comments about punctuation. I did not make the inappropriate comments about a crippling disease. And you're right, we don't know his English skills. But please remember that he has received messages in both English and Portuguese, and he has yet to respond to either. And that's fine as long as he'll stop his problematic page moves, as I stated above. I agree with you and Georgewilliamherbert that we should not bite the newcomer, and I don't think we have in this case. In fact, I think we've gone out of our way to accommodate this newcomer. I can't say that the long-time regulars haven't been bitten in the process, however. And that's why, even though Wikipedia might acquire some good editors out of its crop of newcomers, it loses that many experienced and skilled editors. Ward3001 (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- And just to clarify from my side: I didn't guess anything. I pointed out that he's from Brazil (see his userpage at pt.wp, linked above). I also pointed out that we only have real evidence for him being a vandal if he ignores a warning in his own language. No need to attack me, and no need to attack Zonly at his talkpage (see [24]).--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 19:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- HexaChord, I agree you were inappropriately attacked. Some people only see things in black and white. If we don't ignore Zonly's bad edits, we're attacking a newcomer. If one of us makes an inappropriate comment, we're all guilty. If we wonder about his level of English skills because he's from Brazil, we are "guessing" too much. Yet another reason we lose a good, experienced editor every time we gain a newcomer with good potential. Ward3001 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Uncle G, I would appreciate it if you took this question in the spirit in which it is presented - said spirit being nothing more, nothing less than friendly, open exchange of ideas. Do you find yourself debating at the television every time the newsanchors refer to the recent "financial meltdown? If not, why is it that my statement (that bending over backwards to keep people with very limited proficency in English writing an English encyclopedia makes about as much sense as people with uncontrollable muscle spasms working as engravers for the U.S. Mint) causes you such grave offense? If you do, does the television debate back? Badger Drink (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Badger Drink, I would appreciate it if you didn't compare foreign people to disabled people.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Badger Drink, your comparison between the US Mint and Wikipedia would certainly make sense, if Wikipedia was a for-profit organization with schedules to follow and employees to pay. However, we have virtually all the time in the world to improve any good faith edit that is not in accordance with the policies. We are not paying people to contribute here, so every helpful edit is welcome. Of course there's a need to instruct the newcomers, I mean, they need to be aware that Wikipedia is not a translator or something, but there are indeed nice articles that came out of half-translated, Google-translated or even untranslated material. I can't really give you an example now, but do try to consider what I just said. Victor Lopes (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Badger Drink, I would appreciate it if you didn't compare foreign people to disabled people.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Ultimatehooly
User is engaged in edit-warring, not appropriate for WP:3RR or other message boards, due to the nature of the material being added: material regarding YouTube Poop to Colgate (toothpaste). The consensus, and not just from me, but from other editors to this article is that this materiel is inappropriate to the article at hand. I've placed one templated warning, one manual warning, and finally another templated warning, yet user is unresponsive. User is also removing validly place {{fact}} tags with no real explanation for any of their motives. User has been noticed of this discussion, and hence, I request admin intervention. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Editor seems to have desisted (although it is a bit hard to determine their intent) so I suggest a watching brief should suffice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dredging this up from dormancy. Gonna file an SPI on him, as WP:DUCK compared to User:Moleman 9000 (and several MM9k socks). Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
(After three editors spoke up in favor of these grammar / voice fixes which he keeps reverting, and now tagging:)
- "Smells of...sniff...sniff-sniff...sniff...GAMING the system." [25]
- "It should be obvious Jwy, I do not consider you or Arima as "good" faith editors! Yes, I have a specific remedy to propose - I just can't do it here!" [26]
- "We have some nice high cliffs here in North Carolina. I could point you towards a few if you would like, out of courtesy of course. LOL! It's a joke Arima, don't respond with your usual huffing and puffing." [27]
- "I'm sorry Ari, I was watching a cartoon and was laughing my arse off. It took precedence over your response. So, since I was distracted, would you please repeat what you wrote a little louder?" [28]
- "Darn TV! I'm sorry Ari, what did say again?" [29]
- "More important questions than yours are: Is Marvin Gaye? Does Helen Hunt? Is Billy Wilder? Does Tom Cruise? Does Gregory Peck? Is Barry White? I don't have all the answers like you do. Make up your own answers, you usually do." [30]
- "Let's call it WP:CIVIL_WAR. I'll be Lee and you can Saddam Hussein." [31]
arimareiji (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- IMHO, this is another instance where WQA has sway, but since it is a recurring issue, maybe it does need to be addressed in this venue. I have already given Victor9876 the "yellow flag", cautioning him here at my talk page. There are various aspects of what is going on at Talk:Charles Whitman that I don't quite understand, but that still is no reason to abandon WP:CIVIL for an all-out "pith" volley. Admin backup on this is now formally requested, if for no other reason than to calm the tempest brewing here. Edit Centric (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- For reference, wrt the above - it has been at WQA twice in the past week. Once over Victor's editing others' comments, once over his gross incivility to Edit Centric. I followed another editor's lead at that page and took a break in the hope things would improve, but they haven't. arimareiji (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- On the issue of the recent WQA betwixt myself and Victor9876, we worked that one out, even before 3-O intervention. (I guess that's a hallmark of being in that role myself.) IMHO, Victor9876 has the potential to be a very constructive editor here, but the tendency to become flippant gets in the way of that, in this instance to an intolerable degree.
- Now there have been some recent developments in this dynamic, involving one Snipercraft, which may or may not have exacerbated the ongoing "troubles" at the article(s) in question. I personally am still not convinced that the creation of the Snipercraft account, nor it's interactions in the articles were completely "on the level", as the timing and circumstances were way too convenient to take at face value. I might be wrong about this, but something didn't feel right about it.
- That situation aside, this entire untenable situation between editors needs a more forceful solution at this time. My regards, as always. Edit Centric (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- For reference, the thread where the above occurred is Talk:Charles_Whitman#Request_for_arbitration. arimareiji (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I won't bother the admin that gets this with all of the volley's that Arimareiji has fired and get to the point. This occurred yesterday and today [[32]]. A new user, who followed my edits, reverted or totally changed the meanings of the content, requested Arbitration on the Charles Whitman Talkpage, claiming their writing was better than mine. (Please read it.) I have long suspected that Jwy and Arimareiji were in collusion together, to force changes that Jwy initially suggested and got involved in. After feigning ignorance or other issues, Jwy disappeared and Arimareiji showed up, later to claim as a 30 after he began taking up the same issue. Arimareiji is relentless and unabating in his passive-aggressive style of editing. He can not stifle himself, and will not reason with anyone and always misquotes or mis-applies WP:RULES to suit his purpose. There is no common sense application that he will listen to, and continues speaking, in what appears to be a war of attrition. You better give in or he will talk you into submission. At times, when a discussion has been left, he continues with a few more comments until someone returns, and it all starts over again. We went through a lenghthy RfA with Jwy, Arimareiji posted the content into the article, Jwy edited the content once it was in the article, so I changed the header to reflect what I felt the section read. At this point, I considered the talk page moot, and consensus over the past two weeks of bickering. I even conceded the argument on the talk page. Enter Snipercraft. Almost everyone, including myself, thought there was some merit to some of the edit. However, the disagreement grew back on the talk page, and Arimareiji reverted my reversion. The talk page was not resolved at that point. Follow the path of the few contributions of Snipercraft (note the name also fits the subject content), he cross posts to Jwy, he and Arimareiji have a conversation, and boom, the article page is open for another war. A newbie comes in and reaches a consensus with JWY and Arimareiji, after insulting me and another contributor Wildhartlivie. They were insulting and essentially mocked her and me. My belief is that they gamed the system, a CABAL, or whatever label applies. It became a war of numbers and Jwy and Arimareiji needed another player - enter Snipercraft. As Arimareiji notes in his revert, 3 to 0 consensus, because Wildhartlivie had not weighed in with her opinion of the content of the talk page. I mention on the page, that I do not trust the procedures and way this whole affair has been handled. The above replies to Arimareiji, were really meant to be humorous protests. He acknowledges humor to everyone but me. When I try to make light of something, there is broken rule or passive-agressive question for me. He answers direct questions for other editors, without giving them an opportunity to reply. Then claims WP is open for anyone to reply. I have been around the Whitman page longer than they have and have a grasp of the subject that they can never have. So I know what I can and can not put there. I do protect the page, and also know that I do not own it. So in closing, look at the catalyst today and yesterday, the previous issues went through two WQA's and were both resolved. The issues today and yesterday are about ego's and the suspicious appearance of Snipercraft. Wheeew! Thanks for looking!--Victor9876 (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- For reference, the thread where the above occurred is Talk:Charles_Whitman#Request_for_arbitration. arimareiji (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- For reference, wrt the above - it has been at WQA twice in the past week. Once over Victor's editing others' comments, once over his gross incivility to Edit Centric. I followed another editor's lead at that page and took a break in the hope things would improve, but they haven't. arimareiji (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- (Addendum) I made charges of Arima above and just want to show an example from the first WQA. Please note that after Bwilkens responds to Arima, there are additional posts by Arima that have no response. Finally, when Bwilkens does respond, the tone is the same that Arima drew out of me with his peristence and lack of ability to stifle himself. Below is the exchange.--Victor9876 (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
(The following x-posted by Victor9876 as thread history, I'm simply providing encapsulation)
- Arima - give it up now, your replies are becoming disruptive, and you're not helping SOLVE an issue. If you don't believe in AGF then Wikipedia isn't for you. There are many reasons that might make someone post in the middle of your comments: a reading disability, lack of knowledge about how edits work, a lack of policy knowledge, etc. AGF. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- You might want to look at the pertinent edits before and after it before you respond. He entangles. I ask him to stop, and disentangle. He entangles again, replying "You're welcome, no problem!" I disentangle again, and tell him that his attempt at humor isn't funny. He stops doing it. But somehow, he only realized it today? Please AGF about how long I AGF'ed on this topic - AGF is not meant to cover repeatedly doing the same thing and pretending every time that you didn't know better. arimareiji (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Also, please read back to my original response to you, not to Victor's response to it. arimareiji (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- With that, you can rest assured I will leave this alone unless he continues, at which time I will take it to a more appropriate channel. WQA is only for voluntary compliance, and I put you in a bad spot by trying to get you to force anyone to listen. My apologies. arimareiji (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Trust me, you would not have liked the original reply to your response to me: good thing there was an edit conflict. And trust me, I recommend that you do not accuse me of not reading "pertinent edits". I will advise that you take something from this WQA as well: properly explaining issues (most people don't understand the word "refactor", for example) with an editor directly, and not running back for help everytime you perceive a minor issue will help your future cases on WQA, ANI, and anywhere else. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
(end encapsulation / separation) Edit Centric (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I may have exhausted my WP:AGF on this one. Good thing I'll be away for refill it. A few exchanges on my talkpage related to this incident as well. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 08:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- BMW - I genuinely don't know, but openly seems the best way to ask this: Would it be fair to say that since you typed the responses quoted above, that Victor's actions have cast him in a much-different light? Your initial impression, if I understood correctly, was that these could be innocent mistakes and that I was only jumping to conclusions. Do you still believe he's making innocent mistakes, given his responses to Edit Centric and his responses at the bottom of this thread (which is the topic)? arimareiji (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- (Apparently moot for the time being, as his page reaffirms that he's not here to answer.) arimareiji (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Need some outside help with a WP:SOAPBOX user
See Pancocheli (talk · contribs). I have reverted inappropriate talk page discussions twice, and I don't want to keep doing this. Could another admin review his actions, and help decide what to do here? He seems to be blatantly violating WP:SOAPBOX to use Wikipedia to advocate for his own personal political views. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since he's new I left him a note, rather similar to yours. I think a lot of newcomers don't quite get what the "talk" pages are for when they first arrive. (For example, hold your breath and look at the talk page for conservatism.) Antandrus (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- (3-O observation) I'm seeing this also, having read the entire diatribe posted by the user. It was almost WP:TLDR, but definitely WP:SOAP. Edit Centric (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
edit warring at Edoardo Agnelli
Two accounts, 77.42.179.51 (talk · contribs) (stable ip) and brand new account Qiswi (talk · contribs), have been edit-warring over days to insert a conspiracy theory into the article, without good sources and against consensus. I bring this here because experience says that reports to SSP don't get action and a report to AIV is likely to be declined because there aren't three reverts by the same account in the same 24 hours. I will notify these two accounts of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hosur article blocked
Article about Hosur has been blocked by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ohnoitsjamie and the discussion that happened before the article blocked was deleted by Ohnoitsjamie. I request Ohnoitsjamie be desysopped immediately. I was owning the username Asprakash before. Hosuronline (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I see no problem with Hosur... but I do see a problem with someone creating a sock just to request that an admin be "desysopped immediately"... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at the assorted histories, it appears that you were removing content and eternal links from the article, claiming that all the content was stolen from your website. Do you have any proof for these claims? And how were the other external links stolen from your site? Instead of using multiple accounts to edit war, why not discuss the problem, show where the content was stolen from, and work it out civily... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Kauffner
Kauffner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - long term problem editor, is presently edit warring / POV / tendentiousness on two Barack-Obama related articles[33][34][35][36]. The editor has done this several times before over the same material (is up to 8th or 9th attempt to insert it), and was warned multiple times about edit warring, incivility, and article probation over the course of months. The editor is also presently edit warring over trying to insert derogatory material into a BLP as well.[37][38][39] Called a well-respected administrator a "troll" for the administrator's warning the editor to quit.[40] Is making no useful contributions and seems to be deliberately trolling / provoking on Obama-related topics, possibly with respect to all edits on the encyclopedia - so I do not think a block or referral to dispute resolution would accomplish anything. I've asked the editor to stop editing Obama-related articles, and I am requesting an administrator-enforced topic ban per Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- The allegations here seem to be going off in several different directions, so I'm not sure what, if any of this, is worth responding to. I'll just respond to the last point about "all edits on the encyclopedia." I am the primary author of Star of Bethlehem and ao dai, both of which have gained recognition as good articles. I am also the primary author for gook and Vietcong, although I haven't submitted these for recognition. Kauffner (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Your other contribs are not what is being disputed here. So let's go one by one (I agree, it can be a bit tough reading a whole paragraph with a bunch of diffs in). Wikidemon has said that you:
- Are edit-warring over inserting the section Although Obama had been in the U.S. Senate for less than two years when the book was published, he portrays himself as veteran, using such phrases as "the longer I served in Washington" and "the more time I spent on the Senate floor." into a variety of Obama-related articles.[41][42][43][44]. Wikidemon further notes that you have been warned; the diffs are: [45], the warning noted again by Wikidemon here, warned again by Wikidemon here.
- You have been warned by an admin for edit-warring[46], followed by blanking the warning from your talkpage (which is allowed) with an edit summary of "Troll elsewhere" (which isn't, really)[47].
- You were told here that quote sections are not allowed per WP:QUOTE, and have continued to editwar to keep them in[48][49][50].
In short, that you have been editing in a non-collegial manner, and editwarring to push your own point of view, while ignoring all warnings you have been given and indulging in some incivility to an admin who warned you.
Under the sanctions related to Obama articles, which you were notified of, you may be topicbanned by an administrator from anything Obama-related if you do not indicate that this tendentious editing is at an end.
In order to avoid being placed under sanctions, the article probation page suggests:
- Do not edit-war;
- Interact civilly with other editors;
- Avoid making repeated comments unrelated to bettering the article;
- Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article;
- Avoid repeatedly discussing other editors, discuss the article instead;
- Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian;
- We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people;
- Don't get worked up when you get subjected to remedies such as a temporary block or ban. Take a break and come back refreshed.
Further, when someone is brought to AN/I, it behooves them to carefully read what has been said about their editing, and address it accordingly, not simply dismiss it and defend themselves with completely unrelated contributions. You may wish to read through the list above and address each thing individually. I would urge you to do so. //roux 07:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Let's see if I can present this issue in way that allows people to make some sense out of it. Back sometime around Feb. 6, I read the Barack Obama article and noticed that it did not make any mention of Obama's "present" voting as an Illinois state senator. I thought this omission hard to justify in view of the fact that it was a rather prominent issue during the election campaign. I sought to remedy this situation by adding material from various sources and in various formats, but was each time reverted. The only explanation given was that this was "trivia." I gather that a group of editors were so incensed by my activity that they followed me to other articles where they would revert me and engage in personal attacks. This seems to be how the frivolous complaints about quotes and Obama's status as a "veteran politician" arose. Kauffner (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- After you were reverted, did you go to the talk page to discuss your proposal further? Did you attempt to discuss any of your changes? From my calculations, you only edited Talk:Barack Obama once in the last 3 months. Was there consensus for your edits? Was there any attempt to raise consensus for your edits? Were you aware of the article probation on this topic? To me, it seems like there is absolutely no excuse for edit warring under these circumstances. It was blatantly obvious that multiple editors had concerns regarding your edits, and instead of trying to discuss your differences, you waited a couple days and then tried to force your edits again and again.... do you not understand how edit warring is harmful (and forbidden)? -Andrew c [talk] 15:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Can someone sysoppy sign off on an Israel-Palestine ArbCom notification?
At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Can someone check out these contributions?, ElKevbo expressed concerns about the edits of Ilana81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose main activity at Wikipedia seems to be adding links to articles from a pro-Israel think-tank (some of them fairly interesting, I'll admit) to a rather large number of articles, including some which fall within the domain of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Remedies sanctions. I left a stronger note about our spam policies than was there already, as well as {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}; since the user seems focus in that direction a lot, I thought it would be a good, concise way to give fair warning of what lay ahead. I didn't see until the latter template had posted, however, that the fine print at the end of it says it doesn't count as a real notification unless it's left and logged by an admin (I have added a disclaimer to the missive). Would an admin be willing to look at this, decide if my spam paranoia is justified, and if so, countersign and log the templating? Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 06:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, these are opinion pieces, and as such shouldn't be added to articles (especially contentious ones). I am just going through now and removing all such links, except where the relevant pieces are actually in the article of the author concerned. Also will log the templating. Black Kite 11:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: I've left a few others in that I thought were neutral pieces - a complete list of where the links still exist is at this page. Black Kite 11:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
User's SPAM edit was reverted by Katr67, and user (see their contributions) began blanket reverting Katr67's edits, such as this random one[51]. Has even now taunted, and vandalized Katr's user page. Needs blocking. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, please. Reported at AIV, but it seems slow tonight. Katr67 (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked indef. Seemingly only purpose here to harass others and spam. Cirt (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Though I have a bad feeling they will be back under a new account/anon. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, a sleeper account with 3 edits last May and nothing again until late Feb. At least his M.O. is clear as a bell. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Anytime. And please do keep us posted. ;) Cirt (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Though I have a bad feeling they will be back under a new account/anon. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked indef. Seemingly only purpose here to harass others and spam. Cirt (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
These users, suspected sockpuppets of User:台灣共和國萬歲!, have been making various changes to articles about Vietnamese people, adding irrelevant Chinese characters (see Joseph Cao). This user had been doing the same thing in vi.wiki and creating sock accounts every other hour. Please block these accounts or semi-protect the article Joseph Cao until they go away. DHN (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Joseph Cao sprotected for one week, autoconfirmed edit warring editors can be reported to WP:AN3 and further protection can be requested at WP:RFPP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- This person had created at least 4 sockpuppet accounts today (User:林元曌, User:PBC0623, User:Peopledom of Vietnam, and User:丁玉環), all with the single purpose of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. These sockpuppet accounts need to be blocked. DHN (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I note that the named editors have been tagged as suspected sockpuppets. I presume that there is an ongoing WP:SSP case? All further socks should be reported there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- These are all socks (including the sockmaster) of Nipponese Dog Calvero. I've done some digging and blocked some sleepers. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I note that the named editors have been tagged as suspected sockpuppets. I presume that there is an ongoing WP:SSP case? All further socks should be reported there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- This person had created at least 4 sockpuppet accounts today (User:林元曌, User:PBC0623, User:Peopledom of Vietnam, and User:丁玉環), all with the single purpose of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. These sockpuppet accounts need to be blocked. DHN (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Vandalises articles relating to Judaism and Islam or Jews and Arabs: littered amongst regular non-malicious edits, he continues to either remove Islamic or Arabic references from articles completely, or replaces them with references pertaining to Judaism. Check his edits, but check these most notable ones done recently to see what I'm talking about: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]. He also recently attempted to classify the indigenous Arab population in and around Jerusalem as 'settlers': [60], [61], [62], [63] and created a new category for it . He has been warned about vandalism in the past (see his talk page). 82.17.236.83 (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here; there's no need for admin intervention, and none of the difs you gave are blatant vandalism. Please take this to an article talk page or to dispute resolution; ANI is not the place for content disputes. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well I was told to come here from WP:AIV, so I did just that. Did you actually understand my problem with his edits and look at all the links? Let me explain some of them. The Well of Souls relates to the Dome of the Rock, but he removed the image of the Dome of the Rock [64] and the Islamic Architecture category [65]. The Muslim Quarter in Jerusalem is the largest and most populated part of the old city, and hosts the third holiest site in Islam, the Al-Aqsa Mosque/Dome of the Rock. Chesdovi decided to delete the links to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock from the Muslim Quarter article, and replaced them with two links to the Shomrei ha-Chomos Synagogue and Birket Israel [66]. Do you see the problem yet? If that's not clear cut vandalism, then I dunno what is. Here he deleted the figure for Palestinian deaths in the recent Israel/Gaza conflict, and replacing it with his own biased statement [67]. How is it not vandalism? I'm particularly surprised that you didn't pick up on the "Israeli-Arab settlement" issue, regarding the attempt at categorising the indigenous Arab population as 'settlers'. First he made this change [68], which is a blatant act of working his own bias into the article - under international law, all Jewish settlements in the West Bank are acknowledged as being illegal, and those who live there are referred to as settlers. Then he went ahead and made the changes to Arab neighbourhoods in Jerusalem to make them out to be settlements ([69], [70], [71], [72]), which they are not considered to be at all, by any law, including Israel's own. How is that not vandalism? I think you need to brush up on your knowledge of the subject and understand the problem before you can make a judgement regarding the topic at hand. 82.17.236.83 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say his edits were right; I said they're not vandalism. Not every form of bad editing qualifies as bona fide vandalism. Please take a look at What is not vandalism. This is a content dispute and needs to be worked out someone else, not at ANI.
- Also, by the way, please don't insult my intelligence ("you need to brush up on your knowledge of the subject") just because I don't agree with you. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's an awkward accusation; please don't take offense. I just meant it was important to have more than cursory knowledge of the situation since it's such a complex issue. A person can still be intelligent and not have knowledge of a particular subject; I wasn't questioning your intelligence at all. Anyway, the vandalism is clear - I wouldn't say it's a subjective opinion; it's either vandalism or it isn't. I've explained his edits and shown that what he did was malicious, so what else would you call it? It's not just 'bad editing', and I don't think it falls under WP:VAND#NOT; which part of it should I be looking at? I've spelt it out as best I can. I've also just found another dishonest edit, also on a contentious subject, which will take some explaining.
- Before bringing this topic to light, I reverted Chesdovi's edit on the Muslim Quarter article [73]. He just undid my edit, and gave the reason "these places are not in the Muslim Quarter". I disagree with that, and so would a lot of other people, hence the 'contentious subject'. But forget about my stance on the matter for a second. If you look at the map on that page, you'll see the Muslim Quarter appears to be outlined in a green border, and the Temple Mount area is separate, which would indeed give weight to his argument that the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock are not in the Muslim Quarter. Notice the smaller map showing the boundaries of the quarters at the bottom-left corner of the main image. It's split into 5, but it should be split into 4 - the old city is made up of the four quarters, not five fifths. Take a look at the upload log, and you'll notice Chesdovi uploaded the image. Now compare it with the other maps of the Jewish, Armenian and Christian Quarters. You'll notice the Jewish Quarter map also has the inset map split into 5, and again, the map was uploaded by Chesdovi. Look at the Christian and Armenian maps, which Chesdovi did not upload, and you'll see that the boundaries are split into 4. I looked for the source of the original Muslim Quarter map, and found David Bjorgen. Take a look at his talk page, and you'll find a discussion from a while ago where Chesdovi requests an image. The source images are provided to him, and if you take a look at them, you'll see that neither of the original maps of the Jewish or Muslim Quarters have the same boundaries as the ones uploaded by
- Chesdovi here on Wikipedia. This obviously means Chesdovi edited them himself to separate the Temple Mount in order to provide backbone to his case that the Temple Mount is not in the Muslim Quarter, and which therefore stops me or anyone else from arguing, among other things, for the inclusion of the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque links in the Muslim Quarter article. His whole argument is based on material which he fabricated himself. Do you still maintain that his actions are not malicious? 82.17.236.83 (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Removal of sources and sourced facts on Ion Antonescu
Ongoing incidents on Ion Antonescu. Dahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing sources and sourced information from the article 1, 2, 3. While he stated several times on the talk page that one of the sources would not be reliable, he did not provide reliable sources which would support his claims, per WP:RS. Furthermore, he removed particular sources such as Lepadatu, Barbul, Hudita without any discussion on the talk page or any explanations of his actions. However, due to the fact that there are controversies regarding Stoenescu's neutrality in Holocaust matters on the article's talk page and User:Dahn claims that he is a revisionist 4, I decided to assume good faith and not to cite him anymore in such matters until the dispute is over. All Stoenescu's citations currently existent in the article are exclusively related to Antonescu's biography and rise to power, as well as political actions (none of them is involving or closely related to the Holocaust or his policies against the Jews). However, even if the 4 sources posted by me does not concern Holocaust-related issues, user:Dahn keeps removing them and reverting other constructive edits without consensus. As this is controversial topic, I previously made an appeal to civilised discussion for whoever does not agree with my edits 5, but unfortunately user:Dahn prefers engaging in unconstructive edit-wars instead of reaching a peaceful agreement, benefit for the article. Best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I will just use this venue to note two things: Eurocopter is editing against consensus. His inflammatory statements, his questionable interpretation of wikipedia policies, and his persistence in re-adding dubious sources where he believes they are not questionable are the subject of two ongoing debates: one, redirected from this very page, on the fringe theories page; the other on the article's talk page. Additional revealing comments, which Eurocopter has since archived, were found on his talk page, in the section at the bottom. I would also like to note that Eurocopter's claim to have cited the sources shows his poor understanding of WP:CITE. Also, and for a last time, contrary to his claim that I "did not provide reliable sources which would support [my] claims", you may read plenty of direct quotes dealing with exactly that on both the Antonescu talk page and the fringe theories noticeboard. Dahn (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
As a minor point, since Eurocopter made his appeal for discussion, he went on to insert some of the material being discussed again and engaged in the edit war, without contribuing more to the talk page. What is good for the gander is good for the goose. Both parties could do with giving this a go on the article talk page more thoroughly, rather than invoking ANI. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't. As stated above, due to ongoing discussion on talk page, I assumed good faith and stopped citing Stoenescu in Holocaust-related issues. I considered Dahn's removal of sources and sourced facts without consensus inacceptable, therefore I reverted him. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, user:Bogdangiusca (a close friend of user:Dahn) just appeared and is removing a number of 6 sources (Romalo, Turlea, Lepadatu, Hudita, Barbul, Giurescu) without any basic explanation or consensus reached on the talk page. As this is clearly a form of vandalism and admin abuse, I request input from uninvolved administrators. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect it was a blanket reversion back to the last edit not by you. I'd suggest adding back the non-Stoenescu refs? Or asking Bogdangiusca if they were the problem or whether they were caught up in annother revert. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this would not happen, as they really have the absolute control of these articles and everything they dislike/disapprove is immediately removed, as they eagerly promote their POV, sometimes in an abusive way also. It is really a waste of time and energy to try argue with them or counter their POV, so I will step out and this would be my last comment on this issue. Best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is not a comment on this specific article, but on this sort of problem in general. Having references is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for adding information to an article. References are not a club you weild to beat people over the head with to force them to accept whatever you wish to have in an article. There are many, many, many good reasons to remove referenced information from an article; such as information which may be referenced but irrelevent, or information where the neutrality or reliability of the source is in question. However, it should also be noted that it is not up to administrators to decide between two versions of an article. We can block one or both parties of a dispute if they behave badly (for example, if they edit war or are making disruptive points) but such actions are not an endorsement of one version or another of an article, only on the behavior of individual editors. This is a content dispute and as such, if you DO want an endorsement of one version or another of this article, then seek one of the outlets described in dispute resolution such as WP:3O or WP:RFC or if those don't work, WP:MEDCAB perhaps. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this would not happen, as they really have the absolute control of these articles and everything they dislike/disapprove is immediately removed, as they eagerly promote their POV, sometimes in an abusive way also. It is really a waste of time and energy to try argue with them or counter their POV, so I will step out and this would be my last comment on this issue. Best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
user:Qchristina, legal threat
Qchristina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made legal threat at [[74]]. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Borderline. The user is not threatening to sue wikipedia, they are pointing out that the person's agents will sue wikipedia if the name is not corrected (which seems a rather spurious idea). Exxolon (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- This all seems to be about the recently created article Sanaz Shirazi. Exxolon (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that what the editor is actually saying is that xe is editing in the belief that xe xyrself is subject to legal threat, from the subject of the article. Whilst this is actually true, a more important point is that we're not following the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, nor handling verifiability challenges to content correctly, here.
Wuhwuzdat, someone has challenged a biography of a living person for containing erroneous content (to whit: the wrong name of the person). We don't just revert that as vandalism and blithely continue. If material is challenged for being wrong, we don't just reinstate it whilst ignoring the requirement for verifiability. If someone challenges material as unverifiable, and removes it, there is an onus to show that that the material is verifiable (or to provide alternative, verifiable, material, correcting the article).
Indeed, one of the things that we sometimes do is replace bad content entirely with a sourced stub, to show the right way to start articles, and to give a proper foundation for expanding them in the same manner. Uncle G (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Pieter Kuiper
Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) has been a lingering problem on both Swedish and English Wikipedia. On Swedish WP he has been blocked both for insulting administrators and for edit warring[75]. Over here, he has been warned twice about WP:STALK, see [76] and [77]. He has been warned about disruptive behavior[78] and editors have expressed concerns over his incivility [79] and I have myself cautioned him about this[80]. I know of at least one great editor that he has pushed away from WP. Now he is again incivil and lashes out with spurious allegations about some kind of "Nordic gang" on WP[81]. Considering all his warnings, I think the best thing to do would be to give him a punitive block, but I hesitate to do so since I have been involved in the discussion. Are there any opinions about what should be done?--Berig (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Asking for a "Punitive block" is unlikely to meet much enthusiasm here. Beyond the Nordic gang diff, you'll need to produce more diffs illustrating offences ... rather than warnings issued by yourself and a few others, two of which are from 2007 and all of which could be part of content disputes. This is needed if you want to increase the likelihood of intervention. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Unsubstantiated accusations
I’ve been accused of gaming [82] [83] [84] on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement after I file a report for a breech of AE imposed sanctions.
On the report I filed it should be noted that I did not ask for any sanctions to be imposed. When I drew Black Kite attention to this they were decent enough to strike their comments and accepted that I was being reasonable. However, despite this acknowledgement of my being reasonable, Deacon of Pndapetzim decided to engage in a personal attack and suggested I be blocked. Both Black Kite and Deacon of Pndapetzim accept I did not breech the 1RR restriction but both still advocated blocks none the less, possibly based on the accusation of me gaming an editor.
So on the gaming accusation, it has already been noted that I was in fact being reasonable, and never requested sanctions. In addition, in response to the accusation by Deacon of Pndapetzim I pointed out that I had in fact informed the editor before they ever reverted and having been informed, they reverted anyway. In addition to this, we have my report and what I’d like to happen which was “ Colin4C self revert, that Admin’s tell Colin4C that the article does fall under the AE sanctions and they breeched them, and that if they want to add a Chronology they get consensus on the article talk page.”
As a result of my report Deacon of Pndapetzim did inform the editor they breeched the sanctions and Black Kite unfortunately reverted the edit on the article and correctly reconsidered their revert and included again this accusation of gaming in the edit summary.
What I’d like from ANI is to have the accusations struck out or substantiated which I consider reasonable. In this I am supported by a respected Admin who it must be said has on occasion been a right thorn in my side. Deacon of Pndapetzim has raised an indef probation and indef block as mitigating against me, despite both being overturned not to mention “([dare I say] gaming).” I’d like to know is an editors block log a mitigating factor regardless of the merits of an individual case, and should their block log be raised on each and every occasion regardless. Finally is it possible to have a block log reviewed by an independent arbitrator? The reason I ask is could an editor be gamed as outlined in this essay by using their log against them as “Being blocked also increases the chances of future admin intervention coming down against you.”--Domer48'fenian' 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- When there's a 1RR/24h notice on an article and you revert twice in 25h, you leave yourself open to such accusations, and really you should know this by now. In the same way that WP:3RR isn't a bright line and editors do not always have to make four reverts to be blocked, nor is 1RR/24h - the intention behind it is to prevent revert warring on Troubles articles, and regular editors of those articles should be well aware that they risk blocking if they do so, even if they haven't technically breached the temporal limits. Black Kite 17:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- When I let someone off for a 3RR vio, which is fairly common, I will revert the violating revert for the sake of fairness. Black Kite doing so was fine and good practice even for 1RRs. On Black Kite's self-reversion, I have no opinion, but Black Kite was right in the summary, as Domer was clearly gaming the system for his own advantage, and this is in line with his normal editing "Revert, warn, forum-shop" pattern. Posting more outrage in another forum doesn't ameliorate that. What would ameliorate that is if Domer would use his extra experience on wikipedia to encourage good-faith collaboration, even with those whose ideologies are at odds with his. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- There are only two options with accusations, 1) withdraw/strike or 2) substantiate. You have done neither. Not asking for sanctions against an editor who has breeched 1RR despite being given notice is to encourage good-faith collaboration. Making accusations against an editor, who gave notification of sanctions before any were breeched, and regardless of them being breeched request no action be taken to be then accused of gaming is not supportable. “Domer was clearly gaming the system for his own advantage.” Where is the advantage? Where is the assumption of good faith? “this is in line with his normal editing "Revert, warn, forum-shop" pattern.” You have your chronology wrong here Deacon, it runs like this, notify, revert and report if there is a breech. That’s just like every other editor here is it not. I made a straight forward report and you managed to turn it into a drama. Neither of you can support your accusations, so I’ll ask you to strike them. Neither of you used diff’s either to support your comments either, which is also common could you not do so now? --Domer48'fenian' 17:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't need to "substantiate" something which is clearly my opinion on the issue, as stated in the AE thread and also in my reply above. If you think I am wrong, that is your prerogative. I certainly won't be striking anything though, that would be hypocritical. As I said, there was nothing wrong with your report, but reporting a user for two reverts when you have effectively done the same yourself is inviting examination of your actions. Black Kite 19:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
When you say "I think you're being reasonable, I just don't believe there's much to do here. If an edit-war develops or a single user is breaching 1RR repeatedly then I'd be more inclined to take action" striking your comments and then accuse me of gaming is hypocritical! So I'm correct, unsubstantiated accusations, the only problem is it is also your prerogative to block editors based on just your opinion and that is what you and Decon were suggesting. --Domer48'fenian' 19:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. Personally, I believe that this is akin to gaming the system (and clearly Deacon does as well). Others may disagree. However, I usually try to sort out these issues without blocking anyone, and you'll therefore note that I haven't blocked anyone, though I wouldn't have disagreed if someone else had done so. And yes, sometimes admins need to make value judgements on blocking. Regardless, I don't see any admin action required here, so I'd suggest this thread be marked resolved.Black Kite 20:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Nothing wrong other than they were wrong about me requesting sanctions and had to strike it and wrong that the article should not fall under the Troubles purview and evidenced by the notice placed on the editors talk page. In my opinion they were also wrong about me gaming the system evidenced by the fact I pacifically asked for no sanctions, and informed the editor of 1RR sanctions before they breeched them twice. --Domer48'fenian' 21:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
User changing birth date on a lot of BLP articles
- 123undertaker123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User was recently blocked for changing birth date on a lot of BLP articles. He's just come off a block and has continued to do it. I think a block indef is needed here. D.M.N. (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
User:69.243.191.241
69.243.191.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continues to harass me about how i spell "does" and how i spell it "dose" sometime this have been in every comment they have made to me including on my talk page and it does not appear that it will stop anytime soon. I would really like something to be done about this user it is really staring to get annoying. Here [85] [86] and [87] Kyle1278 (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since the last report to WP:ANI there seem to be two (arguably one) further incidents here and here. I see two possible options:
- Report the user at WP:WQA.
- Ignore them, and try to remember to spell it "does" in future ;-)
- I'd probably go for option 2: it's pretty sad being obsessed with another editor's spelling. Pity them, ignore them, move on.
- Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 21:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally, after the last report here I watchlisted your talk page. If they revert your deletions in future I'll revert and warn. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 21:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Its not getting yelled at i care about this person has been harassing me since i disagreed with him/her on something and now they just keep it up i don't plan on doing anything endless it gets a lot worse. Kyle1278 (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- The anon IP has been tolded that it ain't so much beter with teh wurdz than the rest of us ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 23:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Its not getting yelled at i care about this person has been harassing me since i disagreed with him/her on something and now they just keep it up i don't plan on doing anything endless it gets a lot worse. Kyle1278 (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at his/her short history and userpage incl. his/her "real-time conversation" with user:TheMatty today (which makes me believe they are the same or at least very close buddies. I have no intention to put more input in that but rather thought to point it out so admins and editors are aware of this and can take a closer look if necessary. That's all. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Both accounts have very short histories, too short to tell perhaps. User:My President is Black user page, with "the negros take office" linking to Obama at the top (I removed it), is not too encouraging. Could be taken as slightly offensive. Not sure if I'm that happy either with the file he uploaded, File:Jew_emoticon.gif, as I can't see any great future for it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I am simply editing my userpage and you keep vandalizing it. I'll remove the header, but don't take everything as offensive next time, sheesh. My President is black 00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your use of wikipedia to attack groups of people [88] [89] suggests we should not take your assurances at face value. I'm sorry that you cannot see there is a problem here, but be clear that you are now under the closest scrutiny. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked indef. Clearly not here for any positive reason. Black Kite 01:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good block. (Who's "baaaawwing" now?) Although the user page has been cleared, his talk page is fairly offensive, and someone might consider clearing it and protecting it, or at least clearing it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- That was the main offensive part, yes. The rest of his talk page is not overtly offensive, it's just pretty much of a train wreck, which shows how much someone can "accomplish" in just 10 days on wikipedia. Thanks for fixing. P.S. You've got one of the calmer demeanors among the editors here, so if he got you riled, he was destined to quickly be toast. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's only Wikipedia, getting riled over something as silly as this would be a fruitless idea. As for having a 'calm demeanor', I would beg to differ :P — neuro(talk) 01:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I take it back. You're a ruthless tyrant who takes no prisoners. You may quote me. >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's only Wikipedia, getting riled over something as silly as this would be a fruitless idea. As for having a 'calm demeanor', I would beg to differ :P — neuro(talk) 01:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- That was the main offensive part, yes. The rest of his talk page is not overtly offensive, it's just pretty much of a train wreck, which shows how much someone can "accomplish" in just 10 days on wikipedia. Thanks for fixing. P.S. You've got one of the calmer demeanors among the editors here, so if he got you riled, he was destined to quickly be toast. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
He was hinting at making an unblock request so I saved everyone time by declining it before he made it. --Deskana (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Awesome. A pre-emptive strike. An inspired move if ever I've seen one. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
A sock-puppeteer has been repeatedly trying to push a conspiracy theory on this page. Several ip addresses and accounts have already been blocked [90][91][92][93][94] and the page is semi-protected but the editor is back with an account that was created over a week ago but only used today [95]. I would request blocking of this new account, and, as the editor seems to have prepared in advance for coping with blocking and semi-protection by creating sock-puppet accounts, maybe a period of full protection would be in order for this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- If it is protection you are after, you might want to look at starting a section at WP:RFPP. — neuro(talk) 01:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Blocked user continues editing
Blocked user (probably) Boost3000 is continuing to edit as an IP 170.140.183.4 in this edit
He has done this previously as IP 170.140.110.179, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/User:Boost3000/Archive
Marek.69 talk 22:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just confirming Boost is blocked, since Marek seemed unsure. — neuro(talk) 01:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Persistent trolling
Could someone please levy a serious block - preferably a hard-block - against 67.55.70.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It's apparently the same as Michaelccc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).[96] It appears to be a static IP and is now following up blatant vandalism with a trolling campaign.[97][98][99] A lot of time is being wasted. Thank you. Doulos Christos ♥ talk 00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- That IP has a long history of bad edits and past blocks, including the recent blatant vandalism/trolling, and appears to be statically-allocated. I've given it an extended block. -- The Anome (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:UAA Backlog
Hello....there seems to be a bit of a backlog in Usernames for administrator attention. If a couple admin could have a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 2, 2009 @ 01:05
- I'll go and take a look, see what can be dealt with through tagging. — neuro(talk) 01:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Turns out not much. — neuro(talk) 01:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Looked like a backlog to me...sorry about that. Carry on :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 2, 2009 @ 01:28
- Turns out not much. — neuro(talk) 01:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Need pages semi-protected
Two pages Marquis Cooper and Corey Smith, may need temporary protecting due to a recent incident involving the two players. Anon editors keep placing date of death or changing career to past tense, without referances to any death. A temp protect may help please.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by User:QuackGuru on Larry Sanger
User:QuackGuru has been consistently disruptive to editing of the Larry Sanger article. Mountains of attempts at discussion on Talk:Larry_Sanger have been met with cut-and-pastes of the same comments over and over again. We've tried WP:RfC and WP:3O, and I've even tried quantifying a few of his complaints and brought them to the appropriate forums at the original research and reliable sources notice boards.
QuackGuru's comments on the Talk page are difficult to interpret as anything other than complaints, and his edits are wholesale changes to the page without discussion and without consensus: [100][101][102][103]. Other editors have repeatedly warned this editor that such edits are tantamount to vandalism.
The whole effort could be interpreted as an attempt to push a particular POV about the differences between Wikipedia and Citizendium: text which quotes Sanger's opinions is repeatedly replaced with "facts" about the differences between the two projects.
Rvcx (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Rvcx has clearly made four reverts[104][105][106][107] and has violated 3RR.[108] QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've left several comments about this behavior on User_talk:QuackGuru (including warning templates) but they were immediately deleted. Tried raising the problem in initiating discussion as a wikiquette issue but was referred (back) to RfC. Rvcx (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)