KillerChihuahua (talk | contribs) →User:Joseph_A._Spadaro: comments |
William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) →Disruptive editing by User:ChildofMidnight: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChildofMidnight&diff=298460910&oldid=298456974 |
||
Line 593: | Line 593: | ||
::::::I think a topic ban of Mathsci is premature at this point. But obviously his behavior was abyssmal and needs to improve. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 23:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
::::::I think a topic ban of Mathsci is premature at this point. But obviously his behavior was abyssmal and needs to improve. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 23:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::::I think am apology by Mathsci to CoM would be in order. His original poast here at ANI describes CoM as some sort of idiot knuckle dragger who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Incivility at the least.--[[User:Jojhutton|Jojhutton]] ([[User talk:Jojhutton|talk]]) 23:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
:::::::I think am apology by Mathsci to CoM would be in order. His original poast here at ANI describes CoM as some sort of idiot knuckle dragger who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Incivility at the least.--[[User:Jojhutton|Jojhutton]] ([[User talk:Jojhutton|talk]]) 23:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChildofMidnight&diff=298460910&oldid=298456974] [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 23:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Joseph_A._Spadaro]] == |
== [[User:Joseph_A._Spadaro]] == |
Revision as of 23:38, 24 June 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) |
|
Plagiarism, persistent attempts at promotion
Psikxas (talk · contribs) has for the past six weeks or so been persistently trying to use Wikipedia to promote a non-notable headlight bulb company called Kärheim. His initial attempt was a mainspace article, Karheim, which was speedy deleted for violation of NOTE and SOAP (with great difficulty; Psikxas & socks repeatedly removed SD notice — see SPI). Deleted article retrieved and moved by admin Jayron32 at Psikxas' request to his userspace. I objected at that time; no consensus for removal was reached. Psikxas moved the article text to his main userpage, which is its present location. Retrieving admin reiterated RS, CORP, and NOTE to user. User now bases notability claim on a plagiarised version of a copyrighted work evidently created for the purpose of promoting Kärheim: A new title page was added, the copyright notice was removed, and the name "Kärheim" was spliced into the text of the report. But although the plagiarised research is claimed to come from Aristotle Univerity of Thessaloniki in 2008, in fact it was done by the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York in 2001. Whoever plagiarized the report did not change the text referring to the experimentation having been carried out at facilities in Schenectady, New York — a strange location for a study carried out by a university in Greece. The legitimate, real version of the research is here on RPI's site. It can be read in HTML form here.
Did Psikxas him/herself commit the plagiarism? It's not possible for me to say with certainty, but it does seem to quack: Psikxas' username and usage of English (evidently as a second language) strongly suggest Greek as a first language, which accords with the location of the plagiarised document in the home directory of a user at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The plagiarised study is also the only document in its directory, and its last-modified date, as of right now as I type this, accords with the time when it was placed as a reference in Headlamp (where I have removed it) and in the pseudo-article text at User:Psikxas (where, as a userpage, I don't feel I can touch it).
Psikxas' contrib history shows similar behaviour patterns in other articles, such as LAZER helmet (request for reinstatement here): persistent, evidently willful efforts to promote particular companies, interspersed (when questioned or confronted) with claims of ignorance, accusations of harrassment, and effusive thanks (e.g. here, here, here) to admins who grant Psikxas' requests. FTR, my reaction to this type of persistent apparent attempt at promotion, continued disregard for community standards, and evidently disingenuous behaviour would be similar no matter who would do it — registered editor or IP contributor alike. It looks more and more to me as though Psikxas is intent on damaging the project, and I'm not comfortable sitting back and letting him or her do so. Obviously there are fine lines between article ownership and article stewardship, but this latest plagiarism exceeds my ability to assume good faith on the part of Psikxas. —Scheinwerfermann T·C21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Scheinwerfermann, check here I3E.org to see how many articles are re-posted from other universities, maybe with some additions.Maybe now you doubt even for I3E, for sure you have a good reason for this, but anyone can find there articles reposted again and again, givven each time the references. Do they violate any policy you think? As far as i can see, the article has all the refferences, EVERYTHING, cause im very carefull after your vendeta as Jayron32 also mentioned User_talk:Jayron32#Plagiarism.
I dont know where you aim with all these lies, LIES, you find a scientific article, with all the references, and then you accuse the university of a practise common all over the world for many thesis? you know how the community in universities work? or you know and on purpose dont refer it? MAYBE... you doubt for the reliabilty of the university Aristotle_University? Just to know, this is one of the biggest universities, and when you graze sheeps in the mountain barbarian, Greek Aristotle had monuments and produced civilitazion for you-language and maths and so more! In what point you doubt? never are you tired to see you are wrong all the time? Maybe you get extra job for good admins, but.. a]the article has the references you mention and has the refferences you mention with additions, so stop lying. As fara as it has the old references, its acceptable . - b]its on the domain of this big university, have you any doubt of this too?? c] if you are so silly to believe anything else, report it to the international community,not wikipedia only, to the university, but please tell us here the reply you may get then, make us laugh.
Please stop. Thanks god, there is history in wikipedia, ANYONE can see that whenever i asked you a question, you NEVER replied. NEVER! But in order to tell lies and report anything i do, to continue your vedetta! ! ! you act instantly..isnt? This is your contribution? Maybe i cant use my english very well to defend myself and this admin is better in speaking, but any smart who read these can understand the truth.Bad faith, yes, now, im sure you act in bad faith. Your contributions show us anything different? im tired with this tone and vendetta of him, one admin maybe think he can cause more troubles here than he has the ability to solve.
As far the LAZER helmet you mention, again lying!! Didnt the article reported restored or not??See there my reply here), see my argument about other articles, then come back to tell us why you think other articles are more notable, and that sharp.gov.uk, if you insist that this site also doesnt proove anything. But we know your practise, here you never help, you never reply to questions, and by not telling the Whole truth (= its lieing this too, isnt? ), you try to fraude all the wikipedians here who maybe they dont know your vendetta, your bad faith of you promoting bulbs in many forums (google search for this admin to find everythin, i mentioned it to previous posts) , and you care so so much to make them change desicion. They dont know the full history but hope they can find it in all this mess. Hope they will find all my messages to you that you have deleted all this time..(again, hiding something isnt a lie?).You do every effort.Here is an example [[1]], okay, promote your products, make with your "power" as an admin whatever to block anything else Psikxas
können Sie eine Google-Suche finden Sie Infos über die Firma, warum bin ich angeklagt?
(talk) 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, that "report" at [2] is obviously not just plagiarism, but serious fraud: plagiarism would be if it said the same things as the original, but it was faked to say something different – the original mentions the test was run on a different brand of lights. Scheinwerferman is right, we have no proof that the forger is the same person as the editor here, but the suggestion of a connection is certainly strong enough. (BTW, to put one concern to rest, I see no indication that the university on whose site the fake report is hosted has anything to do with it. It looks more like it's been put there by some student in their personal web space; no indication of an alleged academic author at auth.gr.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Fut.Perf. can you tell us, which is this 'different' brand? try to respect at least, if you dont respect me cause you dont know me of course, the whole academic society. If something is posted in auth.gr, what you would say? Does it belong to one of its members or not? anyone.
- pls, with a simple google search, look what you can find from this domain, something very common in universities all over the world, they use their domain to upload ([3] :
- [4]
- [5]
- [6]
- [7]
- [8]
- [9]
- [10] Every university has the control of its members, can we judge and conclude something different?
- please review the WHOLE conv between me and the admin. Take the time. Maybe, have you seen this ? Consider with google search how many times this admin promotes other brand in many forums, consider how insane he became when it proved that he was wrong by Miscellany for deletionof the article, imagine why he tries by all means to take revenge. Why?
- Try to find everything and then judge. Review some links i posted here, review the department of electrical engineering (by the way, how you concluded that the university has nothing to do with it?) What you think is better? Knowing nothing, or know the half truth and then judge? Maybe admin is true i dont use my english very well, but this is for or against because i cant defend they way i could? Someone else here though uses bery well the language, and easily could spread the half truth, isnt?
At the time, i marked my article that its under investigation. In the past, i stopped my contribution. This bad admin will not stop, if he could, he would have banned me already. Is this a coincidence that an article restored after deletion and stayed intact more than 2 weeks, that was marked for deletion AGAIN User_talk:Psikxas few minutes after the admin here started this issue? Of course, nothing happened...but this avoid me to offer in wikipedia, and the impression givven is that i only cause troubles. because of one only article, because of infos everyone can find by googling —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC).
- Oh, just to add..try not to believe anything they say to you. Because someone told "its last-modified date, as of right now as I type this, accords with the time when it was placed as a reference in Headlamp (where I have removed it)" ..have you checked both dates? where this admin refers too? cant you see that submission date is different?? a full year! not few days! year! Anyway...ill wait for some serious reply, not from someone so credulous pls...Psikxas (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Greek editor needed
From section Methods of the original paper [11]:
- The HID system employed a Philips DS2 lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the HID headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 1. The halogen A system employed an H7 Philips lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the halogen A headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 2. The halogen B system employed an H4 Philips lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the halogen B headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 3. (my bold)
From section Methods of the plagiarised paper [12]:
- The HID system employed a DS2 lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the HID headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 1. The halogen A system employed an H7 Philips lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the halogen A headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 2. The halogen B system employed an H4 Philips lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the halogen B headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 3.
The plagiarised paper does not show an author but claims to be from "Lighting Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki". (This is strange, because the Lighting Laboratory is at National Technical University of Athens. [13].) It consists of:
- A new abstract replacing the original on. It says:
- An experimental field investigation is described below, based on a study of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York in 2001 that compared the off-axis visual performance of HID forward lighting systems with comparable halogen systems to determine the relative visual effects of HID lighting. [...] In this study three high quality current production European headlamp systems, Kärheim HID and two Philips halogen, are compared. (my bold)
- An almost exact copy of the plagiarised paper. The only difference that I have seen is the omission of Philips (see above) in a context where we would expect to read Kärheim if the original study had had the claimed scope of the plagiarised study.
- A sequence of slides added at the end. These are a variant of the conference slides presented by Constantinos A. Bouroussis and Frangiskos V. Topalis at the Balkan Light 2008 conference in Lubljana. [14]
I do not know if Scheinwerfermann got the date stamp of this file [15] wrong, as Psikxas claims. It currently says 13-Jun-2008 00:12, which is 1 year + 22 hours before Psikxas' edit [16] pointing to the document. I do know that it is trivial to change time stamps on Unix-based web servers such as this one. And I do observe that the creation time of the PDF file itself, which would be a bit harder to fake, is 18 June 2008, i.e. 5 days after this document was supposedly put on the web server.
Add to this Psikxas' very first edit [17] and it looks like a case for the relevant research institution's fraud department. Perhaps a Greek editor can contact the admin of of http://users.auth.gr ? The next question is whether we should notify Kärheim, Philips, or both. --Hans Adler 15:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note, incidentally, that the fake report from the alleged (but apparently non-existent) Photometry Lab in Thessaloniki has also stolen the logo of the real Photometry Lab in Athens. The authors of the 2008 conference paper you mention above are apparently well-established researchers at the genuine Athens lab. – Personally, I don't much feel like bothering to mess with the real-life dimension here, fraud department and whatnot; let's just get rid of the disruptive editor, salt the pages and move on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- It appears the account at AUTH has been suspended, perhaps in response to notification sent to that school's administration regarding the fraud. It also appears Psikxas has blanked his/her user page, blanked his/her user talk page, and blanked the Kärheim subpage, but continues to edit disruptively and complain about administrative correction of his/her disruptive edits. I see/hear more quacking in Psikxas' apparently keen interest in presenting a particular point of view on a political matter involving Macedonia. Generally matters of this nature are a hot topic in Greece, and nowhere else. Correlation doesn't imply causation, of course, but it does wiggle its eyebrows and go "Psst! Psst! Look over there!". —Scheinwerfermann T·C18:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Psst psst! Scheinwerfermann! Its true that university decided to suspend the account, but perhaps after the investigation(?), they decided to keep it as it is. Of course everything is as before with the PDF, the page etc. What made me delete my pages, was that after what Fut.Perf. told here, once i thought that we should consider maybe that server keeps track of the very first upload (really, Fut.Perf. you that always give examples, can you create for us now an example of how "time stamps on Unix-based web servers" can change? Personally, i think its impossible if you are not the admin, if you can tell us how else, okay then, but i bet you cant, and you wrote it just to create impressions) , but then believed that i cant trust whatever i find in google and maybe i shouldnt insist, maybe im wrong. Now that university decided to keep it, i dont know what to do. I would be silly if i thought that admins can not find how articles were before, eh? If you can find previous revisions through "history", then anyone can do it ! Anyway, if your only interest here and contribution is to keep tracks of what i do, if this doesnt show your vendetta , if my last contribution has anything to do with my article we are discussing here, at least work and correct my articles with my poor english, or else another admin should ask you STOP now from the revenge you are mad to find all this time!Psikxas (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Barefaced alteration of a published paper to support promotion of a company's product. What the university does is its own lookout. What we do is ours. Block and salt. DGG (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK…what now? I'm not too tickled at the barrage of incivility from psikxas, but I'm not inclined to do anything about it. I'd like to move on to more productive things; can we get that block and salt rolling, please? —Scheinwerfermann T·C14:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- If Psikxas can explain how a reference to a fabricated document wound up in his Karheim draft article, I'd allow one more appeal. But the case as it stands looks solid enough to justify an indefinite block of User:Psikxas. His protests above seem illogical, and don't seem to be responses to the actual problem. (I changed the section header above to remove the word 'criminal', since WP:TALK requires headers to be neutral). EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK…what now? I'm not too tickled at the barrage of incivility from psikxas, but I'm not inclined to do anything about it. I'd like to move on to more productive things; can we get that block and salt rolling, please? —Scheinwerfermann T·C14:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
EdJohnston,this admin had accused me in the past that i own these companies, such as German Karheim or Belgium Lazer helmets, but what you think, if i owned these or any other company, i would have time to write here maybe? The most confussing part for me was that i found articles didnt have any references at all like Shoei, but they were on wikipedia. As time passed, i understood what references i need though, i searched for them in Google, i added them in my Lazer helmet article, and it has been restored. Although this admin tried to force Jayron32 block me and delete me from the beginning, Jayron32 restored this article in my userspace instead of deleting it, till i find references. I searched one day in Google too for Karheim and references, found this pdf, and added it, then asked Jayron32 about his opinion. Anyone who needs refference, make a search. What some others accused me also, that i hacked the server?? i changed time..dont know and cant understand why they want to present me us unreliable because im Greek?!? even that im involved in the university or that the university is not notable??...Anyway, the admin told us that he has sent email to auth.gr, and i think he got his response because auth restored the article. Bad, why he doesnt tell us the response he got from the university? This bad admin although, its obvious of what he cares only and how he wants to use his power. Isnt it a matter that because obviously he promotes other brands,- he tried to fool the community in order to hurry this process by adding some lies with some evidence of truth-this section here could be also for talking about misuse of admin powers?- he used his admin power against me because of his vendetta too? Psikxas (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Still unresolved
I have no interest in hounding Psikxas to the ends of the earth (or the ends of Wikipedia), but we have apparent consensus without any follow-through here. Why? —Scheinwerfermann T·C18:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Right to vanish?
I recently came upon the renamed User456246478845 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was involved with editing Anna Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It appears that extremely shortly after the user was blocked for a week, he requested his right to vanish and was renamed. His old public logs can be seen here. After that, he most definitely returned under various IP addresses in the 75.21.96.0/19 range, being blocked by TruSilver for two weeks, and the other day by Nishkid64 on a different IP address.
My question is as such. How come this user who was not in good standing was allowed to use his right to vanish? Why is he still allowed to edit the English Wikipedia after admitting who he is? And is he still allowed to edit while continuing to be disruptive in the topic that he got blocked for in the first place? He clearly does not know what the right to vanish means and simply used it to get a not-so-clean slate. I doubt that the rename would be undone, but the renamed user should not have been given the benefit of the doubt once he started disrupting "anonymously".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Changing_username/Archive62#RevAntonio_.E2.86.92_I_don.27t_know --Dweller (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- The issue is that he had requested his right to vanish and has not actually vanished. He had just come off of a week long block before he requested it, even if it was through Protonk (and it's clear that the IP commenting in that discussion was the user himself).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- The right to make a username vanish is extended to all users regardless of standing or history. Nobody ever actually vanishes because edits can always be traced to IP addresses. Andre (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- That is not correct. As noted below, only users in good standing have the right to vanish. Please see m:Right to vanish. -- Avi (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes but vanishing does not mean a fresh start, which is whats actually happening. He should make it clear who he is or was on the new account's userpage. If hes evading a ban or block Ryulong, have an admin take care of it, or post to ANI. Syn 01:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Moved from BN with this edit. Syn 01:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- But if he hasn't vanished and is still causing problems, why should we still honor his right to vanish when he clearly has not? This is why I put the thread on WP:BN and not WP:AN or WP:ANI.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Even though a crat has the technical means of granting a name change via rtv, doesn't mean they are the ones to deal with it. This can be handled by admins, and the community. I understand what you mean, but if actions are needed it doesn't necessarily have to be handled by a crat. Syn 02:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- But if he hasn't vanished and is still causing problems, why should we still honor his right to vanish when he clearly has not? This is why I put the thread on WP:BN and not WP:AN or WP:ANI.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- The right to make a username vanish is extended to all users regardless of standing or history. Nobody ever actually vanishes because edits can always be traced to IP addresses. Andre (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- WP:RTV says that only users in good standing have the right to vanish. This user was not in good standing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Who then was a gentleman? is correct; RtV only applies to users in good standing, and it is a courtesy, not a "right". Please see m:Right to vanish. -- Avi (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Concur with Avi. Enigmamsg 05:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to think of it as a courtesy we should apply liberally, but where a courtesy is abused I'm not sure if we're wise to keep extending it... – Luna Santin (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
What determines "in good standing"? He wasn't under a block anymore when he requested Rtv, correct? Granted, he obviously didn't vanish and that aspect should be dealt with.. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 07:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps I was unclear. It is indeed a courtesy extended liberally not a guaranteed right, but by WP:AGF it is correctly extended to nearly everyone. "Good standing" doesn't really play into an RTV request -- if the user was banned or is a known vandal, we would not extend the courtesy, but presumably this user would not be making edits anyway. If the user uses RTV and then edits again, that isn't disallowed either. Andre (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Let's put it this way, User456246478845 has come back as IP addresses and admitted to his previous account having existed and is being disruptive in the same fashion as he was prior to his decision to request his right to vanish. Why should we continue to grant him the courtesy when he does not follow its general precepts?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ryulong, I think you are getting hung up on a technicality here. The Right to Vanish only works if the individual in question actually vanishes. In other words, that person goes away & never returns. If one can prove that a troublemaker who has exercised RTV did not actually leave, then their previous history is reattached to the new user name, both the good & the bad. The question of how to handle a person who abuses RTV I'll leave to someone else to answer. -- llywrch (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- But there is no new name to attach it to. Just IP edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can you prove that these IP edits belong to the same person? Then that person's history follows her/him, just like an editor who socks as an anon IP. -- llywrch (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- The IP has admitted to who he is, and he complains when he's been rangeblocked. So you're saying nothing should be done about it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- As a policy issue, I've suggested at Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish that the "right to vanish" should have a delay of a few months associated with it. That would prevent this type of drama. --John Nagle (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- The IP has admitted to who he is, and he complains when he's been rangeblocked. So you're saying nothing should be done about it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can you prove that these IP edits belong to the same person? Then that person's history follows her/him, just like an editor who socks as an anon IP. -- llywrch (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- But there is no new name to attach it to. Just IP edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Stevertigo, already subject to editing restrictions, keeps on violating rules
User:Stevertigo operates with a significant confrontational attitude and has consistently shown disregard to the "No Original Research" rule and POV while editing Life article: he creates his own definitions, such as the analogy "biological machines" [18]), [19], sentience as a (false) requirement for an organism to be considered alive [20]. Another example: "...while I understand the "distaste for original research, I consider wikiality makes sense far superior to versions like the current one" [21]; and suggested the use of a "credentialized linguist" instead of quoting the required references.[22].
Stevertigo has persisted to post long-winded assays on the Talk:Life page pushing his POV and has consistently failed to produce references to his WP:OR own definitions he inserts in the article.("In biology...") After several demands -over several weeks- for him to quote references,[23], [24]; he finaly explained his inability to produce them was because he would need to use his "credit card" and because "None of which (research papers) particularly interests me".[25]
He uses the Talk:Life page extensively as a forum for his assays, he centers on human life, human psychology[26] and some on his concepts of god, as supposed of addressing life in general - the subject of the article. Once he introduced an assay (100% OR) into the main article:[27]. As a cell & molecular biologist, it is alarming seeing Stevertigo, without any formal education in biology, fabricate statements, terms and definitions, and push them in the talk page and in the article. On one occasion, he introduced one reference, but it does not quote or support the definition (his Original Research) that he introduced.[28], so I also corrected that.
Of outmost importance, 'Stevertigo recently became subject to an editing restriction for one year for edit-warring: "He is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. [...] Non-compliance to the above are grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling."
Since he has proven to be disruptive in the Life article, I notified the involved editors on the Talk:Life page of the editing restrictions imposed on Stevertigo for his edit-warring, however, he deleted my post and proceded launch threats against me.[29] With this violation and revert, he has once more defied the rules and violated the restriction placed by Administrators. Therefore, I respectfully request that his non-compliance enacts the disciplinary blokage proposed by the corresponding Administrators. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to report that this user has violated restrictions placed upon them by the Arbitration Committee, the correct venue is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Regards SoWhy 12:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't think BatterIncluded is saying that Stevertigo has violated ArbCom restrictions. I see this ANI entry as a new complaint against Stevertigo, and that his restriction under ArbCom is not involved, except to demonstrate that the editor has shown unruly editing behavior in other articles. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The revert that BI complains of [30] appears to be SV quite reasonably removing a PA from BI. I've blocked BI for that William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Although I approve of this block, I would like to point out that after reviewing the flow of discussion at Talk:Life, Stevertigo's contribution to it appears to me to be very disruptive -- he constantly advocates, in very long-winded passages, for points of view that are not based on sources and do not receive support from other editors. Looie496 (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be a single purpose account used to push a Danish nationalist/Anti Greenlandic POV on the articles Greenland, Prime Ministers of Greenland, Template:Prime Ministers of Greenland - and most seriously he is inserting possibly libelous unsourced material and ethnic slurs into the article on Kuupik Kleist who is protected under the Living Persons Policy. I have used my reverts for today and need an administrator to take a look at the editing pattern of USer:Jægermester and do something about it. There is no purpose of adding difs here his entire edit history is made of this.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Maunus
Is pushing Greenlandic nationalist POV. He makes personal attacks as well. He is also lying, information from news agencies like the DPA can hardly be considered libelous or "slur". He is also trying to recruit people to support him in his edit-warring[31]. Jægermester (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the "greenlandic nationalist POV" I am pushing has been determined by a broad consensus at Talk:Greenland, and is supported by sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep these kind of discussions centralized, and don't spead it across several pages. From what i can see this is a content dispute, rather then vandalism. Note that for content disputes, we have Dispute Resolution. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 05:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is pretty frustrating that there is no support for enforcing the consensus version made by multiple editors on the talk page against tendentious edits from a one purpose account. Instead you come along warning both the problem editor and the one seeking help to do to enforce the consensus - after he has ceased edit warring and sought dispute resolution. And as for "spreding it across several pages" I posted it on one, because I thought that was the most apt, where it was removed and I then reposted it here as I was told to by the one who removed it at the other ANI page. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a silly dispute. The two of you might want to read the constitution and then Lov om Grønlands Selvstyre. It explains this far better than any English language source since they always get it wrong. There was wide agreement about the new law; only the loonies voted against it. I honestly don't see why you need to turn something that was a happy moment for both the Danish and the people of Greenland into an embarrasing nationalist conflict. Stop pushing fringe nationalist POVs and stop feeding those who do so. We're Danes, we're supposed to be above this sort of behaviour. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- That reponse is disengenious and unhelpful. I have read the law and I am pretty sure jægermester has too - the issue is how to translate it into english. Jægermester inserted his version repeatedly after being told by a consensus of editors that his version did not concord with their understanding of the law. I reverted him three times, then took it to ANI where I was giving a blockwarning and condescending comments by you. What was I supposed to have done in this situation? How is it that what I have done has constituted "feeding POV pushing" I have merely reinserted the version favoured by 6 editors on the talk page three times then asked for assistance?·Maunus·ƛ· 17:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Remember WP:NPOV, and remember it is always best to avoid speaking THE TRUTH :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- We are not debating truth here - we are debating how a group of serious editors should deal with a single purpose pov pushing editor. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- First of all there's no such thing as "my reverts for today". You're being warned for edit warring rather than keeping a cool head and seeking dispute resolution. You lowered yourself to the POV pusher's level by revert warring and only then, when you knew you'd get blocked for making more reverts, did you come here. You kept feeding the troll rather than keeping a cool head. What did you expect? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong. After discussion in the talk page I spent my three reverts in favour of the version decided upon, then I came here for assistance. Six hours later when I had been a sleep for five hours I got a warning. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- If a given version is truly supported by consensus, then there is no need for any individual editor to revert multiple times -- other editors will step in. If that doesn't happen, the case that consensus exists is weak. Looie496 (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Or maybe a page like Greenlandic prime ministers just don't appear on too many watchlists at that time of night. You guys have a lot of opinions without even having gone to the talk page to see the discussion.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- First of all there's no such thing as "my reverts for today". You're being warned for edit warring rather than keeping a cool head and seeking dispute resolution. You lowered yourself to the POV pusher's level by revert warring and only then, when you knew you'd get blocked for making more reverts, did you come here. You kept feeding the troll rather than keeping a cool head. What did you expect? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- We are not debating truth here - we are debating how a group of serious editors should deal with a single purpose pov pushing editor. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- If this is how veteran editors in good standing are treated when seeking assistance in content disputes on ANI then it certainly is the last time I'm going to resort to that.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any need for further (or really any) criticism of Maunus at this time. It appears that he pretty clearly was editing from the consensus-majority point of view, and if might have reverted once more than might have been optimal, the point has been made. I find the tit-for-tat raising of his name here on ANI in the first place to be unimpressive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Newyorkbrad. A little less edit-warring would have been good and he might have been better off to observe WP:1RR but he has observed WP:3RR and should not be overly chastised here. --Richard (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
User: J.Delanoy
This is user 86.146.156.203, reporting user: J.Delanoy for misconduct.
J.Delanoy reverted my edits to my own talk page requesting an unblock, then stopped me from editing it again. Now, regardless of whether or not the original block was justified, this is totally unacceptable behaviour.
1.) You should never revert another's talk page without very good reason. 2.) You certainly should not remove a simple unblock request. Instead, you should respond to it. Decline it if you wish, but don't just arrogantly remove it as if it never happened. 3.) You also should not just lock a talk page so that the user is unable to protest your previous bad behaviour.
Effectively the user violated my talk page, arrogantly ignored my request for a review of my block, then gagged me to prevent me from reporting his outrageous behaviour.
I'll say again: whatever you think of the original block, this is NOT acceptable. If I am to be punished for stepping out of line, fine. I am not, I repeat, not contesting that. But that does not excuse others doing the same. Fair is fair. I apparently broke rules, I got blocked for it. J. Delanoy has also broken rules, and likewise deserves to be punished for it. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your block notice details that you have beensocking, genre-trolling, and edit-warring - and your own unblock request seems to provide agreement that you have had other accounts. Please provide details of your other accounts so that we can assess your report here.--VS talk 07:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- There are other ways to request unblocking, so if you do want a review of your block, I suggest using one of those. I am sure j.delanoy will be happy to explain his actions here, if you so desire. So I suggest not evading your block, and requesting an unblock if you wish to edit. You could even do so by emailing me, via the link on my userpage. Prodego talk 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I note also that you have not informed J.Delanoy of your ANI post - as is required out of courtesy at the very least. I have done that for you now.--VS talk 07:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I assume J.delanoy protected the talk page par the page protection policy regarding unblock template abuse (unblock requests were incivil, and offered no real indication as to why to unblock). Regardless of Werther the original unblock request was justified, i would say J.Delanoy acted accordingly to the policy. As for responding instead of reverting, what response could he give as you were not requesting to be unblocked, but rather arguing about the block? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I note also that you have not informed J.Delanoy of your ANI post - as is required out of courtesy at the very least. I have done that for you now.--VS talk 07:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- There are other ways to request unblocking, so if you do want a review of your block, I suggest using one of those. I am sure j.delanoy will be happy to explain his actions here, if you so desire. So I suggest not evading your block, and requesting an unblock if you wish to edit. You could even do so by emailing me, via the link on my userpage. Prodego talk 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- The person behind 86.146.156.203 (and 87.194.171.224) appears to have been editwarring for some months using a dynamic IP, e.g. [32]. --62.25.109.195 (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I will also note that your unblock request is incorrect. Namely, warnings are not necessary if the reviewing administrator thinks that they will serve no purpose. I will admit that at first I thought you were another sockpuppeteer who also frequently complains about "not receiving warnings", as your IP ranges are close to his. However, the point remains. You were socking by taking advantage of a dynamic IP, and I do not feel that I should waste my time and others by 1) requiring warnings before I block you and 2) actually dignifying your unblock requests with replies. You clearly either do not understand why you are being blocked in the first place, or you do understand, and just don't care. I suspect the latter. In any case, your only desire with your unblock requests is to attempt to attempt to wikilawyer over areas where, happily, you don't have a leg to stand on. J.delanoygabsadds 16:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This AFD is a possibly sensitive issue. The article Veritee has been the subject of an aggressive cross-wiki marketing campaign. Previous versions of the article (and related) were deleted after prior AFDs. The older AFD discussions were courtesy blanked by Jimbo himself. The current AFD is the subject of likely sockpuppetry with behavior suspiciously similar to the prior AFDs which turned ugly. It would probably be helpful if admin or two could take a look and help out and try to head off the kind of situation that ended up bringing Jimbo into it before. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'll add it to my watchlist but it looks quite normal to me, no high amounts of socks nor any major flaming or other incivility. The two users who seem to take it a bit too personally can be dealt with if needed. The AFD is due in half a day anyway, so I see not much to worry about. Regards SoWhy 12:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a significant edit war going on at Developed country. Apparently the CIA, for racist reasons, is refusing to recognize South Korea as a "Developed country", and a variety of editors is putting in original research and their own synthesis of sources and reasoning to prove that South Korea really is a "Developed country". All it would take is one reliable source which criticizes the CIA report, and all would be well, but, as it appears that there is no such reliable source, a variety of editors continues to edit the article to prove their point that the CIA is wrong. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- According to the Developed country article, the CIA publishes two lists. One lists South Korea and the other list doesn't. There should be a closer look because one list has South Africa and Turkey on it but not on the CIA AE list. Like South Korea, Singapore is listed on the CIA DC list but not the CIA AE list. This seems strange because the GDP of Singapore is about the same as the US and higher than most European countries.
- I have seen edit wars going on for months, if not longer, on this page and others concerning those CIA lists. I would strongly encourage the editors involved to open an RfC on whether those lists should be included at all. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you mean the per capita GDP, as the full GDP of the US is nearly 60 times that of Singapore. :) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Forbidden Planet disruptive editing
64.136.26.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bob53h (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
We've got an IP and an apparent sock (a named ID from that IP) causing some trouble at that article: poor English grammar, screwing up the references, trying to remove the ending as a "spoiler" (contrary to policy) and also repeatedly posting an uncited claim that some particular author was the inspiration. He refuses to respond to questions. I ask for a school block (i.e. some healthy stretch) for both user IDs. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
166.205.130.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Another IP has gotten into the act. Maybe semi-protection of the article is called for. A 50-year old movie getting targeted. Go figure. That IP, incidentally, just commented here, about Thuranx, a few minutes before fooling with the FP article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
166.205.131.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yet another one, obviously from the same range as the one just above. Semi-protection along with blocking Bob53h would take care of it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected. If Bob53h continues causing trouble, I'll take care of it then.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This edit, saying that ThuranX is the Joker, concerns me. MuZemike 00:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- WP:DFT. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Block review requested: KojiDude
- KojiDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
After viewing their recent contributions to WP:RFA and WT:RFA, including edit summaries, I raised concerns at this user's talk page that they were making bad-faith disruptive contributions. Their reply essentially confirmed my view as correct, i.e. they see the whole thing as a joke. Therefore, I've applied a short block. Feedback is welcome. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Good block. Spewing childish remarks like "Because I can" have no place on an RFA. Majorly talk 20:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm biased, as some of his comments were directed at me. However, while I was attempting to raise a serious concern, he was clearly not interested in having a serious or constructive conversation. Outside of trying to anger me, and show disrespect to other editors, I can't see how he was trying to be anything other than disruptive. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- After foolishly looking at that thread at WT:RFA (somebody owes me 3 minutes of my life back), I'm left with a few opinions:
- WT:RFA should be MFD's as a waste of time, WMF computer resources, and electricity.
- We block people for goofing around on the RFA talk page!? Really? I assume because they're disrupting the usually productive work that goes on there?
- If only the RFA candidate in question would emulate the calm, mature, and de-escalating nature exhibited by all the admins in that thread, he'd sail thru RFA. You guys know that non-admins can see you bickering and acting like children, right?
- How embarrassing for all of you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sadly, we don't block people for goofing around on the RFA talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- After foolishly looking at that thread at WT:RFA (somebody owes me 3 minutes of my life back), I'm left with a few opinions:
Floquenbeam has it right; the entire situation, up to and including this block, ought to be embarassing. The sort of nonsense going on at WT:RFA is best dealt with by ignoring it a la WP:DENY. The back and forth, the escalation and the resultant block indeed makes it look like we spend more time bickering over nonsesne and slapping each other on the wrist than getting any work done. How silly. Shereth 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Good grief at that talk page. Truely, we should mark it as {{humor}} and move it to a separate area. On a normal talk page i might say i agreed with a block such as demonstrated above, but seeing the amount of rediculousness already at that page i would say Koji was behaving exactly par the page standards. Statistically taken, what have we won by blocking this user? The page didn't improve, we created quite the soapbox, and we came to the conclusion that WT:RFA is utter nonsense. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- With respect, you have mis-read this. The one RfA Talk post I cited was confirmation that the WP:RFA posts were made in bad faith. The block was for posts made to WP:RFA not WT:RFA. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- What have we gained? The same thing we always gain by blocking people who are trolling: a temporary stop to the trolling, and if we're very very lucky, they will change their approach and refrain from trolling in the future. It's not wonderfully effective, true, but it's better than doing nothing. Friday (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Precisely. Well said. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that KojiDude's contributions have crossed the line, but this is an abnormally short amount of warning and attempt to work with problem user before blocking. You're essentially blocking to get his attention, without having spent much effort on the talk page to do so without blocking first.
- I'm going to try to more politely discuss it with the user on his talk page, but I recommend an unblock. 24 hrs is not a sensible block length for this problem - either nothing, with more good faith attempts to discuss, or an indef if there's clearly no change going to come of it, which I clearly think is not appropriate yet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I dunno why anyone could be upset about this; Koji dared SheffieldSteel to block him. Said it would make his day, and the edit summary - "fingers crossed!" Don't make him into the martyr he wants to be. Tan | 39 23:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's hard to get too worked up about this block given the attitude expressed by Koji in his statements. But I would have liked to have seen more of an effort at civil discussion before complying with an editor's "dare" to block them.
- Showing restraint and leading by example are good things. It's not at all clear to me what Koji meant by their various statements, and their comments are not so blatantly over the top or inappropriate that they warranted an immediate block. Discussion would have been good. A posting here or somewhere similar before blocking might also have been good. This seems like one of those blocks that causes at least as much drama as it addresses. And now another editor will likely be embittered by a permanent stain on their log. There's already enough tension and animosity in the discussion related to that RfA. But again, it's hard to really say that this block was wrong. Maybe just premature and avoidable? I guess we'll never know now... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not that I disagree with you, but it is his fourth block. I'm pretty sure he's not worried about permanent stains. Tan | 39 00:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- The earlier three blocks were all from 2006. Not particularly relevant here and now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not that I disagree with you, but it is his fourth block. I'm pretty sure he's not worried about permanent stains. Tan | 39 00:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I dunno why anyone could be upset about this; Koji dared SheffieldSteel to block him. Said it would make his day, and the edit summary - "fingers crossed!" Don't make him into the martyr he wants to be. Tan | 39 23:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
"In The News" Section Update
Could an admin update the "In The News" section on the front page under the 2009 Washington Metro train collision story? It says that 7 people had died, sadly according to this story from DC station WUSA-TV, the number has gone up to 9. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- This probably should have been at Main Page errors, but I independently confirmed it and made the correction.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry about adding this to the wrong place. Thanks for the correction though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Possibly involved in an edit war/content dispute in the Philippines article. 23prootie (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Myosotis Scorpioides continually re-inserts material about a non-notable author and his self-published book into the Raymond Steed article - editor's source fails WP:RS (only offers primary sourcing from the authors personal website as a reference), and he refuses to discuss his reasons why he feels this information is so important, except for a few edit summaries claiming that either a *redirect* from a deleted article makes the information necessary, or that "DYK experts" approved it. I could use some more eyes on this page. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, I don't think it's important or relevant to the article, particularly if there is no reliable source cited. The redirect is only there because it was mentioned in the article (see RFD discussion), and the article only mentions it because there is a redirect. Maybe the redirect should be nominated for deletion again as there was clearly not enough discussion for there to be any consensus to keep the redirect. snigbrook (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I only created/and wrote the Raymond Steed article in response to a suggestion made at the first AFD of Fledgling Jason Steed. It was suggested that a brief mention be made of the book in the memorial section of such an article, which I carried out - in one sentence. However, MikeWazowski is repeatedly removing this information - even though it passed muster with the Did You Know (DYK) Wikipedia editors back in early May - and made it onto the front page without any problems. The information is sourced to a website run by the author - and is non controversial. I feel MikeWazowski is at fault here.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- The author's website definitely wouldn't qualify as an independent third party source. I just did a quick Google search for <"Mark A Cooper" "Raymond Steed" memorial> (based on the contested contributions), and came up with only 17 unique returns - not a single one would qualify under the reliable sources guidelines, as they're either Amazon reviews, message boards, other wikis, or the author himself. I agree with MikeWazowski and Snigbrook - this seems like some kind of POV shopping to benefit Cooper or his book, and doesn't belong in the article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have asked for the whole article to be deleted. Hopefully that will make everyone happy. Back to the playground now boys. -- Myosotis Scorpioides 19:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Prod declined, speedy declined. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)I agree with what TheRealFeenShysa said. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have asked for the whole article to be deleted. Hopefully that will make everyone happy. Back to the playground now boys. -- Myosotis Scorpioides 19:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- The author's website definitely wouldn't qualify as an independent third party source. I just did a quick Google search for <"Mark A Cooper" "Raymond Steed" memorial> (based on the contested contributions), and came up with only 17 unique returns - not a single one would qualify under the reliable sources guidelines, as they're either Amazon reviews, message boards, other wikis, or the author himself. I agree with MikeWazowski and Snigbrook - this seems like some kind of POV shopping to benefit Cooper or his book, and doesn't belong in the article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I only created/and wrote the Raymond Steed article in response to a suggestion made at the first AFD of Fledgling Jason Steed. It was suggested that a brief mention be made of the book in the memorial section of such an article, which I carried out - in one sentence. However, MikeWazowski is repeatedly removing this information - even though it passed muster with the Did You Know (DYK) Wikipedia editors back in early May - and made it onto the front page without any problems. The information is sourced to a website run by the author - and is non controversial. I feel MikeWazowski is at fault here.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Benson Verazzano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor seems to have become disruptive. He edited the now deleted article Jeremy Dunning-Davies to include false information that he invented himself, detailed on the Afd here. He subsequently tried to OUT me on my talk page [33]. He has also been warned about disruptive editing on Creation according to Genesis here by admin Dougweller. Possibly some kind of block is in order. Mathsci (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- 1. I did not write anything in the Dunning-Davis article as Mathsci well knows, I reverted to the initially written version. Suggesting I "invented" information myself is laughable. A quick cross check of the earlier version proves it's nonsense. I reverted (which has now been conveniently deleted) so that it said SOMETHING of interest instead of basically that the guy was born and taught at Hull. lol The article was on it's way to being deleted anyway, so what's the point.
- 2. I had no idea outing was anything evil on Wiki. Regardless it was a joke. His username is Mathsci, and I posted links to two Mathscis - one of them www.mathsci.com just for the heck of it. I have no idea who Mathsci is, so how am I going to out him?
- 3. I have not been disruptively editing on Genesis, but have been involved in supporting another editors position, and debating a matter on the talk page.
- 4. These allegations are spurious and disruptive in themselves and serve no purpose other than to drive me off Wikipedia, which I'm sure Mathsci would enjoy.
- 5. Where is the assumption of good faith?--Benson Verazzano (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
BV has been indef blocked by Raul as a sock of Gregory Clegg. Dayewalker (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- This user accused me of copyright violations on this page, despite me writing the plot in a different way. I tried my best to avoid copyright violations, but yet this user reverted it as a "copy vio" anyway! Ryanbstevens (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
CorenSearchBot also thinks it's a copyright violation; for the record, so do I, and I have removed that material again. I note that your talk page is quite full of warnings about copyright as well, so you cannot claim ignorance as an excuse. Thank you for bringing the matter to people's attention, however. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Note also this post on my talkpage. Ryanbstevens, if the original text is a copyright violation (as it was here), merely shifting a few words around does not make it any less so. You want to completely rewrite the section, without any reference to the copyright-violating text, and without copying text from elsewhere. Also, please don't split up discussions; you wanted a discussion here, and now you've got one. Also also, it is good form to let a user know when you are discussing them here, especially when you are accusing them of wrongdoing. I've notified ERK on your behalf, but please don't skip that step if you open such discussions again. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Ryanbstevens, the content in question was a copyright violation and as per policy I removed it from Wikipedia. The plot you copied only contained minimal changes to wording and syntax; it was on the whole a verbatim quotation from Barnes & Noble's product listing for the book. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's copyright policy, found at WP:COPY. I planned to respond on your talk page to the message you left me [34] before you removed it from my talk page. Because you removed your message from my talk page I assumed you recanted you remarks and no further action was necessary from me. ERK talk 05:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Asmahan article
The asmahan article is missing a lot of sources. I added a lot of information, with many sources this have now been revert by: 98.195.180.144
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=298329690&oldid=298328857
I would like to request a lock down on both the Asmahan and Farid al Atrash articles so that only registered members can change them. And also change it back to the sourced version.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Its not only about the protection, he removed all my sources and added non-sourced info. Is that ok? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you telling me that no source at all is better then these books? Click on the links.
"Asmahan's Secrets":http://books.google.com/books?id=Eca2pXOX-F8C&pg=PA113&dq=asmahan+syria
"The great Syrian revolt and the rise of Arab nationalism": http://books.google.com/books?id=Ej8ZMk1822sC&pg=PA72&dq=sultan+al+atrash
"Let jasmine rain down":http://books.google.com/books?id=pgoFDZeHhF4C&pg=PA109&dq=asmahan "World Music": http://books.google.com/books?id=gyiTOcnb2yYC&pg=PA328&dq=asmahan+born&lr=
How are these not reliable sources? I even posted the pages so everyone can click on it, look it up, and read it directly. These are documented books. What kind of source are you asking for? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- A request for 3rd-party ruling has already been launched on those articles, Asmahan and Farid al-Atrash. A discussion has already been started on the respective Talk pages of those articles at the request of several admins, including Graeme Bartlett. Graeme required that opponents submit certain specific evidence (whether Asmahan and Farid were Syrian citizens when adult; they had immigrated to Egypt in childhood) on the Talk pages of those articles for discussion and consensus. None of the google links listed above provides the required evidence, and the articles already state that they were Egyptian of Syrian-Lebanese origin, which is entirely accurate. I have submitted my evidence long ago, while User Supreme Deliciousness has submitted none. He just went ahead and reverted the articles without discussion or consensus. --98.195.180.144 (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Page protected for a week. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/125.237.80.96
Can someone review this chaps contributions? I fear they might be up to no good. Mahalo, Skomorokh 12:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's kind of weird. A lot of their edits seem to check out on Google (Neil Phillips addition to Minder/A Touch of Frost, for example), but then there's that one above, and another I came across and reverted. We'd better keep checking.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Fact tag reverts
Can a "fact tag" keep getting reverted? I added a fact tag to Saint George and I do want to avoid an edit war or a e revert situation - I issued a warning. Can someone give an opinion please? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I note that you had provided a warning which was removed by B'er. I was in the process of adding that you are both edit-warring, whether or not you reach 3RR, which I have in fact re-added to his talkpage - you're warned as well. B'er was also warned to stick to WP:RS. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I respectfully have to say: No, not at all. I have added a fact tag for Heaven's sake and ONLY done 2 reverts. Since when is that an edit war? This is not really a content dispute but a quality issue. If you allow fact tags to be removed Wikipedia starts to get "junk content". I have no issue with correct statements in Wikipedia, but fact tags are absolutely needed to maintain quality. Their removal must be an absolute no-no. Or is quality a secondary issue in Wikipedia now? History2007 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
cursing by 82.109.84.9
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Qamishli&action=history
Look at the top: "#### All Asyriac Nation" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- The user is blocked. Let's not give them visibility by posting their antics here. I recommend deleting this thread. Jehochman Talk 13:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The above-mentioned user refuses to accept that Cristiano Ronaldo's move from Manchester United F.C. to Real Madrid C.F. has not yet gone through and continues to add erroneous data to the player's article despite warnings to the contrary. User was reported at WP:AIV, but the report was deferred here. – PeeJay 14:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
GranvilleHouston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently adding the surname of this child, unsourced or poorly-sourced and apparently against consensus. He appears to be on some kind of crusade to have this name included. Since I have expressed an opinion on content, I bring this here for fresh minds to tackle this issue. Rodhullandemu 15:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
We all know his name anyway since it's all over the Internet, he deserves the dignity of at least being accorded a proper name. This is not a UK-based site so there is no reason at all not to name him. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
- I've no objection in theory, though I think the addition is unnecessary and tacky. A decent reference would be essential - I've just reverted the addition of a reference from a site that proclaims "The Daily Squib is a curious satirical publication and should therefore be taken fu**ing seriously ;)" - to be fair that's at the bottom of the page, so it's maybe not as obvious as, say, The Onion, that it's satire... Incidentally, I'm UK-based and I guess I don't fall into the "we all know..." category since I tend to get my news from TV, radio, and those newspapers I can buy at my local Co-op ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- We do have precedent for names of minors unreleased because they are minors: Nevada-tan. The argument in the RfD was that, often, (fairly) reputable news sources will respect the legal system and not disclose names, which leaves the ones that do to be unreliable and unusable. Sceptre (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Some comments:
- The people best placed to judge the wisdom of publishing the name are the UK courts; whilst they may be slow, they are not capricious and if they believe that publishing the name is not appropriate then I see no reason why we should doubt their judgment, even if non-UK editors have no legal obligation to follow it.
- Contrary to some of the vile nonsense on the talk page, BLP applies to everyone equally - guilty, innocent and victim alike.
- I am inclined to indefinitely block rather than debate with editors who advocate for the murder of the guilty and then pursue a campaign to include court suppressed names in the article. CIreland (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The courts are a load of rubbish from Europe anyway and executing child murderers is not murder. There are NO reasons at all not to name the murdered child and the murderers, it must be done at once. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
- The child has siblings, and there are apparently other pending court cases against the parents, these two factors resulting in a UK order to suppress the name. Oversight has been dealing with this repeatedly; I originally questioned the rationale for this (as Wikipedia is not UK based) but the other factors are sufficient to convince me to at least leave the decision in the hands of other smart people. The general consensus on oversight-L is that it is acceptable to suppress this information, at least for now. Thatcher 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've been at this article for a while now, and since it seems to have spilled over here, I have a few remarks.
- Despite GranvilleHouston's pugnacious attitude, he raises several valid points. We do have a policy that Wikipedia is not censored, which has been blithely ignored in this matter. By no precedent which any have raised has WP:BLP extended to the censorship of the names of adult criminal suspects, much less convicted perpetrators.
- I previously agreed not to strongly contest this matter while jury proceedings were ongoing. That is, to the best of my knowledge, no longer the case.
- Peter does have siblings (one of whom is a rape victim), which is the current sole remaining WP:BLP rationale for restricting his last name. However, this argument is being made in a vacumn. It seems unimaginable to me that, after a case of this degree of publicity and magnitude, that the siblings' name would not be changed. Furthermore, the last name at issue here is a common one, and its power of identification without a first name is insignificant. Without putting out forbidden information, let's just say that it's more common than Thatcher and less common than Sheridan.
- Wikipedia should not, indeed cannot if it is to remain true to its mission, get into the business of deferring, sight unseen, to the logic of courts which do not have authority over it. I trust the current business in Iran, and frequent cases in China, provide ample reason why. We can only reason on the information given to us, which is thus far grossly lacking in details about practices, and seems to reflect a "censor in deference to the courts" attitude. RayTalk 16:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd agree, based on CIreland and Sceptre's points, that the name shouldn't be disclosed at the moment. I think that GranvilleHouston's last point undermined his credibility quite nicely (The courts are a load of rubbish from Europe? What tosh. We don't have a single European court in the English legal system). I appreciate Ray's argument, however, and I'd be quite happy to support inclusion if a reliable source can be found. Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Reliable sources are the key. I recall a case awhile back, where a couple of paroled murderers had somehow swung a deal to allow them to "restart their lives", and there was a brouhaha about wikipedia carrying their names. However, reliable sources had the names, so the BLP argument failed. Similarly here - if reliable sources have the info, and if those sources have not been enjoined from publishing that info, then there is no reason wikipedia can't publish also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Reliable sources aren't the problem here. [35], [36], [37], [38] (not English), [39] have all been posted to the talk page in the past. RayTalk 16:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Like I said, if the courts have enjoined the media from publishing the names, then in theory the media don't have the right to publish the names. So how are they getting away with it? Or did the court issue an order that it had no right to issue, and is thus leaving such publication unchallenged? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also, presumably the BLP issue is about identifying the parents, right? BLP obviously would not apply to the dead, unless it would compromise BLP rules for the living. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, the BLP "issue" is about identifying Peter's unnamed sister. Custom and common sense is that convicted criminals do not enjoy the right not to be named. RayTalk 17:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Convicted criminals do enjoy the same protections under our BLP policy as everyone else, Ray, no matter how terrible their crimes. CIreland (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)The court placed an order that the mother's and her boyfriend's name not be disclosed; this isn't for the sake of them, but because the mother has other minor children, and the court felt they would be harmed by the inevitable exposure. The court didn't make a similar order against the third adult involved in the case, because he wasn't a member of the family (and, their reasoning went, this wouldn't lead to the children being identified). This Newsweek story goes in to more detail, and it answers Bugs' question - those that have published are risking prosecution, but many internet sources have, so they're going on the theory that there's so many that they won't. 87.115.17.119 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, the BLP "issue" is about identifying Peter's unnamed sister. Custom and common sense is that convicted criminals do not enjoy the right not to be named. RayTalk 17:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also, presumably the BLP issue is about identifying the parents, right? BLP obviously would not apply to the dead, unless it would compromise BLP rules for the living. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Like I said, if the courts have enjoined the media from publishing the names, then in theory the media don't have the right to publish the names. So how are they getting away with it? Or did the court issue an order that it had no right to issue, and is thus leaving such publication unchallenged? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Reliable sources aren't the problem here. [35], [36], [37], [38] (not English), [39] have all been posted to the talk page in the past. RayTalk 16:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Reliable sources are the key. I recall a case awhile back, where a couple of paroled murderers had somehow swung a deal to allow them to "restart their lives", and there was a brouhaha about wikipedia carrying their names. However, reliable sources had the names, so the BLP argument failed. Similarly here - if reliable sources have the info, and if those sources have not been enjoined from publishing that info, then there is no reason wikipedia can't publish also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
We should make these decisions based on our own policies. Who cares what the UK courts think? Their opinion is irrelevant here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Our own policies include taking into account the opinions of those more fully acquainted with the facts and with greater experience of dealing with such issues. For example, the UK courts. CIreland (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- But the issue here isn't a legal one (something the courts would be experienced in) but an encyclopedic one. Unless you want to call up David Eady the opinion of the courts is irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- In contrast to the case of the two paroled murderers that I was talking about earlier, this involves protecting the innocent. Sounds to me like wikipedia should not be in position of putting the kids at risk, if in fact that is a legitimate concern. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- What policy says that? As far as I know, the policy here is that legal issues are the domain of the Foundation and unless Mike Godwin tells us to do something, we should simply continue to follow our own guidelines without trying to worry about the opinions of various courts around the world. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- But the issue here isn't a legal one (something the courts would be experienced in) but an encyclopedic one. Unless you want to call up David Eady the opinion of the courts is irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I think, legal issues aside, the question is do we really want to come over as a bunch of insensitive pricks over the death of a child? Does the name's inclusion, right now this instant, add anything to the value of the article that we can't possibly live without? It strikes me that, just because we can do something under cover of our policies, it doesn't mean we should. EyeSerenetalk 18:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- This. //roux 18:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Naming the dead child, by itself, has nothing to do with BLP, as the child is dead. The parents do not warrant censorship either. But the innocent children do, if in fact they could be at risk. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, though I was trying to avoid the 'c' word ;) I think this is one of those situations where common-sense can usefully be applied for now, until the whole issue becomes moot when (presumably) the other children are resettled under new names and the reporting restrictions lifted. EyeSerenetalk 19:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If it didn't matter, the courts would permit the release of the name. While the court's decision may be predicated on matters unrelated to our own WP:BLP's concerns which may moreover have been made moot by the apparent non-mainstream release of such information, that doesn't mean we should necessarily go against such a media blackout.
- Furthermore, WP:DEADLINE people; there isn't one. This is a common problem with articles on developing events, and while it's made all the more controversial by the distasteful nature of those events, I don't see any compelling reason to treat it any differently than another article on a current event. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I second Chunky Rice's " Who cares what the UK courts think? Their opinion is irrelevant here." As internet nerds, we're surely better placed than anyone to make such judgements. I propose we form a Council of Brights, chosen from those wikipedians whose World of Warcraft characters have the highest INT scores, and have them decide such matters. I'd trust their judgement over any mere court. 87.115.17.119 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, though I was trying to avoid the 'c' word ;) I think this is one of those situations where common-sense can usefully be applied for now, until the whole issue becomes moot when (presumably) the other children are resettled under new names and the reporting restrictions lifted. EyeSerenetalk 19:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder if I call Granville a little shit if I will be capriciously blocked for 3 hours without attempt at discussion? Just wondering, mind you. Not actually doing so. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's not relevant to this discussion. And yes, if you do call an editor that expect to be blocked. We don't tolerate personal attacks. Exxolon (talk)
- Clearly, you are clueless as to the incident to which I refer, as well as to the point which I am making. This comment was not intended for you, I assure you. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you'd done a little more research, you'd know I'm fully aware of the incident you're referring to for a very good reason. Let me reiterate - the rights or wrongs of that incident are irrelevant to this discussion and debate should probably be continued elsewhere, however using that kind of language about other editors is clearly a blockable violation of WP:NPA - this is a serious project demanding a certain minimum standard of behaviour which that kind of act falls well short of. If we're not sanctioning editors who use that kind of language we definitely should be. Calling me 'clueless' isn't particularly civil either and in posting to this public noticeboard you're inviting a reponse from any editor, not just the one(s) you were attempting to get a reaction from. Exxolon (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Then I stand corrected - you are aware, therefore being deliberately obtuse rather than innocently clueless. Thank you for clarifying your position. I am done. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you'd done a little more research, you'd know I'm fully aware of the incident you're referring to for a very good reason. Let me reiterate - the rights or wrongs of that incident are irrelevant to this discussion and debate should probably be continued elsewhere, however using that kind of language about other editors is clearly a blockable violation of WP:NPA - this is a serious project demanding a certain minimum standard of behaviour which that kind of act falls well short of. If we're not sanctioning editors who use that kind of language we definitely should be. Calling me 'clueless' isn't particularly civil either and in posting to this public noticeboard you're inviting a reponse from any editor, not just the one(s) you were attempting to get a reaction from. Exxolon (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Clearly, you are clueless as to the incident to which I refer, as well as to the point which I am making. This comment was not intended for you, I assure you. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's not relevant to this discussion. And yes, if you do call an editor that expect to be blocked. We don't tolerate personal attacks. Exxolon (talk)
- KillerChihuahua, Exxolon, this thread has gone from a silly joke to a disruptive squabble, that has no bearing on any actual issue for administrators. Please both immediately WP:DISENGAGE from this daft pissing contest; it's conduct unbecoming of you both. 87.115.17.119 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I was already done, see the "I am done" in the message above? Feel free to chastise others who have already ceased behaviors which bother you, though, if it makes you feel better. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- 87.115.17.11 you are correct - I'm moving ongoing issues to KillerChihuahua's talkpage and will try and resolve them there instead. Exxolon (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
As one of the oversighters involved in this, I have been waiting for some current reliable source to stick their neck out and include the name. We should not be the first. Barely a day goes by without new news articles going to print, and yet news sources across the globe are choosing to not include the names. We should follow their lead. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Editor has been inserting unreferenced information about future Disney releases, or removing sections from some articles (see his contributions for the full list), and will not provide references. When asked to provide references, claims that he's knows the truth, accuses others of lying, but still doesn't provide refernces. Today the editor left me this message: "I HAVE RELIABLE SOURCES! NOW F*** OFF AND LEAVE ME ALONE!" - however, he still hasn't provided any references. Editor has been blocked before for similar behavior. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nice. Death threats. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
User:JoeLoeb keeps creating nonsense talk pages
This user has this odd habit of creating talk pages for articles that don't exist, or that contain nothing but a repetition of the title of the page. I brought this up with him several weeks ago, and [40] was his less than helpful reply. I took it to WP:WQA to try and impress upon him that he was just wasting his time and the time of other editors, but he showed no indication that he understood or cared [41] and has created at least three more of these nonsense pages since then,Talk:Director Emil Blonsky, Talk:Billy Russoti, and Template talk:Wanted. Sometimes users like this actually listen if an admin explains things to them, so I am hoping someone here can impress upon him what a waste this is and that he should stop, or be sanctioned or maybe topic banned from creating talk pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked for 48 hours, for both continuing to ignore requests not to edit disruptively and for the snarky responses that such requests seem to provoke. Hopefully they'll use the break to read up on editing policy. EyeSerenetalk 18:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Help/Suggestions in dealing with a stalker
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Alright, I figure I can ask for some help here, I've been getting a lot of emails from some one (Nishkid told me was some old time vandal here; This is his ((The Vandals)) email wwwvanessawww@gmail.com) and it's stepped to a whole new level and I was wondering if anyone knew some where I could report him, because it's becoming very unnerving and I am not feeling very safe. This is and I know for a fact directly because of my activities here on Wikipedia because he continually refers to Wikipedia in every single email he sends and it's not just emails, even went as far as to register websites in my name (Which I promptly have shot down). I need some help or a suggestion or something. Rgoodermote 17:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- If all the emails are through Wikipedia there should be a note in the email with the user's name, could you provide that please? With that it would be possible to block their email. I presume you haven't replied to any of the emails? - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't suppose they call you a "Wikipedo" in the emails? I had a run-in with someone who had an axe to grind with Wikipedia and its administrators a while ago and when I did not reply to their demands they started spamming my email from time to time with ridiculous nonsense. There is relatively little that can be done about it except to just ignore it; eventually they get bored and go away. Now, if the emails start to contain something like personal information or implied threats against you in a physical sense, you would probably be best contacting your local authorities for help on how to handle it. Shereth 17:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I wish I got them through Wikipedia, they were sent to an email that I have hidden (And yes I did originally email them back because they started out just asking a simple question and I did originally think they sent it through Wikipedia because the title said from Wikipedia, however I should have noticed something was wrong when they didn't show a username)..which has me shitting my pants. @Shereth: That and a long list of other interesting tidbits and no, not at this point. They seem to be very interested in my sexual preference right now and ranting about how I "rape wikis" and it doesn't make it easier when they do it through various spam related things..so it makes ignoring them hard at times. This is not my first stalker, this is just the most unnerving one. Rgoodermote 17:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- 1. You call your local authorities. 2. Your local authorities contact Google. 3. Google shuts down and bans the harasser. See http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=29434. Additionally, set up a filter in your mail system to deliver their harassment straight to the trash bin. Jehochman Talk 17:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems
Hi just to say there's a bit of a backlog in my humble opinion at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems. All help appreciated. Sticky Parkin 17:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Huge Backlog.
There is a huge backlog at the Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. This may require one or two admins to clean up.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's not really a back log per se, but just the most recent dump from our most diligent spam eradicator. –xenotalk 17:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah he does seem to be on a roll. Call it what you will, there are a lot of reports to be taken care of.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Ouch. That was a mess. Shereth 17:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just checking - did reporting editors talk to the potentially offending username owning editors before going to UAA? An editor called ABBenson editing ABBenson_Management has a spam username (not allowed?) and a COI, but one sympathetic editor letting them know this, and explaining COI, is better than 3 or 4 people jumping on with various levels of warnings straight away. Of course, the first instance the editor shows of ignoring the gentle approach it should e removed and they can cope with the sticks. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
A question about RfC
Background: a content issue has arisen at an article, and two sides of the content issue are relatively intractable. One suggested filing an RfC, and the other agreed to let the first user file it. It was filed, noting (in neutral terms) the content of the issue.
My question: is the RfC supposed to elicit outside comment, or is it supposed to be a new area for one of the sides of the dispute to reiterate their position before any outside comment has been made? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Good question. From my limited experience, the "regulars" will often put forth their arguments so that the outside parties will see the sides clearly and succinctly. –xenotalk 18:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- RFCs are supposed to solicit outside comment. I believe it is common for both sides present their arguments (concisely, respectfully) and see what the outside views are. Thatcher 19:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. I thought that the outside comments would see the previous discussion and offer a comment. It didn't seem like a new forum to make the same points ad nauseum. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
For future reference, this sort of question would be better at the village pump – this page is for "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators" (as in, the technical actions, or the wise discussion). [My emphasis] Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Misuse of admin powers
User: Enigmaman has been abusing his position as an admin. On this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_in_metal I have been formatting in what I feel is a better manner. If he, or any other user, disagrees then they are quite welcome to discuss it with me, but no attempt to do so has been made.
Instead, he and Wiki Libs have been consistently reverting me, giving no explanation as to why. I'm not removing any sources or inserting any new information: I'm literally just formatting. Then, just now, Enigmaman reverts again and locks the page for A WEEK.
This is yet another example of wikipedia admins abusing their positions. Yeah, yeah, I can hear it already: "But you were edit warring, he did the right thing." Wrong. Page locking is not there so an admin can selfishly and arrogantly lock a page in a format they like best. If either of them feels there is a problem, they can contact me, or use the talk page, or just put something in their edit summaries. Instead, they've simply been undoing over and again, giving no explanation for their actions, while I have repeatedly said why I am doing what I am doing.
This is misuse of the locking function. I know of course that nothing will be done about it, because on wikipedia nothing ever is. Admins abuse their powers every day, and nothing is ever done about it. But hey, you never know, there's always the chance a random sensible person like myself will see this and take some hope from it. 86.129.199.181 (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- WP:BRD
- You have to discuss if people don't like your "bright idea" – edit-warring will lead to page protection, and is not allowed. OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 20:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unless the IPs' edits are actually vandalism or there's something else I'm missing, I think this is a kind of sketchy use of WP:SEMI as Wiki libs is definitely autoconfirmed. It would also seem there are a lot of article being affected by this user, and it seems definitely related to Talk:1960s in heavy metal music#Semi again. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- looking into this some, I have a few comments: 1) The IP has a dynamic IP and at least one of which was contacted and warned. 2) The IP's edits are on numerous pages and they are all being reverted. I don't necessarily think the IP is wrong in his edits, but would encourage the IP to discuss them. It is clear from the number of pages/editors involved that the IP's change does not (yet) have broader community support on making these changes. Is a week reasonable? I personally wouldn't have protected for that long, but I do think this edit should be discussed as it is obviously not shared by others.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Answering your query Balloonman... the main page the IP is warring over (the 1960s page) was already protected before for a week by Sir Scarian.. and then again for a month by WilliamConnelly. The IP sock continued his war (even declaring on the talk page a few days before the prot ran out that he intended to continue his war) so the page should have been protected for an even longer period. Through his edit war he has continued to ignore the fact the the page history and the talk page discussion all show a clear consensus to keep the content which he keeps blanking. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've never touched any of these articles before, so I semiprotected the rest of the 70s for a week as well. If an agreement is reached, either unprotect or let me know so I can.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- If I'm reading this right, Enigmaman reverted to his preferred version in a content dispute, and then used semi protection to lock out IPs (one person in particular) from the edit war. So, basically he violated the protect policy twice: protecting his preferred version, and using semi to block out IPs when autoconfirmed editors are also warring. ÷seresin 20:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Looks that way to me. Tan | 39 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- See my comment above that should clear your mud. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It's fun that your signature says "speak politely", and you are anything but. Please let this discussion/investigation continue without your sarcasm, snark, or pithy comments.Tan | 39 20:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)- My comment is not snarky, sarcastic or pithy. Previous comments showed that a few users were unfamiliar with the situation and I left a helpful comment to help them out. They were meant to be 100% helpful to everyone who is commenting based on this little puddle IP here and not knowing the whole sh-bang. I could have put a happy smiley at the end of my sentence if that would've helped. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- See my comment above that should clear your mud. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Looks that way to me. Tan | 39 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment - protection may have been technically the correct action (possibly) but to avoid any appearance of impropiety should've been brought to the attention of an uninvolved admin to administer. Exxolon (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually E_man was an uninvolved admin. He only stepped in to assist in an obvious/ongoing IP war when it was brought to his attention. Looking at the page edit history it looks, at first, like a back-n-forth between 2 IP users. In fact it is an ongoing battle between 1 solo IP sock and a whole series of IPs that originate from numerous locales (if my geolocate is working correctly) The Real Libs-speak politely 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that he didn't step in to block edit-warring users or fully protect an edit-war-torn page; he reverted the IP and then semi-protected the page. As the IP edits were not blatant vandalism, I really can't see how this admin action was justified. Tan | 39 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- When a user has been blocked from editing and chooses to use an IP sock to evade his block in order to continue editing... I don't see where his actions were questionable at all. The IPs edits weren't vandalism... they were a single user using a series of IP socks to revert an article(s) away from an established consensus because they disagree with the consensus themselves. And, as mentioned, evading a block to do so. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Concur with Wiki libs - had the IP not been dynamic, it might have been arguable that the best solution would have been to block the IP for edit warring. As that is not feasible, semi-protecting the page is justifiable. Those arguing for misuse of admin functions are, pardon me, behaving like process supercedes everything - rules-wankers, as it were. Suggest they take a step back and try to view the Big Picture. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- "rules-wankers"???? - is this really an appropiate way to describe editors? Exxolon (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please review the situation before you call us "rules-wankers". The IP address was formatting. He was being reverted, either without explanation, or as Wikilibs said in an edit summary, "removal of cited material". I could be wrong, but I do not see any removal of cited material. The IP may not have gone about this the right way, but 3RR was not broken, and he was reverted with either disingenuous edit summaries or no explanation at all. This really is a matter of "I like this way more than your way", and semi-protection of the page as a way of stopping it was not warranted. None of the editors attempted to discuss this. Enigmaman, as much as I like him, stepped into an edit war between an established user and an IP account. The fact that the IP was dynamic is irrelevant. Siding with the account on the edit war, and then protecting his preferred version, was very poor form indeed. I am removing the resolved tag that that was capriciously put on here. KillerChihuahua, you apparently did not review this situation - at all. Try to view the big picture? Try to understand what's going on first. Tan | 39 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- "rules-wankers"???? - is this really an appropiate way to describe editors? Exxolon (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Concur with Wiki libs - had the IP not been dynamic, it might have been arguable that the best solution would have been to block the IP for edit warring. As that is not feasible, semi-protecting the page is justifiable. Those arguing for misuse of admin functions are, pardon me, behaving like process supercedes everything - rules-wankers, as it were. Suggest they take a step back and try to view the Big Picture. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- When a user has been blocked from editing and chooses to use an IP sock to evade his block in order to continue editing... I don't see where his actions were questionable at all. The IPs edits weren't vandalism... they were a single user using a series of IP socks to revert an article(s) away from an established consensus because they disagree with the consensus themselves. And, as mentioned, evading a block to do so. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that he didn't step in to block edit-warring users or fully protect an edit-war-torn page; he reverted the IP and then semi-protected the page. As the IP edits were not blatant vandalism, I really can't see how this admin action was justified. Tan | 39 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI on cleanup of a block-evading serial deprodding sock
We've been having problems with banned sockpuppeting User:Azviz (probably more correctly referred to as User:Esasus as that's an earlier account) coming back with more socks to deprod whole long lists of articles without any real rationale and otherwise disrupting the deletion process. Today I've been going through and reverting the invalid deprods his latest sockpuppets added. My method was to see if there had been any edits post the deprod. If so, if it was minor (adding a tag which logically supported the prod, such as singlesource, notability, etc.) I just added to the article with the restored prod. If it was anything beyond minor I either left it or nominated for AFD (or participated in the AFD, as most had progressed to that point, generally with unanimous votes to delete). Note that with restored prods I tried to calculate how much time was left on the prod at the time it was inappropriately deprodded and then changed the start date of the prod to take that into account (so if it was inappropriately deprodded yesterday it had a day or deprodding where nobody could have been aware of the prod notice, so I added a day to the start date of the prod to get the full run). This took me several hours to go through and cleanup, and I'm sure I didn't get all of them. This is mainly a heads up so if any admins see articles like this that they know what happened. DreamGuy (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
One of the socks created the following articles:
- Seniehun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bahal, Kenya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bahal, Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bahal, India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bahal, Cambodia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should these be deleted per WP:BAN or should be IAR on this? MuZemike 22:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- WP:BAN is not a suicide pact. If those places exist (which it appears they do, and settlements are inherently notable) then there is no reason to delete them. Black Kite 22:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by User:ChildofMidnight
ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user apparently has no experience in editing articles on French culture or mathematics. Recently he seems to have followed me two new articles I have created in a manner that I can only describe as WP:TROLLing and WP:BAITing. I created the quite complicated and carefully sourced article Château of Vauvenargues. I have consulted with the main person responsible for the recent documentation of this chateau, where Picasso and his wife Jacqueline are buried, now quite exceptionally available for view. This has been accompanied by special documentation, available locally here in Aix-en-Provence. CoM attempted to "correct" the lede, when it was still a stub, before the main article was written. He introduced faulty and highly incorrect content, in a highly disruptive way. In particular he quite incorrectly described the small village with its adjacent medieval castle as a "fortified town". Now I have started writing a slightly tricky article in mathematics, on the Butcher group, where I think it can be said without much doubt that ChildofMidnight's has no expertise at all. This again is a tough article to write and is very technical, between pure pure mathematics, theoretical physics and computer science (numerical analysis). Yet CoM is making a pain of himself. His edits/remarks on the article and its talk page are clueless. Writing this kind of article takes some intellectual effort. CoM cannot have chosen these articles at random: he is making a deliberate to attempt to cause disruption, to follow me around and to upset me. He doesn't have seem to have the slightest clue about this article, still in the course of creation. Unlike him, I am expert in this area and personally know the two main recent contributors to this subject, Alain Connes and Dirk Kreimer. If his aim is to be an anti-intellectual thorn in the flesh of expert contributors, he is certainly excelling. His edits amount to WP:BAITing and gaming the system. I am about to create a new article on the last series of paintings "The four seasons" (1660-1664) by Nicolas Poussin. I don't want to see this troublesome editor wikihounding me there as well. There's something very wrong with this disruptive behaviour. I think some kind of block is probably in order at this stage. Mathsci (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I asked CoM if he would agree to refrain from editing articles that other users are actively editing, as a matter of courtesy and good form if nothing else. --Laser brain (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am expert in this area, why does that concern me? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's culturally ingrained, stupid and self-defeating knee-jerk antipathy towards experts, I'm guessing. //roux 23:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I hate to go immediately for the jugular, but how much more disruption are we going to take from CoM before we say "no more" and issue, even if for 24 hours, a block? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- And a 24 hour block would be preventative not punative for exactly what reasons NeutralHomer? CoM has not even had a chance to reply to this thread yet, acknowledge any errors or agree any action. Hold up on the hammer please. Pedro : Chat 21:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- CoM has only edited Château of Vauvenargues twice, neither of which I see any problems with. The OP is the only other editor of the page, so if anyone one else had edited this page and anything else he edited, would that editor also be guilty of wikihounding? It isn't disruptive, his edit summaries aren't aggresive and regardless of his past behavior, nothing about these edits demand admin attention. Livewireo (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Mathsci, can you provide some diffs? If ChildofMidnight is disrupting articles, appropriate action is needed. AdjustShift (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Pedro, I have no banhammer, just making an observation. But I think for disruptive editing, of which has garnered several ANI and AN posts, I think that some form of block may be necessary. If not now than soon. Again, just an observation. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Mathsci, can you provide some diffs? If ChildofMidnight is disrupting articles, appropriate action is needed. AdjustShift (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- CoM has only edited Château of Vauvenargues twice, neither of which I see any problems with. The OP is the only other editor of the page, so if anyone one else had edited this page and anything else he edited, would that editor also be guilty of wikihounding? It isn't disruptive, his edit summaries aren't aggresive and regardless of his past behavior, nothing about these edits demand admin attention. Livewireo (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- And a 24 hour block would be preventative not punative for exactly what reasons NeutralHomer? CoM has not even had a chance to reply to this thread yet, acknowledge any errors or agree any action. Hold up on the hammer please. Pedro : Chat 21:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am expert in this area, why does that concern me? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- The best low-drama solution would be for CoM to agree not to edit either of these articles - or any other articles in the process of being written by MathSci. That would be an excellent demonstration that there's no wikihounding, baiting or whatever going on, and we wouldn't have to argue about it here. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- This looks more like it belongs at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. A simple dispute between two editors. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
- MathSci has posted here, so let's resolve the issue here. AdjustShift (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- This looks more like it belongs at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. A simple dispute between two editors. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
Rather Mathsci's bad faith behavior and threats
Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- (ex 6) Question - I've been editing some French subjects and chateau/castle/fortress articles in the past, so am I allowed to comment on Mathsci's absurd allegation and threats to CoM? When Mathsci appeared to complain threaten CoM, I checked on the edits made by CoM but I see no "alleged disruption" from two articles. I only saw that bad faith and threats from the complainer instead.--Caspian blue 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've asked CoM not to edit articles being actively worked on, and I've asked Mathsci to use polite and calm rhetoric. As far as I'm concerned, this can die here if both parties agree. --Laser brain (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- This comment from the complainer is looking for a punishment...I think some kind of block is probably in order at this stage.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
- I'm aware of that. I don't think a block is in order based on the information presented. --Laser brain (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I find it astonishing that Mathsci would come here with a petty dispute over the meaning of the word Bastide. Mathsci used the word in its rarer meaning of Bastide (Provençal manor) and COM read it in its more usual meaning of Bastide and used that meaning, incorrectly as it happened. A modicum of good faith and a brief discussion at the article talk page would have sorted it out without all this drama. As for the movement of one sentence in the Butcher group article, that's just a petty squabble. Mathsci is disturbingly keen to run to AN/I to assert his ownership of articles. That rubric If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. applies to Mathsci too. A.K.Nole (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- At Off2riorob, well, I think if a block should be issued at this time, that has to got to the complainer Mathsci for his intimidation/ incivility and gaming the system and wasting everyone's time. See the below how Mathsci threatened CoM. That is quite disturbing.
- I've asked CoM not to edit articles being actively worked on, and I've asked Mathsci to use polite and calm rhetoric. As far as I'm concerned, this can die here if both parties agree. --Laser brain (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
you have appeared almost immediately to make not very intelligent changes to the stubbed version[42]
This is a formal warning that if you continue following me around like this, you are likely to be blocked.
Your editing behaviour has been analysed by ArbCom who found it problematic. You now appear to be gaming the system.[43]
Since you seem to have no expertise in mathematics, one more edit to the article will presumably result in a block of a week or more for you, considering your past history.[44]
ou have no idea what the article is going to contain and are purposely being disruptive, like an annoying little child.
You will be reported at WP:ANI if you continue to wikihound a senior mathematics editor and presumably can expect a block.
I have no idea what is going through your head,
Antagonizing editors seems to be a particular specialty of yours. In this particular subject area your edits seem completely clueless.
- I want to say "look who's talking? --Caspian blue 21:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- User Mathsci would benefit from having this over eager request for the blocking of another editor for this simple dispute explained to him. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
- BTW, what about this edit on Butcher group and this edit on the talk page of Butcher group? C of M doesn't know much about mathematics, so why is he making such edits? Butcher group is a complex mathematical article, and only someone who has mathematics expertise should edit the article. AdjustShift (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Any content issues with that article would best be taken to WT:WPM, where there should be plenty of editors competent to do something about it. I agree that CoM doesn't seem to be the right person to work on it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Is Mathsci is a native English speaker? I have an impression that he is not. Whenever I'm expanding a newly created article, editors appears to fix my grammar, and I usually appreciate it. I do not understand the wrath of Mathsci on the petty issue.Caspian blue 22:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Any content issues with that article would best be taken to WT:WPM, where there should be plenty of editors competent to do something about it. I agree that CoM doesn't seem to be the right person to work on it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- The idea that only certain folks should edit any article is, er, bullshit, excuse my french. --Tom (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, no - that's why we have topic bans. Some editors are incapable of editing in certain topic areas without being disruptive (that's not a comment on this particular case, just a general point). Black Kite 23:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think a topic ban of Mathsci is premature at this point. But obviously his behavior was abyssmal and needs to improve. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, no - that's why we have topic bans. Some editors are incapable of editing in certain topic areas without being disruptive (that's not a comment on this particular case, just a general point). Black Kite 23:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- The idea that only certain folks should edit any article is, er, bullshit, excuse my french. --Tom (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
[45] William M. Connolley (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked User:Joseph_A._Spadaro based on this edit and this reply to my BLP warning, in addition to some other minor BLP content issues discussed on Talk:Murder of Robert Eric Wone. Aside from the user's bad attitude, he clearly doesn't believe he's done anything wrong by accusing three living people of homicide. He's probably not going to respond favorably to anything I say from this point forward, so... would anyone be willing to be a mentor/coach for him, assuming he's going to agree to our BLP policies? Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse block. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Jclemens, you are heavily involved in this article (having edited it dozens of times in recent months) and heavily involved in a content dispute with User:Joseph_A._Spadaro on the article's talk page. You are not an uninvolved administrator. It would have been much better had you reported the matter on WP:BLP/N and let one of the 1660 other Wikipedia administrators address the matter. 87.115.17.119 (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - The edit cited above as evidence is on an Article talk page; I regard it as not fully justifying a block. Article talk pages are not biographies, the BLP policy pertains to biographies, articles on Wikipedia. The editor may state his opinion on a talk page, even without sources to back it up, so long as he doesn't post it to the article or represent it as a WP endorsed point of view, and he's not posting outright libelious content (without violating BLP), although it should not be encouraged unless the discussion is relevant to developing the article: I didn't notice any glaring issue in that particular entry into the discussion. --Mysidia (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong. BLP applies across the entire project. //roux 23:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- While it does indeed, it is worth noting that discussions must include content at times which is then later determined to not be admissible in the article proper - in the very discussions which occur to make that determination. Just worth keeping in mind... In this instance, "involvement" has zero bearing on enforcing BLP. That's just a strawman argument. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong. BLP applies across the entire project. //roux 23:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
When is it appropriate to pursue this?
I am currently knee-deep with an anonymous user who is displaying a lot of the same behavior that I have seen in another editor. Aside from violations of 3RR, NPA and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (also pointed out by at least one other editor). When pressed, they admit to having edited here in the past, and I cannot prove that the user is a sock of an indef blocked or banned user, and I have the sinking suspicion that they might even be a regular user working out a grudge by editing anonymously. I do not know how to proceed, and I certainly don't want to accuse anyone of something without incontrovertible proof. They are being disruptive (and yes, i know the difference between disagreeing with me and genuine disruption), and wasting a ton of time. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)