Line 512: | Line 512: | ||
:::Neither his post above, nor his post here, are canvassing, Tothwolf. There may not be any administrator action necessary in either case, but it isn't helpful to make that accusation (in addition to the fact that it isn't accurate). '''[[user:j|user:<small>J</small>]]''' <small>aka justen</small> ([[user talk:j|talk]]) 00:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC) |
:::Neither his post above, nor his post here, are canvassing, Tothwolf. There may not be any administrator action necessary in either case, but it isn't helpful to make that accusation (in addition to the fact that it isn't accurate). '''[[user:j|user:<small>J</small>]]''' <small>aka justen</small> ([[user talk:j|talk]]) 00:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::As I said ''"I can't help but wonder"'', I did not make a statement saying "x is canvassing". Considering some !votes did come in as a result of his posts here (verified) it did have an impact. Regardless, I'm hopeful my concerns over the patterns of AfD nominations I've been seeing are a small isolated incident as this ''seems'' to be a continuing pattern from Joe's last account (which for the record where he did ''not'' RTV, although I'm not going to mention his past username here or anywhere else on Wikipedia as I'm still trying to AGF). --[[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 02:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC) |
::::As I said ''"I can't help but wonder"'', I did not make a statement saying "x is canvassing". Considering some !votes did come in as a result of his posts here (verified) it did have an impact. Regardless, I'm hopeful my concerns over the patterns of AfD nominations I've been seeing are a small isolated incident as this ''seems'' to be a continuing pattern from Joe's last account (which for the record where he did ''not'' RTV, although I'm not going to mention his past username here or anywhere else on Wikipedia as I'm still trying to AGF). --[[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 02:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::It's odd that nominating a lot of articles for deletion and !voting delete a lot can cause editors that disagree with your opinions to try to dig up stuff that they can twist around and use against you. That's what I call a conflict of interest. I guess there are people that think that it's a big deal that most of my nominations close as delete and I have made compromises with many editors about the result. [[User:Joe Chill|Joe Chill]] ([[User talk:Joe Chill|talk]]) 02:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC) |
:::::It's odd that nominating a lot of articles for deletion and !voting delete a lot can cause editors that disagree with your opinions to try to dig up stuff that they can twist around and use against you. That's what I call a conflict of interest. I guess there are people that think that it's a big deal that most of my nominations close as delete and I have made compromises with many editors about the result. The account issue was taken care of several days ago and after discussion with many editors, you're the only one with a problem about it. [[User:Joe Chill|Joe Chill]] ([[User talk:Joe Chill|talk]]) 02:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
== MagicKirin, Tannim, 1, and 2 going around indef block == |
== MagicKirin, Tannim, 1, and 2 going around indef block == |
Revision as of 03:00, 27 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)
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)
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:[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],
I could mention many more above, but I will just note here the most offensive:[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],
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 [[25]]. 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 [[26]], User:Sarandioti (User:Alarichus-User:XXxLRKistxXx), member of a nationalist organization called [[27]] LRK-national rebirth [[28]].
I can't really find a single edit in this history log that could be considered 'contribution to wikipedia' [[29]]. 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: [30], and [31]
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.[32] [33]. 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 [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43], 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 [44].
After the latest report on this account [45] (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 [46] [47], 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 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)
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)
- Yes, really. PS, you should log in with your username, BandsHelper; not logging in like that carries unfortunate implications of trying to avoid scrutiny. → ROUX ₪ 15:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure 98.248.33.198 (talk · contribs) isn't the same person as BandsHelper (talk · contribs). BandsHelper just popped up yesterday to create that one article, 98.248.33.198 has been around for a while now and has a lot more knowledge of en-Wiki than the account does. He/She has been helping out with patrolling at newpages. The undelete request was made both at my talk page and on the article talk page by the n00b account. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, really. PS, you should log in with your username, BandsHelper; not logging in like that carries unfortunate implications of trying to avoid scrutiny. → ROUX ₪ 15:12, 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 [[48]] [[49]] 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.[[50]] 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.[51] 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)
- It is not common, and it is now even rarer than when I first started editing. When Wikipedia was smaller it seems that admins were permitted a greater latitude in how they handled "problem" editors - and declarations of topic or page bans were part of that. Later, as the project grew, these proposed actions were referred more to the AN or ANI boards (depending on urgency) since, as noted by Jhochman, these are matters of procedure that can be undone by any other admin and thus enforcement outside of a recognised consensus would be difficult. Now it appears that topic or page bans are referred to ArbCom as a matter of course. The major problem with individual admins enacting page or topic bans is the potential for abuse (and the remaining difficulty in getting abusive admins deflagged) and lack of transparency. This should not stop admins from enacting these sanctions (I refer to them as restrictions) where appropriate - but there does need to be a mechanism for review and confirmation of consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
frankly, i think page/topic bans are a much better way of dealing with certain types of disruption than blocks. this is true especially when you have valuable and knowledgeable editors who are also passionate about certain issues. certainly, they can take it to AN to appeal, and the editor is still able to contribute usefully in other areas. however, in nationalist debates the banning administrator needs to be sure that measures are being applied discriminately and with proportional severity, so as not to give the impression of favoring one side of the debate over another. untwirl(talk) 15:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Untwirl above. I myself can't see any good reason to keep someone from reverting vandalism to Islam simply because s/he's a royal pain regarding matters related to Family Guy, for example. Topic or page bans are much more focused and more likely to effectively deal with the problem, as well as making it at least potentially easier for a banned party to display the type of behavior which is most likely to result in the ban being lifted. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose I can see how it is a better alternative than blocking. Chillum 16:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't see anything wrong with J's actions in imposing a sanction (other than the argument that civility sanctions are close to meaningless because we already have a civility policy, so a simple block for incvility would be better, but that is another matter). FWIW, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Locus_of_dispute notes another case in which a page ban was unilaterally imposed. Whilst that case didn't end happily (or sanely; but that too is another matter) there is no hint in the final decision that a page ban is impermissible William M. Connolley (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- No opinion on whether the sanction itself is merited, but it's quite disappointing to see Jehochman put the cart before the horse in two different situations two days in a row. The first one went to RFAR. Now another long thread. Surely it would be less trouble--if a sanction really is appropriate--to propose it for community discussion and consensus rather than attempt to extend administrative powers by announcing it unilaterally. This is unnecessarily disruptive on Jehochman's part. Durova320 23:12, 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)
- As long as adminship remains a popularity contest, it will remain "broken". →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:12, 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)
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)
- Actually, thats not entirely accurate. Vk is no longer "active" in either Ireland related editing or sport subjects. He has expressed his intention to no longer edit articles, but to continue to contribute to discussions. This he has more or less adhered to this with the exception of reverting the edits of Mooretwin and one or two other editors, mainly on the issues of Irish/British nationality, every couple of days. There does come a point when this type of single purpose editing - essentially low-grade revert warring targeted on a few individuals - becomes an issue.
- The only reason Vk was allowed back from his numerous indefinite blocks was because of his reputation as an excellent content contributer, which was seen by some as sufficiently valuable to counter the persistent incivility, abuse, personal attacks, threats, sockpuppeteering, and edit warring. If that content contribution is no longer occurring, and all we are left with is the personal attacks, confrontational attitude and edit warring, how exactly is this helping the project? Now I'm not advocating action in this instance and I don't condone the actions of Mooretwin on the Northern Irish issue either, but I also think its time we stopped using Vk's supposed excellent content contributions as continued justification for his poor behavior. Vk needs to be made aware that if all he intends to do is pop up once to twice a week to revert a few of his enemies contributions and then make a few personal attacks, then we have no need for him. Rockpocket 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not good to revert an editor's deletion of your post on their userpage. Having one's postings deleted in that fashion is 'regrettably' common (trust me, I know). GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I guess it comes down to how thick skinned we expect people to be around here. Unfortunately that totally depends on which editor is slinging the insults. I agree with Rockpocket, but VK will come back to full-time editing eventually. Some of us just can't keep away, despite our best intentions. Stu ’Bout ye! 00:21, 27 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 [52] 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. [53][54] 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 [55]. 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 16:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Since comments are still coming in, this report could be left open for a bit. I agree that there would be logic to blocking both editors, though User talk:Typhoon2009 seems to bear more responsibility for the ongoing war. Both parties exceeded 3RR today, but Jason's position seems to enjoy more support from other editors and his talk comments are much more calm. This article was full-protected once, on Sept 13, and there seems no need to do that again. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 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 16:10, 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)
- This is my view of the situation, at the end of last year/beginning of this year the PTS went under a review as it seemed quite stupid that we were not following all of the Tropical Depressions that formed and having a other storms section for JMA depressions. So beginning with this season we decided we would monitor all of the depressions, we were not orignally gonna number them but as UltimateDarkloid it seemed half baked, so we started to number all the depressions starting with 1 and going upwards by when they formed. These numbers are not OR because the JMA Archive all their WWJP25s are archived here however during the first two months of the year they were not archiving there though they were archived here as well as on the MT Archving service located here. Until TY 09 turned up no one had a clue about these supposed SAREP numbers which are unverifiable without the Best Track infomation from JMA (which they do not issue on Tropical Depressions) and or these satellite reports which have to be archived each time a depression hits 30 kts and is expected to become a tropical storm within 24 hours or so which seems like a stupid system to use when we have to monitor each depression and can back ourselves up that Auring was the first depression of the year etc etc. Personally i would prefer not to have a block but ill deal with watever as far as i am concerned the system in place is a routine calculation and we seem to have a consenssus to use the numbers.Jason Rees (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Can you point to where on Talk you found consensus to use this numbering system?
- Does the 2009 PTS article make clear that you guys are using a numbering system that is local to Wikipedia? EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is my view of the situation, at the end of last year/beginning of this year the PTS went under a review as it seemed quite stupid that we were not following all of the Tropical Depressions that formed and having a other storms section for JMA depressions. So beginning with this season we decided we would monitor all of the depressions, we were not orignally gonna number them but as UltimateDarkloid it seemed half baked, so we started to number all the depressions starting with 1 and going upwards by when they formed. These numbers are not OR because the JMA Archive all their WWJP25s are archived here however during the first two months of the year they were not archiving there though they were archived here as well as on the MT Archving service located here. Until TY 09 turned up no one had a clue about these supposed SAREP numbers which are unverifiable without the Best Track infomation from JMA (which they do not issue on Tropical Depressions) and or these satellite reports which have to be archived each time a depression hits 30 kts and is expected to become a tropical storm within 24 hours or so which seems like a stupid system to use when we have to monitor each depression and can back ourselves up that Auring was the first depression of the year etc etc. Personally i would prefer not to have a block but ill deal with watever as far as i am concerned the system in place is a routine calculation and we seem to have a consenssus to use the numbers.Jason Rees (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Here is the orignal disscusion in which we agreed to use the numbering system. Also i was working on something to make it clear that they are not offical designations but could not seem to get the wording quite right.Jason Rees (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Dare i ask what happens next? Jason Rees (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Continued flippant disregard of AGF and CIVIL by User:Koalorka
Reblocked with talk page disabled. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
- Well, the editor has now been barred from editing their talkpage so the potential of further unpleasantries has been removed in the short term. There is always the hope that the enforced break will result in them being more temperate when they resume editing; but should they not then I suggest that you (Dave1185) are not nearly so combative in turn. If you must respond, do so calmly and anyway report policy trangressions to the relevant noticeboard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Ludvikus September 2009
- See User talk:Ludvikus#Unblock request and User talk:Ludvikus#Restriction and User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 7#Disruption and block
- Also User talk:PhilKnight#User Ludvikus
Ludvikus has recently pleaded successfully to have his two year block reduced, but instead of making a wise decision and editing in a different area, he has gone back to his old haunts and is already showing traits of the behaviour he was blocked for last time. I have placed a restriction on him from editing in one of these areas where he caused so much disruption before his last block, which will last until his block would have ended after two years (13 May 2010).
I have also suggested that he find a different area of Wikipedia to engage in constructive editing, so that when the two years are up he will be familiar with consensus editing and be less disruptive in those area where he evidently holds strong opinions.
I promised Ludvikus that I would start a thread here, so that others could review what I have done and promised him that if there is a strong consensus among other administrators that I am being too harsh, I will consider striking out the restriction. -- PBS (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- The restriction is a temporary ban from a handful of articles, so I consider this to be entirely reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's reasonable, but it's inappropriate and inconsistent with WP policy. If I had done anything wrong, with my previous record, I would have been Banned - at least for the duration of the two years which have not expired from my previous Ban, and which Ban has been graciously terminated by Admin. User:PhilKnight. I'm in this situation - I believe - because of mere content-disputes with one user, namely User:North Shoreman. The set of articles relate and pertain to one highly controversial expression, historical revisionism. And to the best of my recollection, User:Philip Baird Shearer, who is a WP Administrator, has also contributed substantially to the articles from which he is now Restricting me. Therefore, (1) I should not be restricted just because of a content dispute with one editor, User:North Shoreman; and (2) because WP Administrator, User:Philip Baird Shearer, has contributed substantially to said highly controversial family of articles, I believe he has a conflict of interest in his determination that I be Restricted from the articles he had written, dealing with historical revisionism. Furthermore, I aks that my conduct be judged only as to the issue herein. I have been Banned before. And I believe I've learned my lessons - I think that's why I'm not being banned now, only Restricted. Nevertheless, I believe the restrictions are simply due to a Content dispute with the herein Restricting administrator. Thank you for your considerations on this matter. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Ludvikus. Given his history of disruptive editing, a temporary restriction is inappropriate. Within a week or two he will muck up some other area of Wikipedia, and soon thereafter he will be accusing every administrator in sight of having a personal conflict with him. Save us all some time and restore his block. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- You know that it's partly because of my Confrontation with you, User:Malik Shabazz, and User:Bootlesthecat that I was Banned for two (2) years. Now Bootlesthecat is Banned from WP. And now you think I should be Banned again. But why? What have I done wrong? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, the unblock and restriction are both appropriate, and well-founded in Wikipedia policy. Blocks are to prevent disruption. A generally good editor who has "issues" in a certain field can hopefully edit successfully in another field - there are over a million articles that need work. Work within the restrictions, show your "quality", and perhaps the restrictions will be lifted. Wikilawyering won't help. Further edits inside the restricted areas should lead to a reinstatement of the block with a reset timer. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
An editor with such a chequered history needs to tread carefully on their return, and Ludvikus acknowledged in his unblock request was that the way to stay out of trouble was to "simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor." If a topic ban from a few articles helps him to do that, then it's a help to everyone. If Ludvikus continues to oppose the topic ban, I suggest he be offered the alternative of having the block restored.
Having looked at PBS's edits to the articles in question, I don't see any conflict of interest. PBS's edits in this area appear to be minor housekeeping issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I respectfully submit that you're mistaken. Perhaps your error is due to a failure to recognize for whom the initials PBS stand. If you search under the full name of this Administrator who is now restricting me, you'll find that he in fact participated - years ago, and engaged me in discourse on that said subject - on the historical revisionism. Also, the fact that you had participated in Banning me before has nothing to do with this Content dispute over historical revisionism. I hope you do not construe this as a Confrontation. I merely ask you to go back in years and confirm that what I say here is true. Whatever you say thereafter, I'll drop the point - unless you totally misunderstand what I'm say regarding the Conflict of Interests of the Restricting Administrator (since I've been Banned years back, you should look at the content dispute I've had with PBS when he used his full name. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ludvikus, I did look under his full name. I just typed PBS 'cos his full name is rather long.
- And no, I don't see evidence of a content dispute.
- And even I did, I'd still support banning you from returning to the area where you had your previous conflicts, when you have just returned from a long-term block. Try some other topic as a palce to demonstrate that you really can work collaboratively and without drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you really look very carefully at my conduct upon my return, you'll find that in fact I have "tread[ed] carefully on [my] return. So I ask you - please - tell me exactly where I have deliberately violated any rule - or Not "tread[ed] carefully." If you point out exactly what I've done wrong, I can avoid it in the future. But my understanding now is that there's a mere Content dispute regarding my editing of historical revisionism articles. I really do not understand why I'm being restricted now from editing the articles in question. What WP rules have I violated? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would draw your attention to your unblock request, and specifically
and would gently point out that you have posted in disagreement with every contributor in this section. I would remind you that you are the account that was blocked, and have undertaken not to engage in disputes as previously, and that it is your actions that need explaining under policy and your unblock and not that of various parties that disagree with you. Your attitude on this page indicates that your good intentions are not being carried through. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)(4) I have absolutely no interests in any confrontations at Wikipedia which would lead to a "block" - so there's really no need to block me any longer.
- I would draw your attention to your unblock request, and specifically
- Thank you for you gentle admonition. I had no idea that a discussion of whether I should be Restricted from revisionist history enumerated articles (4?) would be a Confrontation, as you now suggest. As I now understand, I'm not supposed even to discuss whether I should be restricted. Since that's what you're now telling me, I will not write here anymore. Thanks for telling me that. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmmm... I was not implying that editing or commenting upon those areas in which you have been previously been found to be disruptive is in itself in violation of the self imposed imposed limitations under which you were unblocked (although it may be considered that avoiding those subjects might be a better option) but rather your tone and actions in this section rather belies your claim to avoid confrontation. Is it not possible that the better response to PBS's initial post was, "Whoops! I had not intended to transgress my undertakings..." and then attempted to negotiate a basis under which you might continue to contribute to those areas rather than bring up old conflicts with the reporting editor? Rather than a few people decrying your recent editing history you may have had them helping you through the topic ban. I cannot say I am overly impressed with your attitude toward my comments, and I do not think that there is now much more to do than endorse PBS's actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for you gentle admonition. I had no idea that a discussion of whether I should be Restricted from revisionist history enumerated articles (4?) would be a Confrontation, as you now suggest. As I now understand, I'm not supposed even to discuss whether I should be restricted. Since that's what you're now telling me, I will not write here anymore. Thanks for telling me that. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I understand that you are talking to me, and conversing with me now. There was no "initial post" by PBS. He simply Restricted me without any warning. And he placed me on this Noticeboard. So I simply have had absolutely no opportunity to say "oops." He gave me no chance. I had no opportunity to make any corrections based on objections by PBS. And I was not Blocked because of any disagreement I had with him. I had no idea PBS was displeased with my editing - until after the fact. He simply admonished me for my editing - and than decided to post an incident here. So I'm completely surprised by this situation I'm in. I have no idea how this Confrontation came about. I really think its just a content dispute. So I would appreciate it if you showed me (1) What exactly I did wrong, (2) How can I avoid getting into trouble like this in the future. I certainly understand that I should not violate the specific Restriction that are now posted on my Talk paqge. But I need to understand exactly why I got into trouble with PBS in the first place, and how I can avoid that predicament in the future. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I hope you understand that my editing at Wikipedia now feels like walking in a mind-field. It's seems that Anything can turn into an explosive Confrontation. I think precisely because I've been so cautious PBS has not simply Banned me for the duration of my two-years. But I need to understand how I got into this mess in the first place. And so far, no one has explained to me exactly what I did wrong which has resulted in this Restriction. And I hope my desire to learn this situation I'm in is not misconstrued as a Confrontation. I simply do not know why the Restrictions were imposed on me by PBS without any warning by him whatsoever. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- "When you're in a hole, stop digging." -- Denis Healey.
- I'll put some suggestions onto your talk page. --PBS (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- PBS's initial post here - you could have taken the opportunity to acknowledge that they had concerns and request guidance to enable you to return to editing the article(s). You did not, and instead queried whether the ban was within policy - and you have argued every view that it was subsequently. As an editor returning from a ban/block it is incumbent upon you to ensure you are acting within policy - and unless you can give good reasons why you consider your disputed edits are consistent with policy it is understood that consensus exists to your being blocked for disrupting these articles per the previous blocks; your warnings already exist per the blocks and prior warnings. It is a regrettable truth that previously banned editors do not have the luxury of having sanctions explained to them - they are expected to recognise that they are allowed the privilege of editing Wikipedia only if they do not repeat the behaviour that has previously resulted in sanctions. I see that PBS has opened a dialogue; this is the opportunity to learn where your editing has been deemed inappropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry concerns with User:Bluedogtn et al.
- moved from Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#Limit on legitimate alternative accounts → ROUX ₪ 20:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | I've been querying a user recently and following the most recent admission they they seem to have 24 "legitimate" socks, which seems ridiculous. Additionally they quite often sign from one account with the signature of another account. I'm quite uncomfortable by all of this but I don't really know where to take it, so thought I'd ask here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
|
” |
Having looked at all 24 accounts via the Wikistalk tool, the concerns raised are more grave. (Report here). 343 pages (mainspace and template, mostly) have been edited by at least two of the accounts listed, many by three, and a couple by four or more.
Now, disclosures:
- Bluedogtn has indeed disclosed on all relevant user talk pages that each account is an alternate
- Poking through ten at random, there are no entries in block logs, though on some of the talkpages there seems to have been some strange editwarring and multiple edits by multiple accounts
- I was involved in a minor dispute with Bluedogtn some months ago. It spilled over from his being upset about not being allowed to include an image in a navbox to going on a deliberately disruptive/pointy spree of removing them from other navboxes against consensus. He was a minority of one in the dispute; User:Thumperward was party to the initial cause.
However, there are several concerns here:
- Overlap of edits. Given that I don't receive paycheques with the WMF logo on them, I haven't gone through each diff (which is really one of the problems here; it's nigh-on impossible to go through that many edits on that many accounts to find evidence of problematic behaviour that constitutes a pattern. Given the problems with the parent account's edits, I would be flabbergasted if there are none with the alternates). However, the multiple edits by multiple accounts is prima facie bad form if not outright forbidden;
- This many accounts can be used as an avenue for evading scrutiny
- The usernames themselves are problematic; Bluedogtn referring to himself as an authority seems to go against the spirit if not the black letter of the username policy
- Two accounts commenting in a Featured List discussion here, with no disclosure that they are the same person--indeed, the wording seems to indicate they are supposed to be viewed as two separate entities. And again here, with the IP posting as a separate user.
- Three accounts added as members of a Wikiproject, corrected three weeks later.
Per my initial suggestion at the Sockpuppetry page and Will Beback's agreement, I propose that Bluedogtn be restricted to use of one account and one only. → ROUX ₪ 20:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- User:Bluedogtn has been notified. Should I notify the other 23 accounts?
- I've notified him at User talk:98.240.44.215, which seems to be his most active identity at the moment. Will Beback talk 20:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support a limitation. Thanks to the reporting party for the excellent research. Ironholds (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd echo this suggestion and have been tracking this since I made the connection between the accounts this week. This user has disagreed and then requested help from a user using different accounts which is concerning. Some recent admissions were made after I had informed them I was aware of accounts operating in a manner against policy. Additionally I am very uneasy of a user registering an opinion on an AfD as one account and then later deciding to attribute it to another account. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Limit to one account as a preventative measure to avoid the certainty of confusion and possibility of disruption. Do it by block if necessary, but I hope the user will cooperate without our needing to do this. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I saw the same thing a while ago. Didn't this person have a breakdown and tried to leave the encyclopedia? Or has this person come back? MuZemike 22:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes here, here and here. Which led to semi-retirements for Bluedogtn, TennisAuthority, GolfAuthority. However the IP never stopped editing. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Right. That's why I have requested Checkuser as below. MuZemike 23:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Bluedogtn
I have been a bad bad wikipedian, shame on me! I just see hypocracy on here with stuff diverting from the rules and it makes me sad! How do the Canadian and Israeli Navboxes get special treatment, and a non-American says I can't do the same with the American one! I recognize, I have created some sports navboxes that are colorful, but that goes in line with the ones created before! I just wanted one set standard to have on wikipedia for all navboxes to allow for all customization or none at all! Some think they get consesus for a navbox in one project and think they can subvert the navbox rules as a whole I have the TennisAuthority account because I was trying to show that Authority and Expert like Tennisexpert, who I despised accounts need to be forbidden on wikipedia. I have created much more good content on here on Tennis, Golf, and Basketball articles than I have been well you fill in the word. I just created the TW-RF account three months ago because of a dispute we had about rivalry pages, and I wanted to just do that so, I could get some work done on here on thinks disconsidered go look at those sandboxes 3-9 for that! I found [www.answers.com Answers] was using our content to make money, which made me mad, but I got over it, and came back to help on here too! I created the TN-IS account about two weeks ago because I had 1717 edits on TW-RF and I am a superstitious guy, but I accidently had the account logged in and edited the Medinah article! Go look at my edits to see all that I have contributed and the long hours I have put into this wiki to create good consistent consise content! I am sad to have to leave wikipedia, but I tried to get on here with the ultimate goal of becoming an Admin one day, and that will no longer happen! I have obsessioncumplusive disorder that is the reason for the many accounts! I am so sorry goodbye and close out or block my accounts I don't care, I have been driven from wikipedia for the last begotten time! I just wanted to see the content Don Lope created get to FL status because look at how long he has been gone, and I was trying to do it for him and his hard work, but I guess I will not get to see that happen because I will be no longer apart of it! GOD BLESS!BLuEDOgTn 23:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Can a Checkuser look at these accounts, please? MuZemike 23:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- No one is asking Bluedogtn to stop editing. It's only a request for him edit while using just one account. Will Beback talk 02:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thekohser, Shoemaker's Holiday, and Wikivoices—incivility and edit warring
- Involved users
- Thekohser (talk · · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)
- Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)
- Involved pages
- Wikipedia:Wikivoices ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Diffs
- Edits by User:Thekohser on Wikipedia:Wikivoices: Numerous edits, many with sarcastic or offensive edit summaries, including altering the time of a Skype chat; more edits, including removal of header
- Revert by User:Shoemaker's Holiday: Revert of previous 4 edits by Thekohser
- Revert of revert by Thekohser: Revert of Shoemaker's Holiday's revert of his edits
- Policies/guidelines
(Feel free to add to, edit, and amend the above—it is for reference, and should not be considered part of my post)
For the sake of disclosure, I am involved with Wikivoices, and have had prior interactions with User:Shoemaker's Holiday, but have had no involvement with this issue or with User:Thekohser.
From what I understand of this issue, Thekohser was refused access to the Wikivoices Skypechat (I have been told this has something to do with harassment of Shoemakers Holiday—the extent of this issue, I do not know). He is not the first, and a number of users have been deied access previously. He then began to edit the Wikivoices project page, including removing the page header and editing the scheduled time of the next recording, often with sarcastic and offensive edit summaries. Seeing this as vandalism, Shoemaker's Holiday reverted these edits. Thekohser reverted again.
There has been some discussion of this on the talk page, but this seems to be more complex than a simple edit war, so I am bringing it here with the hope of resolving the issue through community consensus. I am not here lobbying for sanctions on either user, unless the community deems that necessary. Dendodge T\C 22:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thekohser has been engaging in other strange behavior including copying a page here from his website and proxying for a banned user to post the page diff. Triplestop x3 23:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is on the edge of an edit war, but I see no evidence that The Kohser will continue the fight. ViridaeTalk 23:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this behavior appears to be part of a general pattern of problematic behavior by this user. He was unbanned by ArbCom under condition that he would toe a very narrow line. After he crossed that line he was blocked again and given a final chance (I'm not sure how many final chances he has had at this point). Would it maybe make sense to bring this back to the ArbCom? (Disclaimer: I've recently been paid a small sum of money by TheKohser for winning a contest). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be an element of a feud with Shoemaker's Holiday over the disposition of a sound file. If so, then it may conflict with an editing restriction:
- "Civility restriction: You may not engage – in either an initiatory or retaliatory capacity – in any form of feuding, quarreling or personal attack." User talk:Thekohser#ArbCom: Suspension of your community ban
If Thekohser keeps pursuing this then WP:AE would be an appropriate venue. Will Beback talk 00:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This matter arose on ANI a few days ago. Both parties were told - in no uncertain terms - to DROP IT. This is not a Wikipedia related dispute and has no place on Wiki. Manning (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nothing against Shoemaker's Holiday at this time, other than his refusal to cooperate with Sage Ross or with Samuel Klein to take 2 minutes to e-mail either or both of them an audio file (which I haven't bugged him about at all since the AN/I decision), and other than his indicating the wrong time-zone-adjusted times for today's Skype meeting, and other than his changing the subject of the Skype meeting with only 4 hours to go, and other than his not indicating all week that I would be denied entry into the Skype meeting even if I could have found it despite asking days ago how to find it, and other than him restoring incorrect information and dead links to the Wikivoices page after I asked that they be updated and corrected before being restored. If that sounds like *I* am causing a feud, then maybe I should be blocked. Otherwise, I could always get back to writing new articles for Wikipedia. -- Thekohser 01:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- The sound file in question apparently concerns the Wikimedia Foundation, with whom Thekohser has a known conflict. If so, then this entire Wikivoice dispute may be an outgrowth of the Wikimedia dispute. Will Beback talk 02:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Help with editor assuming bad faith
I tried consantly to get Tothwolf to stop assuming bad faith in this AFD. I don't know what I should do in this situation. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ignore it until the AfD is closed? The closing admin/editor will look at the arguments based in policy regarding the subject and its article, not accusations of bad faith and inclusionist/deletionist bias. Once the AfD is closed, then you may consider whether to bring this question to the attention of the ANI board. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Considering Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#CSD-G4 and now this discussion, I can't help but wonder if this is nothing more than stealth canvassing by User:Joe Chill to get the outcome he seems to desire here? We can clearly document a pattern wrt User:Joe Chill's mass-AfD nominations of software articles, with many of the AfD nominations being problematic as the articles can be sourced or improved (clearly not following WP:BEFORE). --Tothwolf (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Neither of them was about the outcome. The first one was because I thought that an admin made a mistake and this is about your uncivil behavior! I was following WP:BEFORE because I did search for sources every time. I just don't have the same beliefs about sources as you do. Most of my software nominations was closed as delete. At the moment, Leafpad has a consensus to delete. Joe Chill (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Neither his post above, nor his post here, are canvassing, Tothwolf. There may not be any administrator action necessary in either case, but it isn't helpful to make that accusation (in addition to the fact that it isn't accurate). user:J aka justen (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- As I said "I can't help but wonder", I did not make a statement saying "x is canvassing". Considering some !votes did come in as a result of his posts here (verified) it did have an impact. Regardless, I'm hopeful my concerns over the patterns of AfD nominations I've been seeing are a small isolated incident as this seems to be a continuing pattern from Joe's last account (which for the record where he did not RTV, although I'm not going to mention his past username here or anywhere else on Wikipedia as I'm still trying to AGF). --Tothwolf (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's odd that nominating a lot of articles for deletion and !voting delete a lot can cause editors that disagree with your opinions to try to dig up stuff that they can twist around and use against you. That's what I call a conflict of interest. I guess there are people that think that it's a big deal that most of my nominations close as delete and I have made compromises with many editors about the result. The account issue was taken care of several days ago and after discussion with many editors, you're the only one with a problem about it. Joe Chill (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- As I said "I can't help but wonder", I did not make a statement saying "x is canvassing". Considering some !votes did come in as a result of his posts here (verified) it did have an impact. Regardless, I'm hopeful my concerns over the patterns of AfD nominations I've been seeing are a small isolated incident as this seems to be a continuing pattern from Joe's last account (which for the record where he did not RTV, although I'm not going to mention his past username here or anywhere else on Wikipedia as I'm still trying to AGF). --Tothwolf (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Considering Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#CSD-G4 and now this discussion, I can't help but wonder if this is nothing more than stealth canvassing by User:Joe Chill to get the outcome he seems to desire here? We can clearly document a pattern wrt User:Joe Chill's mass-AfD nominations of software articles, with many of the AfD nominations being problematic as the articles can be sourced or improved (clearly not following WP:BEFORE). --Tothwolf (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
MagicKirin, Tannim, 1, and 2 going around indef block
- MagicKirin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tannim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tannim1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tannim2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MagicKirin blocked several years ago as a sock master, Tannim was one of the blocked socks accounts. Reappears as Tannim1, blocked on 17 Sept but Fred Bauder unblocks citing off-wiki counseling/assurances that the user has reformed himself. I didn't think one admin could overturn a sock indef in this manner so I left him a note asking about this, and the explanation was that Tannim is essentially on probation. Reblocked indef a few days later by Jéské Couriano, and we're now onto "Tannim2". This needs admin intervention before the ineviable 3, 4, 5, etc...come along. In 3+ years of editing, this user has shown no interest in editing neutrally or objectively, e.g. like this. Tarc (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Indef'd as block evading sock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- No sign of Tannim3 or 4... yet. If they appear, or another name which edits the same subjects in the same manner then I suggest making a SPI report with a view to finding if there is a stable underlying ip that might be blocked without collateral damage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Evosoho
DGG suggested bringing this issue to ANI and I agree with it.
Here are the problems put together by Ikip about Evosoho:
- Camponotus saundersi
- nominated Camponotus saundersi for deletion. 13:51, 26 September 2009.[57]
- Deleted: Workers are 4 to 6 mm long.<ref name=emery1889>Emery 1889: 516</ref> 14:59, 26 September 2009[58]
- Deleted: ==Footnotes== {{reflist}} 14:59, 26 September 2009.[59]
- Deleted almost all of the text of the article, no reason given, tagged as "minor": "Its defensive behaviours include self-destruction by autothysis. Two oversized, poison-filled mandibular glands run the entire length of the ant's body. When combat takes a turn for the worse, the ant violently contracts its abdominal muscles to rupture its body and spray poison in all directions." 19:51, 26 September 2009.[60]
- Deleted reference section, reason given "correcting": "* {{aut|Emery, Carlo}} (1889): Viaggio di Leonardo Fea in Birmania e regioni vicine. XX. Formiche di Birmania e del Tenasserim raccolte da Leonardo Fea (1885-87). ''Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria (Genova)'' 2 '''7'''(27): 485-520. [ PDF]" 19:55, 26 September 2009 [61]
- Dream Focus reverts Evosoho's deletions. 20:10, 26 September 2009.[62]
- Evosoho removes rescue template, reason given "canvassing" 20:12, 26 September 2009 [63]
- Evosoho reverts Dream Focus restoration of material, reason given: "no vandilizm dream focus was vandalizng" 20:13, 26 September 2009.[64]
- Template:Exploding_animals
- Evosoho deletes nine of the eleven entries from the template. 20:38, 26 September 2009 [65]
- Irbisgreif puts the article up for WP:TFD, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Exploding animals 20:52, 26 September 2009.[66]
- Evosoho deletes the last two entries from the template. 21:00, 26 September 2009[67]
- Exploding animals
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding donkey result: merge. 9:44, 24 September 2009
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding sheep result: keep, Nomination withdrawn with intent to merge, 19:44, 24 September 2009
- Evasoho merges Exploding donkey into Exploding animals. 20:08, 24 September 2009 [68]
- Evasoho merges Exploding rat into Exploding animals. 21:15, 24 September 2009.[69]
- Evasoho merges Exploding toads into Exploding animals. 14:39, 26 September 2009[70]
- Evasoho puts the article Exploding animals up for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding animal (3rd nomination) [71]
Problems with him tagging articles for deletion goes back futher. Joe Chill (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments
- Calling them vandalism and the removing rescue tags is disruptive to efforts of Wikipedians trying to improve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Deconstructing an article without discussion, in order to make the article weaker when when being discussed at AfD might also be itself seen as disruptive vandalism of other's efforts to improve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- And a question: This diff shows that Evosoho takes credit for nominating an article for deletion, while the deletion page diff it lists the nominator as "3^0$0%0". Is this an eror, or is it an attempt to make it appear someone else did the nominating? If the former, it should be corrected. If the latter, it is a bad precedent, as it makes it appear as if someone else did the nomming. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Further, the deconstruction of multiple articles without discussion, then merging the results into a seperate article without discussion, and then nominating that article for deletion seems to be an attempt to thwart the processes set in place in the project, and again seems disruptive of other's efforts to improve the encyclopedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- With respect to point 3, this revision shows that the bizarre signature was there at creation, but that the user / talk / contributions links do indeed go to Evosoho. The text appears to be leet. Bongomatic 00:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Struck the question, and thank you for the answer. Still though, and accepting that both sigs belong to the same person, the use of differing sigs within seconds of each other at different places might still be seen as confusing if one does not decide to follow the trail... as if I were to sign this User:XYZ123321ZYX (talk), rather than as MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Unstruck after further research. This instance of using multiple sigs with one account within seconds of each edit is not consistent with policy at WP:Username. While technically not a seperate account and so not a sock, and not a single purpose only account so not a SPA, the use of this technique could be seen as improper in that it is misleading and could easily lead to an inference of false consensus for an action, and THAT violates WP:Username. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Struck the question, and thank you for the answer. Still though, and accepting that both sigs belong to the same person, the use of differing sigs within seconds of each other at different places might still be seen as confusing if one does not decide to follow the trail... as if I were to sign this User:XYZ123321ZYX (talk), rather than as MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- With respect to point 3, this revision shows that the bizarre signature was there at creation, but that the user / talk / contributions links do indeed go to Evosoho. The text appears to be leet. Bongomatic 00:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- These actions were clearly inappropriate. Editing an article in order to weaken it & then sending it to deletion is very underhanded. I suggest a strongly worded warning not to do this again. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that most of the "editing an article in order to weaken it" occurred after, not before, the article was sent to AfD, but I concur that the article is an obvious keeper, Since the AfD has been (non-admin) closed as a speedy keep, perhaps this thread could be marked as resolved. Deor (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
After further examination, there seems to be a deeper problem here. Evosoho appears to have a history of excessively bold, unilateral moves. In the last couple days he has moved GNOME to Gnome (desktop environment), moved Wubi to Wubi (disambiguation), userified several A7 article attempts without notifying the editor who made them, requested a major AfD template unprotect so he could unilaterally rename it, and more. He also put an article up for AfD with no edit summary and marked the edit as minor and made numerous clearly wrong RfD nominations.
Someone needs to have a serious talk with him as he seems to think his opinion on any given matter is all that counts. If he refuses to stop, he'll have to be blocked as the majority of his edits are (unintentionally) disruptive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Red Thunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Guitarherochristopher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to have control of this account. Based on userpages, there's no way they were originally the same person. In addition, he claims to be using the Red Thunder account as a bot. I have had no headway trying to explain to him how Wikipedia works and what it's for. Perhaps someone with greater patience can try. → ROUX ₪ 23:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I hope you did better research than you did with this one. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Red Thunder has no edits since March. You would need a steward to run a checkuser on other projects where he may be active. Thatcher 02:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Over-zealous NPPer
It seems we may have an over-zealous NPPer. Fngosa (talk · contribs) is tagging a lot of articles with prod and speedy notices, a fair proportion of which either don't qualify as speedies or were tagged within seconds of the creation of articles which had {{under construction}} notices or added comments to the same effect from the article creators. When questioned about some of these taggings, (s)he has not exactly become uncivil, but has certainly used a tone which seems less than friendly - though this may be because of the vagaries of written English (I suspect that Fngosa may not use standard UK or US English. This doesn't really fit as a civility issue or as a deletion review issue, but I think some attention needs to be drawn to it since this is causing some issues with people who are writing genuine stubs. Any suggestions? Grutness...wha? 00:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- PS - the following diffs may prove informative: [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I reviewed his work, and he has an alarmingly high false-tagging rate. The two biggest problems are 1) He seems to have invented his own speedy deletion criteria, and is not following accepted practices in tagging articles, and most importantly b) his refusal to discuss his tagging in a civil manner. He seems to have invented some convoluted "if you have a problem, you must respond in this manner" system, and refuses to acknowledge people who wish to discuss his taggings, unless the "file an official complaint" using his weird format. This certainly has got to stop. I would counsel him to stop tagging any speedy deletions unless he can improve his understanding of the speedy deletion criteria AND unless he is willing to make a clear account of his actions for anyone that raises reasonable questions, neither of which he seems to be doing right now. --Jayron32 00:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. Since the OP did not notify him of this thread, I did so. In the future, please notify people when they are being discussed at ANI. --Jayron32 00:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oops -apologies. I thought I'd done so. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I concur with Jayron32's conclusions, the question I have is what we do about it? Is a short tap with the cluestick to "abusive"? Perhaps if the block notice also contained a link to WP:Consensus? Unless the editor decides to conform to WP practice and policy it might be argued that they are disruptive, regardless of the good faith intentions.
I am shortly to bed, otherwise I would perform a block - but I think the sanctioning admin needs to be avialable to unblock as soon as meaningful communications are established. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think that "overzealous" may be too kind. The editor, when cautioned about erring says "Hi mate, some articles are given wrong speed deletion tags for convenient. It is not a big deal, at the end of the day, what ever tag i give it, it will still be deleted." added emphasis mine- Sinneed 01:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC) - emphasis - Sinneed 01:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. Since the OP did not notify him of this thread, I did so. In the future, please notify people when they are being discussed at ANI. --Jayron32 00:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I reviewed his work, and he has an alarmingly high false-tagging rate. The two biggest problems are 1) He seems to have invented his own speedy deletion criteria, and is not following accepted practices in tagging articles, and most importantly b) his refusal to discuss his tagging in a civil manner. He seems to have invented some convoluted "if you have a problem, you must respond in this manner" system, and refuses to acknowledge people who wish to discuss his taggings, unless the "file an official complaint" using his weird format. This certainly has got to stop. I would counsel him to stop tagging any speedy deletions unless he can improve his understanding of the speedy deletion criteria AND unless he is willing to make a clear account of his actions for anyone that raises reasonable questions, neither of which he seems to be doing right now. --Jayron32 00:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wield thy trusty admin swords, O wiki-knights of the round-and-round-we-go table. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Blocking may be premature at this minute. He's been notified of this thread, and several editors commenting here have recommended that he stop speedy tagging. Until he starts up again, we should not block him. If he DOES start up again, with the same problems, then a block may be forthcoming. Lets give him a chance to read and respond to this thread. --Jayron32 01:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think that "This article is too abstract to be an encyclopedic article" at Talk:Plumber's Mait is particularly bizarre. I've left some Clue of the subtle variety. But this might prove to be too subtle. Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Just chiming in to say that I find communicating with him very frustrating. His misuse of {{db-g6}} is particularly problematic. And of course, when I pointed this out to him, all he does is pointing me to his weird convoluted process. He seems to think that he's got some sort of authority as a NPPer, which certainly isn't true. I'll also add in this diff. What kind of competent NPPer would tag that as a G11? And when I pointed it out to him, his response: [77]. I was thinking about filing an AN/I report myself. Tim Song (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#Checking for the possibility of speedy deletion exists to be pointed to. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Soo...
Anyone notice the problem with the Portal:Current events page?Abce2|This isnot a test 01:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone care to help me with todays?Abce2|This isnot a test 02:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed—Chris!c/t 02:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm so stupid! I forgot that nothings happen in the news yet. Heck, it's not even the 27th where I live!Abce2|This isnot a test 02:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed—Chris!c/t 02:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)