Yellow Evan (talk | contribs) |
Unbroken Chain (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 596: | Line 596: | ||
Physchim62, Your definition of disruptive editing is 'not agreeing with what you are saying'. And you had a handy administrator ready to do the honours. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 13:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC) |
Physchim62, Your definition of disruptive editing is 'not agreeing with what you are saying'. And you had a handy administrator ready to do the honours. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 13:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
:*(Reply to Hell in a Bucket) Admin's are given some latitude to employ various conventions or practices in efforts to prevent disruption to the project; unilaterally imposing a page ban or similar is one way of doing it. If the ban is opposed then the subject can appeal the ban to the ANI noticeboard, where they would need to evidence why the ban was improper. Jehochman is not the only sysop who uses this ploy, I have done so both individually and in concert with two or more other admins. As Baseball Bugs points out above, admins are permitted to unilaterally block people; part of the responsibility entrusted to them is to deal with disruption by other methods as considered appropriate. ArbCom is not the only body authorised to make such decisions, rather they are the last resort when admin action has been found ineffective. In short, yes, Jehochman may unilaterally ban an editor from a page and providing it is not successfully challenged then consent is implicit. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 14:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC) |
:*(Reply to Hell in a Bucket) Admin's are given some latitude to employ various conventions or practices in efforts to prevent disruption to the project; unilaterally imposing a page ban or similar is one way of doing it. If the ban is opposed then the subject can appeal the ban to the ANI noticeboard, where they would need to evidence why the ban was improper. Jehochman is not the only sysop who uses this ploy, I have done so both individually and in concert with two or more other admins. As Baseball Bugs points out above, admins are permitted to unilaterally block people; part of the responsibility entrusted to them is to deal with disruption by other methods as considered appropriate. ArbCom is not the only body authorised to make such decisions, rather they are the last resort when admin action has been found ineffective. In short, yes, Jehochman may unilaterally ban an editor from a page and providing it is not successfully challenged then consent is implicit. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 14:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
:If this is a common practice I apologize, I would suggest we make an admin power explicit rather then implicit. It struck me as a tad off what wiki is and it's purpose of callaborative work. [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell In A Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) 15:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] == |
== [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] == |
Revision as of 15:27, 26 September 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) |
|
Is User:Stevertigo a disruptive editor??
This section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo to free up space on this page. MuZemike
Giano
This 251 line, 99.7KiB, discussion can now be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II. Uncle G (talk) 23:45, twenty-four September 2009 (UTC) (slightly changed timestamp so this doesn't get archived yet. Fram (talk))
Banned user?
- 74.104.160.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 38.104.186.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- Rbj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (banned, confirmed by ArbCom, has used IPs and socks before)
- ArbCom declines review; this has links and of course extensive posting by Rbj[1]
This has been brought to my attention on my talk page, but I'm not positive. Would someone else take a look and give a opinion?
- The banned user Rbj has been editing Planck units as 74.104.160.199 and 38.104.186.254. Please see Discussion Page for that article, section titled Hi Rbj. The tell-tale signs for those who know Rbj are attitude, phrasing (eg 'sorta') and subject interests (eg Marriage).
Thanks in advance for your kind attention - KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- anyone... anyone at all. Thanks. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- .... any input will be appreciated. thanks. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
What do you want people to say? The old account edits are far too old to CheckUser, and statements that the similarity will be evident to "those who know Rbj" is going to discourage anyone who doesn't know Rbj from commenting. I find the usual AN/I refrain of "diffs, please" coming to the tip of the tongue. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was brought this on my talk page, and you have the entirety. Its not a similarity I noticed, you comprehend. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Going through some of the contributions there are definetly some striking similarities in interests and speech.--SKATER Speak. 20:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm the IP who reported the edits by Rbj - the proof of Rbj's identity is on the talk page of an innocent party Tomruen where Rbj gives his email address:
- My email is rbj@@@@@@audioimagination.com. 74.104.160.199 (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I had a lot of experience of Rbj in my role as User:Lucretius, especially in the article Planck units, and it annoys me to see him still editing. I no longer edit any Wikipedia articles and I won't be able to continue monitoring his edits, so hopefully others will perform that role. His latest edits of the Planck units article were spiteful but nobody has spotted this in spite of the messages I have left there. Thanks. 121.222.35.162 (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment by IP on my talk page about banned user
Could someone have a look at this? It appears to be a comment by an IP on my talk page about a banned user, but I don't have time to work out what this is about. Carcharoth (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- This merger of duplicate incidents should enlighten. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
See my comments above 121.222.35.162 (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
User causing problems
I am having certain difficulties with the user LAz17. He is persistent in his action to remove certain information from the article Boris Tadić. The content in question is important because it shows that the Russian president sent a very personal note to Tadic just a week before the election (these messages aren't that often, Putin didn't write any cards of that type to Tadic before or after) and this probably had some effect on the election results. This information stayed in the article since January 2008 and therefore we can say that is part of the established consensus but user LAz17 came up with "Stop the edits until we come to a concensus". Since when is this the way we go? Can I go to the article on Barack Obama and erase the information on endorsement and not let anyone put it back until the consensus is achieved? Well I am sorry but the consensus is already there. It is also properly sourced so removing it for the reasons of personal animosity is the most basic rule breaking. He came up with some rather confusing and funny arguments on my talk page, telling me how I inserted this information to the article on purpose in some kind of conspiracy - "This was for the sake of helping in his election campaign. If some random person comes and looks him up, they will think hey putin likes him, when in fact it is not the case." and other rants I simply can't respond to like "You and paxequilibrium on purpose lied in the talk page of the article saying "on his future presidency". That is lying, and purpose. You knew it was false, and you both insisted that it is true, on purpose." as I have no idea what is he talking about. I am pretty certain that adding something that was reported widely in mass media to this article did not change the election results, maybe the act itself did but not my or edits of anybody else on Wikipedia.
I am writing here primarily because I want to avoid edit war and breaking the 3RR however I wont let this user abuse the lengthy process of problem resolving by leaving the article in the wrong state for a long period of time. Second reason to write here is the fact that this user is very difficult to talk to so any attempts to talk with him and come to the dispute resolution end up failing. This could be a tactic as well, he knows that if he refuses to communicate with others his version can stay for the long period of time. However this can't go on forever. This user has received sufficient number of warnings for his previous edits and usually stubbornness in pushing for certain extreme nationalist agenda that you can find on his talk page just searching for words like warning, block, ANI, AN/I etc., he was also reported here on AN/I before for incivility and was warned by admins consequently, then he received the final warning from some of the admins but didn't stop so he was finally temporarily blocked. Obviously this user still hasn't learned how to behave on Wikipedia and that it is not a playground for someone's nationalist or any other extreme views but an encyclopedia where we respect external sources and consensus not personal views and abusive behavior. Please take the necessary actions.--Avala (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is probably not helpful but I can't resist: Wouldn't you expect problems from a problematic user? Sorry. Anyway, I see your dealings with this person take place on your user talk pages. You should probably bring up the issue on the article's talk page (Talk:Boris Tadić) instead, so that it's not just you and him arguing back and forth, and a wider consensus might be determined. This doesn't look like an issue that requires any sort of admin intervention. It's just a content dispute. In addition to bringing the issue to the article talk page, you can further use the following avenues to resolve the conflict:
- As far as his alleged abuse of the system to keep bad information in the article while consensus is determined, well, generally that isn't considered a problem, for better or worse. Conflicts unfortunately take time to resolve, and while they are in progress, the "wrong" information might stay up (ie. the version you disagree with). WP:Don't panic. Equazcion (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. The consensus is already there, the content has been in the article since January 2008 but now this user removed it and after I reverted him he goes no, no you can't add that you need to achieve consensus. Well who is crazy here? The only reason he erased this is the conspiracy theory how it was added to change the election results, so am I really expected to discuss that? And he has the history of such behavior with many warnings, final warnings, ANI discussions and even a block so yes I do think that an admin needs to act and that it is long overdue because the soft approach you suggest apparently didn't work well before, the only time when he calmed down for some time was after the block.--Avala (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would say that yes you should make an attempt to discuss the issue and involve other editors. Making an attempt at broad discussion helps your case. The past problems the editor has had don't really factor into this, at least not yet, as this is just a case of two people arguing over content. If he continues acting irrationally and other editors agree with you there, it'll be easier to get the content restored and take administrative action against him for acting against consensus.
- I'm not an admin though. Maybe one of them has a different view. Equazcion (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I did try discussing the issue but I was slammed back with conspiracy theories. What if it takes some six months before we get a few editors willing to discuss this (I repeat we are supposed to discuss whether this information should be removed because it supposedly was inserted to change the election results)? This isn't the most active talk page you know. If we allow this, then we can allow anyone to carve out the article based on his personal irrational views and we tell the complaining user to discuss this, to try to achieve consensus. If the talk page is inactive and if the user in question is abusing the slow system we will have thousands of small articles basically vandalized with small hidden vandalism like removing a sentence or a two because other editors will have difficulties reinstating the information. If someone removes relevant and sourced content with irrational reason for doing that it is called vandalism, not content dispute. Otherwise half of the vandalism on Wikipedia can be labeled as content dispute ie. everything that is not complete page blanking or adding profanities.--Avala (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. The consensus is already there, the content has been in the article since January 2008 but now this user removed it and after I reverted him he goes no, no you can't add that you need to achieve consensus. Well who is crazy here? The only reason he erased this is the conspiracy theory how it was added to change the election results, so am I really expected to discuss that? And he has the history of such behavior with many warnings, final warnings, ANI discussions and even a block so yes I do think that an admin needs to act and that it is long overdue because the soft approach you suggest apparently didn't work well before, the only time when he calmed down for some time was after the block.--Avala (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This was not resolved but was archived and since the user is continuing to twist the common sense (by seeking consensus to be achieved on the stable version, and acting that his version is the newly born one man consensus) and keeps on reverting my edits that are actually reverts of his blanking I am bringing it back here per agreement to come back if the irrational behavior continues. Please actually read everything above before deciding to take part in this by either archiving or telling me how it's all cool.--Avala (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have asked for page protection on the Boris Tadić page. I think both parties should be reminded of the 3RR rule here as both are clearly over the line. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I went ahead and warned both users of 3RR via TWINKLE. Avala, don't take it personal, it is just a standard warning. I wanted to cover all bases with the warning. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I made myself quite clear here what my intentions are and why I started the process (to not end up in an edit war and 3RR breach) and I think I presented the situation quite clearly. It's not my fault that it got archived with no resolution, and no response from an admin. All the other details are present above where I clearly explained what is the problem all about, why is not a content dispute but something that requires admin action which is long overdue, and why it can't be resolved through discussion with the other user (though I did try as well some other users involved) as the user in question is first of all irrational in the sense that he is twisting the situation so that according to him the stable version needs to be proven on talk page and not his recent blanking (which is in turn based on conspiracy theory that can not be a valid edit reason) and secondly because he has a history of disruptive behavior including several warnings, ANI reports and a block.
I am not taking the warning personally but I find it very unnecessary for a user (me) who brought the whole thing to your attention and for a user who brought it to your attention in order to avoid the thing that the warning is all about. Anyway I still thank you for some action because prior to it the only reaction from others was to dump this into archives or rename it.--Avala (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Wait, you are not an admin either? Will any admin appear on the Administrators' noticeboard?--Avala (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- You don't have to be an admin to post on the admin board. I am just here to help. It might be a couple before the admins and other users get out of bed. It is only 7am on the east coast of the US, only 11am in the UK. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm awake. A few points: in response to your comment "therefore we can say that is part of the established consensus", consensus can change. User:Equazcion was quite right in advising that content disputes should be discussed on article talk pages and that you should invite broader community input so that you can establish whether or not consensus is still with the inclusion of that information. He gave you links to some places where you can invite wider community input so that you don't have to wait months for somebody to show up at the talk page. If consensus is reached and a contributor continues editing the article to promote his preferred version, you have clear evidence of disruption. In the absence of current consensus, except where clear vandalism is ongoing, you have a content dispute. This is not clear vandalism, as this individual has expressed reasons for the removal at your talk page and in edit summary (derived from WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:Synthesis). This one has not crossed 3RR, but is an edit war nevertheless, and I have temporarily fully protected the article to allow time for the consensus to emerge. This does not mean that I am in support of your version; protection is applied to whichever version happens to exist at the time. Neither do I support his. But the two of you need to seek consensus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes consensus can change but if there is no consensus to change the consensus than it has to be sought on the talk page not through edit wars. And as for the reasons, I already said that anyone can disrupt WP then if we allow for the reason to be "you added this to the article so he could win the election" because that is a conspiracy theory and not a valid reason that can be discussed. As for reasons that were linking to Wikipedia policies they are bogus as the content has a source and it doesn't take more than a minute to check it if you don't believe me. Again anyone can go and disrupt Wikipedia and give a random Wikipedia policy as a reason. I could go and remove some well referenced content and say "no original research" but that is simply a fake reason as the content I removed has a source so I can't make a serious claim that I did it because it was original research. We should really sanction perjury in Wikipedia to avoid anyone disrupting Wikipedia based on completely false claims that have got absolutely nothing to do with the case in question. Imagine if I go and blank any page and say "NPOV" or remove half of some page and say "no original research", would admins really tell the user that would normally revert such an edit to discuss the issues of npov and nor with me? It's ridiculous. Also I don't see the point of directing me to talk with this user over and over again when from the first moment I said two things - first of all that I already tried talking to him so that is not a new idea, second of all it failed and not to my surprise knowing his history. Now I don't see the point in giving me optimistic proposals while you can yourself see it's going nowhere and while you yourself wouldn't be able to resolve the issue based on your suggestions. I appreciate that you are doing something here, but if this was so easily solvable you would have solved it yourself as a neutral party and good faith admin that wants disputes to be resolved as fast as possible but you know you can't solve it that way in situations like this. It's not that simple, actually nowhere near simple but probably impossible and that is why I came here.--Avala (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict; replying only to what you had originally written) I have all confidence that I would be able to resolve the issue based on my suggestions, and have resolved a number of issues using that very approach. I've volunteered my time at a number of boards created to help with these very kinds of situations: WP:3O, WP:BLPN, for two. Even as an admin, I frequently seek exactly this kind of assistance at WP:COIN. You may have tried talking to him, but if you have read "dispute resolution" then you should know that it doesn't stop there; the next step when two people don't agree is involving other contributors. This does not require administrator input; all contributors are equally welcome to contribute to consensus, and the fora that were recommended to you are good ones for getting exactly the kind of input you need. In the absence of current consensus, there is no unilateral disruption here. Neither of you is following Wikipedia:Consensus policy. The article is protected. While it is, you should seek to resolve your differences in accordance with that policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- What I said was referring to directing me all the time to talk with him when I have already tried that and explained here why it doesn't work. As for the third party, I can only see one other editor that was involved in this same discussion and LAz17 wasn't any nicer to him either. This user is no longer active, edits only here and then. But LAz17 didn't forget him, though he didn't consider what was written to him as an argument, as a discussion but "You and paxequilibrium on purpose lied ...". That's how he sees attempts to talk to him - as lies on purpose, the words he wrote more than a few times on my talk page.--Avala (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Discussing on the talk page isn't necessarily about talking to him. It's about putting it where other contributors to the article can join the conversation...and, if necessary, requesting that others contribute. If two editors reach a stalemate on a matter of text in an article, additional editors can break the stalemate. At the point when, say, five editors agree that the material does or does not belong, it is no longer an edit war if the sixth continues to edit the article to push his or her preferred view. At the point that a contributor continues "to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors", you have disruptive editing, and then it is a matter for admin intervention. But clear consensus must exist before you have clear violation of consensus, and a conversation between three editors from January of 2008 does not establish clear consensus. That further conversation is needed is rather underscored by the fact that a fourth contributor has now weighed in and opposes the inclusion. It seems more discussion of the material is needed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- What I said was referring to directing me all the time to talk with him when I have already tried that and explained here why it doesn't work. As for the third party, I can only see one other editor that was involved in this same discussion and LAz17 wasn't any nicer to him either. This user is no longer active, edits only here and then. But LAz17 didn't forget him, though he didn't consider what was written to him as an argument, as a discussion but "You and paxequilibrium on purpose lied ...". That's how he sees attempts to talk to him - as lies on purpose, the words he wrote more than a few times on my talk page.--Avala (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict; replying only to what you had originally written) I have all confidence that I would be able to resolve the issue based on my suggestions, and have resolved a number of issues using that very approach. I've volunteered my time at a number of boards created to help with these very kinds of situations: WP:3O, WP:BLPN, for two. Even as an admin, I frequently seek exactly this kind of assistance at WP:COIN. You may have tried talking to him, but if you have read "dispute resolution" then you should know that it doesn't stop there; the next step when two people don't agree is involving other contributors. This does not require administrator input; all contributors are equally welcome to contribute to consensus, and the fora that were recommended to you are good ones for getting exactly the kind of input you need. In the absence of current consensus, there is no unilateral disruption here. Neither of you is following Wikipedia:Consensus policy. The article is protected. While it is, you should seek to resolve your differences in accordance with that policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes consensus can change but if there is no consensus to change the consensus than it has to be sought on the talk page not through edit wars. And as for the reasons, I already said that anyone can disrupt WP then if we allow for the reason to be "you added this to the article so he could win the election" because that is a conspiracy theory and not a valid reason that can be discussed. As for reasons that were linking to Wikipedia policies they are bogus as the content has a source and it doesn't take more than a minute to check it if you don't believe me. Again anyone can go and disrupt Wikipedia and give a random Wikipedia policy as a reason. I could go and remove some well referenced content and say "no original research" but that is simply a fake reason as the content I removed has a source so I can't make a serious claim that I did it because it was original research. We should really sanction perjury in Wikipedia to avoid anyone disrupting Wikipedia based on completely false claims that have got absolutely nothing to do with the case in question. Imagine if I go and blank any page and say "NPOV" or remove half of some page and say "no original research", would admins really tell the user that would normally revert such an edit to discuss the issues of npov and nor with me? It's ridiculous. Also I don't see the point of directing me to talk with this user over and over again when from the first moment I said two things - first of all that I already tried talking to him so that is not a new idea, second of all it failed and not to my surprise knowing his history. Now I don't see the point in giving me optimistic proposals while you can yourself see it's going nowhere and while you yourself wouldn't be able to resolve the issue based on your suggestions. I appreciate that you are doing something here, but if this was so easily solvable you would have solved it yourself as a neutral party and good faith admin that wants disputes to be resolved as fast as possible but you know you can't solve it that way in situations like this. It's not that simple, actually nowhere near simple but probably impossible and that is why I came here.--Avala (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Avala - Please don't make changes to the archives. The header at the top of archive page that says not to do it is for-real. I hesitated to undo the edit, I don't want to make things worse.- Sinneed 13:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- A neurosurgeon said: "A hospital is where you go to get better. You go home to get well." - The article and the article talk page are eventually where the problems in the article will be resolved.
- The admins can only do limited things to help. Like... protect the article in a random state to give time for editors to work out their differences without wp:edit warring. This is also a place where editors interested in helping with problems watch for problems with which to help.
- In this case, the article is now protected, and you now have suggestions about how to move forward including avoiding wp:edit warring (no matter how right one is, edit war is not the way, and my revert button finger itches too) and possibly seeking help through wp:conflict resolution. I don't see either of you discussing the problem with the quote on the talk page during the edit war.- Sinneed 15:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is no concensus. Avala specifically avoids the talk page, as there is no consensus. Avala is a supporter of tadic and thus his POV wants to keep something there. Putin in no way endorsed tadic, the letter he sent was mainly focused on business, particularly in the energy sector. The talk from the past agreed to remove the information, yet someone put it back. I was involved back then, and am involved again, in order to remove this POV. A discussion has reopened to discuss this matter on the talk page, and clearly Avala is ignoring it. So far the consensus on the talk page is that this should not be part of the article. But, Avala ignores it, as he has a POV which is one of tadic's supporters. This is quite significant, because it is well known that tadic's ideology is against russia, and that most serbian people want closer relations to russia. By having such fallacy on wikipedia, it can help nurture more support for this corrupt president. I do not endorse any political party, and tend to think that most politicians are bad, be it putin, tadic, obama, or others. The point is that supports of certain candidates must not be allowed to transform an article into their own POV propaganda. (LAz17 (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)).
- A 3rd opinion has been offered by user:No such user. I see there was discussion way back in Jan 2008 on this, with 2 editors for inclusion and one opposed, disagreeing about what the source said. There is now a new discussion area Talk:Boris Tadić#Putin stuff. Which, at this point, neither of the 2 in the current content dispute seem to have joined.- Sinneed 19:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Evidence of the IP's edit history strongly suggests one of them has. :) (Note I'm not suggesting sock puppetry, but more likely that somebody forgot to log in.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- There were three users back then. Me, Avala, and some guy, Pax. I am not very familiar with pax, but he is a problematic user who has been banned in the past for having very many sock puppets. On top of that, his contribution in the discussion a complete lie. I exposed his lie, and he did not show up again in the discussion. He said that Putin congratulated Tadic on his future presidency, which clearly all sides here agree that he did not. Therefore Pax falls off as a legitimate/worthy source to get information from. Later avala insists that pax was correct about future presidency - and disappears from the discussion. (LAz17 (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).
- A 3rd opinion has been offered by user:No such user. I see there was discussion way back in Jan 2008 on this, with 2 editors for inclusion and one opposed, disagreeing about what the source said. There is now a new discussion area Talk:Boris Tadić#Putin stuff. Which, at this point, neither of the 2 in the current content dispute seem to have joined.- Sinneed 19:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
So does this diatribe claiming how I am "tadic's supporter" and "By having such fallacy on wikipedia, it can help nurture more support for this corrupt president." still leave any room for people to suggest to me to give another try to discussing the matter with this user? The second quote continues directly from the previous conspiracy that adding this information to the article helped or was intended to help change the election results (and now also includes elements of libel for calling Tadic a corrupt president, followed by funny claim of impartiality). So all my coherent arguments are countered with conspiracy theories, of attacks that I write "lies on purpose" or "Avala is a supporter of tadic and thus his POV wants to keep something there" etc. I assume good faith but I keep getting slapped.--Avala (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Have you read of the text on this page about dispute resolution and the point of inviting other contributors? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- More can help. 2-1 is not a very strong consensus. There is nothing wrong with seeking additional feedback to more definitively settle the matter. Given the nature of the issues, you might want to ask for input at WP:NPOVN. Another good possibility is Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. Please be sure to word any request civilly and neutrally to avoid canvassing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Lets get more people. The more the better. But, no matter how many you will get, Avala will not care. His arrogant responses to our first 3rd opinion is quite troubling. Lets get more. I am not good for finding people, as I do not go about wikipedia looking for people. I go about improving the place, not making friends or meeting users. Would some admin here be kind enough to find more people? But under the condition that it is not avala who is finding people to side with him, these people have to be neutral and not be his buddies. (LAz17 (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)).
- I have courtesy-listed the matter at the content noticeboard, requesting feedback at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Lets get more people. The more the better. But, no matter how many you will get, Avala will not care. His arrogant responses to our first 3rd opinion is quite troubling. Lets get more. I am not good for finding people, as I do not go about wikipedia looking for people. I go about improving the place, not making friends or meeting users. Would some admin here be kind enough to find more people? But under the condition that it is not avala who is finding people to side with him, these people have to be neutral and not be his buddies. (LAz17 (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)).
Topic ban? Dual block? Off-Wikipedia conflict spilling over
- Symiakos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Symicat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This is complex. Please bear with me, and I will be as succinct as possible. I request that you not ignore this section even so. :)
There is a dispute between User:Symiakos and User:Symicat about the article Symi that is evidently about to spill over into a courtroom. The legal threat has been issued solely by Symiakos, but Symicat has violated some policies himself (and been briefly blocked for one of them). I'm requesting assistance determining how this should be handled.
I first became aware of this matter following a BLP complaint through e-mail (visible to OTRS volunteers at Ticket:2009090110068278). At issue were edits like this one, in which the Symicat account edited old comments by Symiakos to suggest that the editors of the SymiGreece website were libeling people and to imply pedophilia. When this was cleaned up by Symiakos, it was repeated here and again, later, at my talk page. Symicat was cautioned about BLP issues, but was subsequently briefly blocked when it was revealed to be a shared account. After the account owner agreed to change his password, he was unblocked.
Both users were counseled to seek dispute resolution, and though some civility issues persisted Symicat did so at the content noticeboard after a third editor became involved (Background, not essential, reading: User talk:Lmoench, [2]). This seemed to be working until it flared up again at my user talk page yesterday with a civility complaint, here, by Symicat. Now Symiakos indicates that Symicat's comments are part of a criminal investigation. Symicat denies being in charge of the account when certain comments were made, but the implication of his first comment (diff again) is pretty clear, as are the veiled legal threats about "model releases" in one of the comments made in the recent thread at my talk page.
Given an outright statement of criminal investigation by Symiakos (supported by another letter to OTRS, same link as above), coupled by what seems a clear agenda on the part of Symicat from his foundational edit and his own implied legal threats, I don't think it's in Wikipedia's best interests to permit these two to engage one another on the project until issues between them are settled elsewhere. I would propose either that a topic ban be imposed on both of them to avoid articles related to Symi as well as direct interaction with one another until this matter is mutually concluded or a block on both until any criminal proceedings are completed.
As I have been heavily engaged with this, I would greatly appreciate feedback on the best approach. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
As the Symi page in its current iteration seems to show a fair representation of the island, I am quite happy for it to remain as it is. Symiachos is of course free to take whatever action he wishes - I would welcome the chance to discuss the matter before a court should he choose to bring an action - although I have received no indication from him or his legal representatives that he is in fact planning to do so. However, while his threat of such action remains, I agree that it would certainly be best to keep this sorry matter from spilling onto Wikipedia pages. I am therefore willing to agree not to make any edits to the Symi page, or accept a ban, until the matter between Symiachos and myself is resolved elsewhere. Symicat (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Moonriddengirl for your summary; I think it perfectly sums up what has happened. I will not be responding to Symicat any more on Wikipedia; it has been incredibly difficult to bite my tongue in the face of some of the comments that have been put up and I apologise that this has caused issues here. I expect a reasonably speedy resolution to the matter now that the process has begun.--Symiakos (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
If the above from the involved editors is to be taken at face value it looks like they are both OK with the situation and willing to stand down from the dispute, so to speak. If they are willing to observe a self-imposed restriction against editing the page in question there may be no need to impose any formal sanctions. Is there any reason to suspect that they won't hold to their word? Shereth 21:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think it would be an ideal solution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Suggestions for a period of time during which we both agree not to edit the Symi page, please. (And what happens if either of us break the agreement?)Symicat (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Violations of a ban, in accordance with Wikipedia:Banning policy, may result in the ban being reset or a block being imposed. As the banning policy explains, using proxies to edit in your place, "meatpuppetry" as its sometimes called, is a violation of a ban. A reasonable length of a ban is a bit difficult to determine, since we can't know how long it will take to resolve this criminal investigation. I think that bears some discussion. As far as interacting with each other, I think it's a simple matter to say that however long the article ban lasts, the interaction ban should also. I tend to think that any future interactions thereafter should take place only on the article's talk page with an understanding that personal attacks and harassment will result in blocks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Reiterating my previous comment, the Symi page looks pretty good at the moment so new edits should be needed only be to add extra infomation, not modify or remove the existing stuff. Therefore I see no benefit in changing it from its present state. Symiachos has still not been in touch about his/her planned `criminal investigation', so I assume that the threat remains. Symicat (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Since a duration is needed, I suggest that Symicat and Symiachos stay away from each other for six months, and not edit Symi or Talk:Symi during that time. They should not post on each other's talk pages. Allow either party to request an earlier lifting of the ban at the discretion of Moonriddengirl or any uninvolved admin. If the ban is lifted, this fact should be announced at WP:AN.
- The reason to make this an explicit ban is the above comment by Symiakos, "I expect a reasonably speedy resolution to the matter now that the process has begun." I hope to hear nothing more from Symiakos on Wikipedia about legal matters, and if we do, a block of Symiakos per WP:NLT may be needed until his process is over, whatever the process may be. Any violation of the ban by either party, or any personal attack or other disruption, should result in a lengthy block for the person concerned. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. I accept this. Should Symiakus choose to withdraw his/her threats by contacting me independently of Wikpedia, I will let you know. Of course he/she may wish to post a retraction here. Should he/she not do so, can I assume that the situation will be reviewed in six months? Symicat (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- It would generally just be considered expired after six months, though if the problems should resume then the time-span may need to be revisited or other options considered. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Huge great muddle with Ottava Rima and others
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. Coming here after a Wikiquette alert which was closed as not appropriate for that board, and advice by the closing editor to come here. Big out-of-hand stuff with Ottava Rima. I should say that I have had a run-in with him before. This one has developed in the last few days. Someone posted a query to WP:RSN, and it was already getting heated before I weighed in, supporting use of a text he didn't agree with. If there's a substantive debate it is about the use of a book chapter that everyone agrees is published by a reputable scholar with a reputable press. There is a difference about the interpretation of a sentence. But it has blown up way beyond that.
On RSN
- [3] My “blatant disregard for standards”. My comments absurd and improper. “RS is a secondary component to Fringe” (?) My comments highly inappropriate.
- [4] “a severe promoting of something that goes against our policies”
- [5] “making directly false claims” (he disagreed with my reading of an academic text)
On his talk page
- [6] me “promot[ing] things that completely go against our policies and are destructive to our encyclopedic integrity”
- [7] I deserve a block for disruption.
On my talk page
- [8] a topic ban would be necessary to stop me from disrupting.
- [9] User: Antandrus and I are engaged in meat puppetry.
- [10] I’m engaging in outright disruption, am a troll, am damaging Wikipedia.
- [11] My claim he is “angry” with me is preposterous.
- [12] He says my failed RfA is relevant to the discussion. He has emailed ArbCom because I have a history with Antandrus and others involved in the Persian Empire dispute. There are retaliatory practices going on.
- [13] He has approached ArbCom about long-term tag teaming and domination of the Fringe and RS noticeboards, promoting violation of the rules and bullying those who disagree.
- [14] I’m part of a group led by User:Folantin , we are “friends”.
- It then gets into accusations against Antandrus and Use: A3RO and others, with threats of ArbCom and blocks and much more stuff without my involvement at all. Some people are incivil and sarcastic towards Ottava Rima.
On the Wikiquette alert page
- [15] Recommends I be blocked for 24 hours for “outright disruption”. I am pushing outright falsehood on a noticeboard, which is disruptive.
- [16] The call for a block was sarcastic.
- [17] Itsmejudith clearly makes it seem like they don't understand the basics of logic, reason, or what reliable source means let alone what "expert means". If they do know any of these, then the only other explanation is purposeful disruption and they should be banned as a troll. Either way, their posts were completely inappropriate
- [18] I am a troll, absurd, disruptive.
- Similar accusations made against uninvolved respondents to the Wikiquette alert.
Request: Im hoping that you will agree that all this was incivil to an absurd degree. I don't want Ottava Rima blocked or banned. I'd like someone who he trusts to sit down with him and explain that people can agree to disagree, that it is possible to de-escalate. Also that it is possible for people to have different readings of a text, and that patient discussion can shed light and lead to a resolution. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- With Ottava Rima's history, no sensible administrator would take this lightly... Something MUST be done to stop this editor from getting away with such problematic editing.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 20:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- DO not expect Ottava to be open to changing his tone here. He has long taken an unneccesarily incivil tone in many of his interactions, and refuses to acknowledge when he has done so. Every time someone calls him on it, he states something to the effect of "False accusations of personal attacks are themselves personal attacks" and never actually makes any attempt to control his own behavior. I expect nothing to come of this, except Ottava Rima to respond with further incivility and to accuse every (including me) who commented here trying to attack him in some way. --Jayron32 20:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep, user notified
|
---|
Procedure Note Ive left a note on Ottava Rima's talk page notifying them of this thread. Please make sure in the future that if you open a thread on ANI about another party, you notify them. Thanks. Livewireo (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
|
- I have provided many diffs and other bits of evidence to ArbCom about a group of 9 members who use RS and Fringe in order to bully others and other such things. They constantly edit war, wheel, answer for each other, and out and out ignore policy violations and false interpretations in order to defend each other. These members include Moreschi, Dougweller, Antandrus, Dbachmann, Folantin, Fullstop, Itsmejudith, and Paul B. It is clear that Itsmejudith is wasting everyone's time with the above, as you can see from different things she is complaining against - "[19] My claim he is “angry” with me is preposterous." Is this an "offense" now to make it clear that one is not angry? The absurdity is through the roof, and an ArbCom is way over due. It seems obvious that they want to waste as much as my time as possible and that they aren't satisfied with having completely destroyed the Persian Empire page. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- This quote is dissimulation - "There is a difference about the interpretation of a sentence. But it has blown up way beyond that." This individual is attempting to claim that an individual who has no scholarly publications about an author is capable of making a claim that the author is a -pederast- without having any evidence or any sources for such a claim. This is directly against WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE. It is hard to believe that they are pushing such a claim for any reason besides disruption, especially with her history, her close relationship to the group, and the fact she failed her RfA because I revealed evidence verifying that she works too closely with this group in a disruptive manner here. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- If someone is curious as to how long this disruption and tag teaming has dated back against just me, see this. I am not the only one to have this happen. More is on Talk:Ludovico Ariosto. Antandrus, who is close friends with Itsmejudith, was also involved in later problems here. They refused to stop the attacks from Folantin or speak out against him. I have emails on the matter from Antandrus. There is a lot of evidence suggesting that all of them talk to each other, and their constant support of each others positions, constantly verifying each other, backing each other up, refusing to correct or chastise each other, and disrespect for our policies during this is only further evidence that this is severely disruptive meat puppetry. More can be found on Talk:Persian Empire, and in where Antandrus, Akhilleus, and others stepped in to defend Dbachmann, Folantin, and Fullstop even though those three meat puppet edit warred with a large consensus against them. These same people defended Itsmejudith even though she is pushing for a claim that Oscar Wilde is a pederast without a legitimate source to claim such. It can be seen here. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Link to the Persian Empire ANI thread. Antandrus's attacks on my talk page. Antandrus, who is friends with Gwen Gale, encouraging a block that is clearly against both the letter and spirit of NPA and had nothing even close to consensus. Their judgment is clearly skewed towards pure aggressiveness without care for policy. You can see Antandrus's close defense of Itsmejudith in the current incident suggesting the close connection between them all. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You will see the fantasy in all this. For info, I have always got on very well with Moreschi and Doug Weller, who both nominated me for RfA. I have immense respect for Dieter Bachmann without always agreeing with him. I haven't had much to do with any of the other editors mentioned. I have hardly ever had anything to do with Persian history related articles, but I did do some wikifying on an article on a historic city in Iran, and I am currently having a go at unpicking poor sourcing and probable nationalistic POV-pushing on the Kambojas page, which is distantly related. This was after dab pleaded on FTN that he should not be the only person trying to sort these things.
Ironically, I may be coming round to Ottava's view on the Oscar Wilde article. He has recently shown a diff which shows that the article was slanted towards the view that Wilde had an interest in young men specifically, rather than in men per se. This is indeed a fringe and unsupported view. It's not the question that was referred to RSN. I have read and re-read the pages in the Maynard source available in Google Books and still cannot see that there is anything whatsoever that supports such a reading. I tried to make it clear that while I maintained that this source was potentially RS for the article I thought it should be used with caution. I'd be happy for further opinions and for this to go to experts in literary criticism, LGBT studies etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- It only takes one glance at Itsmejudith's failed RfA to see my statements of her being too close to comfort with a group of people at RS and Fringe were accepted by many of the opposers. The actions of these same people on your talk page, and on the RS board with Paul B, is problematic. Itsmejudith, you do realize that it is one thing to have an opinion but it is something completely else to hold someone else's opinion and operate in a manner that avoids consensus and causes disruptions? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is all bullshit.
- I have had no previous contact with Itsmejudith that I recall, save for a support for her RFA.
- I have never edited either Persian Empire or its talk page.
- I have never edited Ludovico Ariosto or its talk page.
- It only takes one glance -- albeit a long one, for you are long-winded in your rants -- to see that you are living in a fantasy land, if you perceive this to be an "attack", rather than what a Wikipedian assuming good faith would see -- that it was an attempt to talk to you about your behavior in a calm, kind, and reasonable way. However, I have become skeptical that such a thing can be accomplished any longer, Ottava; whenever anyone contradicts you, on any matter however small, your usual modus operandi is to immediately personalize the dispute, and close your ad hominem rant with some permutation of the words "disruption" "troubling" "cabal" "block" "banning" "desysopping" "problematic"; and then most mysteriously you cannot see that such ad hominem behavior is a direct violation of our behavioral policies. The core of them is you may not attack other editors. You can't have it that way, Ottava; you can't live in a fantasy land where you can call people trolls, disruptive, destructive, and then turn around and claim that the people telling you that you are making personal attacks are themselves making personal attacks. It's nonsense.
- It would do you well to acquire enough humility to see that everything on your block log was well-deserved, and that you should attempt to behave in such a way that we do not need to add further entries to that significant record. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Dude you need to chill and practice what you preach. Caden cool 23:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Antandrus, before you claim that things on my block log were well deserved, please note that at least one of those individuals was desysopped because of their bad blocks, another was making indef blocks against CoI and was edit warring the NLT page to justify a block, and that others were equally claimed as inappropriate by many people. Antandrus, I have pointed out quite a lot about how your behavior was inacceptable. If you were willing to not protect people against any kind of objectivity and promoting direct contradictions to our policies, then there would be no problem. There are many, many people I work with and spend time with all the time, and I, for instance, have a strong reputation of independent thought and there is almost no one that I have agreed with in every situation. I have stood against people who I work with and like when they violate policies because friendship does not mean ignoring what Wikipedia is about. And Antandrus, you don't have to edit those specific pages to operate and bully for other people. Your comments on my talk page, for instance, were inappropriate. And if you do not have a relationship with Itsmejudith, why were you on that talk page along with Folantin even after people have pointed out multiple times that your judgment in the situation is biased against me? You aren't acting objectively in any kind of manner. I have already provided substantial evidence to such problematic behavior. I also have email evidence in which you admit that Folantin's behavior was inappropriate but refused to actually do anything to stop it. I am prepared to forward it to any Arbitrator if they wish to read for confirmation. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I would love to see some official recognition that Ottava Rima's interactions with other editors are excessively combative, supercilious, threatening, and unacceptable, but I doubt that an ANI thread will produce it--this is more likely a matter for an RfC or, in the last resort, an Arbcom case. Speaking of which, people may be interested to read User_talk:Ottava_Rima#Your_edit_to_Persian_Empire, where he accuses me of meatpuppetry and threatens me with a user conduct RfC or Arbcom case, on rather flimsy grounds. I've urged Ottava to proceed, but he doesn't seem interested in actually following through on his threats. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize for the intemperate tone of my previous message in this thread. I was angry, in a manner familiar to anyone who has seen themselves defamed on this noticeboard, without warning, without notification, without reason, and without backup from anyone sensible.
- The content remains true, however; Ottava's characterizations of my associations are inaccurate when they are not blatantly false.
- Folantin is my friend on Wikipedia, but we are not "meatpuppets" in any sense, and we disagree on some things, as is true in any pair of long-term editors with mutual interests. More than anything else I want to see Ottava moderate his tone, and cease threatening other editors. Bullying is corrosive to our collaborative environment.
- I agree with Akhilleus that this thread on ANI will probably solve nothing, and another venue may be best if we want a long-term resolution. I am walking away from this now. This may be the best approach to dealing with Ottava Rima: refute once, let him get the last word, and then leave. Antandrus (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is a difference between merely being friends and crossing the line. Your contempt for various policies and pushing things that directly contradict our policies for your friends is inappropriate. Your threatening of blocks against people who are pointing out that your friends are busy edit warring and attempting to destroy a large portion of the encyclopedia is inappropriate. You have no right to abuse your authority in such a manner. Your utter contempt for NPA and our blocking policy in pushing for Gwen Gale to block me and the glee you took in it and your trying to rationalize it even after the community made it clear that NPA isn't even close to accepting such a block is highly inappropriate. You crossed the line a long time ago and you continue to act as if you are some how acting appropriately. You are exactly opposite of what Wikipedia requires in its users. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I frequently have difficulties with Ottava's approach, but it seems to me that when an extremely inflammatory word like "pederast" is being used on the basis of a single source, and when a subject matter expert like Ottava considers this to be unbalanced, the objection ought to be taken seriously and people ought not to be focusing exclusively on WP:RS. Even reputable sources can occasionally be wrong. Looie496 (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would direct everyone's attention to Akhilleus's appearance and his appearance in multiple threads dating back over the year in which he has appeared. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've had my own little conflict with Ottava Rima recently. Now, I've looked into what Ottava Rima does here on Wikipedia, and my impression is that he makes some damn solid contributions in article space, so if he's got a view about what should or shouldn't be in an article, that's not a view to disregard lightly.
But... he has this terrible flaw in the way he interacts with other Wikipedians. He has absolutely no interest in de-escalating the disputes he gets into, or in assuming his opponent is anything but a crazed villain. The moment Ottava Rima takes a dispute into Wikipedia-space, he does his best to blow it up into an all-out nuclear flamewar. When confronted about his views, he is not above outright making shit up. When refuted, he just moves on to another line of attack. He is also a fan of the tactic of claiming that nothing is a personal attack except for accusing him of a personal attack. And I could form a support group for admins who OR has threatened with de-adminship because he disagreed with them about one little policy.
So I shouldn't try to take a side in his dispute with Itsmejudith. I'd be a bit biased. But one day, Ottava Rima needs to learn how to coexist with other Wikipedians, because just making good contributions isn't a "get out of civility free" pass. rspεεr (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC) - This is a content dispute. It's been vigorously argued on both sides. Reading through the extensive discussions I don't find Ottava any more at fault than other parties in continuing and escalating the dispute. In fact the forum shopping seeking admin intervention and pushing of the dispute seems quite disruptive to me. What's needed is dispute resolution. Whether it's a straw poll, or the solicitation of outside opinions from experienced editors on the content notice board or mediation or some other approach. Ottava has made legitimate policy based arguments and others have made legitimate arguments. So we have to decide on a compromise or determine what the consensus is. Trying to block the person you disagree with is a very bad approach and is very damaging to collegiality, civility and the encyclopedia. Stop trying to smear and whip up animosity against Ottava and work through the dispute. Going round and round isn't helping so get some outside opinions. The RS board is one venue. There are also issues of wp:fringe and weight that have been raised. So those have to be resolved also. Oscar Wilde is a major subject with lots of reliable coverage. A quick Google news search indicates this issue has been discussed in numerous sources. So I don't know why this one source is being relied on so heavily and fought over so adamantly. If the content is legitimate it should have support from other sources. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've no opinion in the dispute at issue, but Jayron32's, Akhilleus's and Rspeer's opinions of Ottava Rima's conduct exactly match the opinion I formed based on the tone of his criticism of me in the ANI thread that is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II. I would support any action aimed at preventing future disruption of this sort. Sandstein 08:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ottava Rima's laughable fantasies that anyone who disagrees with him is past of some plot to undermine the encyclopedia need not detain us. However, his constant aggressive bullying an violent abuse of editors is wholly unacceptable and needs to be stopped. I don't care what good contributions he has made. Persistent and unrepentant bullies should be thrown out of school whatever their grades. On Wilde, the central claim that he was engaged in pederastic relationships is entirely unremarkable. The word "pederast" might be a red flag to some people, but all it really means is that he was interested in young men, which he undeniably was. We don't find it remarkable that a womanising heterosexual might chase after young women, so why is this such a problem? That Wilde was interested in classical pederastic culture is attested in a myriad of sources. It is not a remotely fringe view. Let's be clear who is promoting a fringe view here. OR wants us to believe that Wilde did not have homosexual relationships at all. He writes "At least 50% of the critical biographies I have read state that the "attracted to men" was, at best, homoerotic and not homosexual and is based on a misunderstanding of what "Socratic/Platonic" love means (i.e. love of friends that try to help each other attain spiritual completeness)." I guess these "critical biographies" must have been written many decades ago, because I doubt you'd find any that say such nonsense today. As it happens, my wife has a special interest in Wilde, and we have quite a few biographies of him at home. Perhaps Ottava can point to one of 50% that make this claim. Paul B (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Another news flash that OR might not have heard is that Lindbergh has landed safely in Paris. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is a content dispute on the Oscar Wilde page, but I'm not part of it. I only came in because the status of a source was raised on RSN. I replied. I got a lot of flak. I really tried to keep separate the questions a) was the source reliable and in principle related to the article and b) how should it be used. On a) I said yes and that's still my position but I'm open to persuasion and b) I said "use with great caution". Within the limits of what RSN can achieve, that could have moved the debate forward and started to establish some common ground. Couldn't it? Above, I requested that someone who Ottava Rima trusts should explain to him that he needs to work by building consensus, assuming good faith and making at least a little bit of effort to be civil. Is there anyone in a position to do that? If not, then what should be done, and how? Cause I don't want to see others subjected to the hammering I've had. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea. I've noticed that User:Ironholds has collaborated with Ottava Rima - they have a co-nomination at FAC. Do you think he would be a possible mentor? ϢereSpielChequers 11:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- OR has already been mentored (by Ceoil) in order to avoid an "infinite block" [20]. (That whole ANI thread is strangely déjà vu - read it and see). Here are the mentorship guidelines Ottava "committed himself towards". --Folantin (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Do you think Ceoil would take him back under his wing? Having noted on the previous ANI thread that some people's experience with Ottava was that he can come back to normal quickly, and that he is most difficult with people who are difficult with him, I should point out that I'm not pursuing Ottava Rima, I'm pursuing this case. Further mentoring matches what I originally asked for. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think he's difficult with anybody who dares to disagree with him on a point of fact (or policy) and won't back down. I think he's had his chances, but he goes on repeating the same behaviour. You can't run an encyclopaedia this way. You personally could always try WP:SHUN, but it's not always possible to follow that tactic successfully and it doesn't really help Wikipedia's content if a problem arises. --Folantin (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Do you think Ceoil would take him back under his wing? Having noted on the previous ANI thread that some people's experience with Ottava was that he can come back to normal quickly, and that he is most difficult with people who are difficult with him, I should point out that I'm not pursuing Ottava Rima, I'm pursuing this case. Further mentoring matches what I originally asked for. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- OR has already been mentored (by Ceoil) in order to avoid an "infinite block" [20]. (That whole ANI thread is strangely déjà vu - read it and see). Here are the mentorship guidelines Ottava "committed himself towards". --Folantin (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea. I've noticed that User:Ironholds has collaborated with Ottava Rima - they have a co-nomination at FAC. Do you think he would be a possible mentor? ϢereSpielChequers 11:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is a content dispute on the Oscar Wilde page, but I'm not part of it. I only came in because the status of a source was raised on RSN. I replied. I got a lot of flak. I really tried to keep separate the questions a) was the source reliable and in principle related to the article and b) how should it be used. On a) I said yes and that's still my position but I'm open to persuasion and b) I said "use with great caution". Within the limits of what RSN can achieve, that could have moved the debate forward and started to establish some common ground. Couldn't it? Above, I requested that someone who Ottava Rima trusts should explain to him that he needs to work by building consensus, assuming good faith and making at least a little bit of effort to be civil. Is there anyone in a position to do that? If not, then what should be done, and how? Cause I don't want to see others subjected to the hammering I've had. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Another news flash that OR might not have heard is that Lindbergh has landed safely in Paris. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- (EC) I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say that he's difficult with "anybody who dares to disagree with him on a point of fact (or policy)", as that implies that every disagreement flares into unacceptable behaviour, and I don't consider that to be the case. I agree that the current situation is no way to run an encyclopaedia, or indeed any organisation, but especially one dependent on volunteers who can cooperate with each other. Perhaps it would be possible to revive the former mentorship, as User:Ottava Rima/Mentorship guidelines looks to me like it only needs a few months dust removed to be the solution, provided that Ottava still regards them as his "Philosophy". ϢereSpielChequers 13:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Sanction
I am placing User:Ottava Rima under a civility restriction: The user may be blocked if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Given the lengthy block log, I strongly recommend mentorship to head off the possibility of a community ban. Jehochman Talk 13:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I've had some emails on this. OR's helpful article contributions are widely acknowledged by all, even those who sometimes disagree with his outlooks on content and sourcing (aka PoV). The worry is disruption owing to his wont of going after anyone who disagrees with him, through threats and bullying/badgering. He looks for what he thinks are "weaknesses" in an editor's background and then follows through with talk about blocks, bannings, desysoppings, along with widely put smears, whatever chilling talk he thinks might make them back off, or at least muddle things up enough to slow them down. This can bring out both the best and the worst in the otherwise good faith editors who deal with him. The only reason anyone puts up with this is because he has a lot to do with building a big swath of helpful articles. Is there a consensus that this kind of behaviour in a volunteer-driven project is ok so long as the content keeps coming through? Is it fit for the sausage factory? Is it no more than grumpiness, to be blown off? Or are there hidden harms done to the content (even articles OR has nothing to do with) when good faith editors are driven away? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly dislike blocking contributors of quality content. The above sanction seems like what's needed. We cannot allow endless bullying of other editors. OR is on notice that this behavior is not acceptable, and they need to change their approach, now not later. Jehochman Talk 13:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Under what authority are you putting Ottava under a civility restriction, Jehochman? In no way am I condoning all of Ottava's posts, but I see nothing in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions that allows you to do so without a formal community proposal, of which the discussion above is not enough for, and Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions is not policy yet. I would recommend putting forward a proposal first and gathering consensus before any sanction is imposed. NW (Talk) 13:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't any admin have the authority to block under the conditions Jehochman set forth anyway? Isn't this just a souped up warning, then, with perhaps some cover for the blocking admin?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- The authority is my solemn obligation as an administrator to do whatever is necessary to prevent disruption to the project. That which is not prohibited is allowed. Nowhere does it say that I cannot place this sanction. I could theoretically block Ottava Rima right now, but I'm choosing to do something much less restrictive. My sanction appears to reflect the consensus of clueful editors on this thread: something needs to be done, but let's avoid a block at this time. Jehochman Talk 14:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Jehochman's assessment of the situation as regards Ottava Rima's conduct. Procedurally, I also agree with NuclearWarfare that the "sanction" is somewhat redundant because admins already can and should block users for disruption, including persistent incivility etc.; also, there is currently no consensus that admins can impose conduct restrictions on their own (as I have proposed at WP:DSN). If, however, Ottava Rima does good content work, as I've heard many people say now, perhaps a community-based restriction from using the project space, with exceptions such as DYK, would be more suitable. Sandstein 14:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not keen to block OR from project participation. The sanction I've created is quite mild; OR is restricted from doing that which they already should not do. As noted by Wehwalt, it's really just a formal, logged warning, and it may make any enforcement stand on a firmer basis. Jehochman Talk 14:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Jehochman's assessment of the situation as regards Ottava Rima's conduct. Procedurally, I also agree with NuclearWarfare that the "sanction" is somewhat redundant because admins already can and should block users for disruption, including persistent incivility etc.; also, there is currently no consensus that admins can impose conduct restrictions on their own (as I have proposed at WP:DSN). If, however, Ottava Rima does good content work, as I've heard many people say now, perhaps a community-based restriction from using the project space, with exceptions such as DYK, would be more suitable. Sandstein 14:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- The authority is my solemn obligation as an administrator to do whatever is necessary to prevent disruption to the project. That which is not prohibited is allowed. Nowhere does it say that I cannot place this sanction. I could theoretically block Ottava Rima right now, but I'm choosing to do something much less restrictive. My sanction appears to reflect the consensus of clueful editors on this thread: something needs to be done, but let's avoid a block at this time. Jehochman Talk 14:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't any admin have the authority to block under the conditions Jehochman set forth anyway? Isn't this just a souped up warning, then, with perhaps some cover for the blocking admin?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Under what authority are you putting Ottava under a civility restriction, Jehochman? In no way am I condoning all of Ottava's posts, but I see nothing in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions that allows you to do so without a formal community proposal, of which the discussion above is not enough for, and Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions is not policy yet. I would recommend putting forward a proposal first and gathering consensus before any sanction is imposed. NW (Talk) 13:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Individual administrators do not have the authority to impose civility restrictions by personal fiat. Please propose it and seek consensus. If, as Jehochman suggests, the preceeding discussion tended in that direction, then actual consensus would not be hard to achieve. Durova320 14:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- My own personal thoughts are that a great many editors (myself included) could use a break from the stench of drama that's been so prevalent on these boards lately. Tempers appear to be short, "escalation" seems to be the standard of late, ... and it seems that there could be better things to do, both in real life, and in articles and BLP issues that need to be addressed on WP. That being said, I'm off to the real life sector for a bit today, and upon return, I think I'll concentrate on some articles. — Ched : ? 15:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Durova, that's a great way to add unnecessary length to the conversation to reach a conclusion that's already obvious. Ottava Rima has been under civility restrictions before. He's been blocked several times for incivility. And Wikipedians are supposed to be civil in the first place. Jehochman's declaration was hardly unexpected. rspεεr (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have never been blocked for civility. Please don't make claims that are factually wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is Durova saying that consensus is needed in order to compel a user to obey the rules??? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Any administrator may already block for incivility. Not everyone supports civility blocks; I do. But individual administrators do not have the authority to impose paroles, 1RR, topic bans, etc. by personal fiat. Durova320 16:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- So you're saying that Jehochman can't unilaterally let him continuing editing under restrictions, but he can unilaterally stop him from editing altogether? Maybe he should just go ahead and do that, then. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Any administrator may already block for incivility. Not everyone supports civility blocks; I do. But individual administrators do not have the authority to impose paroles, 1RR, topic bans, etc. by personal fiat. Durova320 16:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Cool Hand Luke told me that he thought individual administrators should be encouraged to place topic bans, and that ArbCom wanted to encourage us to control problems. So here I am, doing my job. I don't see a civility restriction as logically different from a topic ban. If I can block somebody indefinitely, why can't I tell them to be civil or else they will be blocked? It is highly illogical to give a greater power but not a lesser power. Moreover, I am not sure why this is individual action. There is prior community discussion and the sanction I fashioned seems to represent the consensus of clueful editors. Jehochman Talk 16:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Seems like Durova's giving you the green light to block him. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't want to block him. I want a very formal warning that can be followed up with a block if it is ignored. Jehochman Talk 16:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can't believe what I'm reading here. You don't have the authority to put him on probation, but only to put him in "jail". Well, you could always block him with the message, "This is the best I can do for you." →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't want to block him. I want a very formal warning that can be followed up with a block if it is ignored. Jehochman Talk 16:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- (ec x2) The arbitrators themselves don't have power to impose broad sanctions by personal fiat; they have to vote on them. It would be nonsensical for administrators to have broader authority. Someone recently wrote a formal proposal that would have included exactly this power, and the community shot it down. Durova320 16:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I support the civility restriction. No one gets a license to engage in persistent incivility, bullying, and personal attacks just because some feel he makes some substantive edits. That is a slap in the face of those who make substantive edits without drama and flaming attacks on others. Edison (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please link to where I have acted in any of the ways you claim. As of right now, your false accusations are in breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I have already put forth my evidence at ArbCom and started a case that proves that I am the one being bullied and intimidated, not the other way around. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Completely uninvolved editor checking in here: observing this fracas from a distance, it appears to have escalated rapidly from a content dispute to a flame war which is unfortunate as both parties seem to have the "best of intentions." Isn't there a point in the process where people simply back away from confrontation and find a rationale solution? While I appreciate the fine and predominantly erudite contributions of OR, too much time and energy is being wasted in interpersonal conflict. FWiW, this is merely a comment and not an endorsement or verification of a sanction or any other remedy. Bzuk (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Bzuk - the events of this issue go all the way back to last year. Please see the ArbCom case for more information. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Please link to..." Well, there's a whole long list of them, right at the top of the main section of this discussion. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Really? Please point out at WP:CIVIL where " My claim he is “angry” with me is preposterous." is incivil? I cannot claim that it is preposterous that I would be angry with someone? None of those statements are anything close to incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Alleging meatpuppetry is uncivil, for starters. Calling an established editor a troll is also uncivil. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- OR once chastised me for being too critical and that "one should be quick to forgive". I would like to see such quick forgiveness coming from him now. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, only alleging meatpuppetry without evidence is incivil. I have provided substantial evidence on the board and also provided evidence to it over the past month to ArbCom. The Arbcom case is only further proof that I am not being incivil in my allegations as the accusations are not false but have long term evidence of problematic behavior dating more than a few months. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and calling another editor's feelings "preposterous" is also uncivil. Thanks for providing some up-front evidence for us, just a few lines above. P.S. There is no such word as "incivil". There is "incivility" and there is "uncivil". :) →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Bugs, I can call claims about -my- feelings preposterous all I want. It is not incivil. It is not uncivil. It is not non-civil. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Fine. Now, where's the forgiveness in your voice, that you once admonished me that I should practice? Or is it only others that are supposed to be forgiving? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Jehochman's unilateral enforcement. There was mild incivility from various parties. Mediation to resolve the dispute is what's needed. All parties should be reminded to comment on content and article issues rather than other editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Confirm Sanction, (unfortunately) I admire the actual article work that Ottava Rima does. I always have. However, his unique reading of what WP:NPA actually says is disturbing, as is his reaction when his reading of it is challenged. A very recent thread on this very board confirmed this, unfortunately. Because of this unique (and incorrect) reading, his interactions with others are problematic. This sanction allows continued positive article work within what WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA actually say, without any possible wikilawyering. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am not the only one to point out that your understanding of them were completely wrong, and your post above is directly retaliatory. Your statement at ArbCom also makes it clear that you didn't even bother to read what the events were about. This also verifies that your comments are merely retaliatory and don't deal with the matter at hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would support sanctions against you, except I'm willing to follow your own words to me, to forgive and to be lenient. Are you willing to live up to your own words, and forgive and be lenient to those who have trespassed against you? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom
I have taken it to ArbCom because it is obvious that the actions of those like Jehochman verify that there is a problem great enough that it cannot be solved in this forum. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Before you go someplace and officially complain about others' behavior, maybe you should read the saga of "Plaxico". →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- To put it another way, if you don't want the buzzards to circle, maybe laying raw meat out in the sun is not the best approach to take. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Baseball Bugs, may I ask, does that comment really add anything to the discussion? Feel free to email Ottava that if you want, but adding it to ANI really does not do anything but inflame the situation. NW (Talk) 17:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- He chose to file the ArbCom, and I'm offering an unvarnished opinion of the situation. He's one of the most disagreeable characters I've run across here, one who thinks he has the right to insult anyone he feels like, just because he supposedly makes good edits. An admin has suggested a civility remedy, but everyone is saying, No, you can't do that, all you can do is block him. OK, that was all serious. Do you like that approach better? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's a bit more than 'supposedly': Ottava Rima has had five FAs and twelve GAs promoted within the last two months. There's a difficult balance to be struck between encouraging productive yet prickly people to remove their prickles, without granting an indefinite license to act disruptively. Many years ago I watched a man demonstrate that cactus was prickly by leaping into a bed of it. That was an effective but nonproductive way to prove his point, and after escorting him to proper medical care most of the people who were present avoided him afterward. Durova320 17:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like you're advocating surrender to Mr. Prickle. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- No one advocated surrendering to the cactus patch. ;) Durova320 17:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Then you've lost me at the bakery. Whatever. I just want to see OR follow the advice he once gave me, that "one should be quick to forgive". So far, I'm not seeing it here. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just so I understand, since you're talking "prickly" behavior, which users are you characterizing as the root word of that adjective? :) →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Then you've lost me at the bakery. Whatever. I just want to see OR follow the advice he once gave me, that "one should be quick to forgive". So far, I'm not seeing it here. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- No one advocated surrendering to the cactus patch. ;) Durova320 17:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like you're advocating surrender to Mr. Prickle. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's a bit more than 'supposedly': Ottava Rima has had five FAs and twelve GAs promoted within the last two months. There's a difficult balance to be struck between encouraging productive yet prickly people to remove their prickles, without granting an indefinite license to act disruptively. Many years ago I watched a man demonstrate that cactus was prickly by leaping into a bed of it. That was an effective but nonproductive way to prove his point, and after escorting him to proper medical care most of the people who were present avoided him afterward. Durova320 17:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- He chose to file the ArbCom, and I'm offering an unvarnished opinion of the situation. He's one of the most disagreeable characters I've run across here, one who thinks he has the right to insult anyone he feels like, just because he supposedly makes good edits. An admin has suggested a civility remedy, but everyone is saying, No, you can't do that, all you can do is block him. OK, that was all serious. Do you like that approach better? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Baseball Bugs, may I ask, does that comment really add anything to the discussion? Feel free to email Ottava that if you want, but adding it to ANI really does not do anything but inflame the situation. NW (Talk) 17:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- To put it another way, if you don't want the buzzards to circle, maybe laying raw meat out in the sun is not the best approach to take. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really know what I am. If I am the guy jumping on cactus, then, well, that is just weird. If I am the cactus, still, weird. Now, the guy was left alone and (hopefully) the cactus was left alone. That would be nice. However, it is clear that I haven't been left alone (just like others) for a very long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe it would help if you would here and now forgive those who have trespassed against you, as you once advised me to do toward others. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Forgiveness wont return the Persian Empire page which was edit warred over two months out of existence against consensus. It wont return many of the users that were chased out by the group when they were attacked at RS and Fringe noticeboards. It wont undo a lot of the damage that they are responsible for over the past year. Will it overturn the bad blocks that happened because of them? No. Will it help the encyclopedia to allow them to keep operating like this? No. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- "One should be quick to forgive." Your very own words. You should uphold those words and live by them. It's easy to forgive when all is going well. It takes real character of soul to forgive when things are not going well. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Forgiveness does not mean to allow people to continue to cause major harm. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Too lenient is always preferable." More of your own words. True forgiveness is unconditional. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Forgiveness does not mean to allow people to continue to cause major harm. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- "One should be quick to forgive." Your very own words. You should uphold those words and live by them. It's easy to forgive when all is going well. It takes real character of soul to forgive when things are not going well. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Forgiveness wont return the Persian Empire page which was edit warred over two months out of existence against consensus. It wont return many of the users that were chased out by the group when they were attacked at RS and Fringe noticeboards. It wont undo a lot of the damage that they are responsible for over the past year. Will it overturn the bad blocks that happened because of them? No. Will it help the encyclopedia to allow them to keep operating like this? No. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe it would help if you would here and now forgive those who have trespassed against you, as you once advised me to do toward others. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really know what I am. If I am the guy jumping on cactus, then, well, that is just weird. If I am the cactus, still, weird. Now, the guy was left alone and (hopefully) the cactus was left alone. That would be nice. However, it is clear that I haven't been left alone (just like others) for a very long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Baseball, could you go and write some articles? Because once again your comments really are doing nothing but enflaming the situation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Aradic-es
User Aradic-es was blocked 9 times so far, last time 03:39, 22 August 2009 for 2 weeks, so this ban lasted until 5 September 2009. Despite it, he made block evasions, he edited Wikipedia with an IP number 78.2.168.71 on 1 September 2009 and 78.2.189.68 on 24 August. Other users also noticed this block evasion and Aradic-es deleted it from his talk page to hide the evidence. He deleted a reference, and provided this article with incorrect informations again intentionally. He doesn't respect the rules of Wikipedia. Toroko (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
New seeker (talk · contribs)
I would like to point out this suspicious user. As a "new" user, their only edits have been edit warring and spamming WP:JNN on multiple AfDs. Could an admin decide how to handle this? Thanks, Triplestop x3 15:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Have you considered discussing your concerns with the user prior to filing an AN/I report? The user was (rightfully) blocked in July for 3RR violations but does not seem to have returned to overt edit warring. They seem to have some potential POV issues with some of their edits but again nothing blatantly disruptive, and no one has discussed any such issues with them. What "admin action" is necessary here? Shereth 15:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with suspected socks is that they always deny wrongdoing so it is best for a third party to investigate. Triplestop x3 20:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also, quite a few of his "not notable" !votes have a rationale (i.e. [21]) and are thus not JNN. Black Kite 18:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I have a sense of déjà vu here. Compare the user's contribs to those by Myownusername (talk · contribs). MuZemike 18:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Possible, although that user's "contribs" were just JNNs. Perhaps they've realised why they were blocked the first time? Anyhow, that's only going to be resolved with a SPI report. Black Kite 19:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- The user appears to be voting delete on AfDs close to completion; I do not see any significant overlaps between this user's votes and another's. Triplestop x3 20:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Bwmoll3
This user has been falsely accusing me of vandalism for merging and redirecting Nothin' but the Wheel to Only What I Feel. I told him that I was sure to merge the content, and he's still accusing me of vandalism, saying "if you want to delete the page, we have a process, quit blanking it," treating me like I'm some clueless n00b. He is very defensive of every article he's ever made, and refuses to let me make a compromise even after multiple warnings about WP:OWN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Reviewing. Warned him about edit warring, but you're right at the edge on those articles yourself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- You say you merged the content -- where? I don't see it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflicted up the wahoo) I think Nothin' but the Wheel was to be merged into Only What I Feel. MuZemike 20:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Right, but I don't see that that was done. If it had been, this discussion would be a lot more clear-cut. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's this diff here. Pretty much a slight merge but with the stuff in the table being converted to prose. MuZemike 20:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, I see it now. I saw that diff before, but somehow I missed the NBTW info. I agree, that's about all that was in there worth merging. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's this diff here. Pretty much a slight merge but with the stuff in the table being converted to prose. MuZemike 20:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Right, but I don't see that that was done. If it had been, this discussion would be a lot more clear-cut. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflicted up the wahoo) I think Nothin' but the Wheel was to be merged into Only What I Feel. MuZemike 20:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Notified Bwmoll3 about this discussion. Bwmoll3, please read and understand how Merging pages works. When such as action is taken, content is preserved and not deleted. Also, do not accuse others of vandalism when the actions of whomever you have a disagreement is is clearly not vandalism. If you disagree with the merge, then bring it up at Talk:Only What I Feel and start a discussion there. It is clear that Ten Pound Hammer's intention is not to delete, so I don't know why you're trying to force that upon him. As far as that previous sentence is concerned, the same goes with you, TPH. Somebody please have some rational discussion on it and quit the revert-warring. Anymore of this will lead to blocking. MuZemike 20:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see any information merging. TenPoundHammer has subverted the Request for Deletion procedure, which was his clear intent, by simply placing a #redirect on the page and deleting the information. If he wants a page deleted, he understands the procedure to do so. In addition, it needs to be noted that TenPoundHammer has edited this page on numerous occasions prior to this #redirect, over the past two years. Why does he find the need to delete the page now, since he obviously did not in the two years of it's existance? I view his actions as vandalism and not editing. Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's enough. Stop launching personal attacks in the form of calling others vandals when they're clearly not. Also, stop intentionally misinterpreting the deletion policy and merging guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer clearly indicated in the edit summaries that the relevant content was merged. Now please take this to the talk page I mentioned above, unless you would like to be blocked for harassing other editors. MuZemike 20:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive user I Pakapshem
The Albanian Barnstar of National Merit | ||
For your work in Albanian related topics, keep up the good work, cheers!sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)(UTC) | ||
this WikiAward was given to I Pakapshem by sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 15:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC) |
torpilises and actively undermines every attempt for civilised, constructive discussion, which makes people (such as myself) unable to participate in discussions he participates, as he turns them instantly in battlefields. NThis particular user's presence in Wikipedia seems to be only devoted to ruining discussions, articles, procedures and processes, ignoring four particular words: discussion, dispute resolution, consensus. His constructive edits are probably no more than 3-4, when he has no significant contribution at any article, at all. All the rest of his edits involve reverts, incivil discussion, and skipping the process of dispute resolution. That is, giving rude answers and running to an admin without actually discussing; the examples are numerous. For a user of 4 months and no more than 300 edits, he has opened 2 ANI cases, has "reported" users and nominated an article for 2nd time for deletion... without actually any prior discussion, but a lot of incivil answers instead. This person does not aim to do anything constructive around here than disrupt and destroy discussions, be incivil, fight edit-wars and just impeeding others of doing a good job, empty-threatening "I will report you I will report you" without there being anything to report. We will not look to his past; his block log is rich. But another chance was given to him and he seems to waste it.
Lack of civility, undermine of discussion and offensive claims against all greek editors:[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],
I could mention many more above, but I will just note here the most offensive:[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],
Territorial claims on other editors' homelands: - Or to put it more bluntly, our neighbors occupy the land and yet they bill us with the extremist nationalist ideology. --I Pakapshem (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC), Aigest, be frank with the man. Greater Albania and Pan-Albanianism does not exit at all. These are propagandistic terms used by Greeks and Serb in order to malign and put in a bad light normal and natural Albanian aspirations.--I Pakapshem (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I can keep adding diffs until, eventually, all of his diffs appear here, but I think this is a good sample. You could check admin EdJohnston's talk page to see that this user runs to him, skipping actual constructive discussion a few times a week "Ed, this" and "Ed, that" and "Ed, the greeks". I Papakshem had been asked to behave in that very talk page. I have been personally insulted, in the beginning of what could have been constructive discussion in Albanian nationalism, had I Pakapshem not heated it up. Therefore, I left that discussion and practically all discussions concerning Albania until everyone calms down but that just seems not to happen, as this user is always there to fuel the flames. Check his edits, he is the enemy of discussion. And this is not about civility, it is about general problematic and disrupting behavior. There has been enormous patience with this user, and there have been attempts to make him behave. But there seems to be no change, no hope of co-operation whatsoever. This is the last choice there is; I believe that ANI could bring the right solution to this.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Michael why don't you report on the behavior of your friend Megistias on the Albanian nationalism talk page calling all Albanian editors liers, a gang, a mob and that they need to scurry out of the article? And don't make up things for no reason as I have not insulted you anywhere. Bring proof for your baseless accusations.--I Pakapshem (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC) A typical incivility issue of the mentioned user is that he didn't respected his 6th block, and while insisting to be unblocked his talk page was blocked too [[44]]. After his 1rr restriction his 'contribution' is limited on initiating battlegrounds in discussion pages, like talk:Souliotes, and talk:Albanian nationalism.
Tag-teaming activity with a twice sockpuppeting and 7 times blocked [[45]], User:Sarandioti (User:Alarichus-User:XXxLRKistxXx), member of a nationalist organization called [[46]] LRK-national rebirth [[47]].
I can't really find a single edit in this history log that could be considered 'contribution to wikipedia' [[48]]. Just reverting, nationalistic advocating, fruitless reporting.Alexikoua (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow, a lot of empty accusations just because you can't stand it now that there are albanian editors to challenge your dominance in Albanian and Albanian related articles and not let just push your nationalistic agenda. The editors can check the activity of Alexikoua and other greek editors such as Athenean, Megistias, Factuarius etc. in the same articles that the empty accusations are made against me such as Souliotes, where Alexikoua yesterday broke the 3RR rule, vandalised the talk page by removing my and some other editor's comments, kept insisting on a compromise where none was reached and general incivility and continous accusations against me and Albanian editors. This battleground mentality to protect greek nationalism is seen in the talk pages and edit histories of other pages such as Himara, Albanian Nationalism, Saranda, Origins of Albanians where all the greek editors such Alexikoua, Athenean, Factuarius, Megistias, Michael X White, Guldenrich canvass each other and gang up on the article to push their nationalistic agenda. This can be easily check by looking at the talk pages and editor history pages of the above mentioned articles. If anything, all of the above mentioned editors are the ones who are desruptive, uncivil, uncompromising and seem to be duly and only concentrated in editing only Albanian and Albanian related articles in extreme nationalistic ways to promote their new version of Megali Idea, by branding everything and anything as greek.--I Pakapshem (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm looking into this, give me the next 12 hours to check it all through, get some sleep, and come up with a result. And first glance the OP does look to have a point: actual constructive contributions do seem rather minimal. Moreschi (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no policy on how many contributions you have to have in wiki. Wiki is a free encyclopedia as far as I know. Accusations are completely empty. You should also look at the comments and actions of the accusers in above mentioned pages.--I Pakapshem (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Blue supports only other blues and yellow supports only other yellows, blue wants the whole wiki to be blue like him, yellow wants the whole wiki to be yellow like him, the wiki is green, blue and yellow make green. Off2riorob (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, lord, what a mess. Anyway, I Pakapshem (talk · contribs) is blocked for a week and topic-banned for a month. That does NOT mean this is over, because no matter how much of a flamer he is he might actually have some points. Albanian nationalism is a real mess and something very, very wrong is definitely going on at Souliotes. The lede is a total nonsense that contradicts itself at every turn, makes no grammatical sense, and has way too many cites. Moreschi (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible for a administrator to impose a topic ban without any community consensus? Off2riorob (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- This area falls under ARBMAC, if I'm not mistaken, so yes, they can. Discretionary sanctions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link, users should be warned...Was this User warned about the discretionary sanctions? Off2riorob (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
{{subst:Contentious topics/alert|topic=b}}, Off2riorob (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I Pakapshem is already under a 1RR per week restriction per ARBMAC, as notified at User talk:I Pakapshem#ARBMAC restrictions. I made a couple of attempts to persuade I Pakapshem to do some research, for instance at User talk:I Pakapshem#Famous Himariots, but I could not get him interested. (I had hoped to channel his pro-Albanian enthusiasm in a productive direction). Moreschi's actions don't seem out of proportion to me, since I Pakapshem has made so little effort to work out a compromise on any of these articles. He just keeps on beating the nationalist drum for his own side.
- If Moreschi is hoping to sort out the problems with the Souliotes article, I recommend reading what Macrakis said on the Talk page about the fluidity of ethnic identities in the 19th century. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Wolfkeeper
Please see these two diffs: [49], and [50]
I'm all for talking this out, but it seems obvious where this is headed. If someone could talk Wolfkeeper (talk · contribs) down from the top of the Reichstag, I would appreciate it. I'd really rather simply avoid the fight in the first place then have someone come here later on with bad blood. Thanks.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- The above user has made two very contentious edits to core policies without any prior discussion.[51] [52]. I can only speculate as to his motives, but if he was trying to do things in the way we would expect around here he would have discussed them first.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you don't want to be reverted like this, then don't muck around trying to unilaterally declare non-policy the oldest policy that we have. Uncle G (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not upset in the least, especially since I half expected this to happen (which is why I posted a lengthy explaination on the talk page before editing). What bothers me is Wolfkeepers obviously script driven ability to impose his views on anyone who touches the document in question, and the behavior issues underlying the reason I brought this here. A cursory examination of the two diffs, and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary should make it obvious what the issue is, and rather attempting to directly address the issue with an obviously emotional editor I was hoping to receive some outside assistance. Should I wait until we're actually at each others throats and have both broken 3RR before coming here?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)- So, apart from deciding you get to unilaterally change the core policies, you also think you get to justify it with bad faith character assassination of people that disagree with you? And you also seem to be claiming that whatever the result from a discussion would be you're planning to edit war to change it anyway. You may want to stop digging this hole for yourself.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't unilaterally decide anything, you did that yourself though by relying on the undo tool. Anyway, I'm not going to allow you to bait me into stooping to your level. Who did what and who said what is easily accessible to those who are willing to look, and I provided diffs above.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)- Removing a core policy be a guideline requires something of the order of an RFC and a consultation period. You... didn't... do... anything.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't done anything except pick up where the previous conversation left off (and I would personally welcome an RFC, if you're up to beginning one). Aside from that, the fact is that despite your continuing accusations I haven't removed anything, and I'm not attempting to remove anything.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't done anything except pick up where the previous conversation left off (and I would personally welcome an RFC, if you're up to beginning one). Aside from that, the fact is that despite your continuing accusations I haven't removed anything, and I'm not attempting to remove anything.
- Removing a core policy be a guideline requires something of the order of an RFC and a consultation period. You... didn't... do... anything.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't unilaterally decide anything, you did that yourself though by relying on the undo tool. Anyway, I'm not going to allow you to bait me into stooping to your level. Who did what and who said what is easily accessible to those who are willing to look, and I provided diffs above.
- So, apart from deciding you get to unilaterally change the core policies, you also think you get to justify it with bad faith character assassination of people that disagree with you? And you also seem to be claiming that whatever the result from a discussion would be you're planning to edit war to change it anyway. You may want to stop digging this hole for yourself.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not upset in the least, especially since I half expected this to happen (which is why I posted a lengthy explaination on the talk page before editing). What bothers me is Wolfkeepers obviously script driven ability to impose his views on anyone who touches the document in question, and the behavior issues underlying the reason I brought this here. A cursory examination of the two diffs, and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary should make it obvious what the issue is, and rather attempting to directly address the issue with an obviously emotional editor I was hoping to receive some outside assistance. Should I wait until we're actually at each others throats and have both broken 3RR before coming here?
- It is not unilateral as there has been longstanding disquiet about this page which is reflected in the many discussions upon its talk page - discussions which User:Ohms law has read and acted upon. Unfortunately it seems to be something of a policy backwater and so it is routinely misunderstood by editors who regularly nominate articles for deletion on the grounds that they are short and so, supposedly, are dictionary entries. Age means little because of the Eternal September effect, as you so well describe it. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, why not... I'll try and get help with this again. User:Imbris is a disruptive and aggressive Croatian ultranationalist account that has managed to evade sanctions way too long. All "contributions" of this User are disputes and edit-warring in which he constantly pushes his personal views, reverts article improvements, and incessantly fights with anyone that "dares to oppose him". His extremely disruptive behavior has been the cause of diminished article quality all over the Balkans history articles. This user has been reported on ten or so occasions by a large number of users [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62], but has managed to simply keep quiet and count on the obscurity of the subject matter and, with all due respect, admin apathy to get away with all this for months now. He knows this full well, and has openly made fun of me for asking admin assistance [63].
After the latest report on this account [64] (which once again came to nothing and only resulted in article protection), I've withdrawn from all five disputes and basically let him have his way. He has now continued to WP:STALK me to other articles and is now starting a new edit-war on Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. My best efforts to restore information sourced by university publications will probably be useless [65] [66], as I am afraid of "losing my cool" and actually getting blocked myself (via 3RR violation) for repairing the damage too many times.
Let me be perfectly open on this: some way should be found to make him stop with this kind of behavior (particularly the edit-warring). I feel he has earned an indef block twenty times over, but I realize from an NPOV that other methods should be attempted as well. Frankly, anything is better than this complete lack of response. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Looking into it, should be back within 12 hours or so. Moreschi (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your time, Moreschi. The guy's constant dispute-mongering and edit warring are enough to warrant fifty blocks on their own. While you're investigating the issue, have a look at the Hey, Slavs article, its a good example. That's an where he managed to get his way and demolish the article by sheer edit-warring - in spite of the opposition from the neutral mediator (User:Dottydotdot) and something like five other Users. Nobody wants to get blocked by violating 3RR and fixing up his damage too many times. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
User:Buck9998 is a sockpuppet of the indefinately blocked User:Buck9999. Joe Chill (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, how can you be a sock of yourself? MuZemike 00:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Buck9998 is a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked Buck9999. Joe Chill (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked indef, about as obvious as sockpuppets can possibly get. ~ mazca talk 00:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was just being a smart alec, obviously. MuZemike 00:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- ...and a moron for not noticing (eats some fish for dinner). MuZemike 00:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- At least give the sock some points for originality, i.e. counting down instead of up. Maybe he thought that would fool everyone. Like the old joke about the guy who sneaks into a theater by walking into it backwards so they'll think he's leaving. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- ...and a moron for not noticing (eats some fish for dinner). MuZemike 00:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Buck9998 is a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked Buck9999. Joe Chill (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It's time for User:ThaddeusB to back off of me. I was blocked, inappropriately, for an entire week for using the names User:Abyssal called me (WP:POINT). It appears there is no wikipedia policy that says block someone for a week for the first time. A week was excessive, and the block appeared to be punitive and retaliatory.[67] I'm not going to assume good faith for a week long block.
ThaddeusB was the primary reason for my getting blocked. He is not an uninvolved admin, but he used my unblock request as an opportunity to taunt me in the same vein he is now stalking me with comments.[68]
Also:[69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76]
He has not provided a single diff for his accusations against me, but he continues to post them everywhere.[77][78]
He says that "I hate the idea of the bot," I'm mistrustful of him, etc. He's not a mind-reader, and he has no evidence that "hate the idea of the bot."[79] It's time for him to back off.[80]
--69.225.5.4 (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- This post is "revenge" for an ANI post I made a few days ago, asking for a 3rd party to evaluate 69.255's behavior that led to a block. It was I who made granted the unblock request b/c 69.255 agreed to stop making it personal. He then reverted the unblock notice as "taunting" 4 times and posted more lies on the original BRFA.
- I have tried to assume good faith, but 69.255's actions throughout the whole matter strongly suggest the opposite. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please provide diffs. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why was this posted at Jake Wartenberg's talk page (watchlist)? You don't seem to have implicated him whatsoever in your rationale. If he's not involved, then it's blatant violation or disregard of WP:CANVASS. ceranthor 00:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I mention his block above, claiming the original block was excessive. It's a courtesy notice, and it appears to be actually required by the rules of this page. --69.225.5.4 (talk)
- If a third party desires diffs, I can post a boatload. I really doubt that will be necessary though, as your own diffs make it clear that what I just said is true - your "evidence" of "taunting" is quite laughable. If granting an unblock request and saying thank you for finally getting on topic is taunting you, than it is physically impossible for me to say anything to you that isn't. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please provide diffs. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- ThaddeusB unblocked you in good faith. Seriously, what else do you want from him? If nothing else, then I strongly suggest that you disengage right now, lest you want an admin to block the entire range you're on. MuZemike 00:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have disengaged, and attempted to focus on the issues. I am not lying, I am not posting because I hate the bot. ThaddeusB has provided no diffs to support a single accusation against me in any of his posts. After I said I would not discuss the issue any more, he unblocked me and included a personal taunt in the unblock notice, as I indicate above, with a diff. He is now posting personal comments about me on the IP page, on User:Hesperian's talk page, on the bot discussion page. Not a single personal accusation against me has included a diff, and many of them include things he cannot possible know. This is why Wikipedia has a policy that you should not make it personal but stick to the content. ThaddeusB is not sticking to the content. He did NOT provide any diffs to support his assertions against me. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- agreement to stop disruptive comments is nowhere near a taunt. MuZemike 00:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have disengaged, and attempted to focus on the issues. I am not lying, I am not posting because I hate the bot. ThaddeusB has provided no diffs to support a single accusation against me in any of his posts. After I said I would not discuss the issue any more, he unblocked me and included a personal taunt in the unblock notice, as I indicate above, with a diff. He is now posting personal comments about me on the IP page, on User:Hesperian's talk page, on the bot discussion page. Not a single personal accusation against me has included a diff, and many of them include things he cannot possible know. This is why Wikipedia has a policy that you should not make it personal but stick to the content. ThaddeusB is not sticking to the content. He did NOT provide any diffs to support his assertions against me. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Please also be very careful about exaggerating and twisting the facts, as you have done on a number of occasions," however, is. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- This was part of your reason for being blocked and a perfectly good advice. Unfortunately, you choose to ignore it. One of the very first things you did after being unblock was post this comment where you said "ThaddeusB claims this is not specific and he can't do anything about it." Since, I had made no such claim it was an outright lie. (My claims of you not being specific predated you raising the specific concern in question.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- On September 11 I said:
- "In my opinion, I don't think this bot should go forward without proactive community support for the bot. This means more than no one disapproves or shows negative interest. It requires editors from relevant projects get on board for vetting uploaded data. Without a group of editors to check data, it is my opinion the potential for another AnyBot type mess exists." --69.225.12.99 (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is the complete paragraph that you quote in part, above: "It's anybot all over again: the don't know their data, they can't and won't communicate with those who do. ThaddeusB claims this is not specific and he can't do anything about it. That was the problem with anybot that created 5000 articles and redirects to be deleted: a bot operator who could not and would not listen to problems with his bot." Since this is my claim all along, and you are saying my problems with the bot are not specific, this is what you are saying is not specific. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, neither is that. MuZemike 00:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. I have not exaggerated or twisted the facts in the bot discussion, and ThaddeusB has provided no evidence that I have done so. As this was partially his initial accusation against me, that led to the block, his repeating it while unblocking me is taunting, in the en.wiki meaning, "sarcastic remark, or insult intended to make demoralize the recipient, or to anger them and encourage reactionary behaviors without thinking." It was a flame in a heated situation. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Rather ironic that you say I can't judge your motivations because I'm "not a mind reader" and yet, apparently you can judge mine just fine as you have somehow determined my intent with that comment. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Your words are the flame, not anything underlying it, for that very reason, that I don't know what underlies it. Your words were an accusation that I was "exaggerating and twisting the facts" with no supporting evidence on your part that I had done so. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- LOL, apparently only you are allowed to draw conclusions from people's actions?
- As to the "lack of evidence", You and I both know you have stated untrue things about me several times, as you even admitted it once. However, try looking up a couple inches and you will find evidence that you immediately continued this pattern after your unblock. You knew "ThaddeusB claims this is not specific and he can't do anything about it" and wrote it anyway. I know you knew this because you had 1) just raised the complaint 2)I had just thanked you for raising it and said I'd fix it right away 3) You had been following the discussion closely and knew that last time I said you hadn't raised any specific complaints was well before you were blocked (and this specific only happened after your block despite me practically begging for specifics for weeks.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Your words are the flame, not anything underlying it, for that very reason, that I don't know what underlies it. Your words were an accusation that I was "exaggerating and twisting the facts" with no supporting evidence on your part that I had done so. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Rather ironic that you say I can't judge your motivations because I'm "not a mind reader" and yet, apparently you can judge mine just fine as you have somehow determined my intent with that comment. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. I have not exaggerated or twisted the facts in the bot discussion, and ThaddeusB has provided no evidence that I have done so. As this was partially his initial accusation against me, that led to the block, his repeating it while unblocking me is taunting, in the en.wiki meaning, "sarcastic remark, or insult intended to make demoralize the recipient, or to anger them and encourage reactionary behaviors without thinking." It was a flame in a heated situation. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Given the recent history between the 'Marine Invertebrate Paleo IP Guy' and ThaddeusB, I can understand how the former could consider the latter's comment to be somewhat 'twisting the knife'. I've been involved in the Request for Approval for ContentCreationBOT myself and from what I've seen, my honest appraisal of the situation is that this is three basically good, knowledgeable guys (ThaddeusB and Abyssal vs. Marine Invertebrate Paleo IP Guy) perpetuating a repetitive, circular argument whilst each side is blaming the other for perpetuating a repetitive, circular argument and attempting to second guess each other's motives for perpetuating a repetitive, circular argument. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- My motive is pretty simple: no repetition of the anybot mess. This requires that someone vet the data before they are uploaded, by bot or by human. There is no one to do this, and I'm being attacked for wanting the data upload to be accurate. There are problems that directly suggest that ThaddeusB and Abyssal are not reading the data correctly or do not understand it or both, which is simply more evidence that my original post stating experts (wiki enthusiasts or scientists) are needed was correct, and a sufficient argument against this particular data upload. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Again with the distortion. "There is no one to do this" really means "There is no one to do this that I find acceptable." In reality both Abyssal and I have vetted the data and stated as much numerous times. "here are problems that directly suggest..." really means "there is one specific problem..." which was only raised after 69.255 was blocked despite me asking 69.255 to be specific for three weeks. The only reasonable conclusion is that he purposely withheld this information until it served his purposed (getting unblocked) and that he has no interest in helping the bot improve. (Hence my conclusion that he hates the idea of the bot.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- My motive is pretty simple: no repetition of the anybot mess. This requires that someone vet the data before they are uploaded, by bot or by human. There is no one to do this, and I'm being attacked for wanting the data upload to be accurate. There are problems that directly suggest that ThaddeusB and Abyssal are not reading the data correctly or do not understand it or both, which is simply more evidence that my original post stating experts (wiki enthusiasts or scientists) are needed was correct, and a sufficient argument against this particular data upload. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Given the recent history between the 'Marine Invertebrate Paleo IP Guy' and ThaddeusB, I can understand how the former could consider the latter's comment to be somewhat 'twisting the knife'. I've been involved in the Request for Approval for ContentCreationBOT myself and from what I've seen, my honest appraisal of the situation is that this is three basically good, knowledgeable guys (ThaddeusB and Abyssal vs. Marine Invertebrate Paleo IP Guy) perpetuating a repetitive, circular argument whilst each side is blaming the other for perpetuating a repetitive, circular argument and attempting to second guess each other's motives for perpetuating a repetitive, circular argument. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to call it badly vetted data it makes no difference from not vetted. The example of the "successful" upload that Abyssal posted on the ContentCreationBot RFAB contained bad data. The database was correct, but the information was extracted, and, without basic knowledge of the taxon, it was not corrected by either you or Abyssal, but was rather offered as an example of "success." --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yet more distortion. I most certainly didn't call it a "successful trial" I called it a sample page. (Abyssal mistakenly called it that & you have been harping on his wording ever since.) My intention with uploading the page was to find errors like the one you outlined, not to prove the bot was already perfect.
- Furthermore, "basic knowledge of the taxon had zero zip zilch nada nothing to do with the error as I have now stated at least 4 times. Of course you conveniently ignore that comment, just like you always do when it doesn't suit your purpose. The error was the result fo a simple oversight that absolutely anyone could have made - even the world's foremost expert on the subject. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Its Abyssal who offered it as a successful trial. I don't see his bold statement removed, stricken out, or disputed by you. "Sorry, for the bold, but I want to point out that successful trials have already been run. A link to the results of the test are here. Abyssal (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)" --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- 1) he had no reason to not believe it was successful at the time of the comment 2) he misused a single word: "trial" instead of demo - do you really think it is appropriate to strike someone else's comments everytime they use the wrong term 3) you have ignored the fact that I specifically asked people to call it a demo rather than a trial a few lines down. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- If your point is that it's not a "trial" versus it's not "successful" I have no idea why that means anything at all. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- My point was 1) the page wasn't intended to be perfect; 2) at the time of Abyssal's comment there was no reason to believe it wasn't accurate.
- I didn't expect it to be perfect, but the error was precisely the sort I was concerned about and was warning about. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- My point was 1) the page wasn't intended to be perfect; 2) at the time of Abyssal's comment there was no reason to believe it wasn't accurate.
- If your point is that it's not a "trial" versus it's not "successful" I have no idea why that means anything at all. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- 1) he had no reason to not believe it was successful at the time of the comment 2) he misused a single word: "trial" instead of demo - do you really think it is appropriate to strike someone else's comments everytime they use the wrong term 3) you have ignored the fact that I specifically asked people to call it a demo rather than a trial a few lines down. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Its Abyssal who offered it as a successful trial. I don't see his bold statement removed, stricken out, or disputed by you. "Sorry, for the bold, but I want to point out that successful trials have already been run. A link to the results of the test are here. Abyssal (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)" --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- (after 2x ec - I wish you guys wouldn't type so fast!)AFAIK, he wants an uninvolved 3rd party expert in the subject to verify and endorse the data. I believe that this is something I've suggested myself - the problem being that no-one has been able to locate an expert willing to do this. If we could do that, I suspect that this would all go away... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I also suggested finding individual experts.[81] There are numerous mollusc editors, for example, and finding one to search the chiton list, for example, might be easier than finding a single expert to review all the lists. I deal primarily with a fossil taxon, so, unless it's a glaring example with an extant organism like the chiton that was morphological model, and used for systematics studies, I won't necessarily catch problems in lists with lots of extant organisms. These lists, in spite of being on pages of "list of prehistoric organisms" all contain numerous extant organisms. So I can't do any of them. --69.225.5.4 ([[User
- FYI, 99% of the list is extinct, but until you were blocked you refused to outline even a single specific "glaring error." --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not my area. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, are you saying you only have expert knowledge on one specific taxon? That is certainly not the way you have been presenting yourself the entire BRFA. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, actually, yes, I am only an expert on one specific taxon, but it's a few hundred million years and a mighty big taxon. Remember, "taxon" can technically refer to any level of classification. And, yes, scientists are often experts in a single taxon. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- True. I have a proposal for you then. I will run the bot on a page of your choice 9that you can easily spot errors) and then you tell me if there are any. If there aren't, it is reasonable to assume there are no errors in other either. From a technically stand point, each page is exactly the same so if one page has no novel (bot introduced) errors, every page will have no novel errors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, actually, yes, I am only an expert on one specific taxon, but it's a few hundred million years and a mighty big taxon. Remember, "taxon" can technically refer to any level of classification. And, yes, scientists are often experts in a single taxon. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, are you saying you only have expert knowledge on one specific taxon? That is certainly not the way you have been presenting yourself the entire BRFA. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not my area. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, 99% of the list is extinct, but until you were blocked you refused to outline even a single specific "glaring error." --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I also suggested finding individual experts.[81] There are numerous mollusc editors, for example, and finding one to search the chiton list, for example, might be easier than finding a single expert to review all the lists. I deal primarily with a fossil taxon, so, unless it's a glaring example with an extant organism like the chiton that was morphological model, and used for systematics studies, I won't necessarily catch problems in lists with lots of extant organisms. These lists, in spite of being on pages of "list of prehistoric organisms" all contain numerous extant organisms. So I can't do any of them. --69.225.5.4 ([[User
- If you want to call it badly vetted data it makes no difference from not vetted. The example of the "successful" upload that Abyssal posted on the ContentCreationBot RFAB contained bad data. The database was correct, but the information was extracted, and, without basic knowledge of the taxon, it was not corrected by either you or Abyssal, but was rather offered as an example of "success." --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I considered this earlier, which is why I know there's a problem with extant taxa larger than you say there is, and I might be able to do one of the fish pages, but none of the lists are really remotely close to my area. But I think you're on to something, namely, how about you finding an expert for one of the lists. And, again, by expert I mean wikipedia expert, not necessarily a scientist. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I have obviously misunderstood a large portion of what you've said to date (and visa versa). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
69.225.5.4, looking at the BRFA you have repeatedly attacked ThaddeusB and Abyssal there. If you have problems about the bot, then you should mention them there and stop at that. Going on to accuse its developers/operators of irresponsibility etc as you have done is obviously not going to be appreciated. Now you guys are again starting to argue about the bot. I agree with MuZemike that it's time to disengage from this pointless argument of blaming each other. If there are any further issues, explain them clearly and specifically minus the attacks. If you present your arguments properly others will respond properly too. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have diffs? --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is no need to provide specific diffs, a look at the BRFA will confirm that. Anyway, I'm not saying it's entirely your fault or ThaddeusB's. I'm just saying what you could do to resolve the situation. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is no need to provide specific diffs, a look at the BRFA will confirm that. Anyway, I'm not saying it's entirely your fault or ThaddeusB's. I'm just saying what you could do to resolve the situation. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Misinformation vandal has returned.
The Indonesian misinformation vandal has returned once again. Ever since the block on 202.70.61.128/27 expired yesterday, the guy used 202.70.61.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to vandalize some of same Digimon and MGM articles. While the vandal has stopped as of this message, immediate action is still needed. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Same range blocked for 2 weeks, now. MuZemike 02:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
request for a deleted page
A new user has requested a copy of a deleted page. See Talk:Steryle. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- The username (User:BandsHelper) doesn't exactly inspire me to dizzying heights of confidence that they're here to do anything other than spam YAMB. → ROUX ₪ 03:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- There's not much content in the page, just a one-sentence summary, list of members, and external link. Evil saltine (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just making sure a request on an obscure page gets proper attention. No need to cast aspersions on the editor because you don't like their choice of name. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Usernames of that nature are, >99% of the time, blatant promotion attempts. → ROUX ₪ 04:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Really. So we should assume from your name that you're here to blatantly promote a mixture of fat (usually butter) and flour used to thicken sauces and stews? So much for AGF. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Usernames of that nature are, >99% of the time, blatant promotion attempts. → ROUX ₪ 04:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just making sure a request on an obscure page gets proper attention. No need to cast aspersions on the editor because you don't like their choice of name. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile, is there an admin willing to honour the request? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
CSD-G4
I put a csd-g4 tag on Leafpad because it was deleted in AFD previously. Muzemike declined it without looking at the previous version because the article is in a second AFD. Is the article significantly similar to the article that was deleted in AFD? Joe Chill (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I see that the article is already at AFD. Is there a legitimate reason that you're WP:CANVASSing this issue?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)- I'm not canvassing. If articles are similar to a version that was deleted in AFD previously, it should be deleted per the speedy deletion criteria. The article being in a second AFD at the moment doesn't matter. If someone thinks that an admin made a mistake, this is the place to bring it. So does this meet csd-g4? Joe Chill (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- It looks a bit different. Ohms, the user was asking for an admin to look at a deleted revision because an article can be speedied even while at AfD - it saves time. It's messed up to accuse Joe of canvassing - he cannot see the deleted version. Law type! snype? 04:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Two things: A) I actually though this was the Village pump (my bad!) and B) I tend to avoid deletion discussions because they actually get me worked up. Those two issues aside... I can see the point of posting this on AN/I, since there (were) no replies, but... I don't know, It's probably just my inclusionist ideology showing but it still looks like canvasssing. *shrug*
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Two things: A) I actually though this was the Village pump (my bad!) and B) I tend to avoid deletion discussions because they actually get me worked up. Those two issues aside... I can see the point of posting this on AN/I, since there (were) no replies, but... I don't know, It's probably just my inclusionist ideology showing but it still looks like canvasssing. *shrug*
- It looks a bit different. Ohms, the user was asking for an admin to look at a deleted revision because an article can be speedied even while at AfD - it saves time. It's messed up to accuse Joe of canvassing - he cannot see the deleted version. Law type! snype? 04:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not canvassing. If articles are similar to a version that was deleted in AFD previously, it should be deleted per the speedy deletion criteria. The article being in a second AFD at the moment doesn't matter. If someone thinks that an admin made a mistake, this is the place to bring it. So does this meet csd-g4? Joe Chill (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Joe, is there a reason why you came here instead of discussing it with me, first? Anyways, since I'm here, yes, I saw that the article is a little different than the previously-deleted version. That is the main reason why I declined the speedy. Second, I was informed that another user would be working on it. It's already been relisted; let said improvements happen and see what results seven days from now. It's not about winning or losing, but about the end result – getting it right. MuZemike 05:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Questionable Admin Practices. User:Jehochman
I have on two occasions seen User Jehochman institute a page ban or sanction on editors [[82]] [[83]] without community consensus. I find this to be fundementally adverse to the core policies of Wikipedia in regards to consensus. I have found no policy nor was one cited when I borught the concern up to the user.[[84]] I would like to invite the community to discuss as to the limits of an individual admin power. I would like to note this is not a personal difference between Jehochman and myself only a concern over the effects individual sanctions can have over our community. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would say that is something for consensus to decide, not any individual. Chillum 07:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps so. But would it have then been OK if he had simply issued blocks against those users? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Blocks ultimately will fall under consensus, how many blocks have ben reduced or outright overturned because community disagrees? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- A subtle point: Wikipedia policy is descriptive, not normative. We write down how things work, not things work the way we write them down. Additionally, administrators have broad authorization to do that which is reasonable and necessary to prevent disruption. In a situation where I could block somebody completely, it is logical that I should be able to give them a lesser sanction, such as a pageban, if leniency is in the best interests of the project. (These policy issues should be discussed at WP:PUMP or the relevant policy page.)
- Both matters Hell complains about are presently under consideration by the Arbitration Committee. (Concerns about the specific incidents should be addressed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#RS and Fringe Noticeboard.)
- I'm not sure why this conversation is here, unless Hell's purpose is to make drama. Considering Hell's block log, that's a definite possibility. Jehochman Talk 07:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't been blocked since May when I first created my account. Try again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- HiaB is not the same type of editor I blocked back in the day - and while I think they are wrong in their understanding how WP:BOLD and editorial autonomy works round here, I am surprised that you would make such a simplistic view of character based on historical logs. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The broader issue of admins unilaterally imposing sanctions is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Discretionary sanctions. Skomorokh 07:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Interested parties may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light/Workshop#Administrative_sanctions. Jehochman Talk 07:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't care about the ongoing Arbcom case. Frankly the only thing I care ahbout is what I percieve to be an abuse of administrative powers. If the community agrees that is totally fine but that is different from someone coming in and saying you're done. Maybe you use it judicially but you set a dangerous precedent. Not all admin do, that's why arbcom regularl desysops people. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Engaging in rational discussion at Arbitration to resolve concerns is so boring. It's much more fun to scream ADMIN ABUSE at ANI, isn't it? This page is on 4207 watchlists. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests is only on about 1754.[85] The drama potential at ANI is 139.8% greater, though the chance of resolution is nearly 100% less. Jehochman Talk 07:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Great....If we can get back to the problem at hand.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. What do you want administrators to do? I've told you already that the issues you are concerned about are subject to ongoing dispute resolution, to wit, arbitration or a request for arbitration. The policy matters can be discussed at the relevant policy pages. Please go to the appropriate linked venues and participate. Jehochman Talk 07:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thisa would be a correct venue if concerned about admin practices. You seem to have a very cavalier and deflective attitude to this issue. However I believe that as this discussion progresses we can make a good headway as to deciding, If truly you believe your position I would ask you to let the community discuss and refrain from assuming bad faith on my part (ie. my block log, unless you can tie that dispute here) as you did above. I have been quite respectful to you in this entire matter so I would appreciate the same. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was going to tentatively agree with the OP and point out Wikipedia talk:Discretionary sanctions (which I see was already mentioned), but I see that this has already degenerated into an interpersonal pissing contest so... *sigh* <ignored> For real conversation about this go to Wikipedia talk:Discretionary sanctions.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC) - Dramamongering. The sanctions can be brought for community review in the usual way, and this kind of rant isn't how to do it. Verbal chat 08:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- A page ban is less severe than a block, as Jehochman. However I think we need to think this through. I know there's a process to appealing blocks, which may lead to reduction or removal of a block. But I'm unaware of a recognised process for appealing / reducing / removing bans. For example the ban on David Tombe is indefinite.
- Bans can vary in scope. I'm not clear about whether Jehochman's ban on editing by David Tombe of a particular article also extends to the article's Talk page. I've also seen topic bans, whose effect depends on the scope of the topic, but will always be more severe than a page / article ban. Then there are bans on interacting with named individuals. Plenty to think about there.
- Jehochman's "sanction" against Ottava Rima is a different, it's more like the final warning we may issue a vandal, followed by an immediate block if there is a recurrence. However final warnings to vandals generally expire, so further vandalism after a few months without vandalism will not generally lead to an immediate block, but instead to another warning cycle.
- Bottom line: Jehochman may have hit on an additional, more nuanced sanction than a block. But it needs to be thought through before it can be taken as a precedent. --Philcha (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- An editor subject to a topic ban can appeal to the issuing administrator, or they may come to ANI to request review. Blocked users have fewer options, so we provide them with special procedures, such as the unblock template and the unblock mailing list. In fact, David Tombe disputed his topic ban which ultimately resulted in my request for arbitration. Ottava Rima also filed for arbitration. Users seem to be aware of how to file appeals. It may be very useful to create template messages that can be used to ensure that users are fully aware of their options for appeal. In general, we should try as much as possible not to block users where lesser restrictions might be effective. I am hoping that ArbCom and eventually policy will document how these procedures should work. Jehochman Talk 08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, you don't see "An editor subject to a topic ban can appeal to the issuing administrator" being problematic? Obviously we're discussing problem users here so separating that from the issue itself is difficult, but... in the abstract at least, there's something not quite right in all of this.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC) - Ohms law, would you be happier if any admin could remove or modify a ban, as happens with a block? --Philcha (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Any admin can remove a sanction, just like a block. What an admin can do, another admin can undo when there's a good reason. Jehochman Talk 09:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- ...yes. Probably. Maybe. I've been replying to Jehochman at Wikipedia talk:Discretionary sanctions, and considering the fact that we're all likely to watch that much longer then this (along with the fact that the negative undertone is absent from there), it's probably best to continue this conversation there. I do have ideological issues with the underlying idea behind this, but realistically... if it's going to be used, then it should be clear that the exact same procedures as apply to blocking are available to those affected.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- ...yes. Probably. Maybe. I've been replying to Jehochman at Wikipedia talk:Discretionary sanctions, and considering the fact that we're all likely to watch that much longer then this (along with the fact that the negative undertone is absent from there), it's probably best to continue this conversation there. I do have ideological issues with the underlying idea behind this, but realistically... if it's going to be used, then it should be clear that the exact same procedures as apply to blocking are available to those affected.
- Any admin can remove a sanction, just like a block. What an admin can do, another admin can undo when there's a good reason. Jehochman Talk 09:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, you don't see "An editor subject to a topic ban can appeal to the issuing administrator" being problematic? Obviously we're discussing problem users here so separating that from the issue itself is difficult, but... in the abstract at least, there's something not quite right in all of this.
- An editor subject to a topic ban can appeal to the issuing administrator, or they may come to ANI to request review. Blocked users have fewer options, so we provide them with special procedures, such as the unblock template and the unblock mailing list. In fact, David Tombe disputed his topic ban which ultimately resulted in my request for arbitration. Ottava Rima also filed for arbitration. Users seem to be aware of how to file appeals. It may be very useful to create template messages that can be used to ensure that users are fully aware of their options for appeal. In general, we should try as much as possible not to block users where lesser restrictions might be effective. I am hoping that ArbCom and eventually policy will document how these procedures should work. Jehochman Talk 08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
When I was page banned by Jehochman, it was within 1 hour twenty minutes of a request to do so by Physchim62. It has since transpired that Physchim62 and Jehochman are already familiar with each other from a previous arbitration hearing. Physchim62 made the allegation that I was being disruptive at talk:speed of light. The truth was that I was arguing a position contrary to Physchim62's position. Following the pageban, attempts were then made to ban another user who was arguing on my side. Although I honoured the pageban, despite protesting about it, my pageban was then upgraded to a topic ban as a consequence of the AN/I thread which had been instigated to get my ally page banned. Eventually the impasse at speed of light was taken to arbitration where a hearing is now in progress. At the arbitration hearing, Jehochman has demonstrated that he knows absolutely nothing about the content matter of the dispute for which he page banned me. In fact the entire arbitration hearing has come about as a direct consequence of Jehochman's actions. David Tombe (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, David, the ArbCom case has come about because of your repeated disruptive editing, which is well known to followers of this noticeboard. Physchim62 (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Physchim62, Your definition of disruptive editing is 'not agreeing with what you are saying'. And you had a handy administrator ready to do the honours. David Tombe (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- (Reply to Hell in a Bucket) Admin's are given some latitude to employ various conventions or practices in efforts to prevent disruption to the project; unilaterally imposing a page ban or similar is one way of doing it. If the ban is opposed then the subject can appeal the ban to the ANI noticeboard, where they would need to evidence why the ban was improper. Jehochman is not the only sysop who uses this ploy, I have done so both individually and in concert with two or more other admins. As Baseball Bugs points out above, admins are permitted to unilaterally block people; part of the responsibility entrusted to them is to deal with disruption by other methods as considered appropriate. ArbCom is not the only body authorised to make such decisions, rather they are the last resort when admin action has been found ineffective. In short, yes, Jehochman may unilaterally ban an editor from a page and providing it is not successfully challenged then consent is implicit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- If this is a common practice I apologize, I would suggest we make an admin power explicit rather then implicit. It struck me as a tad off what wiki is and it's purpose of callaborative work. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
This page has about half a day's backlog, which really hurts its ability to put a stopper on edit wars. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 09:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps if you recruited admins for those reasons - to help administer the site - rather than some sort of reward system for being able to write great content and articles, this wouldn't happen? Or have two types of admins - content-admins and maintenance-admins. --HighKing (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is some talk (at present of RfA) about the possibility of seperating out some of the tools to make it easier for people to get them (and also to have the tool taken off them, and also easier for people to get the tools back again.) That seems like one good solution, but it needs a lot more input and work before it'll happen. There's also a lot of talk at RfA about how to make RfA less broken. Discussion from other editors would be welcomed. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps if you recruited admins for those reasons - to help administer the site - rather than some sort of reward system for being able to write great content and articles, this wouldn't happen? Or have two types of admins - content-admins and maintenance-admins. --HighKing (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Vintagekits
I have now become sufficiently irritated by User:Vintagekits' attacks on me and harassment of my editing to post a notice here. Here are a list of personal attacks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
It now appears that the sole purpose of his presence on Wikipedia is to follow my edits and revert them. It seems clear to me that he uses my "user contributions" page for this purpose. On 10th August, for example, he turned up on obscure Northern Ireland football club pages in which he had never previously shown interest - purely to revert, e.g. Tandragee Rovers.
On 23rd September, he logged into Wikipedia and all he did was revert edits that I had made: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He then left a message on my talk page, which I removed, only for him to revert. Mooretwin (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- With no knowledge of the rights and wrongs of this particular dispute, I can certainly confirm from experience that Vintagekits does have a regular and longstanding interest in the history of Irish football. – iridescent 09:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me as though Mooretwin refused to answer a perfectly reasonable question over why he is using a blogspot blog as a source in multiple articles, in the case of Eric Treverrow it is the only source in the article. The edit to Tandragee Rovers is perfectly correct too, as when Mick Hoy was playing that flag was not used. Mooretwin is more than aware that "Northern Irish" can be a contentious term when applied to people and is best avoided, yet for some reason he keeps using it even applying it to living people. O Fenian (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Neither of those opinions addresses the complaint. Mooretwin (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Claims of stalking have not substance at all, in addition to Vin having a longstanding interest in the history of Irish football they have also had a longstanding interest in the history. Posting on a editors user page as opposed to their talk page is wrong. --Domer48'fenian' 10:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Asking you a legitimate question about your policy violations, or fixing your use of contentious terms or flags in inappropriate contexts is not harassment. Adding his question back may not have been unacceptable, but that was only brought about by your refusal to answer the question it seems. O Fenian (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Vintagekits has long been considered one of "those" users - he does some excellent content work, but somehow can't quite grasp the idea that one should comment on the content, not the editor. His block log says it all; he makes personal attacks and comments, refuses to discuss them and then comes back for more. The version of WP:WQA found here is another example of his behaviour, and he's had multiple ANI threads before. Short of a block I really don't know what we're meant to do with him; he does excellent sports-related work, but does so with a potty mouth. Topic bans only work if the problem is with the editors attitude towards a certain area, and this is just a problem with his attitude. This is a prime example - while his actions were correct, his personal comments while making them (and elsewhere) were not. Ironholds (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- His actions weren't correct, unless one thinks that edit-warring is correct. His reverts on various club pages (Tandragee Rovers being only one example) were on the basis of an erroneous claim of precedent, subsequently debunked here. In any case, the complaint is less about the correctness of any individual reverts, but the fact that the user is clearly using WP merely to pursue me and to make personal attacks. Mooretwin (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mooretwin often tendentiously edits, and often goes against consensus, as he does on the GAA article. Tfz 11:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow. That block list is as long as my arm. And his editing is a violation of the spirit of User:Vintagekits/terms, if not the terms. I highly suggest opening arbitration on this user, and the blocks never seem to stick, or be effective. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, there's no "spirit" of the block; it was designed to keep him away from baronetcy/history articles after a series of disputes on the subjects, because he's a productive editor in other areas. His actions here do not at all violate the topic ban.
- The notion of Mooretwin reporting another editor for "harassment of my editing" is, frankly, difficult to take seriously. This is not the forum for POINTY irony. A goodly proportion of the blocks were by warring Admins so should play no part in assessing the merits (none) of the current complaint. Sarah777 (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Sarah777 (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Quite frankly a long block is all I can see happening at the moment. He's been gradually excluded from topics where he works because of his attitude and incivility at those topics, and this has done nothing to stop him - he's just been rude elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- From a review of the diff's supplied by Mooretwin I can see two instances of violation of WP:CIVIL - well, 3 actually but 1 & 2 are the same! - which I will speak to VK about. However, I see much amiss regarding the body of Mooretwin's complaint. VK is active in both Ireland related editing and sport subjects - there is no reason why he wouldn't edit Irish Football Team articles. I also find Mooretwin is being something more than tendatious when altering a BLP to denote the subject is Northern Irish rather than "from Northern Ireland". If VK is perhaps teetering on the limits of his conditions, it is because he is being poked with sharpened sticks. I seriously suggest that Mooretwin look at his own approach to matters before re-engaging with editors in this very sensitive area. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
IP on extended vandalism spree
This User has already been banned for over 30 hours, and is currently engaged in a whole series of polemical edits on a range of articles, in the main clearly vandalism (replacing Roman Catholic with abusive comments about child abuse for example). WOuld someone take a look? Thanks. --Snowded TALK 10:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Rich. The "actual owner" realizes within 11 minutes of the IP being blocked that those d..n kids have been at it again (despite the owner never having edited/visited WP before this). >cough< Shenme (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
This user is repeatedly pasting massive unstructured blocks of text that he has copied verbatim from other sources. He has been advised about WP:MOS and WP:COPYVIO but so far has insisted that what he is doing is correct. Apart from probable violations, he has effectively ruined both an article and a disambiguation page such that both have had to be completely reverted. See recent histories of Thomas Assheton Smith II and Madagascar (disambiguation). I suggest a stern and final warning for this individual to be followed by an immediate ban if he persists in this misuse of the site. --Jack | talk page 11:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Some of the text copied into Thomas Assheton Smith II was taken verbatim from Mariner's mirror, volume 92, published by the Society for Nautical Research. Warning given. Uncle G (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone should deal with [86] and his other edits. --NE2 13:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I blocked the IP for 48 hours. Also, since it is a Bulgarian IP, the authorities there should be contacted ASAP. Willking1979 (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Misinformation in 2009 Pacific typhoon season
Jason Rees insists in adding false information after that information have been proved wrong. I have shown him an official source indicating that the number 15 is assigned with TD 02C. [87][88] However, I've asked many many times and yet HE CAN'T PROVIDE A SINGLE SOURCE THAT THE NUMBER 18 IS ASSIGNED TO TD 02C.Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm gonna side with Jason Rees.You are changing numbers without prior consensus and you have reverted 5 times [89]. Darren23Edits|Mail 14:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- He has reverted 5 times as well.Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hasn't this gone far enough already? First the Discussion page on the article, then the AIV page, now here? I VERY strongly recommend that you LAY OFF until an Administrator has a chance to review all the pertinent information and make an informed decision. If you are unable to cite reliable, verifiable references to support your claim, and do so in a civil and courteous manner, you are likely to be banned from editing. Further, your running commentary skirts very close to being classed as personal attacks, which isn't helping your case at all. I understand your frustration, because it's clear you believe you are in the right...but this is NOT the way to go about it. 'Nuff said. Alan (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Jason Rees is the one who is unable to cite reliable, verifiable references to support his claim.Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Both users should be blocked for 24hrs edit-warring and others should take a look. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- After investigating this matter, I found out that User:Jason Rees made 4 reverts in 15 minuets and minuets which definitely warrants a 12-24 block, maybe, just maybe a 30 hour block. At the same time I found out that Typhoon2009 (talk · contribs) made 7 reverts in a 24 hour period. This warrants a 24-30 hour block. the 2009 PTS should also be protected. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
- Both users should be blocked for 24hrs edit-warring and others should take a look. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Continued flippant disregard of AGF and CIVIL by User:Koalorka
In spite of his current temporary WP:BLOCK for one week (due to edit warring), this latest crude statement by Koalorka has demonstrated yet again his flippant disregard for WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL here on Wikipedia. Also, the said user had accused me earlier of sock puppetry on the article of Glock pistol but backed down after I challenge him to take me to WP:SPI. He had been warned prior to this latest episode by me on his talk page, as I've stated that I would take him to task if he carried on with his rheotric. For review by Admin, his long list of BLOCK log has not made him any the wiser or cooler when conducting edit and cannot take the heat. --Dave1185 (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- As Dave1185 says, Koalorka is blocked for a week. If he abuses his talk page, he can be blocked from there as well. I suggest not engaging with him - leave him alone for a week and see if he comes back better prepared to collaborate. Not sure any more action will be useful right now. Tom Harrison Talk 14:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- IMO, he can have all the diarrhea of the mouth in the world if he wants, and I can't stop it but not at the expense of others. Sincerely, nobody on Wikipedia deserves to get any kind of personal attack (IIRC, this is not his first offence for incivility), he wants respect but he doesn't even know how to respect others first. Plus, I've made my case know to him that I would take him to task prior to this and he deliberately tested my patience. Hence, I did what I felt was for the good of Wikipedia by bringing him to ANI. --Dave1185 (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)