Glenfarclas (talk | contribs) →Recreation of deleted article after block for same: new section |
Pantherskin (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 973: | Line 973: | ||
::::Thank you. I'll keep that in mind in the future. — [[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] <sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
::::Thank you. I'll keep that in mind in the future. — [[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] <sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
You still did not answer how you found this obscure article that you then excessively tagged and nominated for all kinds of deletion. Given our past interaction which showed some extent of hostility towards me I am not convinced that this is a coincidence. [[User:Pantherskin|Pantherskin]] ([[User talk:Pantherskin|talk]]) 07:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Does anyone know what this is about? == |
== Does anyone know what this is about? == |
Revision as of 07:22, 27 January 2010
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) |
|
User:JCRB has been disrupting Gibraltar articles to make a point for some time now. He has been trying to force his edit into the lead of the Gibraltar article for some time. Now he is trying intimidation threatening to report people. I suspect this is a sock puppet of User:MEGV and that he has used several IP addresses as well. Before this is dismissed as a simple content dispute see [1], this effort dates back nearly 2 years where he tried to fillibuster the opposition into submission. From the looks of his contribution history his behaviour looks to be disruptive on Phillipines related articles as well. Justin talk 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Without looking further into any other allegations, I'd like to point out that the JCRB account was created on July 17, 2007. The MEGV account was created on May 14, 2008. JCRB has 303 edits, while MEGV has had 59. I don't think MEGV would be a sock of JCRB, rather it would be the other way around. I'd also like to point out that both accounts have clean block logs, and MEGV hasn't edited since August 1, 2008. I don't think an sockpuppet report would be useful because the MEGV account has been inactive for a very long time. -- Atama頭 02:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I really do wish people would look into this further, because it is incredibly frustating that the DR process is being disrupted. I make the suggestion of sock puppetry because both used to log in within moments of each other, then proceeded to agree with one another. There are also a number of IP addresses involved as well. Justin talk 09:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is an odd form of "disruption". He is replacing the unsourced statement that Gibraltar is self-governing with a statement that it is non-self-governing sourced to the unquestionably reliable United Nations: [2]. I'm bound to say that we could probably do with a bit more of that particular kind of disruption. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- You know what, this is exactly why every conspiracy theory nut or ardent nationalist swarms round wikipedia like flies round shit. People have taken the time and effort to explain why its disruption, its down below. People have independently looked at it and agreed, the information is down below. People have actually explained why its wrong in detail on the talk page of the article. Did you read any of it? No. Do you know anything about it? Obviously not, but you're quite prepared to wade in with a pair of size 10s and back the disruptive editor over the product editors who desperately do need admin help on an article that is literally besieged by people trying to advance their agenda using wikipedia as a platform. Marvelous, absolutely fucking marvelous. Justin talk 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- You know what, what you can read down below is merely your own particular opinion on why the references provided aren't acceptable. However, reliable sources such as United Nations' resolutions usually have more bearing here than your peculiar POV. Finally, we could use a little bit more of politeness and a bit less of original research. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- A peculiar POV of UN resolutions? I presume you're referring to the suggestion that the UN says that Gibraltar is Spanish is that the WP:OR you refer to? No that isn't a view I'm advocating. Funnily enough the view of the UN C24 is in the article, because I was one of the people that added it. But they we aren't actually speaking of UN resolutions are we, there is no UN resolution that specifies Gibraltar is a none self-governing territory. We're looking here at UN documents being abused for something completely different. Justin talk 21:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever. I removed the contentious phrase from the lede since it had no cited source, was contradicted by a very credible source and the default for contentious and disputed material is to remove it pending formation of some consensus. And do you know something? After I removed it the article read so close to the same that I bet anyone who's not already engaged in the WP:PANTO will never know the difference. But you'll never guess what happened. Apparently I have to "discuss" in in a way that is not satisfied by a new section on the Talk page. My how Wikipedia changes: discussion now happens somewhere other than talk pages, maybe. Who knows. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Justin and User:Gibnews
User:Justin's accusations of "disruption" are an interesting example of hypocresy. For months this editor and User:Gibnews have blocked verifiable and neutral information about Gibraltar, preventing relevant information about its status or history from being included. A number of editors including User:MEGV (of whom I am accused of being a sock puppet), User:Imalbornoz and myself have attempted to include some dosis of neutrality (starting here [3], ending here [4]) with little or no success. The result is a biased article about a disputed territory which portrays only the British and/or Gibraltarian POV. Minimal or no reference to the Spanish (Andalusian) POV, or even the position of the United Nations is permitted by these editors. Issues like the arguable transfer of sovereignty according to the Treaty of Utrecht, reference to UN Resolutions on decolonization, or UN declarations expressing disapproval of the Gibraltar Referendum of 1967 have all been rejected despite reliable sources being presented. There has been constant opposition to citing the basis of the Spanish claims, specially territorial integrity and UN resolutions, as well as the San Roque issue. A complete overhaul of the article was suggested a few months back [5] due to its overwhelming lack of neutrality. Again these editors blocked specific improvements. Up to this day they deny the Non-self-governing status of Gibraltar despite this being the definition given by the United Nations (my latest edit with reference to UN 64th General Assembly statement [6] was again reverted). In summary, these editors permanently block any pieces of information which appear to oppose the British POV on Gibraltar. By constantly pushing their POV and refusing to include certain relevant facts, they are not only preventing the article from being more neutral and accurate, but they are disrupting the normal process of editing of the article. Finely enough, it is I who is accused of "disruption". JCRB (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- The problem I see with your contribution, JCRB, is that it omits half the information. There are sources which affirm that Gibraltar isn't a self-governing territory. UN ones, for instance (which makes it a relevant POV, in fact). But your edition fails to acknowledge that other sources define Gibraltar as 'almost self-governing' (encyclopedia Britannica uses this wording, althought makes the exception of foreign policy and defense). Whether this information belongs in the lead section or not is arguable, at the very least. I myself think that there's a more appropiate section in the article to include these considerations. However, as indicated below by Atama, this has to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. --Cremallera (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you disagree about what should be in the article, that's hardly a surprise. I've let Justin know that there's no point in sockpuppet accusations, everything else will have to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. -- Atama頭 07:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think JCRB describes the situation well. Yes, there is opposition to rewriting the article on Gibraltar to show its a British colony of pirates on stolen Spanish soil. --Gibnews (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- First of all I would actually welcome somebody independently investigating the allegations made by JCRB. He complains the article is POV, what he actually means is that it doesn't represent exclusively his POV. He claims the view of the UN C24 isn't represented, it is, he claims that the disputed nature of the territory isn't mentioned, it is (and we have an article dedicated solely to that). However, to properly understand the allegations made you need to have some understanding of the unique definition that the UN C24 applies to self-governing territories ie it bears no relation to the actual degree of self-government. I don't see Gibnews' intervention as particularly helpful, it may seem extreme to some but it wasn't that long ago that es.wikipedia did actually use the term pirates. Justin talk 09:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think JCRB describes the situation well. Yes, there is opposition to rewriting the article on Gibraltar to show its a British colony of pirates on stolen Spanish soil. --Gibnews (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. I'd comment on Gibnews' tiny soliloquy above. But he can't be serious so, with due respect, I'll simply ignore it.
Atama, you've told Justin there's no point in baseless sockpuppetry accusations how many times already? Three? Four perhaps? I've been accused by him of being a sockpuppet more than once as well. So have Ecemaml and Imalbornoz in the past few months, as far as I remember. On the other hand, do you know how many times has he been accused of sockpuppetry by the aforementioned editors? Zero times. Quite frankly, all those editors' behaviour (myself included) isn't always exemplary, but reiterating this kind of unfounded accusations is as out of place as any other personal attack. Yet, he gets away with it every time he indulges in this kind of misdemeanour. One by one, it is 'just annoying', but when you look at the trend, it becomes gross.
I am not editing anymore nor discussing in the talk pages, as I am really tired of the constant disrespect and ridiculously vehement discussions over the most petty (and reliably sourced) issues. Yet, I am complaining here because previous notices and requests to cease this conduct have not been listened, dare I say. Sincerely, I concord with Narson here: I'd favour topic blocking everyone who has previously edited those articles (and I am one of these editors) to clear out some of this. To my disappointment, I put my best hopes on the moratorium. It is time, in my opinion, to be more expeditious. Thanks for your time. --Cremallera (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. I'd comment on Gibnews' tiny soliloquy above. But he can't be serious so, with due respect, I'll simply ignore it.
- Actually I've never accused you of sock puppetry. If you want to be precise I expressed my disquiet that given the messages on your talk pages you appeared to be co-ordinating your activities, including off-wiki by email, which is meat puppetry. Thats as far as it went. To be blunt as well, you're wading here in without being in full posession of the facts and I would suggest you ask Narson about MEGV and JCRB. You'll find it illuminating. Justin talk 09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- The action here seems to be focused on getting active editors who oppose a particular agenda being imposed on Gibraltar articles banned. This has been preceded by long tendentious arguments to bore the arse off everyone else interested, which has worked. As noted, another wikipedia did indeed recently refer to British pirates occupying Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it takes much effort to look through JCRB's past contributions on all articles. My observations are that this editor likes to push Spanish POV, and when challenged, becomes very stubborn and unpleasant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=334902097
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spanish_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=331912740
Regualarly breaks 3RR which would imply regular edit warring. Good faith is obviously not assumed and bullies other editors into submission. Don't take this as a personal attack. I am purely stating my opinion from what I can see in the contributions list... Willdow (Talk) 16:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is exhausting to try to make the Gibraltar article more NPOV. As Atama has seen, it takes months to change even a little bit of the article. For example (regarding the Capture and the San Roque episode), only to include some facts that are in EVERY History book ABOUT GIBRALTAR is taking months (while other less notable historic facts go unchallenged). Regarding the lead, I think that unless someone else gets involved, it will be impossible to solve the current dispute.
- I think there is a dispute between two POVs (JCRB's defending the UN and Justin and Gibnews defending Gibraltar's and myself trying to include all POVs propotionally). I would propose that someone helps to reach an agreement in order to include all of them proportionally (Justin and Gibnews have rejected any alternative of mediation, RfC, ... in order to solve this dispute).
- I would also like someone to make Justin quit attacking other editors (he has accused myself and many other editors of sock and meat puppetry -and many other things such as nationalism, tendencious editing, disruptive editing, ...- without any consequence), using reversion as an editing tool (he has recently been reprimanded for doing it, but seems to go on , he even got blocked once for doing it some time ago), deleting other editors' comments in articles talk pages when he does not like them (several times he has deleted my comments, JCRB's, ...), making every little change in the article a long and painful process...
- Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is untrue, I was not reprimanded, I was falsely accused of something that I hadn't done and cleared. I did not use rollback inappropriately. I was blocked as a new and inexperienced editor nearly 3 years ago, when I mistakenly breached 3RR when misunderstanding policy thought I was reverting vandalism. Some people seem to like misrepresenting things it seems.
- Also Imalbornoz is misrepresenting his edit, which pretty much is the same as JCRB and is giving undue prominence in the lead to something that is actually in the article with appropriate coverage. The article is neutral, he seeks to skew the POV of the article to favour his own.
- Imalbornoz has edited tendentiously, he shopped round multiple forums pushing this same edit. And again the suspicion of meat puppetry was expressed when it appeared from talk page comments that 3 editors were communicating off-wiki to co-ordinate their activities. Raising that was a legitimate concern.
- As regards his claim we've refused mediation, not true, he seems to think mediation is about forcing his will into the article. He has never shown any willingness to compromise. Now it seems there is a campaign to get rid of editors who dispute their editing agenda. I could be paranoid but it seems co-ordinated to me. Justin talk 23:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is we have three editors who appear to be using Wikipedia as a means to further their opinions in a real world dispute? JCRB, Imalbornoz, and Gibnews appear to be editing with a nationalist point of view, and if they cannot separate their nationatlist opinions from their Wikipedia edits, they will probably be banned from the cite.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Banned from the cite? Contravention of policy! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is we have three editors who appear to be using Wikipedia as a means to further their opinions in a real world dispute? JCRB, Imalbornoz, and Gibnews appear to be editing with a nationalist point of view, and if they cannot separate their nationatlist opinions from their Wikipedia edits, they will probably be banned from the cite.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record: I do not favour a Spanish or Andalusian POV but a neutral point of view in the Gibraltar article. I've made this point many times in this and other Talk Pages. I sincerely believe in neutrality because it is a crucial element of accurate information. It also happens to be one of the policies of Wikipedia. But as Imalbornoz says "It is exhausting to try to make the Gibraltar article more NPOV [...] it takes months to change even a little bit of the article". I agree. For over two years the two editors reported here have continuously rejected all constructive attempts by good editors to improve the article with small dosis of neutrality. What's more, in the case of Gibnews, he takes an academic discussion personally making aggressive ideological and political statements which are completely out of line (see his ironic comment above). In other cases, these editors twist solid arguments around and beat about the bush when presented straightforward and well-supported information. They imply sources are not "always" reliable, or "books can say many things". They will say "everybody knows that's not true", or in the case of the UN listing Gibraltar as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, well "it's because Spain is putting pressure on the UN". Judge for yourselves. In other words, it's not just their continous blocking of information they don't like, acting as if they own the article , it's their negative attitude, their lack of etiquette, and the complete absence of neutrality. Some specific points regarding the above:
- Here is an example of what I mean about favouring neutrality, and not a particular POV. If indeed there are sources that say Gibraltar is "self-governing" in "some issues" despite being listed on the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories, then a consensus phrase could be "Gibraltar is a partly self-governing British overseas territory" with a reference at the bottom of the page that explains both points of view and sources: the UN list on one hand, and the encyclopedia that says the opposite on the other.
- One of the points I made in the past is that the lead paragraph is very biased in that it reflects only the British POV. Indeed, it mentions the transfer of the territory from Spain to Great Britain under the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) but nowhere does it mention that according to Spain and some English-language sources [7] this treaty only transferred the property of the castle and the fortifications on the rock, not the "sovereignty" of the territory, or "territorial jurisdiction" as it is called in Article X of the Treaty. The article goes out of its way to mention that the "majority" of Gibraltar residents oppose reintegration with Spain, and that Britain has committed to support their wishes (both of which provide legitimacy to the British POV) but no mention of the basis of Spain's claims: territorial integrity and a number of UN Resolutions mandating decolonization (UN Resolution 1514 (1960), General Assembly Resolutions 2070 and 2231 (1965) on "Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples) [8]. There is no mention either of the UN decolonization process itself, or the Consensus of the Committee of 24 and the annual meetings that all parties hold. Why is all of this omitted? Again, my proposal for a more neutral sentence was to add "based on territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonization" (with a link to these). The sentence would read:
- "Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to the Crown of Great Britain in perpetuity, under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain asserts a claim to the territory based on territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonization, and seeks its return."
- A final example of lack of neutrality which I pointed out some time ago, but was rejected by these editors [9] is the sentence about the 1967 Referendum [10]. It avoids mentioning the irregular nature of the Referendum, or the protest by one of the parties in the dispute, or the UN Resolution against it. The sentence simply reads "Gibraltar's first sovereignty referendum was held on 10 September 1967, in which Gibraltar's voters were asked whether they wished either to pass under Spanish sovereignty [...] or remain under British sovereignty, with institutions of self-government". The sentence suggests a normal, legitimate vote by a sovereign nation, instead of explaining its exceptional nature: a referendum by a dependent, disputed territory. It was protested by Spain and declared a contravention of international agreements by the United Nations. My point back then (and today) was simply to add in the latter sentence:
- "Although the UN declared the referendum to be a contravention of prior General Assembly resolutions, it led to the passing of the Gibraltar Constitution Order, granting autonomy in May 1969..."
I would appreciate outside editors to read our statements carefully and act accordingly. Let's see what happens to these renewed attempts to correct the biased tone of this article. JCRB (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- One hundred words or less please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thats part of the problem, see Talk:Gibraltar biased in this context means disagreeing with JCRB and a group of editors with an agenda of grinding down any opposition and having the burger their way. --Gibnews (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed that is the problem, the talk pages are filled with tendentious argument and its remorseless. You take the time to patiently explain things to people, assuming in many cases its a language barrier or perhaps the tendency for British constitutional matters to be unwritten isn't easy to understand. Then its straight back to the same point again. And again. And again. Its driven numerous people of the article, any effective progress on the article is stymied, the sheer frustration of it all is making people snappy. Can we please get some help here. Justin talk 09:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see someone saying that I try to forward some kind of nationalist agenda in Wikipedia and with a Spanish nationalist POV. That is wrong and worries me deeply. In the current dispute, all the sources I have tried to include were either from the UN, from the UK Government, from the Government of Gibraltar or from Gibraltar newspapers (that does not look like a Spanish nationalist list of sources, does it?) If you look, all the cites I have brought to the talk page reflect the official position of those governments. I have never said in WP anything vilifying Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians (as Gibnews implies). Notice that no diff is provided. Of course, I can't provide any diff of my "not posting nationalist comments".
- On the other hand, Justin and Gibnews have tried at all cost to remove any reference to the UN POV in the lead of the article, or to the complete POV of the UK Government about Gibraltar (which is not that Gibraltar is self-Governing, but that it has an important measure of devolved internal self-government).
- I insist, there is no evidence that I am pushing a nationalist POV. If you think that there is any, please show me so that I can either clarify it or apologise and change it. Personally, I feel VERY uncomfortable when someone considers me a nationalist, that's why I try to avoid any nationalist attitude at all cost. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- No evidence? Never said anything to villify Gibraltar? Do I have to post your contribution off-wiki again? You're not pushing the UN POV, you're misrepresenting UN resolutions. You don't listen, you simply push the same line constantly, its reams of tendentious argument that is stymieing any progress. Justin talk 12:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There we go again. You take the time to explain the problems with the article, you give examples, you provide the references, and you propose a more neutral wording which is neither Spanish nor Gibraltarian POV. You do this to find a consensus and move forward, yet again these editors call it "tendentious argument" and "misrepresentation". No more to be said. I am also offended when accused of "pushing a nationalist POV". JCRB (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Justin, I am starting to feel VERY OFFENDED. REALLY. I said: "I have never said in WP anything vilifying Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians." So far, Justin has not been able to bring any evidence of the contrary, yet he keeps accusing me (and referring to "off wiki" comments out of context; are this kind of attacks usually accepted?). If I have vilified anybody for his/her nationality (which I am very sure I haven't), I will apologise (of course).
- I find the word nationalist as very offensive and disruptive in discussions about Gibraltar - specially in discussions about Gibraltar. Meanwhile, through these repetitions, outside editors will come to the conclusion that, if I am so persistently accused and I am -in fact- discussing about a foreign territory, I must have a very strong nationalist POV. WHICH IS NOT TRUE.
- Therefore, I would ask the admins whether is it possible that I make the following request: "If no editor brings a diff proving that I have pushed a nationalist POV in WP discussions, then I insist that Justin and Gibnews do not keep offending me and disrupting the discussion. I would also request that in case no diff is brought here, Justin and Gibnews apologise for those offensive and disrupting accusations."
- Is it possible to make that request? And, if someone keeps accusing me of nationalism without any basis, is it possible to qualify that behaviour as disruptive? Thank you very much (and apologies for bringing these ugly issues to this page, but they have gone too far). --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- You have kept out of actually editing pages and have resorted to long tendentious arguments on the talk pages preventing progress and creating new articles, but here is a a diff where you repeatedly reject a reference because it comes from 'a Gibraltar law firm' one which employs 70 professionals, has an international profile, and no connection with me. You have previously expressed the view that "The Peninsula of Gibraltar is a colony" and "it should be returned to Spain" and that "Spanish Minister Moratinos visited Gibraltar last week in order to negotiate how to mend some of Gibraltar's many disorders that have arisen under British rule (criminality, smuggling, tax evasion, ..." but I trust that reading the wikipedia page on Gibraltar and six months of discussing things for inclusion at GREAT length have modified that initial distorted view ? --Gibnews (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
UNINDENT
If that is a way of saying that I have not "vilified Gibraltar or Gibraltarians" nor "pushed a nationalistic POV" in WP, then I am very glad.
Regarding the removal of the source, I quote my comment of 7 August 2009: "BTW, when I removed the lawyers' citation, I did it because I really thought it was immaterial (with all the respect to Gibnews and what seems a large and prestigious law firm); but the context of the "self-governing" citation seemed more commercial than informative, thus my -I will admit- sarcastic reference to the next sentence "Gibraltar is well placed etc." In fact, my next edit had the following tag: "Was reference to private law firm site (the next sentence in that page is "Gibraltar is tax-effective, well regulated, well placed and well developed.", maybe we should add it to the introduction too?)"[11] In fact, the quote was so out of place in WP that nobody (not even Justin) defended that source as reputable. Honestly, I think this is not a very good diff to prove that I have made a nationalistic comment... It is also a bit embarrassing that you have not yet realised how out of place that cite was... ;-)
Also, you are quoting some off-wiki sentences by myself which 1) are out of context (and you know it because I explained them at length six months ago) and 2) about which I have apologised in WP several times in case I had offended anyone (the first one in the beginning of August and the beginning of my edits in WP -not 6 months later- just when we began to discuss about this and Justin brought those off-wiki comments to the discussion). I think that is very much out of place if what we are talking about is whether I have pushed a nationalistic POV in WP. I am a bit disappointed and offended by that.
I repeat that I have only insisted in including the UN's, the Government of UK and some Government of Gibraltar POVs. Obviously, that is not pushing a "Spanish nationalist POV"...
I insist, is there a way to stop people accusing me of pushing a nationalistic POV if no (serious) diff is provided? IT IS VERY OFFENSIVE. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I neither defended nor opposed that reference. And I will highlight you are not seeking to present the UN view, rather a somewhat perverse interpretation of UN resolutions to "prove" Gibraltar is Spanish. And that isn't a nationalist view point? Please also don't attempt to portray your comments as anything but sarcasm, you insult people's intelligence.
- Again I ask the question, do I have to post the comments you made off-wiki and acknowledge as yours? Justin talk 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that Gibraltar is Spanish. It is British. So I have no intention to "prove" that Gibraltar is Spanish. I only say that, if the lead says that Gibraltar is a "self-governing territory" (a very respectable Gibraltarian POV), it should also include the fact that the equally respectable UN's General Assembly has listed Gibraltar as a "non self-governing territory" as per NPOV. Also, in that case, it should show the POV of the UK: the very respectable UK Government does not say that Gibraltar is "a self-governing territory PERIOD" but that it has an important level of "internal self-government" (that is, that Gib is self-governing except in the areas of defence, foreign affairs, internal security and the public service -which are not insignificant exceptions). This, I am sure, is not a nationalistic approach. But I have already explained this to you more than 20 times (this is not an exaggeration)
- I have asked you already in the article 9 times to accept an alternative to just keep discussing with the same arguments over and over. Are you finally going to answer me and accept mediation, RfC or any other dispute resolution option? --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- First of all the UN General Assembly has NEVER listed Gibraltar as a "colony", Gibraltar is on the list because the UK nominated it back in 1947. You have constantly and consistently misrepresented sources to advance an agenda. Secondly, the comments about the UN C24, who maintain it on the list due to lobbying by the Spanish Government, are included in the article. The article as written is NPOV. The UK Government actually says that Gibraltar is self-governing except for defence and foreign relations - the limits are in the article. So what you're asking is nothing to do with NPOV.
- Back in June last year, whilst doing some research on the Economist website I came across the following unpleasant post of yours:
“ | I have been reading the comments. And have to say that I am very surprised. To wrap it all up: The Peninsula of Gibraltar is a colony, in fact one of the territories in the UN's list to be de-colonised. It was ceded to Britain, under the Treaty of Utrecht, as long as it had British sovereignity. The British have occupied that Peninsula as well as some other territories (the isthmus, waters, ...) beyond the Treaty's limits. If Gibraltar is decolonised (i.e. it loses British sovereignity) it should be returned to Spain, according to the treaty. Spanish Minister Moratinos visited Gibraltar last week in order to negotiate how to mend some of Gibraltar's many disorders that have arisen under British rule (criminality, smuggling, tax evasion, ..., which The Economist sees as... a good case of development!). Some Spaniards have protested that FIRST comes international legality (UN's list of territories to be decolonised, Treaty of Utrecht, occupied territory beyond the Treaty...) and THEN comes solving the mess inside Gibraltar (which will be difficult, as long as it is ruled as an overseas colony, and not as an integral part of a democratic state). Then, some Englishmen make a big fuzz: they confuse Gibraltar with an island (and insist on it), they say that treaties don't matter just because because they are 300 years old and some people feel this or that, or they forget important parts of them (in doing so, they criticise Spaniards for writing in capital letters). All of this contradicts my previous view of The Economist (gambling, smuggling, tax evarion...: din't TE defend economic development via a free market with a soul and with rules?), of British people (wasn't theirs the country of respect to laws and contracts no matter how old?) and translators... (Matt. Stott: it shoud be "vida que vivir" not "vida a vivir" -shame on one of England's top three translation MA degrees...) Sorry for my poor English (I'm not a language professional)... |
” |
- Even for a Spanish nationalist thats a pretty extreme expression of opinion. Your first edits were to remove the fact that Gibraltar is self-governing [12], [13], you then proceeded to try edit warring to keep it. You then proceeded to tie the talk page up in tendentious argument its nearly 156 kB long [14]. None the less people engaged in good faith and tried to explain it to you, you've never once listened and still push the same line. It hasn't changed all the below were just this week.
“ |
|
” |
- The UN says no such thing, its a gross misrepresentation of sources to claim that it does. Similarly:
“ |
|
” |
- Again, the UN says no such thing, its a gross misrepresentation of sources to claim that it does. What is clear though is the POV agenda behind it. Now having a POV is not a problem on Wikipedia but what is a problem is disrupting the article with reams of tendentious argument to try and skew the article to favour a particular POV. Whats also a problem is lobbying for sanctions against other editors, claiming they're being "insulting" and that you're "offended" when all that has been done is to point out you're misrepresenting what you're setting out to achieve. The article is currently paralysed, nothing can move forward, so please can we have some admin intervention. Justin talk 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- PLEASE, SOMEBODY HELP US!!!
- This is very frustrating. I have been for six months asking for outside help in the discussion. Now Justin -even though he does not answer directly to me, after 10 times asking for his opinion on outside help in dispute resolution- seems to agree that some admin intervention is needed. Now is the moment...
- (even though I have explained the previous comments to Justin many times, he keeps bringing them out of context -maybe to paint me as an extremist to outsiders of the discussion; so I will -boringly- explain them once again:
- The off-wiki comments were not a serious discussion trying to improve an encyclopedic article, but to -playfully, as you can see in the style- make fun of a (very coky) commentator in The Economist who pretended to be a translator from a very prestigious university, but kept making mistakes in Spanish while putting other commentators down laughing at their English. I am not proud of those coments and have apologise many times in WP for several months. I sincerely apologise here once more if they offended someone. Anyway I think they are not relevant in WP.
- You have just seen one clear example of what has been happening during the past 6 months: Justin says that the General Assembly does not list Gibraltar as a non self-governing territory. On the other hand, I have posted the following link like four or five times to Justin but he -maybe because the discussion is very heated- seems to ignore it. Please take a look a it:
“ | "NON SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES LISTED BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN 2002" | ” |
- I do not say that Gibraltar does not have any self-government (my opinion is irrelevant). I only say that the UN General Assembly lists Gib a non self-governing territory.
- Justin brings some of my comments on UN's resolutions (those were the texts where the "keywords" came from), and says that the UN "does not say so", but he fails to bring the UN texts just one line up from my comments where it is clear that the UN says that the referendum among Gibraltarians was a contravention of its resolutions (because it does not consider Gibraltarians as the people with the right to determine the status of Gibraltar, otherwise that referendum would be very happily accepted by the UN). I do not say that Gibraltarians are not the people of the territory (again, my opinion is not relevant). I only say that the UN says so.
- Please, I am getting very tired of this discussion. I know that Justin and Gibnews and other editors from both sides are too. I am afraid that this will get too heated at some point. It has already been six months. I agree with Justin that we need some admin intervention to help us out.
- Please... --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- No the list is compiled by the UN C24 and adopted by the General Assembly, there is a big difference. And the fact remains that Gibraltar only ever got on that list because the UK nominated it and for no other reason. Misrepresenting it, is intended to give the list more credibility than it actually posesses. The article already includes this information, you're not seeking to improve the NPOV you're looking to skew it. You are abusing UN references claiming they say one thing, when they do not. Justin talk 17:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I do not say that Gibraltar does not have any self-government (my opinion is irrelevant). I only say that the UN General Assembly lists Gib a non self-governing territory.
UNINDENT
It feels like Bill Murray's character in "Groundhog Day": I have just cited the UN list, then you say that it's not the UN official position as it's there only because it was listed by UK, then I'll say...
...that the fact that the UN website has a page that says (in capital letters in the source) "NON SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES LISTED BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN 2002" is as clear as sources can be, and that so is the sentence by Chairman General Mr Ban Ki Moon in the UN website:
“ | “Today, there are 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories remaining on the agenda of the United Nations. Until their status is satisfactorily resolved, the ideals of the General Assembly Declaration on Decolonization will remain unfulfilled.”[15]
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Remarks at the Opening of the 2008 Session of the Special Committee on Decolonization 28 February 2008 |
” |
Whereby (if you look at the General Assembly list) the 16 territories are: Western Sahara, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Montserrat, St. Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, United States Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, American Samoa, Guam, New Caledonia 4, Pitcairn, and Tokelau (other 80 territories have made to the status of "self-governing" according to the UN, but -and you can explain it as you wish, and call it fair or unfair- the verifiable and notable fact is that Gibraltar obviously has not).
Then you'll say that this list is already in the article, then I'll say that indeed it is in the article but not in the lead (where it is said as an undisputed fact that "Gibraltar is a self-governing territory", when it is actually under dispute by the UN and some more), then you'll say that I only say that because I pursue a Spanish nationalist agenda, then I'll be offended, then you'll cite the off-wiki comments... (and that's where the radio alarm goes off and Sonny & Cher sing "I've got you babe" like in "Ground Hog Day" when the day starts all over again for poor Bill Murray).
Please, we need some admin assistance to make this dispute move on without anyone being blocked: after 6 months we've had enough of a try. PLEASE. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- The UN GA did not, as you infer, set up a working party with an atlas and a pencil to draw up a list of "none self-governing territories", they were nominated and listed by the colonial power way back in 1947 - verifiable fact. The list is now maintained by the UN C24 and adopted annually by the General Assembly. Big difference. The status of the list is not as you infer "suppressed", it is in the article with due prominence. The position is explained; the lead does not mislead.
- The UN C24 definition of "self-governing" bears no relation to what the average person would consider "self-governing".
- I only mention your original comments, because the comments this week are exactly in the same vein. Like how Gibraltar is "Spanish" based upon a perverse intepretation of UN resolutions. If you're "labelled" as a "Spanish nationalist", that may well because of the comments in the vein of a "Spanish nationalist" as to why Gibraltar is Spanish. Groundhig Day? Like when something is explained to you and you go but the UN says....when it doesn't. This one goes to 11. Justin talk 20:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Justin, please stop playing with words. The personal interpretations of verifiable information are secondary to the information itself. We don't care how or who set up the "working party" that put together the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The question is Gibraltar in on that list. Yes, the current lead misleads when it says that Gibraltar is "Self-Governing". This is quite arguable at best (specially as the UN says it is not). And please refrain from making accusations of "Spanish Nationalism", they are hardly justified. JCRB (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Then don't misrepresent UN Sources, Special Committee on Decolonization hears petitioner from Gibraltar as Spain opposes its removal from list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Justin talk 14:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Gibraltar Articles
An idea that I ran past Atama to stop the disruption on Gibraltar articles, that I'd like to open up to wider community discussion.
To stop the disruption I propose:
1. Indefinitely semi-protect the articles to stop IP disruption.
2. Introduce a red card system, where any mention of nationalism or ad hominem attacks gets a yellow card, then a red card leading to a block. With an escalating scale of blocks, 24 hrs, 48hrs etc. A yellow card would last for say 24 hrs.
What would be slightly more difficult to deal with is the filibustering that has taken place, ie constantly returning to the same point again and again. Its gotten extremely tiresome for all concerned.
I'm imagining this would be a voluntary scheme that all of the editors would sign up to. I asked Atama if he would agree to be "referee" the process. I believe admin overview would be necessary as I suspect sock/meat puppetry may become an issue.
The people who I'd propose would be:
User:Ecemaml
User:Imalbornoz
User:Cremallera
User:Gibnews
User:Justin_A_Kuntz
Does this seem a workable suggestion? Justin talk 23:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- You shouldn't really make new sections if they are directly related to another section earlier up on the page. That and topic bans are much easier to enforce.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that proposal gets to the root of the problem, which is that there is a very different perception about Gibraltar in Spain as a result of the active pursuit by its government of its sovereignty claim. Yes its simplistic and probably not in line with wikipedia policy to explain it like that. But its true Today on talk:gibraltar I've been informed politely that the real 'people of Gibraltar' live in San Roque, that the UN considers the current population mere colonists, and that the Government I elected does not govern the territory. This is what some want in Wikipedia. Its wrong. --Gibnews (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree to the proposal of a compromise to block anyone mentioning nationalism and ad hominem attacks. I would not limit the list to those five editors, in any case (there are several others -of several tendencies- who have engaged in nationalist and ad hominem attacks in the Gibraltar talk page).
- In order to avoid filibustering, I think that the agreement should include the enforceable compromise to use dispute resolution tools (mediation, etc.) when a point has been repeatedly discussed. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- disagree with blocking anyone as although the editors information may be wrong, apart from long tendentious arguments and the inability to compromise or agree there is not the sort of malice experienced from, for example Vintagekits who deserved to be banned and was. BUT the point of including anything on these pages is to try and involve some outside parties rather than to just open up yet another 100k of exchanges. I think all the involved parties have all said enough and its time to let someone else form an opinion. --Gibnews (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
UNINDENT
- Justin, does your proposal include a ban on removing other people's messages in your talk page and stop using reversion as an editorial tool? It would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, your proposal seems extremely faulty? --Ecemaml (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- There's no need for a ban on using reversion as an editing tool; WP:EW is a policy and one that can lead to blocks if not followed. Removing other people's messages on your own talk page is a privilege we extend to most editors, and nobody should be faulted for doing so. It's assumed that the person removing the message has read and acknowledged the message prior to deleting it. Even warnings can be deleted, generally the only sort of message an editor isn't allowed to remove from their talk page is a block template for as long as the block is in place. -- Atama頭 22:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
And now for something completely different...
Right. How about standard discretionary sanctions, and start the process of topic-banning the edit warriors? It's apparent to me that people have completely lost sense of perspective, and have also forgotten some fairly fundamental Wikipedia principles. Such as: the solution to text that supports a POV you don't like is not to edit war back to text that supports a POV you do like but to say neither until you can reach a consensus about how the external dispute should be described here (WP:BATTLE, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS and so on). "Revert to consensus / stable version" is offten a red flag in cases like this, and telling people to "discuss" changes when they have already done precisely that, and have no prior involvement in the dispute, and have no evident ties to the POV you don't like, is not exactly indicative of a productive attitude. Incidentally, it also doesn't help when you say something is sourced from Britannica but Britannica does not use the term you claim, and actually says something that rather supports the opposite POV. The Spanish editors will no doubt claim that I am biased against them based on my nationality, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I think it's time to start dealing with this battleground mentality. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I just checked the cite you say doesn't support the text and it says "Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and is self-governing in all matters but defense." Do you have java enabled? I don't have a POV I like, I would prefer it if the article would not suffer while there is an attempt to skew the POV. Thats whats at hand here. Oh yes people have forgotten wikipedia principles, the relevant one being NPOV, and some have gotten frustrated after trying to explain this and gotten more bad tempered than they should. What is helpful is a considered approach, not blundering in without understanding first. My apologies if I vented at you but thats precisely what you did. The problem with it, is you're encouraging further disruption. Justin talk 00:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Justin, you are being obstructive and disingenuous. The BBC News says "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy." - that is equivocal and the BBC is British anyway. The Chief Minister's speech was prompted by the UN's report stating that it was not self-governing, so unquestionably cannot be taken in isolation. The Telegraph (British) says "GIBRALTAR'S parliament approved an ambitious package of constitutional reform yesterday designed to give the colony almost complete self-government" - that's equivocal too. To state in the lead sentence that Gibraltar is self-governing based on two equivocal and one partisan sources, while ignoring the fact that the CIA World Factbook and the United Nations both say its not, is POV-warring of the worst kind. I have removed the statement again, I note you have reverted at least once more. Please do not do this. Your edit history shows a lengthy involvement with articles with contentious issues of sovereignty, and always on the British side. You are clearly not a neutral party here and should step away from the firing line and discuss matters on talk.
- For now, I have left the opening sentence saying that Gibraltar is a British overseas territory. This is not sufficiently ambiguous to demand that we make a statement supporting either of the competing POVs regarding self-government.
- I want to be clear here: a bald statement that Gibraltar is not self-governing is POV, and a problem. Equally, a bald statement that it is self-governing is also POV and also a problem - especially since the sources you provide are actually rather less good than those supporting the opposing POV. The logical thing to do is to simply remove the self-government status from the lede until a proper form of words can be decided, not to enforce one POV that is liked by the article WP:OWNers. To state that Gibraltar is self-governing based on these sources and ignoring - indeed without reference to - those which dispute it, is tendentious and disruptive.
- I have done what you should have done in the first place, which is to start an RfC: Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government.
- I would ask that uninvolved admins should watch the article and swiftly enact blocks and topic bans against editors who display single-purpose and advocacy behaviour. I see several editors whose entire history seems to be around promoting the views of one or other side in articles where sovereignty is contentious, including Gibraltar and the Falklands. This needs to stop. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, to be polite, you intervention has been unhelpful and your comments naive and ill-informed. Not only that but you've edit warred to impose your will on the article. As I have already indicated on your talk page I have no intention of edit warring. But I'd nontheless support those editors who return it to a NPOV.
- Seeing as you mention the Falklands, where I am active, I have worked constructively with a number of Argentine editors to improve those articles. The improvements share information to ensure NPOV is maintained. I actually feel quite priveliged to address Darius as old friend. I have also gone to great lengths to explain the matter to a number of editors who have sought to skew the POV of the article, great lengths, yet they return to the same point again and again. Now that could well be based on the fact that they've only been taught 1 POV but there comes a point, when you see someone claiming that UN resolutions asssert that Gibraltar is Spanish, then you realise they're not interested in NPOV.
- Again trying to remain polite, you've blundered into an area you don't know anything about, have ignored the point that editors have been misrepresenting those UN sources, funnily enough the one UN source you missed confirms that. But don't worry as I took the trouble to add it to the article. I'm not ignoring sources as you assert, seeing as the UN C24 list was introduced into the article as part of my edits, but rather ensuring they're treated with respect to NPOV. You're excision of those terms actually favours the editors who have tendentiously edited the article to skew the POV.
- Not only that but ignoring the presumption of good faith, you've labelled the editors who work constructively in this area as "POV Warriors" to favour those editors who would pervert sources to advance an agenda and use Wikipedia as a platform to support their POV rather than maintaining a NPOV.
- From my perception, all I see is an admin who hasn't looked at the problem, has jumped to conclusions and is failing to recognise their initial mistake. Ironically the only editor to breach 3RR is yourself. Do we take from that, that you're calling for uninvolved admins to impose a topic ban and a block upon yourself? Justin talk 14:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just two points, Guy. First of all: "I see several editors whose entire history seems to be around promoting the views of one or other side in articles where sovereignty is contentious, including Gibraltar and the Falklands." As Justin kindly mentioned, we have been working in several Falkland-related articles. Even when my position regarding the topic is, obviously, pro-Argentine, we managed to keep the NPoV on the pages we have edited by checking both British and Argentine sources and discussing their reliability. Thus I think it's very unfair to include Justin in your 'list' of edit warriors.
- Second point: the issue of self-government. My personal opinion is that the words speak for themselves; self-government, by definition, supposes a form of administration "not completely sovereign or independent". Therefore, I see no need of further clarification in the narrative, since self-government is at midway between "direct rule" (by a foreign power) and "total independence". The British sources questioned as 'partisan' are quite reliable as they only describe the naked fact of a political decision, not a posture.--Darius (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- The idea of topic banning editors simply because someone has a different view and wants to enforce it sounds rather draconian and contrary to openness on the Internet. I and not advocating banning JCRB simply because he has been waging a single issue campaign to make the article on Gibraltar more supportive of the (dead in the water) territorial Spanish claim by denying Gibraltar's political progress.
- Guy, do you realise when you attack the BBC, that it is not Gibraltar's national broadcaster? They most certainly have no bias towards Gibraltar and accept corrections to their online content when it is wrong. In order to make some editors happy, ones who believe Gibraltar should be Spanish, you could kill the present population its only a few thousand people who stand in the way. I trust you realise the point. But like censoring the fact that Gibraltar IS self-governing some might disagree with you. --Gibnews (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Darius, that is the problem with editors such as Justin and Gibnews. When they don't like certain information which is supported by (highly) reliable sources like the UN itself, they switch to personal interpretations or opinions. Please don't go down that path. The term "self-government" does not speak for itself. In fact it is quite controversial. Some would think it means autonomy, others complete independence. In both cases it carries a British POV by subtly justifying its colonial status or foreign rule. The question here is neutrality and verifiability, not personal opinions. The term "self-government" is inappropriate according to both these policies. Either both the British and Spanish POV's are included, or the issue is avoided altogether. JCRB (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- You have yet to demonstrate there is any Foreign rule exercised by the UK Government. I don't see any and frankly would not put up with it. --Gibnews (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Rdm2376 starting mass deletions
This very long discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's deletions. — Coffee // have a cup // ark //
- Discussion seems to have stopped on the above thread (actually it's moved elsewhere), putting a time stamp here so this gets archived. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
my restrictions
So I've been told I have to go here to get my restrictions modified/removed. I think I deserve to be part of the full community again. It's been almost a month.--Levineps (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- On what grounds? What have you done since the restrictions have been placed that show that the restrictions are no longer needed? --Jayron32 04:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- The user has abided by the restrictions. How about lifting the restrictions on March 1, 2010 with relaxed probation until April 1, 2010. Relaxed probation means that the user should be aware of the concerns on the previous restrictions and try not to offend anyone during that additional one month. JB50000 (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Diffs and links to prior restrictions would be helpful. Not everyone knows what is going on here, so it is hard for uninvolved people to comment on the situation. Could you provide a link to the original discussion that led to the restrictions so we can all know what is going on here?!? --Jayron32 04:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Look at his userpage. That will show you the terms of the restrictions.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 05:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. I dunno, his recent edits look in line with his restrictions, and I don't see any problems in the last 500 or so edits. However, I also don't think that 3 weeks is long enough for restrictions of this nature. I like JB's suggestion to revisit this in March. I'd also like to hear from Levineps a bit more on what he has learned from his prior problems and sanctions. Just showing up an ANI and saying "It's been long enough, take them away" does not necessarily give any indication that the user intends to abide by community norms. I routinely decline unblock requests which state "Sorry, I won't do it again" without any indication that the blocked user understands what "it" is, and I also don't see anything here that Levineps understands why the restrictions were put in place, or how he intends to avoid the problems that led to the restrictions in the first place. He has shown that he understands what his restrictions are, and appears to have followed them (for about 3 weeks or so) but I still don't see evidence that he understands what the initial problems were or what he intends to do differently to avoid those problems. --Jayron32 05:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- All I know about this is from this thread and what I see on Lev's user and talk pages, but: The restrictions are actually very modest, and except for "No new categories" are mostly just good manners. So the restrictions were apparently imposed because of category abuse. How has Lev's understanding of category policy changed in the last three weeks? PhGustaf (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- To show his good faith, maybe Levine could list here some new categories he has in mind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- All I know about this is from this thread and what I see on Lev's user and talk pages, but: The restrictions are actually very modest, and except for "No new categories" are mostly just good manners. So the restrictions were apparently imposed because of category abuse. How has Lev's understanding of category policy changed in the last three weeks? PhGustaf (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. I dunno, his recent edits look in line with his restrictions, and I don't see any problems in the last 500 or so edits. However, I also don't think that 3 weeks is long enough for restrictions of this nature. I like JB's suggestion to revisit this in March. I'd also like to hear from Levineps a bit more on what he has learned from his prior problems and sanctions. Just showing up an ANI and saying "It's been long enough, take them away" does not necessarily give any indication that the user intends to abide by community norms. I routinely decline unblock requests which state "Sorry, I won't do it again" without any indication that the blocked user understands what "it" is, and I also don't see anything here that Levineps understands why the restrictions were put in place, or how he intends to avoid the problems that led to the restrictions in the first place. He has shown that he understands what his restrictions are, and appears to have followed them (for about 3 weeks or so) but I still don't see evidence that he understands what the initial problems were or what he intends to do differently to avoid those problems. --Jayron32 05:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Look at his userpage. That will show you the terms of the restrictions.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 05:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Diffs and links to prior restrictions would be helpful. Not everyone knows what is going on here, so it is hard for uninvolved people to comment on the situation. Could you provide a link to the original discussion that led to the restrictions so we can all know what is going on here?!? --Jayron32 04:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- The user has abided by the restrictions. How about lifting the restrictions on March 1, 2010 with relaxed probation until April 1, 2010. Relaxed probation means that the user should be aware of the concerns on the previous restrictions and try not to offend anyone during that additional one month. JB50000 (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The discussion which led to the ban is here. I was the editor who reported the problem.
The sanctions were imposed not in response to a single incident, but after a prolonged period (nearly a year, I think) in which Levineps has created new categories and recategorised articles and categories at a prodigious rate. Much of this work was controversial, but Levineps repeatedly failed to respond to attempts by other editors to discuss his edits, or responded with rude or dismissive one-liners. When I finally startes reverting his disruptive edits, he repeatedly accused me of vandalism.
Nothing in Levineps request indicates in any way that he intends to behave differently than before, and his comment on Coffee's talkpage merely says that he has been restricted for a week without complaint. The disruption caused by his previous edits will take a long time to resolve, and I hope that the restrictions will not be lifted that has been cleaned up and Levineps can give some clear indications of how he intends to work differently than before. Like Jayron32, I see no evidence that he has learnt anything at all about why he he was banned, and I would oppose any lifting of the restrictions until Levineps can persuade the community that he really has learnt from this episode. So far I see Levineps using edit summaries, but no sign of him working collaboratively to resolve differences, which was the kernel of the problem before.
Rather than deciding now to lift the restrictions in March, I think it would be much better to ask Levineps to reapply in March, with a clear warning that a simple "I want to edit categories again" request will result in the ban remaining in place. If and when it is lifted, I hope that there will be a much longer period of probation than the 1 month suggested above by JB50000. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- How about this proposal. Levineps can re-apply on March 1. and if it his ban is lifted then he is on probation for another 3 months. Does that sound good?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with User talk:Baseball Bugs—that it would be helpful to know what kind of category work Levineps has in mind. If he's just going to go back to doing what he was doing before, there's no point allowing it—now or in March. The category ban was not a "punishment" that he can "serve" by sitting out a period of time like a person can serve a jail sentence—it was kind of a last resort in a situation where the user was repeatedly causing major problems in the category system. Unless that changes the ban can't change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jayron32 and BHG. Given that the main problem was a lack of communication and responsiveness, I don't think the restrictions should be lifted unless Levineps can, at a minimum, expressly show his understanding of why the restrictions were imposed. The above request falls woefully short. It shouldn't just be a matter of him behaving by complying with the restrictions (though kudos for that). He needs to explain and prove himself through his own words, not by implication from his conduct. I don't think it particularly matters what category changes he wants to make, particularly not if the suggestion was to base the removal of his restrictions on whether he puts forth good ideas. He's completely free to propose category edits to others on talk pages while the restrictions are in place, and I can't think of a better rehabilitation than forcing him to go through that process. postdlf (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I completely understand why I was banned even if I disagree with all the restrictions put in place. I have definitely learned to communicate and when I do communicate to be more respectful. Even if I was trying to crack a joke or two, it might not have been the greatest idea. I think this period of time has also allowed me to be productive in other areas. I do intend to create as many categories (if at all) and would focus more on overcategorization. I also like the feedback I have gotten and plan to act on those changes.--Levineps (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that's a start, but I'd like to see a a clearer acknowledgement of exactly what was awry before you were banned: for example, the problem before was not that you cracked a joke or two, but that you cracked jokes in place of any substantive communication. Let's see if you can improve things further by March. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Protection request
Thank you. History2007 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Creation according to Genesis was protected for 3 days, now may need several more days of protection to avoid a revert cycle. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- That you would start making changes to the article after that articles protection has lapsed, only to request protection from reverts of your changes, is nothing short of disruptive behaviour. Ben (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- And you would know from disruption, since you're pretty good at it. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ben Tilman has just entered the 3 revert zone, and 2 warnings have been issued to him now. Admin action is in order now, please. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Based on his comments on the article talk page, nothing will change 7 days from now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The discusion has been productive. Two editors are attempting to force through the version they prefer while the discussion is still going on. That is not right. And that's why it's been protected for a week in their version. Auntie E. (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I assume you're talking about Ben and that other guy. FYI, I'm not watching that page any more because, as with the Noah's ark thing, it's an endless loop and a waste of my time. Ben is absolutely determined that the very first sentence of any Old Testament article is going to assert that the story is a pack of lies (or a "myth", as he calls it). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- As long as you continue to misuse the terms in play, that's probably for the best. --King Öomie 21:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- You and Ben know full well that the average citizen understands "myth" to mean "fairy tale", and that's why you're so insistent on it being in the first line of the article, to push a particular POV on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- As long as you continue to misuse the terms in play, that's probably for the best. --King Öomie 21:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I assume you're talking about Ben and that other guy. FYI, I'm not watching that page any more because, as with the Noah's ark thing, it's an endless loop and a waste of my time. Ben is absolutely determined that the very first sentence of any Old Testament article is going to assert that the story is a pack of lies (or a "myth", as he calls it). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The discusion has been productive. Two editors are attempting to force through the version they prefer while the discussion is still going on. That is not right. And that's why it's been protected for a week in their version. Auntie E. (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Based on his comments on the article talk page, nothing will change 7 days from now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, creation myth applies to any religious account of creation, whether it's Norse creation myth, Greek mythology or Creation according to Genesis. Just because some people believe one is true and the others aren't, doesn't restrict us from reporting what reliable sources say. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- On the other hand, to be fair, more than 75% of the world believe in some kind of Creationism, according to the demographics of religeous belief globally. To me it seems that this insistence on pushing the word "myth" in the article is a lot like poking the bear with a stick and then acting surprised when it wakes up angry. There is no need to be intentionally antagonistic. Rapier1 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Particularly when he's focused totally on the Old Testament and pooh-poohs any question as to why he's not aggressively pursuing the same issue in other creation stories. Or not at all, actually. It's like he has an obsession with this particular creation story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Sock drawer at WP:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Royal Family
Proposing semiprotection at this AfD. Who knew that the Middle Ages in the Balkans could be so controversial? Recently I blocked User:Regionlegion indefinitely as a sock of Bosnipedian, due to a colorful and abusive edit war on articles about the kings of Bosnia in the 1500s. One of the comments by Regionlegion was "You are a lying Serb, as is your friend PRODUCER, as just exposed. Your Serb nationalist agenda to freak-control Bosnia articles will not be tolerated." The subject of the AfD, Bosnian Royal Family, was created by Bosnipedian. Due to the nature of the edits, it is nearly 100% likely that the IPs adding their opinions in the AfD are socks or meatpuppets of Bosnipedian/Regionlegion. There have been 20 IP edits so far. One of the IPs removed the AfD tag from the article. Does anyone object to semiprotection of the AfD? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Tagged it as a possible hoax. IconicBigBen (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Having skimmed it, the article is BS and the protagonist either autistic spectrum or a massive attention whore. Someone just needs to delete it as total crap and close the AfD before people start selling tickets to watch this latest performance. ninety:one 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, anyone notice how Bosnipedian and Bosnian Royal Family sound very simular? IconicBigBen (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Having skimmed it, the article is BS and the protagonist either autistic spectrum or a massive attention whore. Someone just needs to delete it as total crap and close the AfD before people start selling tickets to watch this latest performance. ninety:one 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Would definitely support semiprotection. AFD is being blitzed by anon accounts with some pretty amazing uniformity of viewpoint. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've semi-protected the AfD, and suggest someone take a look and see if it should be closed already.
MostAll of the IPs I've seen have been open proxies. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC) - Requesting premission to re-add the hoax template to the article now that the issue has calmed down? IconicBigBen (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- It would be preferable for an admin to assess consensus from the AfD. I don't recommend adding the speedy tag. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Problem is that the article passes "notability" easily, and is not a "hoax", but is horridly written with useless asides. Collect (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The notability is not so clear, when the article is full of speculation, synthesis and original research. Edison (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- 1. Bosnia had a ruler ("Despot" was a valid title, I suppose, for part of that period) who functioned as a monarch. This title was passed within a family ("royal family."). Most of the other stuff is excisable (not my slashing) but that does not remove notability per WP guidelines. Collect (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The ruler of Bosnia was not a despot - before 1377, the ruler was a ban and after 1377, the ruler was king or queen. The last medieval rulers of Serbia were despots. The crown of Bosnia was not passed within a family according to any succession rule that would allow us (or any historian, of which none are cited) to determine which family is the present royal family of Bosnia. All the kings of Bosnia just happened to belong to the same family, while one queen regnant belonged to another family and at least two appointed heirs belonged to other families. Anyway, all Wikipedia articles about royal families are about present royal families, not about those that went extinct in the 15th century. Surtsicna (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- 1. Bosnia had a ruler ("Despot" was a valid title, I suppose, for part of that period) who functioned as a monarch. This title was passed within a family ("royal family."). Most of the other stuff is excisable (not my slashing) but that does not remove notability per WP guidelines. Collect (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The notability is not so clear, when the article is full of speculation, synthesis and original research. Edison (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Problem is that the article passes "notability" easily, and is not a "hoax", but is horridly written with useless asides. Collect (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- It would be preferable for an admin to assess consensus from the AfD. I don't recommend adding the speedy tag. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've semi-protected the AfD, and suggest someone take a look and see if it should be closed already.
- This sort of abusive editing is exactly what I'm trying to address at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility blocks. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Bosnipedian seems to have yet another sock puppet (or at least several meat puppets). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian. Surtsicna (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Block review on User:SuaveArt
I just blocked SuaveArt (talk · contribs) for a week for disruptive editing of other editors' userpages. One of the diffs I cited was his eighth attempt to delete links he disliked from User:Filmcom -- the change has been reverted by 3 different users and a couple of IPs. He was also told to stay out of disputes with User:Seregain, but he apparently thought it appropriate to edit it today, claiming votestacking. Does anyone (besides the usual suspects) want to take issue with my assessment of the situation? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Increase it to a month. IconicBigBen (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support proposal by IconicBigBen--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- IBB has been indef-blocked as a sock, so let's not be taking his advice automatically here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- He reported his own sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol. Testing the system, I suppose. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support editing other peoples user pages with out consensus is frowned upon.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Same reason as James, above. He can't just go around unilaterally deleted stuff off other editors' pages. He should bring it here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- (copied from SA's talk, per request)So which is easier? Say I see 10 users with inappropriate content on their userpages (ex. a link to their online music store). 1. I start 10 AN/I topics on each of these users for different reasons, but all related to what they have on their userpage, or 2. I just remove the content and cite the policy that the user violated. Personally I think we should just create a new policy stating officially that only admins are allowed to edit other users' pages without consent, because that seems to be the unwritten rule around here anyway. A user uses their page to host a spamlink for their online store, I removed the spamlink citing policy - the link gets put back and I get a temp ban for "disruption" because I removed a promotional spamlink from a userpage. I'm still trying to figure out just how this all works here. But if editing other users' pages is always or almost always disruptive, then please just take my policy proposal into consideration.--SuaveArt (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Option 3: Report all 10 of them here at once and let the group discuss. Don't take it on your own to delete stuff from other users' pages. That's nannyism. And you wouldn't like somebody deleting something from your own page on their whim, I'm sure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- There would be a case to answer here if SuaveArt was removing fair use images, or something else that we ban from user pages. But removing a link to a blog from a user page is not supported by policy. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- (copied from SA's talk, per request)So which is easier? Say I see 10 users with inappropriate content on their userpages (ex. a link to their online music store). 1. I start 10 AN/I topics on each of these users for different reasons, but all related to what they have on their userpage, or 2. I just remove the content and cite the policy that the user violated. Personally I think we should just create a new policy stating officially that only admins are allowed to edit other users' pages without consent, because that seems to be the unwritten rule around here anyway. A user uses their page to host a spamlink for their online store, I removed the spamlink citing policy - the link gets put back and I get a temp ban for "disruption" because I removed a promotional spamlink from a userpage. I'm still trying to figure out just how this all works here. But if editing other users' pages is always or almost always disruptive, then please just take my policy proposal into consideration.--SuaveArt (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- No objections. Ameriquedialectics 01:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sigh Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Question I thought part of the deal here was that SA and Seregain were supposed to be leaving each other alone. If that's the case, what is Seregain doing removing a comment of SA's from someone else's talk page. I'll grant you, the comment he removed had a certain snark level, but wouldn't it be better to let American Eagle tidy his own talk page, especially considering how hot things have gotten? (Note, I haven't discussed this with Seregain as I have no desire to step into that hornet's nest.)--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- D'oh! So much for that no-contact order between the two of them. I'm going to leave a notice to Seregain that he's being discussed here in this ANI. -- Atama頭 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not that it matters, but I likely would've removed the message anyway. (Or, as SuaveArt himself would do, warm him for using a talk page for forum discussion.) Seregain probably should've left it alone, simply because it looks like he's battling with SuaveArt again, but it doesn't matter to me. I endorse whatever block is decided upon for SuaveArt. The user has been disruptive to no end, and he's been warmed enough. American Eagle (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am on a no-contact restriction with one particular user, and if it gets broken, a block will follow. If either of those guys is on a no-contact restriction, and they violate it, then a block should be automatic. And besides, that's nannyism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not that it matters, but I likely would've removed the message anyway. (Or, as SuaveArt himself would do, warm him for using a talk page for forum discussion.) Seregain probably should've left it alone, simply because it looks like he's battling with SuaveArt again, but it doesn't matter to me. I endorse whatever block is decided upon for SuaveArt. The user has been disruptive to no end, and he's been warmed enough. American Eagle (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks to Atama for letting me know my name and behavior came up here. Yes, I admit I probably shouldn't have made that edit. It was one of those "That's wrong, I'm here, so I'll remove it, oh crap, I just did it" moments when you hit the button that submits things online and you can't take them back (though technically I suppose I could have in a sense here). Though I felt the comment I removed, which was there for over 6.5 hours, was egregiously and gratuitously inappropriate and its removal by anyone else would've been completely non-controversial, I still should have left it for someone else - American Eagle, preferably - to do it. I actually did not remove the comment out of any vendetta against SuaveArt and I apologize to both him and anyone else who may have seen it that way. I apologize to everyone, including SuaveArt, for that edit, which, despite what I or anyone else thought of its content, I had no business removing after being urged to disengage. Seregain (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- D'oh! So much for that no-contact order between the two of them. I'm going to leave a notice to Seregain that he's being discussed here in this ANI. -- Atama頭 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- <sigh> Support, though I wish I didn't have to. SuaveArt has shown up here at ANI under threads by 3-4 different OPs for 3-4 different issues in the past month or so. Its getting rather bothersome that his behavior has not changed despite all of that. --Jayron32 04:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support This is getting ridiculous. I am running out of good faith NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Ucucha
A note that this discussion is occurring has been left at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#RM for the article "Jew"
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me if I am in the wrong place. A simple request: Ucucha, whom I've never seen editing before within the subject areas in which I participate, in a period of several days unilaterally moved/renamed the article Jew to Jews. Although some discussion was held between January 18 and the present, there certainly wasn't a clear consensus - especially by the core group of editors (including members of the umbrella project dealing with Jewish-related articles). Part of this short time fell on the Jewish Sabbath, when some of these editors do not work on Wikipedia. Then, this user closed the discussion, archived it, obtained a semi-protection, and made the move. Is this, uh, kosher? Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I closed a requested move that had been open for the full seven days required by established procedure. My rationale for this close is at Talk:Jew; I interpreted consensus as being in favor of moving the page "Jew" to "Jews". Any seven-day period will include the Sabbath, so I don't see the relevance of this argument. I did not obtain any semi-protection; I only moved protection settings from "Jew" to "Jews" (which is done automatically by the software).
- I am open to constructive criticism of my close. A Sniper and Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) have now undone my move, which carried out the conclusion of a valid requested move. Ucucha 05:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Ucucha's account of the facts. I didn't see anything wrong with the way Ucucha closed the discussion.
- I moved Jews back to Jew only because A Sniper had moved Talk:Jews, and I thought the article (which was move-protected) should share the name of its Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Then I don't quite understand why didn't you move Talk:Jew back to Talk:Jews.
- I have commented at Talk:Jew#Requested move that I will move the page back to "Jews" in accordance with the result of the RM unless A Sniper comes up with a good reason why that should not be the case. It would be even better if another admin could make that decision, though. Ucucha 12:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- In retrospect, I probably should have moved the Talk page instead of the article, but A Sniper seemed agitated and I didn't want to start a revert war. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please let an admin confirm whether or not consensus actually took place. I disagree entirely that it has. Considering this move has been debated before - and consensus never achieved - I think it should be only made with considerable care. Hence my wanting to slow the process down slightly. Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable point. Consensus can change, and I think it did here, but I'd be happy to have a different admin do another assessment. Ucucha 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I can not honestly say "consensus" for moving was reached in that discussion. Counting up, I find 4 supporting the change, 7 opposed, and one who does not care. Collect (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I count 84.92..., Nick Graves, V = I * R, Yoninah, Prezbo, Jimsteele9999 in favor; IZAK, Bus stop, 74.66..., Debresser against; Malik, Rebele, Jayjg, Jmabel neutral. I count that as 6-4-4; don't know where you got your numbers from. There are some weak arguments on both sides that should be discarded, for example Jimsteele9999 and IZAK. Most of those with an opinion seem to prefer the plural, although many apparently don't care much either way. Both sides can cite some other articles that their proposed title would be consistent with, but I see no reason there to disregard the rough consensus. Ucucha 15:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The fact is, this is the RM process. If User:A Sniper doesn't like it, he should have at a minimum discussed the issue with User:Ucucha before edit warring over the move (both by reverting the discussion close, and reverting the move of the talk page, which created a mess for the article as well). I don't think that User:A Sniper is widely experience with our policies and procedure however (obviously), so nothing more then a good trout slap should come from this, but doing nothing or allowing his poor behavior to stand is not a solution at all. I should note that I did support the move, but I want to point out that the RM request itself is the only thing which brought me to the article, and my feelings on the matter are entirely academic (which I think are manifest in my comments during the RM). User:A Sniper should note that he/she is free to open another RM, preferably in a month or two.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)- I have been editing for several years, so I will take the slap in the face by a tasty trout, as suggested by V = I * R. However, my revert and missives are well intentioned. I have been one of several editors from our Project editing this article and merely felt that, even if the RM was followed to the letter, that the discussion was taking place with a fair number of editors brought to it merely by the RM itself. I mean no offence towards 84.92 or Ucucha when I state that I have never seen them editing any article within the realm of the project, and that some leeway could have been granted to allow for more time - at least as a courtesy to the many who have dealt with the issue of the article name whenever it has reared its head. Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The fact is, this is the RM process. If User:A Sniper doesn't like it, he should have at a minimum discussed the issue with User:Ucucha before edit warring over the move (both by reverting the discussion close, and reverting the move of the talk page, which created a mess for the article as well). I don't think that User:A Sniper is widely experience with our policies and procedure however (obviously), so nothing more then a good trout slap should come from this, but doing nothing or allowing his poor behavior to stand is not a solution at all. I should note that I did support the move, but I want to point out that the RM request itself is the only thing which brought me to the article, and my feelings on the matter are entirely academic (which I think are manifest in my comments during the RM). User:A Sniper should note that he/she is free to open another RM, preferably in a month or two.
- I would like to add as the nominator of the move, I took part in editing many Jewish related articles when I was a registered user. The move was purely motivated by feeling the title I suggested better reflected the content of this article. I will also disclose that I am Jewish. I feel that A Sniper is being unusually agressive in what should be an uncontroversial move request, and that he has not yet given any reason for opposing the move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, IP, but I don't know what you're talking about. If you aren't registered, there is no way to know who you are, what you edit, and it is difficult to get to know you as an editor. I don't think I'm being 'aggressive'. If you want reasons, why don't you check the archives for the other times people have drifted in to the article, made moves to change the name, were unsuccessful, and then drifted off again? If I must wait a short period, and then rally the troops to look at the issue again for another consensus, so be it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to know more about me, I will happily answer any questions you submit to me. If you're interested in what I edit on Wikipedia, please view my user contributions. I can't see why you can't just state what you dislike about my requested move and have done with it. I looked at the archives of Talk:Jew before I made the request, as I mentioned on my move request itself, but the suggested moves had different rationales to mine. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why is it necessary to "rally the troops"? Jew is watched by 800 editors, and on January 17 I posted a notice to WT:JUDAISM. There were more than 100 edits to Talk:Jew last week, all of which showed up in those 800 editors' watchlists. Nobody can say they didn't know about the proposed move. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Atmapuri Non-compromising on issue, and maintains a bigoted view
Kundalini yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thanks for your attention to this issue.
I have an issue with an user User:Atmapuri who is non compromising on an issue.
I have posted up numerous referenced observations around this topic (Kundalini yoga) and more than a dozen different written changes, each time adding more references and citations. I have updated language numerous time. I have tried to remain neutral and non-negative. However, this person has an issue. They revert every time to repeating the exact same item without compromise citing only one source, which is actually not a strong source (1st source) based upon your guidelines.
Specifically and additionally problematic, they insist on negating any mention to the Sikh-based practice of yoga in the opening paragraphs (specifically P:II), with a continual preference for Hindu-based posting and comments of the Hindu-based ownership of "copyright" of Kundalini Yoga - this is essentially amounting to bigotry! Also, this is not his first time removing or changing Sikh-based postings or altering such information, although he deletes the comments made to him on his user page [example] that detail this.
He also continues also to post up something called "Kundalini Syndrome" and claiming the widespread problematic negative mentions of "mental damage" without ANY proper citations or reference. His only reference is citing from a 1st source book where these words was simply mentioned as an opinion/warning, and not at all the premise of the book itself. In fact, the book they reference is actually pro-Kundalini (of course, because written by a Kundalini teacher) - as if one needed to be "pro-yoga" at all, like it was a bad thing. Needless to say, his source and also some other postings on this book author of his are already flagged repeatedly for non-adherence to Wiki guidelines and advertising [example].
Hard to understand his/her motivations, however, they are uncompromising, and this person never writes or cites anything new. In my opinion, this is not a good editor - rather, someone with an agenda of (Hindu) cultural elitism and religious dominance over a public source of non-religious Yoga practice.
Please see the history on this... I have worked hard to make my open-sided, neutral point understood and legitimately referenced & cited, but this person is obsessed with their singular viewpoint and weak source references.
I would also suggest his conduct of dozens of reversions to a single bigoted point with neither copy changes nor compromise has already grossly violated the WikiPedia Three-revert rule (and not first time doing so).
Thanks for your attention.Fatehji (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I have just looked over Atmapuri recent edits and your are correct..Hes behavior it not what i like to see here...Even when hes is asked to changes his behavior he does not-- not that you can see as he deletes the comments made to him on his user page [example]..thinking you might want to take this up here --> Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as i dont see that a third party talking to him would help you!..This is not an endorsement of your or his point of view/edits on the article ..but simply recognizing hes behavior is wrong !!... Good Luck!!!... Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Buzzsherman, I will elevate this request and see if an admin can help. Thanks.Fatehji (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've notified him about this discussion, although you were required to do that. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that. Noticed it, and I notified him as well.Fatehji (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- So, the warring has not stopped. User Atmapuri continues to erase references to Sikhism under thinly veiled "editing" reasoning like: "lists not needed", so he erases and changes around the phrasing of an entire paragraph to make it seem like "other" forms of Kundalini yoga are "secondary" or simply opinions of other sources.
- The biggest issue here and foundation of the problem is that he has stated in the topic discussion seriously flawed thinking as reasons for his warring.
- 1) He has stated unequivocally that "Hinduism has a copyright on Yoga" Um. OKKk. So therefore he erases or belittles other religious ties (or non secular) practices of yoga. As I said on the boards, he may as well be claiming "Jews have a copyright on Jesus".
- 2) His second serious flaw and source of bigotry is that he believes "Sikhism is a part of Hinduism". This is insulting and outrageous. You may as well say "Protestants are Roman Catholic". If you want to get someone upset, this is a great way to start - by revising history and claiming ownership of someones else religion.
- 3)Additionally, he continues to make reference to "Kundalini Syndrome" which is not a real syndrome at all. The internal link and articles he provides links to a page that has been flagged for being unprofessional (see kundalini syndrome). It is a pseudo-scientific postulation by just a few psychologists. It is also a poorly coined term because it has no direct scientific basis. "Kundalini" (kundalini) energy itself is claimed by Eastern philosophy to be dormant in all humans, and in yogic thinking all yoga styles work to raise this energy. Therefore any mention of "Kundalini Syndrome" in relation to yoga must be included in ALL FORMS of yoga, or NONE. Just because it shares a name with "Kundalini Yoga" doesn't make it directly related. There is no proof that "Kundalini Yoga" itself is directly related to "Kundalini Syndrome" any more than it relates to Hatha or Vinyasa yoga or any other yoga form. It's kind of like saying that "Down Dog" (a yoga pose) can sometimes catch rabies. It's a non-linear connection.
- Nonetheless, this person continues to re-post an change and revise these references regardless of the talk discussion and these points. His sole concern is maintaining that Hindu teachings are primary, and that any other school teaching this is harmful, without any demonstrated interest in compromising, or wanting to expand on or add to the topic at all. He has long ago exceeded his reach on this topic. Please help put a stop to this.Fatehji (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I really don't know how else to address this problem, but there is this account named Unknown Lupus that has been hounding me and harassing me long enough and I will not tolerate it anymore.
First of all I believe it's a single purpose account since in his 79 editions he only dedicated to patrol Bolivian culture articles to revert editions made by Bolivians to defend an extremist POV which as he says in [16]:
Back then when the Spanish came there was only the land called Peru, there was no Bolivia, no Chile, nothing except New Spain, and Peru. I don't believe either countries should have the right to call the folklore theirs
So this person actually tries to vandalize Bolivian and Chilean articles to nullify their entire culture and make it look as all the culture in South America is Peruvian, which is completely ridiculous.
I could never had a direct interaction with this person as I try to address his content deletions on the articles talk pages yet he ignores them and continue hounding me or insult me, I don't consider he's even trying to be serious I feel that he, for my nationality, tries to keep me away from the project. A clear example of this is:
In a talk page I saw an IP just insulting other countries and I said this, yet Unknown Lupus insulted me and offended me with this.
Now I was working on other article that was unsourced and contained many misspellings and he came again hounding me again to battle me just eliminating arbitrarily parts and putting copyrighted images [17], [18].
I'm tired I'm honestly tired I don't know what else can I do with this individual, I left a "inuse" sign as I'll be editing the article tonight but I hope he doesn't come again to delete arbitrarily pieces of information.
List of systematic reversions or Peruvian nationalism: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], even ridiculous changes like this, there are more examples but I think it's enough information.
Thanks. Erebedhel - Talk 07:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Other than the notice saying you've already tattled on him/her, I don't see you trying to discuss anything with the editor. Perhaps that's a better place to start. Toddst1 (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, but no I didn't talk to him over his talk page but I tried it on the articles talk pages, [26] [27] yet he doesn't answer me just ignores it and continue attacking me. Erebedhel - Talk 07:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- P.S besides I did try before even a Mediation cabal for other article where I invited him and he didn't participate just continued reverting edits, I have this problem with him since August of last year, he doesn't really participate just follow me and revert or delete things while I'm editing something without giving explanations or calling it "useless information" when I mention it on the talk page of the article he never answers just insult me in Spanish on other editor's talk page like I showed above. Erebedhel - Talk 08:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I filled a Mediation Cabal form here Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-10-18/Diablada and I hope we can soon have a mediator to help us reach consensus about the page
I think it's clear enough. Erebedhel - Talk 03:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Continuing abuse
This user was notified, he ignores this warning yet he keeps hounding me [29] calling "unnecessary lines", I believe there is a clear policy about hounding I don't know what else to do but I'll not tolerate this kind of behaviour. Erebedhel - Talk 22:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Can someone help this person with their hounding complaint? It appears valid and they have attempted to communicate with the other party at the various article talk pages, even attempting mediation. Additionally, rude and snarky comments like Other than the notice saying you've already tattled on him/her are not helpful in the least. If someone feels they are being hounded or Wikistalked and they ask for help they deserve to have their problem investigated without sarcastic dismissals. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree - the whole "tattling" line is a bit embarassing, considering this is an appropriate place to report hounding. It does look a bit suspicious, but on the whole the editor is making largely constructive edits, though I don't believe that they are using the talk page enough. It looks like Unknown Lupus has a genuine interest in Peru/Bolivian articles. Definitely I think they are skating close to the edge in terms of problems with NPOV though. I think that we should probably continue to monitor this editor for a while and see what happens. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I believe there is a misunderstanding due to my initial phrasing but I tried to address his behaviour in a civil way before on another article's talk page but he ignores it even though he does read talk pages; it can be visible in this sequence: [30] → [31] → [32]. That's how he responded when he made a complete section dedicated to me because of what another IP did. (and yes his buddy ran to try to block me accusing me of sockpuppetry which of course turned to be false). That's from October, I have been having problems with this editor for months and I believe I tried to address it in a civil and patient way. I don't know how else to make it clearer I didn't feel the need to template him because I consider that my comments on the articles' talk pages were enough. Erebedhel - Talk 03:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that addressing an individual's behaviors should not be done on article talk pages. If you see a problem - a pattern of behavior with a user - talk to them on their talk page where they'll see a big orange banner when they continue to edit. Templates are usually not the right answer for anyone who has been around more that a brief period. Talk to them, explain that they need to change their behavior, point to policies and when and only if that fails, pursue WP:DR, WP:WQA or . Toddst1 (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I believe there is a misunderstanding due to my initial phrasing but I tried to address his behaviour in a civil way before on another article's talk page but he ignores it even though he does read talk pages; it can be visible in this sequence: [30] → [31] → [32]. That's how he responded when he made a complete section dedicated to me because of what another IP did. (and yes his buddy ran to try to block me accusing me of sockpuppetry which of course turned to be false). That's from October, I have been having problems with this editor for months and I believe I tried to address it in a civil and patient way. I don't know how else to make it clearer I didn't feel the need to template him because I consider that my comments on the articles' talk pages were enough. Erebedhel - Talk 03:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'll do the following as I told Tbsdy, I'll try to continue editing explaining my editions to him in a calm way and if he continues I'll point out the relevant policies in his talk page. However I believe that the scale of the problem I have with this user and another editor MarshalN20 wasn't clear in this report because since now the problem is only with Unknown Lupus I didn't want to bring back the problem with MarshalN20. However in August I observed that both editors were making offensive comments on the Diablada article and asked them to stop, MarshalN20 specially reacted against me in a disproportionate angry manner. That led to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-18/Diablada which failed and now is on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Diablada, but that also led to a RfC for user conduct on MarshalN20 where we also observed that Unknown Lupus does act suspiciously similar to Marshal so there is the possibility that these accounts are in coordination or is a case of sockpuppetry. Unknown Lupus did know perfectly about that because he participated actively in the debate and did read the section where his policy infractions were addressed. Naturally I did point out at the beginning "please keep WP:CIV WP:NPA" when they first started making those comments but the conflict escalated till the RfC, which I recognize wasn't perhaps the best approach because I wasn't familiar with the procedure and the other editor who signed it didn't participate. I try to remain calm but dealing with these two editors has been extremely exhausting I'm afraid that if it doesn't stop it'll reach arbitration but they don't seem to change their way to treat me. Maybe my mistake was just mention the policies on the articles talk pages and avoid taking it to the boards as I didn't want to look authoritarian, maybe I should have done that instead earlier but now is too late to follow a different path. Erebedhel - Talk 08:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
When does something stop becoming a !vote, consensus, or debate, and turn into someone trying to make a point?
Before someone comments on the fact that I closed The AFD, I know that I was a little bit bolder than I should have been. However, as I stated in my closing rationale, the deletion process was completely ignored. Those who want the article deleted seem to have somewhere from a small to a large COI and/or a one sided POV. I felt, that as I read through the debate, that while the nominator and one or two other individuals were trying to hang onto every last thread, that there was a major consensus against them to keep the article. Now, can someone take a look at the article and the AFD and PLEASE tell me what you think? DustiSPEAK!! 10:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- As you closed it and someone else re-opened it, it would probably be wise to allow the debate to run the full 7 days, then allow an admin to close it. Mjroots (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am the editor who reversed the NAC on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Skeptic's_Annotated_Bible_(2nd_nomination), which is the crux of this concern. The closure was done one day early and it did not take into account that there was a measurable quantity of Delete !votes as part of the debate. In my understanding of non-admin closures, these issues made this particular NAC inappropriate, and that is why I reversed the NAC. Since this is the seventh day of the discussion, I would welcome an admin's review of the discussion. Thank you. Warrah (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely not appropriate for NAC. Tan | 39 15:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, there was nothing close to consensus there. Advise you take a step back from NACs Dusti. Also, review the guidelines for NACs Throwaway85 (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely not appropriate for NAC. Tan | 39 15:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Those are some serious accusations, Dusti. I don't know who you think is making a 'point' or what point they are supposed to be making, but I disagree that the 'deletion process is being completely ignored'. An AFD is not a vote, it's a discussion, and when there is a question as to which side has made the stronger argument, we rely on administrators who have, in theory, earned the trust of the community to make the more difficult calls. Yes, there are several people who !voted to keep the article, but there are also several who gave substantial reasons why it should be deleted based on Wikipedia's notability criteria. This is not a question of "I don't like it"; in fact, if anything I'd say there is a certain amount of "I like it" going around. This was not an AFD that should have been closed early by anyone, and it was not a good candidate for a non-admin close, because it was not a clear-cut decision. I think you may have allowed yourself to be swayed by the frequent and inappropriate accusations of bias from one editor who very strongly wants the article kept.
Also, it'd be a good idea (that is, it would reduce the likelihood of further drama) to let the AFD run long by whatever time it spent closed when it should have been open; that's often done in cases like these. -- Vary | (Talk) 15:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The issue of Dusti's non-admin closures is a recurring one and they have been advised in the past that it is not a good area for them to pursue. Apparently they have returned from a long wiki-break without taking into account the changes to AfD that happened in their absence. Non-admin closures should not be something that editors go looking to perform. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- As a long-term acquaintance of Dusti's I am little concerned over where his non-admin closures are going to take him. I and several other editors raised concerns before he went on a wikibreak; given that improper closure are still happening; I would advice him to step back a bit and do some other tasks for the project. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would like to go on record (first of all) and say that I was wrong in doing the NAC, and I feel that the individual who re-opened the Afd was also incorrect. Secondly, I appreciate those who have been respectful in their suggestions for me. Thirdly, I would like a little bit more respect here, as a fellow Wikipedian, I did something in my judgement. The Afd was closed as a keep, only to be turned over to Deletion Review, but I did something that I thought was right. If you look through my contributions, rather than second guess them, you will see that Afd isn't something I have been focusing on. I also did offer to reverse what I did out of respect for the nominator. Now, with all of that aside, I respect each and every one of you to the highest degree. You are all wonderful people, but please, understand that individuals will always have a different opinion than you do somewhere in the world. We can stand behind usernames and debate all night, but in the end, we're still here for one thing, to build this encyclopedia. Standing here and yelling at me for a minor mistake isn't going to change the fact that I did it, and I have apologized. Now, let's cease this thread and move on, I'm sure there are bigger fish to fry. And no, I will not stop NAC closures, I will merely be a lot more careful. How else can I learn? DustiSPEAK!! 08:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- You can learn by watching other people close AfDs correctly for a while, then going back to it. I really don't think you've been demonstrating good judgement in your recent closures, so some time away would be a Good Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- No one is yelling at you, Dusti - you brought this to ANI, not anyone else. I would highly recommend taking Sarek's advice. There's a thousand other tasks that need to be done here, all equally important. Tan | 39 14:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't want to pile on, but that closure was fairly ill thought out. Although some keep votes weren't well thought out, at least asking another admin would have been a good idea. Of course i'm not an admin, but this is how I see it as a neutral third party. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone's questioning your motives or your good faith, Dusti, but even good faith edits can be problematic at times. You've had several people here suggest you stop doing NACs for awhile. While I understand your desire to improve, perhaps it would be best to observe some more and review the guidelines before jumping back in. Even if you do everything correctly, you don't want people who disagree with your closure to be able to say "Dusti closed it, he has a history of bad closes, his decision should be ignored." Let things cool down a bit and take the opportunity to beef up on policy while attending to other matters. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't want to pile on, but that closure was fairly ill thought out. Although some keep votes weren't well thought out, at least asking another admin would have been a good idea. Of course i'm not an admin, but this is how I see it as a neutral third party. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- No one is yelling at you, Dusti - you brought this to ANI, not anyone else. I would highly recommend taking Sarek's advice. There's a thousand other tasks that need to be done here, all equally important. Tan | 39 14:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- You can learn by watching other people close AfDs correctly for a while, then going back to it. I really don't think you've been demonstrating good judgement in your recent closures, so some time away would be a Good Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would like to go on record (first of all) and say that I was wrong in doing the NAC, and I feel that the individual who re-opened the Afd was also incorrect. Secondly, I appreciate those who have been respectful in their suggestions for me. Thirdly, I would like a little bit more respect here, as a fellow Wikipedian, I did something in my judgement. The Afd was closed as a keep, only to be turned over to Deletion Review, but I did something that I thought was right. If you look through my contributions, rather than second guess them, you will see that Afd isn't something I have been focusing on. I also did offer to reverse what I did out of respect for the nominator. Now, with all of that aside, I respect each and every one of you to the highest degree. You are all wonderful people, but please, understand that individuals will always have a different opinion than you do somewhere in the world. We can stand behind usernames and debate all night, but in the end, we're still here for one thing, to build this encyclopedia. Standing here and yelling at me for a minor mistake isn't going to change the fact that I did it, and I have apologized. Now, let's cease this thread and move on, I'm sure there are bigger fish to fry. And no, I will not stop NAC closures, I will merely be a lot more careful. How else can I learn? DustiSPEAK!! 08:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Restoring deleted unsourced BLPs
I believe that restoring of BLPs deleted in the recent deletion of unsourced BLPs incident is uncontroversial, provided that someone is volunteering to reference the restored article ASAP. To make this as smooth and quick a process for editors as practical, I've started a section in the article rescue squadron at wp:SJR. Suggestions as to better homes for this, extra admin eyes and of course any feedback as to appropriate limitations or better homes for this would be welcome. ϢereSpielChequers 17:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like something that WP:REFUND should be handling, rather that the Article Rescue Squadron. NW (Talk) 22:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well in normal times yes it should. But as these were deleted out of process, if we simply ran through the normal process wouldn't they all get restored? Whereas setting up a temporary separate process where they only get restored if someone is willing to bring them up to BLP standards doesn't formalise the out of process deletions, but it does give editors a way to rescue some of these articles that I believe is acceptable even to those who deleted them. ϢereSpielChequers 00:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Send them to wikipedia:article incubator. I would be happy to help. Ikip 08:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Simply ask if you want to restore deleted unsourced BLPs
I have gotten up to 10 userfied articles from administrators before, let me be the first to ask.
And anyone else can ask WereSpielChequers to incubate 10 articles for them too, right here, for themselves. We will all be responsible to find sources for those 10 articles we ask for:
- Ikip 08:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Please incubate the FIRST 10 red linked articles for me at Wikipedia:ARS/BLP. Thank you.
A bad move!
I would think this is a bad move, unless you are adding in valid references. ArbCom have already said that what the admins who deleted the articles is valid, so restoring like this could be construed as wheel warring. Isn't there discussion about this going on somewhere else though? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Restore individual articles if sources are provided, fine, but don't just arbitrarily reverse the previous actions that got us into this mess. ArbCom was very clear; BLP enforcement is a paramount concern. Deleters got a slap on the wrist; people restoring are unlikely to be treated so kindly. Ironholds (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- If "provided that someone is volunteering to reference the restored article" isn't enough reassurance for you that this is not wheel warring, please see the discussion at User talk:Scott MacDonald#Restoring deleted unsourced BLPs, or watch what is happening at wp:SJR. ϢereSpielChequers 00:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Banned user's blog used as an external link in articles
A Wikipedia editor was recently indefinitely blocked for personal attacks, POV edit warring, etc. He happens to maintain a personal blog which is linked to from various Wikipedia articles as an external link (and possibly also, in some cases, as a reference). Since being blocked, he is now using the blog to continue the behaviour for which he was blocked (personal attacks against other editors) and to incite his readers to edit Wikipedia on his behalf. In light of this, is it appopriate for links to his personal blog to remain as external links within Wikipedia articles? As references? (In the event that the answer to both questions is "yes", for now I'll refrain from disclosing the identity of the editor in question.) —Psychonaut (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Since you've obviously set up the question in a way that the answer is "no" I'm guessing that the name would add some context that might make this a bit less black and white than you are making it out to be? Prodego talk 17:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- User:Bosniak and [33]. Hipocrite (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly, I have no idea what the answer is, because this is a novel situation and I don't know of any applicable policy. The reason I didn't want to name names at this point is because (a) I'm one of the targets of the personal attacks, and (b) I don't want to publically embarrass the user in the event that he's done nothing wrong (policy-wise). —Psychonaut (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
That site does not look like a reliable source or an appropriate external link. I suggest reporting it to WikiProject Spam and ask for help cleaning them up. Jehochman Brrr 17:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- At a glance I'd agree with Jehochman here. Leaving the indefinte block and related issues to the side, a personal blog is generally not something we would use as an external link (certainly not as a source) unless it was considered particularly reliable or important (e.g. an "expert blog" regularly cited in news stories). If it is just basically a personal blog that is not well respected I would say the links should be removed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the issue of linking to the blog has already been discussed before on countless article talk pages. It's widely known by editors that User:Bosniak is the author of the blog, no one seems to have a problem with it, and so neither did I, until this recent use of it to circumvent a block gave me pause. I don't think this use alone qualifies it as spam, especially since the links were added to articles long before the fact. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree that nothing to do with the current content, a non-notable partisan blog is thoroughly inappropriate as an external link, and even more inappropriate as a reliable source, if indeed it is used as such. I am particularly concerned by the way the real content is disguised as a "photo tour" eg here [34]. It looks to me that a good clean out of external links (with reference to the external link guidelines) should happen on many of those pages as there are other dubious looking sites there.--Slp1 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agree the links should be removed, and should probably have been removed earlier, independently of Bosniak's behaviour. Clearly not an appropriate WP:RS. (Sorry I've shortened the section title a bit, hope you don't mind.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, then, perhaps one of the many people here who think the link should be removed for reasons completely unrelated to this report should go ahead and do so. But be prepared to be named as another genocide-denying, history-effacing, Bosniak-baby-murdering Serbian fascist. ;) —Psychonaut (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- For a charged topic like this, a personal blog should default to a big no-no. Unless positive evidence can be presented that he is a well-known authority on the subject, the links should definitely be removed. 19:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I removed the Sarajevo one, and also found a link to a web page called "Chronology of the battle and siege of Sarajevo" where an editor had called it " Aggression by Slavic forces against Bosniaks", so I changed that to the real npov title. The good news is that most of the links are on talk pages: [35]. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- For a charged topic like this, a personal blog should default to a big no-no. Unless positive evidence can be presented that he is a well-known authority on the subject, the links should definitely be removed. 19:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, then, perhaps one of the many people here who think the link should be removed for reasons completely unrelated to this report should go ahead and do so. But be prepared to be named as another genocide-denying, history-effacing, Bosniak-baby-murdering Serbian fascist. ;) —Psychonaut (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Seem to 3 uses of the site in mainspace: Special:Linksearch/srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/ CIreland (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, User:Bosniak called User:Sandstein a "piece of worthless serbian shit" on his talk after the block, so I have strong reservations that linking his blog even on talk pages is appropriate. I've not read the blog, but I suspect it's nothing like NPOV. Pcap ping 20:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- On a related note, could someone change his talk page so it redirects to his userpage, or else delete the links to his blog and other nonsense at the top of the talk page? Someone who makes openly racist attacks against other editors doesn't need help from us directing people to his hate screeds. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Regardless of who put it in, the blog site doesn't look like it meets WP:EL due to its confrontational and politicized nature. It should probably be removed from most every article it is in. ThemFromSpace 05:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not an admin, I don't know whether I am entitled to contribute here, but I deplore the damage being done to articles by purging Bosniak's links and contributions. Bosniak behaves unwisely and very unwisely on occasions but that doesn't stop him from being a very important contributor to articles about the Bosnian war in particular.
His blog is in fact a respected source of reliable information even though his partisanship is unquestionable. It is one of the most important regularly updated sources of accessible information about issues like war crimes investigations, trials and judgments. His posts are open to public criticism (with the exception of a legitimate proscription on submissions that deny the genocide findings of international law). In my experience when he provides sourced information it is almost inevitably reliable when followed to source and even if his personal comments are not always well-judged they tend to be readily recognisable as such. (The author is genuinely respected by individuals of repute in this area who know how to take his more erratic moments into account).
While Bosniak is not the most temperate of individuals, I would also point out that Psychonaut has found fault on a number of occasions with Bosniak's contributions in a way which although objectively legitimate does not appear to be inspired by interest in / an informed judgment concerning the substance of the subject at issue. Bosniak may over-react to him but as someone fortunate not to have the personal experience of events that contributes to Bosniak's and other contributors' sensitivity in such matters, I have nevertheless found myself puzzled by Psychonaut's tendency to challenge Bosniak's contributions, eg the article on the April 1993 elementary school massacre at Srebrenica, in a way that suggests no particular interest in developing the content of the article/contribution in question.
I would ask that any action admins take in response to Bosniak's most recent outbursts and the pattern of spasmodic inappropriate conduct should be measured and above all take account of the overall interest of the readers of the articles he has been involved with. Opbeith (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to add, that while Psychonaut's interventions were unhelpful and his subsequent observations above strike me as less than straightforward, I certainly don't condone the way in which Bosniak has referred to the dispute at his blog. At the bottom of it all, though, the article is important. Opbeith (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it is true that my involvement with Bosniak's edits is not "inspired by interest in… the subject at issue". That's because I have practically no knowledge or interest whatsoever in the aftermath of the breakup of Yugoslavia. My only concern here has been monitoring and dealing with problematic edits, such as vandalism, personal attacks, vanity articles, obvious POV-pushing, garden walls, etc. Bosniak has a long history of engaging in (and being blocked for) all of these activities, and thus it is no surprise that his edits have commanded particular scrutiny at times. (Practically everything he has contributed here needs to be meticulously fact- and POV-checked.) But as my contribution history attests, such scrutiny is by no means limited to Bosniak, nor to Balkans-related articles. I could easily point to a number of other problematic editors, writing in completely different fields, who have been just as closely monitored by myself and/or other editors. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- That blog clearly doesn't meet reliable source guidelines and doesn't belong here, regardless of whose blog it is. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Towaru
I've raised the subject of some of the sub-pages of Towaru (talk · contribs) at WT:CSD. Looking at their contributions it is obvious that there are a lot more sub-pages, which may or may not be within policy and need looking at. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm here instead of RFPP because this is a bit tricky -- apparently there is a class somewhere that has been assigned to work on this article; the problem is that they don't know what they are doing and are making a mess of it. Some edits look like vandalism, others are good-faith but clueless. None are sourced. I've tried engaging but haven't had any luck. I wonder if it would be possible to protect the article temporarily in order to force them to the talk page? The article wasn't very good before they started on it so in principle we could just let them hack away, but that doesn't seem very useful even as an educational experience.Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Followup -- now taken to RFPP due to ongoing vandalism and lack of response here. Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently a University class! (University of Illinois), Kin 457. Woogee (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The instructor's personal page is here. Woogee (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Would someone be interested in pointing the instructor to Wikipedia:School and university projects and Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination? We can probably clear this all up pretty quickly if someone does this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Dear God. We should indef anon block every school and university. Fences&Windows 21:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The instructor's personal page is here. Woogee (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Addition of links to National Institutes of Health GeneReviews
An IP editor is adding a large number of links to the NIH GeneReviews articles to our articles on genetic diseases. For example adding Adenosine Deaminase Deficiency to our article Adenosine deaminase deficiency. Since these are free-access articles written by experts on these genetic diseases, which have been peer-reviewed (see GeneTests page) and hosted on a NIH website, I think these meet our external link policy. However, there has been some discussion as whether or not to block this editor for adding these links - an idea I object to. Do other people think this is editor is acting appropriately or inappropriately? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note - these links have previously been discussed here. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- 205.152.158.201 (talk · contribs) has been adding these links to about 300 articles, starting 28 August 2009 (as far as I can tell from the edit summaries). To complicate the situation, it appears this account is being used by another person at the same time, leading to the block in Sept'09. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The project has gained useful content on 300 articles. Why is this a bad thing? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Given that is an IP address, it is by design shared. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Even if the new links end up being valuable, it creates awkwardness if we are endorsing the actions of an editor who refuses to participate in discussions. They have never commented at User talk and they have only left one comment on article Talk ever. (This seems likely to be a private individual and not an office at NIH. The IP geolocates to Louisville, KY). Do we have the ability to add these links on our own? I would suggest we seriously consider a 1-week block but not revert the edits, unless they are individually checked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- So by not blocking, we are endorsing? Beach drifter (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- 205.152.158.201 (talk · contribs) has been adding these links to about 300 articles, starting 28 August 2009 (as far as I can tell from the edit summaries). To complicate the situation, it appears this account is being used by another person at the same time, leading to the block in Sept'09. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why do you worry that adding useful links might create awkwardness? I'm not feeling in the least awkward, in fact I'm considering giving them a barnstar! :) What possible reason would there be for blocking them? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Tim. Common sense and good faith trump any spam guidelines. It is troublesome that the editor is not communicating but that is no reason for a block. Beach drifter (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've checked about 20 of these links and they are being added carefully to the correct articles, eg the IP editor added the NIH article on Adult Polyglucosan Body Disease to our article on Glycogen storage disease type IV (which is an alternative form of the same disease also discussed in the GeneReviews article). Tim Vickers (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see nothing objectionable about these links and agree with Beach drifter and Tim Vickers that blocking is unnecessary. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd also like to agree with Tim et al. We had a similar issue some months ago with respect to the IUPHAR database. As long as the links go to a reliable, scholarly source, are added specifically to the page to which they belong (rather than just plastered across pages), and improve the information value of our pages, all of which are true in this case, then it is not spam. The issue comes up because it looks like spam. In the IUPHAR case, it proved helpful to talk with the IP and educate them about appearances, and perhaps that would be helpful here. A punitive response would not. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think at least some of the unfortunately bitey response to this editor was prompted by their adding links to genetic disease articles at roughly the same time as this spammer who was adding commercial spam to a genetic testing company. Perhaps a case of friendly fire? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed the spamming, reviewed the discussion at WP:ELN, noticed the editor hadn't responded to the discussion, and determined that his behavior fit WP:SPAMMER. From this, I thought a {{uw-s2}} or {{uw-s3}} would be appropriate. Because of the extent of the spamming since the WP:ELN discussion, I chose the s3.
- As I discussed, my concern is what to do if the editor continues. I'd like to see him consider the recommendations from WP:ELN and WP:SPAMMER, but at least acknowledge the discussions. --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- It would indeed be nice if they choose to talk to us, but if they don't the consensus so far seems to be that, since their edits are helping and not hurting the encyclopedia, we shouldn't do anything that might discourage them from continuing to contribute. Templates warning them that they might be blocked would certainly not appropriate for an editor making good-faith and constructive contributions. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see nothing objectionable about these links and agree with Beach drifter and Tim Vickers that blocking is unnecessary. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've checked about 20 of these links and they are being added carefully to the correct articles, eg the IP editor added the NIH article on Adult Polyglucosan Body Disease to our article on Glycogen storage disease type IV (which is an alternative form of the same disease also discussed in the GeneReviews article). Tim Vickers (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Tim. Common sense and good faith trump any spam guidelines. It is troublesome that the editor is not communicating but that is no reason for a block. Beach drifter (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was involved in the original WP:ELN discussion, and I favor these links.
- Wikipedia doesn't actually prohibit its volunteers(!) from improving the encyclopedia only in one way. There is no rule that says you have to add at least one sentence of text for every valuable and wholly guideline-compliant external link you add, or that tiny improvements are somehow actually damaging, or that people should be punished for merely looking like a spammer when they actually are not violating any of Wikipedia's standards.
- It's unfortunate (for us) that the editor isn't talking to us -- if the editor reads this, then WP:MEDGEN and WP:MED want you! -- but a person that silently improves the encyclopedia should never be punished for making valuable contributions, however small the contributions may be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Quick admin help requested concerning BLPs
{{Resolved|220.227.15.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked for a year. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)}}
Please see the edits of this IP. It is edit-warring to add sexually disgusting images to articles concerning a real world politician. Please help! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- We're sorry, Mario, but our Princess is in a different castle! HalfShadow 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- IP has apparently already been blocked. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- A recent upload that might warrant a badimage tag was used in the vandalism File:Tröpfchen3.jpg I'm guessing all the uploads of User:Stan Spanker at commons need a look at. Maybe I'm just too cynical, but seeing a plethora of various new BDSM photos with only some having matching metadata, especially with its current caption seems like more than a coincidence, even without tineye hits. Sorry for the hassle of not linking but I felt it was easier to not point out where you could get the beans to put up your nose. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- IP has apparently already been blocked. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
User:HagenUK
HagenUK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly reverting the Android (disambiguation) page despite multiple requests not to at User talk:HagenUK#Unexplained revert. No response on user talk page; only the 2nd revert has a comment: Restored entry. It is relevant (especially in the business community), referenced via BBC source and MOS:DAB is clearly non-applicable. which was addressed with appropriate wikilinks in my prior and subsequent edit summaries (please see revision history) and talk page messages, plus Talk:Android (disambiguation)#Accenture. Not sure if I should request a block, or page protection, or take other action first? 92.1.93.82 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I think both of you should be blocked for edit warring. However in being constructive, why do you think this material should be removed. You state on one of the talk pages that the word is not mentioned in the reference when it very clearly is and gives no room for misinterpretation. Canterbury Tail talk 23:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The MOS:DAB criteria for "Items appearing within other articles" are If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. I stated that the word "Android" isn't mentioned in the Accenture article, never that it's not mentioned in the reference. 92.1.93.82 (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- From previous experience, I am not discussing things with anonymous IP addresses. If someone cannot be bothered to show who they are, there is usually a reason for that. Also, the reasons for the re-instating where mentioned in the second restore. a) The term in widely used in the business community. b) the term is back up by a reference to the BBC website. If requested, I can attach a lot more. c) the term links to the Accidenture term. Also, looking down the same page, there is an identical situation with "Android Lust", song by The Prodigy. Why is this not an issue?!? HagenUK (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not even on an article talk page? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- From previous experience, I am not discussing things with anonymous IP addresses. If someone cannot be bothered to show who they are, there is usually a reason for that. Also, the reasons for the re-instating where mentioned in the second restore. a) The term in widely used in the business community. b) the term is back up by a reference to the BBC website. If requested, I can attach a lot more. c) the term links to the Accidenture term. Also, looking down the same page, there is an identical situation with "Android Lust", song by The Prodigy. Why is this not an issue?!? HagenUK (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just to make sure, just re-read the MOS:DAB. Please refer to section "Where piping may be appropriate", and look at the example in the text box. Ergo, I rest my case ... the "Android" entry is exactly the same. Now, Mr/Mrs 92.1.93.82, would you please refrain from engaging in any further edit warring? Thank you! HagenUK (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The term "Android" does appear on the What Evil Lurks (Prodigy) page, therefore it should be listed on the Android (disambiguation) page. The term "Android" does not appear on the Accenture page, therefore it shouldn't be listed on the Android (disambiguation) page, piped or otherwise. 92.1.93.82 (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The IP has the right of it here. Also, HagenUK's "I don't talk to IPs" attitude is not acceptable in a collegial environment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Breach of ARBMAC civility parole, trolling, harassment by User:Sulmues
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Back in December, this user was placed under the following 3 month civility supervision [36] per WP:ARBMAC by User:Moreschi for outbursts such as these [37] [38] [39]. Since then, he has continued posting trolling comments such as these [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] (the "Trojan Horse" is a reference to Greek editors), calling me a vandal [58], while here [59] he is making the false accusation that Albania had to be protected because of "vandalism" on my part, when in fact it was *I* who requested semi-protection [60] because the article was plagued by IPs. Here is talking smack [61] [62] [63] [64] in Albanian with the indef-blocked User:Lceliku (translation available on Google Translate).
Particularly odious is his restoration of this TOV by User:Lceliku [65] with the mendacious excuse that the guy "welcomed" me and I "banned" him. When I became irate [66] [67] over this, his response was to mock me [68] [69].
Lately, he is also now falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR [70] [71] when in fact I did no such thing.
Here he is trying to disrupt an SPI I have filed [72] [73] by somehow implying that I'm anti-Albanian and that therefore the checkuser should take this into account.
The final straw, however, was that even though Moreschi explicitly warned him that further accusations of vandalism against me would constitute a breach of his revert parole and hence would be blockable [74], he has continued to do so [75] [76]. There is a clear pattern here of incivility, bad faith assumptions, trolling, and personal attacks since he has been put on civility parole. This is intolerable and has got to stop. I would ordinarily be perfectly content to let Moreschi handle this, but he appears not to be active at the moment. Athenean (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- It might be better if you were to put this in the form of a {{Sanction enforcement request}} at WP:AE, which would provide for a structure for response, discussion and review. Sandstein 06:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sandstein, I think Arbitration Enforcement is to enforce a closed Arbitration Committee ruling, and I still have not had the chance to see this ruling. When I was blocked by Moreschi in December, I never had the chance to protect myself. Do I get the chance here to defend myself? Athenean has brought here plenty of accusations which I have to reject. His interpretations of my behavior are very agressive. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 13:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have to admit looking at all of the diffs (and digging through contributions for quite a while) that it looks like both of you have been a little hot headed and it may be better served for you guys to just back away from each other. Sulmues may be throwing words like vandal around a bit loosely but I can't deny that it does appear you are following him around a bit as well (just recently accusing him of being a banned user here and taking barnstars off of his userpage is a bit much. Too much wikilawyering is not good in the longrun. James (T|C) 13:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Except that I'm not under civility parole, but he is, and he has clearly breached this parole. I mean, he never misses an opportunity to make a dig at me [77], even when welcoming a new user. I will go to AE and request enforcement of his civility parole. Athenean (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I wish I could. athenean within the last 24 hours has brought me to the attention of Moreschi (see [78] where he uses inappropriate language, ckatz and Luna_Santin where he accuses me of receiving a barnstar from an IP that was subsequently blocked (see User_talk:Ckatz) and User_talk:Luna_Santin#Block-evading_IP_of_indef_blocked_users_going_around_giving_out_barnstars) and he is now reporting an incident that is caused only by his accusations and his sufference to see me edit his Albanian pages. He has also a history of blanking references that are perfectly valid and it seems like I need to get banned or blocked at any cost and I cannot work in peace for my contributions to Wikipedia, because I have to spend all my time to defend myself from this user. Athenean's 6.3k edits are all patrolling Albanian related topics (See here [79] that 7 out of his 10 most edited articles regard Albania). He does not know Albanian, but he'll make sure to blank references that I bring to the table. I'm bringing this [80] (but I could bring at least 50 such blanking cases) where he takes out references which you can easily see online.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 13:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I just blocked Ozguroot (talk · contribs) 1 hour for edit warring. Happenstance (talk · contribs) made two requests dif dif by on his talk page that he stop mass reversions of Happenstance's edits and resume discussion at Talk:Passport. If anyone feels that my block was in error, feel free to unblock. I did not block Happenstance for edit warring as he did not try to revert Ozguroot. I have to run for an hour or so, so this is a quick post. -- Flyguy649 talk 01:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, this is almost certainly a sock of the banned User:Izmir lee. A look at the contribs of Izmir lee [81] and his socks User:Aegean Boy and User:Turkish Flame [82] screams WP:DUCK. Same bot-like behavior on diplomacy articles. Athenean (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- This account has also started editing in a similar pattern rather abruptly - Special:Contributions/Eu6. I would suggest a block for the sock-puppets. —what a crazy random happenstance 10:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I really didn't mind the ban. All what i did was reverting the deletion a bit earlier than the editors of those articles. Because nobody seem to agree with deletion of those sections. see: Romanian passport reverted by El Otro. Mongolian passport reverted by Edward Vielmetti, Serbian passport reverted by Avala, etc. They spent their hours, days, months, for them. Are they socks too? Now you call me "a sock" of the banned user Izmir lee. Who is Izmir lee? I totally have no idea. Administrators: Please --> Talk:Passport. Too many angry "X passport" editors there. Regards. --Ozguroot (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Errm the user in question was going in line with consensus while the other user that complained Happenstance as well as RashersTierney were equally abusive and reverted him then he reverted them etc. I find it absurd to block him for these edits. User RashersTierney has run what I believe to be a canvassed straw poll to establish consensus but soon after the "consensus" was noted by regular editors it became apparent there was no consensus to remove large amount of info from 200 articles. The "consensus" was thus gone the very next day. Ozguroot might be angrier then the rest because unlike us he didn't just loose months of work but also a lot of money he gave to receive prompt updates on the subject so that he could update Wikipedia. Finally I will quote one user from the talk page, I see no signs of consensus from the dozens of diligent editors who maintained those pages and were blindsided by their removal without so much as a notice on the corresponding talk pages of the articles affected.--Avala (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think we may have averted this edit war by deciding to fork the content that was being hastily deleted into its own set of pages. As with any diplomatic mission the fine details are being worked out on Talk:Passport. If there are any remaining angry "X passport" editors with pages that have been multiply reverted there is a workable, though not perfect, solution at hand to copy the table in question to a new article "Visa requirements ... " Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
revert war at Race and Intelligence
There is an unreasoning squabble over two different versions at Race and Intelligence. I don't really want to get anyone in trouble, but I think it's time to protect the page, if only to remove a pointless bone of contention. --Ludwigs2 02:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see an indication for protection at the moment - it hasn't been reverted for 4 hours or so, so it's possible things have died down. It appears that a single editor, Captain Occam (talk · contribs), is edit-warring against multiple other editors, and furthermore that this editor has been blocked twice previously for edit-warring on this article. Under those circumstances, a block is probably more appropriate than page protection... but since he hasn't made any reverts in the last 4+ hours, a block would be punitive at the moment. MastCell Talk 04:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- .... aaaand while I writing the above, Captain Occam (talk · contribs) reverted again, while asserting in the edit summary that everyone else was guilty of edit-warring. Blocked for 1 week, given previous offenses. MastCell Talk 04:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- At least 10 different editors were involved in that little revert spat since January 9th, all with multiple reverts over the same material, and Occam gets singled out as the culprit? I agree with Ludwigs that a page protection was in order, but I find a week-long block for one user unfair. --Aryaman (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- When one editor is being reverted by multiple others, and that one editor is reverting them back and claiming that the many are guilty of edit warring, which is what MastCell indicates, then there is very likely to be a simple root cause of the disruption; a one week block seems therefore appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- A one-man edit war, resulting in a block, over the subject of intelligence. Yup. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- When one editor is being reverted by multiple others, and that one editor is reverting them back and claiming that the many are guilty of edit warring, which is what MastCell indicates, then there is very likely to be a simple root cause of the disruption; a one week block seems therefore appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- At least 10 different editors were involved in that little revert spat since January 9th, all with multiple reverts over the same material, and Occam gets singled out as the culprit? I agree with Ludwigs that a page protection was in order, but I find a week-long block for one user unfair. --Aryaman (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Unapproved bot
It appears that Ikip (talk · contribs) is running an unapproved newsletter bot on his main account as shown in this edit sample [83]. Such accounts should be run on a bot account after seeking a bot request for approval per the bot policy, but it does not appear that Ikip has done so. What should be done? MBisanz talk 02:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I thought that this was already explained previously... he's actually running a .NET helper app.
It doesn't seem to me that he's doing anything in the wrong.Urgh. Just looked again at the edit history... this is a canvassing issue. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Would this be considered canvasing (warning, related to BLP issue)
User:Ikip has been posting the same messages to what appears to be every Wikiproject and their documented task forces asking for input on the BLP issue. (Special:Contributions/Ikip has, as I write this, at least 100 posting of the same message). While the message is likely meant in good faith and is written in an unbiased manner to attract attention to the issue, and knowing how Ikip has, in the past, insisted on involving as many editors as possible on an issue, this seems to be entirely against the spirit of WP:CANVAS. The BLP discussion is already listed at CENT and is listed at watchlist pages; further announcements to every WP and their task forces seems like excessive overkill.
My apologies to Ikip in advance if this is not canvasing, but this seems entirely against advice outlined at WP:CANVAS. Message on Ikip's talk to immediately follow after posting this. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
(Please see the section immediately above this please as well. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC) )
- Note: MBisanz and Masem posted on the same issue nearly simultaneously (though with different concerns). I have united the two sections into one. Ucucha 02:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- It would appear he has the bot set to automatic since my talk page note did not trigger a shutoff as with AWB. Usually such unapproved bots are blocked until the owner agrees to obey the bot policy. MBisanz talk 02:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a very big deal. @harej 02:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Part of this may extend from this discussion where it is suggested that a bot to notify Wikiprojects of unrefed BLPs within the project bounds be developed to notify the projects of the problematic ones, but this does not seem to suggest that notifying the projects in general about the issue is appropriate (either way, such a bot probably needs approval). --MASEM (t) 02:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say it's indiscriminate spamming. Seriously, do WikiProject Balzac or WikiProject Novels' 19th Century Task Force really need "tools to improve their unreferenced BLPs"? Fran Rogers (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would like to mention the highly amusing irony of sending this message to WikiProject Death. --Geniac (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The death project? Oh, that's some funny stuff.....I just saw it at the Star Wars project and I'm not thinking unref BLP's are a big issue for Star Wars either.Niteshift36 (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- WP:WikiProject Saints? Don't you have to be dead to be a saint? WP:WikiProject Ancient Near East?? Not exactly BLP magnets. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would like to mention the highly amusing irony of sending this message to WikiProject Death. --Geniac (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- This behaviour isn't new at all. Ikip has previously been warned by ArbCom "to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing" after a very similar burst of edits last February. ThemFromSpace 03:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- That might change things. harej 03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- More serious breaches with convention have been allowed to slide in relation to the BLP situation. I would suggest restraint; it clearly wasn't a bad faith action. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 03:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Good point, but in another situation... I'd noticed this two on a couple of ancient history projects and came here to see if it was being discussed. Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Given the previous Arbcom warning, he should at the very least be given a stern warning to stop. He's been testing the limits all through the last days. I cannot see his wording that "wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person" as neutral either – it's clearly alarmist and sensationalist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- That might change things. harej 03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't find comments like "323 articles incubated to Wikiproject Australia, one more article then was deleted by Rdm2376, Lar, and Scott MacDonald" to be particularly mature. As I asked here, I cannot figure out how preemptively moving the articles out of articlespace helps in any way. It eliminates any possibility that people here can actually work on the articles and in my mind having them run off to random userpages is more hidden than having them even unilaterally deleted. At least these articles can be discussed. It seems more like a vendetta to prove a point than anything else. And is this an appropriate use of a user page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The only viable way to fix a backlog of 50k articles is to mobilize an army of our volunteer editors. Ikip's actions should be seen in that light, and should be praised, and the alternative stealth renegade and coup-like lead, follow or get out of the way BLP "cleanup initiative" should be shown the door. The large majority of Ikip's postings seem to hitting relevant projects: Guitarists, Contemporary music, hip hop, .. etc. You can ridicule him for posting on project Death, but that's nitpicking. With the amazing speed events are unfolding here and the BLP hardliner stance, Ikips postings are defensible, and wholly understandable. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not considering the nature of his actions, and the fact that he's already been warned by ArbCom for doing the same sort of thing. I'd suggest a sharp knock-it-off warning, followed by a block (although Ikip's relatively reasonable, the second step is unlikely to be necessary). Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I removed them from the King Arthur and Bible wikiprojects, he's replaced them. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- In fairness, while not 'living people', both King Arthur and Jesus are scheduled to make a comeback at some point. pablohablo. 10:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Future living people? --Jayron32 13:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it appropriate to do this sort of broadcast during the RFC as it could be construed as canvassing, and I would request that Ikip stop and only resume if he can agree a wording with those who are on the other side of the RFC to him. In any event I do think that after the RFC a neutrally phrased note could go to all wikiprojects encouraging them to sign up to user:WolterBot, I've also asked User:DASHBot's writer if he would consider a mailing to projects on similar lines to his current mailings to the 17,400 creators of these unsourced BLPs. But I think that should be after the RFC, if only because there is a huge BLP improvement project going on as a result of DASHBot's mailing this month, and we should let that run its course before running a second round via projects. As for various ancient and or art history projects, I suspect that a Bot which only informed them of unreferenced BLPs in their project would uncover a variety of professorial biographies. ϢereSpielChequers 14:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Future living people? --Jayron32 13:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- In fairness, while not 'living people', both King Arthur and Jesus are scheduled to make a comeback at some point. pablohablo. 10:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am probably not neutral in this issue, since I personally agree wholeheartedly with most of the opinions of Ikip on the matter: so take my comment with a grain of salt, and I'll try to stay as objective as possible. Having read the message he posts at the talk pages (e.g. [84]) it seems quite neutral and more of a calling for help in sourcing articles. It doesn't endorse explicitly one position or another, it just asks for community participation. I therefore don't see as disruptive the mass-posting of Ikip; if anything it will probably help the community participate to an important discussion and help maybe some BLPs to be properly sourced. It falls under WP:CANVASS in being mass posting, this I agree, but some solution has to be made to make the community aware (many potentially interested editors are not watching/following the BLP drama venues as we may be) and in the end it seems more constructive than else. It seems these days a lot of people endorse bold actions in dealing with BLPs, even when pushing policy to the limit, as everyone of us here probably knows: I think we should think of the Ikip posting as something in this direction, even if from a different perspective. I hope it helps. --Cyclopiatalk 14:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 26. Nothing further to handle here
I would appreciate review of an AFD I just closed. I have overturned Jayjg's closure, because he has kept but with no justification. I see it differently, and have provided a detailed reasoning. It was a controversial close, and I don't think its acceptable that a decision is made without giving a reasoning. Can I please have admin review on this matter. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- My decision is now being reverted, with no justification behind Jayjg's AFD decision. I have deleted the article, I don't want to get into an edit war. I will alert Jayjg as to this discussion. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: it was not reverted by Jayjg. Someone has now protected that page, but the article is deleted. This needs to be resolved soon I fear. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Now at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_January_26. (I protected the page.) Ucucha 03:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Or a better wikilink is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 26#The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
We have this thing called Wikipedia:Deletion review, when you don't agree with a close. We point the regular users to it, which is the hat you ought to have been wearing in this instance. DRV can now review Jay's close. If no especially objects, I'd like to restore the article for the DRV's benefit. Mackensen (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Well... here's the thing Mackensen - Jay edited that page while I had spent a good 15 minutes typing up a valid closure reason. Typing in "keep" and clicking on submit would have taken him all of about 15 seconds. Now if I had closed that AFD without the detailed reasoning, the article would now be deleted, with a detailed reasoning as to how I came to my decision. Jay has still not provided that reasoning. I welcome his feedback at DRV. And I do object to you undeleting. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, those things happen. I've been in that position myself. I went and talked to the admin in question, instead of putting myself in the wrong by reverting a close. You realize that you're putting DRV in an impossible position by not allowing access to the deletion revisions during the discussion? This situation's pretty messed up as it is. Be reasonable. Mackensen (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Actually, I will undelete it and let DRV do it's thing. I am not very happy about the way that the closing admin closed the discussion. I note they still have not provided an explanation. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate it. Mackensen (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- No probs. I'm not trying to create drama here, merely being bold to overturn a poor decision. As this has been closed badly, I'm going to put it up for AFD again in a few days. I note that so long as the closing editor gives a reason for the close then I will accept it either way. However, there will need to be a reason. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate it. Mackensen (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
If you write a long close and someone else closes it first, that's too bad but it's kinda how it goes sometimes. No fault found as it's just a bad break. What I have done in the past is tagged the discussion as "pending close" saying that a close was coming and I was writing it up. That way, if some other admin closes it, you've sort of established that you did intend to close it and they just raced ahead of you to beat you (or they truly didn't see that you'd archiveboxed it with a pending close note...) That tends to give you a bit more standing, I find). Just a suggestion. (and yes, asking for a reason is reasonable. But what I do there is just go ask. Most admins will give a more detailed rationale if asked) ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I understand, and I've reversed my deletion. Jay hasn't explained his reasoning. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
General advice not related to this particular AfD. If you decide to close an AfD but need time for a longer closure write-up, you can "lock" the discussion by tagging it with {{closing}} as explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. Pcap ping 10:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Climate change proposal
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The articles on climate change have been a drama-fueled mess for too long. I think it's time we all stand up and say that we respect people like Kenosis and WMC. As such, I propose that the following editors be topic banned fron the subject.
So now you are going to remove MY comments? Very mature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.190.195.1 (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you don't have any solutions, fine, but I'm sure they are plenty of editors who think we'd all be better without those editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.134.114.18 (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
Trying again
Does no one think there are problems with the climate change articles? Why is discussion being collapsed? -- 32.174.160.76 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
88.218.157.69 (talk · contribs)
Not sure if this is the correct place for it, but the above IP left me a pretty insidious/threatening message on my talk - the IP (he's been using several) has been persistently removing a sentence on Mirror's Edge, which I've been reverting. Thanks! Fin©™ 08:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Rather than debating the issue at Talk:Passport, Pryde 01 (talk · contribs) has placed some of the most nauseating and obnoxious personal attacks I have ever seen on my and RashersTierney's talk pages. He is aware of the inappropriateness of his actions, I quote: "I do not give a fuck about the etiquette on this site". It is this kind of behaviour which is making it difficult to maturely debate this issue. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Warned user. Toddst1 (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- If they don't care about etiquette, why should a warning matter to them? 67.51.38.51 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Non Admin "changing" protection level.
No admin action required here.
User:Andrewlp1991 has with this edit changed the protection template on the Article, i am well aware that the user cant actually change the protection level however it has still concerned me that a user with Rollback rights has done this. I have requested the user comment on this action in the users talk page however i feel as the user is trusted with rollback it needs to be noted here. ZooPro 08:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Andrewlp1991 was just kindly clearing up after an admin who had forgotten to update the page when they changed it's protection log, see here for the change to the protection log. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
File talk:MiddleEast.A2003031.0820.250m.jpg
I'm certainly not gonna touch this with a 10 foot pole myself (it's not my fight at all), but someone may want to look into File talk:MiddleEast.A2003031.0820.250m.jpg#Border with Syria
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I took a stab at it. The image is on Commons, so deletion discussion is not appropriate here. And shouldn't that be a 10 feet (3.0 m) pole? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Main article on simple Wikipedia for Jessica Lange is blank while an extensive version of the page exists elsewhere on Wikipedia
Dear administrators,
I have tried to edit the page http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lange in English without success.
Would you please correct these mistakes; every time I tried I seem to have made some mistake and the page was deleted rapidly. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.253.209 (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is on the Simple version of Wikipedia, and it has it's own rules and admins. Looking at the page, it gives some clear reasons for the deletions— the last was "Complex article from another Wikipedia, little sign of simplification/conversion." Please discuss at simple:Wikipedia:Simple talk. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Anon 121.208.130.92 impersonating a real person
I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this, but I couldn't figure out which category it falls into. If it belongs elsewhere, feel free to move it there.
Peter Foster has a long history of attempted whitewashing and bad-faith edits by anons and single-purpose accounts which all appear to be the same person. As discussed at some length on Talk:Peter Foster, there is evidence to suggest that this editor is Foster himself.
Today this editor claimed to be Richard Shears, journalist and author of Foster's biography. I had my doubts, looked up Shears' contact details, and emailed him to check. Response:
Many thanks for checking with me. This is 100 per cent absolutely definitely NOT me! Obviously someone is taking my name in vain, so to speak, having picked it up from articles that I've written for the Daily Mail in the past. I don't talk like that and I'm not aggressive like that. So I'd be grateful if you could delete that particular passage. Once again, thanks for checking.
I have blanked most of the comment in question, per the real Shears' request - I wouldn't normally delete another editor's talk-page remarks, but I think this is an exceptional circumstance. I have also requested semi-protection, and given the BLP issues involved with an article about a convicted criminal I've posted it on the BLP noticeboard to get more eyes on it; at this point I can't consider myself to be a neutral party where pro-Foster edits are concerned. Is there anything else that should be done about this issue? --GenericBob (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
User Goldor
Goldor (talk · contribs) was given a final warning by me about personal attacks. I also reverted some personal attacks at Talk:Bosnian_Royal_Family which he reverted. He's calling editors scum at RPP [85] and the above talk page. I'm going to block him, anyone object to an indef block? Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I went to his talk page to tell him about this, he's already blocked indefinitely. He was clearly not here to benefit the project. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
[86] [87] An IP vandal is hard at work on The Nine Unknown how do I go about requesting semi-protection? Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- requests for page protection --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved admin possibly take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM and maybe have a quiet word with Hutch48. He has taken this nomination very personally and is being rather intimidating to other contributors and potential contributors [88] . There is more but AfD is only short - it's probably easier to read it in its entirity than by diff, but he has also made his comments about other contributors on another editors talk pages [89], and he does have a very recent history of being totally offended whenever someone makes any comments to one of his articles [90][91] note edit summary (Magioladitis added an orphan tag to JWASM) [92] (response to Orange Dog querying notability of a different cyberwidget) [93] editor opined that article should not actually be about how to create compiler code.
NB - although I have not ventured to offer an opinion in the AfD, as I don't want any more comments about my technical knowledge, I have notified Hutch48 of this thread. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me of your complaint. To save retyping my response to the actions of the compainant, please refer to the discussion page related to the deletion of the JWASM page. I have asked that editors properly comply with the rules of Wikipedia as stated in the direct URL that I have cited.
Hutch48 (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- As you can see. Hutch48 continues to argue that I "broke the rules" by PRODding an article about some compiler code that had no sources verifying notability (indeed, at the time did not even make any claim to notability, just to usefulness) and appeared to me to be completely non notable under Wikipedia definition, Magioladitis "broke the rules" by tagging the article as an orphan, and OrangeDog "broke the rules" by listing the article for deletion. While he is entitled to his opinion, I do not feel he is entitled to continue to intimidate other editors away from AfD. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like we have someone with some serious WP:OWN issues. It should be pointed out that a lot of times when an editor can't prove the notability of their subject, they take to attacking other editors. All I see are walls of texts, none of which establish notability. More so, looking at his contributions, I'm more concerned about how Hutch48 (talk · contribs) is continuously harassing OrangeDog (talk · contribs). --Smashvilletalk 16:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the facts speak for themselves so I'll try not to get into any arguments here. I would however appreciate a retraction and apology from those who have accused me of bad faith editing. As for the MASM article, I left my comments on the talk page and editors may act on them as they wish. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hutch48 does have some serious ownership problems, specifically in the belief that people who don't "have sufficient historical or technical knowledge to comment on an article of this type". Similar language along these lines has continued at the AfD. -- Atama頭 23:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It would appear that Hutch48 has taken his bat home. I would guess this incident can be closed and the Afd left to run its course. (And I never signed this post!!! Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC) )
Oh very interesting [94] Hutch48 appears to be the admin of www.masm38.com's forum (no outing, he put the url and his real name on his userpage and he uses a similar username to his Wikipedia one at this forum), and according to him, Wikipedia is now scheduled to go down the tubes because we trashed his article. Unfortunately for him, even the code nerds aren't taking his complaints too seriously. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Seoulight keeps going after 24-hour block
Seoulight (talk · contribs), fresh off 24-hour block for edit-warringm keep going: Special:Contributions/Seoulight.
Won't respond to notes left on talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
FWIW: notified. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked 1 week. Looks more like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT than anything. –MuZemike 16:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Kaiserble is back
So now the other guy Kaiserble (talk · contribs) is off *his* 24-block and keeps going...Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Inuit18 and User:Tajik
Tajik (talk · contribs) from the Germany-Holland region (who has a long list of blocks) is using IPs to insult, provoke, and attack ethnic Pashtun editors and Pashtun articles. See one example of many Kussmadar...Lol...your mom was fucked by Tajiks and Momngols for centuries, dirty bastard, son of dirty semites, mongols, dal-eating dog...PigTuns, who were fucked and raped by all invadors for millions of years, prove their dirty bastard origine with their dirty language and culture.. I assure you that banned User:Šāhzādé, User:Germany2008, and User:Draco of Utopia are sockpuppet of this same individual who tries misleading adminstrators by changing his level of English and writing style.
Inuit18 (talk · contribs) who is restricted to one-revert-per-day is used as a proxy account and I assure you it's another sockpuppet of the banned User:Anoshirawan. It's possible that Tajik is using it as a proxy connection to log onto Wikipedia using USA's IP from the Germany-Holland area, which works but with slow internet speed. Both Tajik and Inuit18 have one point of view when editing Wikipedia and they always edit the same articles relating to Afghan races and ethnicity, critisizing all Pashtuns anyway possible while giving Tajiks good names even if they were labelled warlords in mainstream media. Tajik and his anti-Pashtun racist gang is not only spreading racist POVs about Pashtuns here in Wikipedia but he's also involved doing this at Youtube, blog forums, chat rooms, and etc. I believe that banning these trouble seeking users (or user) will serve a good purpose so that other unbiased editors can come in the future and cleanup the articles that these racist guys (or guy) have vandalized. Thanks!
- Would anyone actually feel provoked by such a ridiculous rant? It sounds like the French guard at the castle in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- There may be a cultural thing here. The original poster should open a Sockpuppet enquiry. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I blocked the IP for a week, anyone want to change that, feel free. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- There may be a cultural thing here. The original poster should open a Sockpuppet enquiry. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- It might be ridiculous to you, Bugs, but it hardly reminds me of "your father was a hamster & your mother smelled of elderberries". Instead, it strikes me as flat-out hate speech (substitute the ethnic terms for any more familiar ones, say referring to Germans, to see what I mean), & the individual deserves a permanent ban. -- llywrch (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- You may well be right. I'm just saying that if someone grossly insults you, and you react the way he expects you to, then you're letting him control you, which seems counterproductive. Never let 'em think they got you, or they win. Unless, of course, you have a secret weapon, such as a nuclear bomb, or a friendly admin. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Coach Station or coach station?
I don't pretend to know enough about this really to go and start making reverts and changes, but an editor is changing many many bus and coach stations to lower case titles. The biggest coach station I know is Victoria in London - this though, has managed to remain Victoria Coach Station.
As this is the name of the station, capital C and S for Coach Station seems justified in the title.
Newcastle coach station, Bristol bus station, Birmingham coach station to name a few, have all been changed recently. A quick search of google would suggest that most sources, newspapers included, use capital letters to denote coach stations. National Express website also uses capitals for their coach stations, ie. "Bristol Bus Station".
Any thoughts? Willdow (Talk) 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't an admin issue. Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport, or Wikipedia:WikiProject England would be appropriate venues (one, not all). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Other ideas may be the talk page of Wikipedia:Naming conventions or one of the subpages thereof. --Jayron32 17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll try there in relation to the naming of the pages - was slightly hinting also at whether it's a tad controversial moving all these pages without any mention or discussion on the articles talk pages - I know that in cases of train stations, ie. Talk:Birmingham New Street railway station, where "railway" has been added against consensus, and Station changed to station, it has kicked up a bit of a storm... "If it ain't broke don't fix it" or "fixing something for the sake of fixing it" comes to mind. Willdow (Talk) 17:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Other ideas may be the talk page of Wikipedia:Naming conventions or one of the subpages thereof. --Jayron32 17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Botched page move
Found via new user edits. Sabre1936 (talk · contribs) during a series of page moves has moved talk page Talk:Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes to main space page Congregation of Sisters of Saint Agnes and needs an Administrators intervention to preserve the page histories during correction. Recommend checking the user contributions to see what has actually gone where.--blue520 17:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Done As the user cannot actually move over existing articles, it was only a matter of fixing the cross namespace redirects. I'll leave to others the evaluation on whether this was intentional disruption. MLauba (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Levineps in violation of his editing restrictions
Immediately following his request above to have the restrictions removed because he had complied with them, Levineps just removed a huge chunk of the warnings and complaints from his talk page that had led to those editing restrictions being imposed here.[95],[96],[97]. This is in clear violation of one of his restrictions, which state that he must "[n]ot remove warnings or notices from his talk page or anywhere else they are posted." postdlf (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- ok my bad I will revert these. I thought I could what I wanted with my talk page, I guess not.--Levineps (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I can't see that as a reasonable misunderstanding on your part, in light of the clear language of the restrictions, and the particular history of your talk page notice and complaint blanking that caused that restriction to be imposed. I'll leave it to others here to determine if this violation warrants a block; under the terms of your restrictions, it does. But at a minimum, what you've characterized as your failure to comprehend very clear and simple restrictions will obviously impact if they will ever be rescinded. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Given that this is the restriction as noted on his user page:
- Warnings
- Levineps must:
- * Not remove warnings or notices from his talk page or anywhere else they are posted
- I fail to see how this is a simple mistake. The wording is rather clear and concise. Personally it is too early to lift the editing restrictions. March 1 is simply too soon, especially after this mistake. I'd say he should not be allowed to reapply for 1 year starting today. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I reverted it right away, apologized for it. I think this should be one of those "live and let live." I meant no harm in the process of doing this.--Levineps (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- After it was reported here right? The point is that the notice of your restrictions is rather clear and you ignored it. Since you are trying to have the restrictions lifted one would expect that you would be bending over backwards to make sure all edits are in compliance with the restrictions. You did not do that which is not good. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Judging from this comment of his on my talk page, he apparently didn't consider it the "main restriction." postdlf (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I never said it wasn't important, I believe that the reason I got into trouble was mainly the categories. It's an opinion, I really feel like my words have been twisted (which will happen no matter what I say). I've taken responsibility for this incident. I don't think I exactly committed the cardinal sin.--Levineps (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Judging from this comment of his on my talk page, he apparently didn't consider it the "main restriction." postdlf (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- After it was reported here right? The point is that the notice of your restrictions is rather clear and you ignored it. Since you are trying to have the restrictions lifted one would expect that you would be bending over backwards to make sure all edits are in compliance with the restrictions. You did not do that which is not good. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- The terms of the restrictions are very clear, and this is a straightforward violation of them which undermines any claim for lifting the restrictions soon.
- It may be relevant that these removals followed this discussion with Levineps on my talk page, in which he was trying to persuade me to support lifting his restrictions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- You asked me not to write on your page, please stay out of my affairs. You can't have it both ways.--Levineps (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The issues can be discussed here in a centralised place. Your lobbying campaign of individual editors is unnecessary, and undermines the principle of centralising discussions so that other editors do not have to follow multiple pages to track discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Levineps latest trick is revert-warring on my talk page. Not very impressive conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- One revert doesn't exactly a reverting war, but good try on that one. But I would like to ask, why can't I write on your talk page?--Levineps (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- As you well know, it was not one revert, it was two: [98], and [99] restoring in part a comment removed earlier. The reason I don't want you posting on my talk page is that a) if you want your restrictions lifted, discuss it at a central location (here); b) The discussion on my talk page was a waste of time, because despite your belated claims to have learnt something, you still think that the edit-warring which led to your ban was because you were "provoked". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Geez, I made one comment on that. I feel as if your prosecuting me. Fair enough with the one centralized spot. I might not agree with it, but I am willing to do it. I think you overstate some of the things I say. You always find one little thing I say and use it against me instead of focusing on my entire message. Really let's move beyond this, I think both of us have better things to do--Levineps (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Levineps, I put in a lot of effort a month trying politely to engage you in dialogue, and got no response. When things eventually got to the point widespread by disruption by you, you repeatedly accused me of vandalism ... so at this point, you have ling since exhausted my good faith. If you really have turned over a new leaf, then take some time to show that that you can keep it up, and stop complaining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Geez, I made one comment on that. I feel as if your prosecuting me. Fair enough with the one centralized spot. I might not agree with it, but I am willing to do it. I think you overstate some of the things I say. You always find one little thing I say and use it against me instead of focusing on my entire message. Really let's move beyond this, I think both of us have better things to do--Levineps (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- As you well know, it was not one revert, it was two: [98], and [99] restoring in part a comment removed earlier. The reason I don't want you posting on my talk page is that a) if you want your restrictions lifted, discuss it at a central location (here); b) The discussion on my talk page was a waste of time, because despite your belated claims to have learnt something, you still think that the edit-warring which led to your ban was because you were "provoked". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- One revert doesn't exactly a reverting war, but good try on that one. But I would like to ask, why can't I write on your talk page?--Levineps (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Levineps latest trick is revert-warring on my talk page. Not very impressive conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- The issues can be discussed here in a centralised place. Your lobbying campaign of individual editors is unnecessary, and undermines the principle of centralising discussions so that other editors do not have to follow multiple pages to track discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- You asked me not to write on your page, please stay out of my affairs. You can't have it both ways.--Levineps (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I reverted it right away, apologized for it. I think this should be one of those "live and let live." I meant no harm in the process of doing this.--Levineps (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The transgression has been self-reversed, and therefore I don't see the merit in blocking in this instance. However the administrative response to any future transgressions would probably take into account this incident. I think Levineps would be advised to be very careful about adhering to the terms of his restrictions, and seek advice in advance if he needs clarification. Rockpocket 01:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Minor corporate whitewashing at Carhartt#Popularity_with_drug_dealers
Over at Carhartt, there's a Carhartt#Popularity_with_drug_dealers section, cited to the New York Times. That's been removed at least twice by accounts with few other editing interests. Today, it was removed by 70.227.70.3 (talk · contribs) in this edit.
A traceroute returns "70-227-70-3.carhartt.com". Geolocation returns (42.3165 -83.205), in Dearborn, MI, approximately 1000m south of Carhartt corporate headquarters. [100]
Please watch.
(Amusingly, a Google News search for Carhartt returns recent articles, each about a different crime, like "The second suspect was described as 5-foot-8, 170 pounds, in his late teens, wearing a black Carhartt coat, black ski mask and dirty white gloves", "the suspect was also wearing a brown Carhartt workman jacket", and "Witnesses described him as a light skinned black man, 5 feet 5 inches to 5 feet 7 inches tall, about 140 pounds, and wearing a brown Carhartt style jacket". Those are all in the top 10 on Google News. That really is their demographic.) --John Nagle (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have explained to the IP, i.e. Carhartt employee, that they shouldn't edit that article, but should make their case on the talkpage, instead. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Uninvolved eyes needed at the Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov article
A few days ago I created the article Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov, a professor and holder of a chair at Moscow State University. Two days after creation the article was discovered by the admin User:Malik Shabazz who took an interest in the article, added a speedy deletion tag and several other tags. What makes me wonder here is that previously I have interacted with User:Malik Shabazz in a less than enjoyable way during discussion on the Richard Tylman article. There he strongly defended the current state and the existent of the Richard Tylman article, whereas I was on the other side of the conflict, arguing that the Tylman article was dubiously sources and does not satisfy the notability criteria. Malik also strongly defended User:Poeticbent who created the article and is the subject of the article. What made this worse than normal interaction on Wikipedia where several false accussations and borderline attacks on me, including the accusation that I deleted a suggestion for an RF/C (which I did not - I removed personal attacks that explicitly stated that there is no need for an RF/C), and then accussed me of WP:GAME by reading my mind (in response to my suggestion that this article needs to be taken to an AfD after the closure of the EEML arbcom case closed).
It was this interaction that makes me wonder why Malik discovered this article created by me (two days after creation - I could understand if it would show up in the recently created list, but two days later seems rather unlikely), and then went on to decorate it with a plethora of cleanup and speedy delete tags. There is additional evidence available that could sheed lead on this coincidence, but I am unable to post this evidence here due to the confidential nature. I can email it to an interested and uninvolved admin. Pantherskin (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I never knew it was a Wikicrime to nominate a poorly sourced, peacock-laden biography for speedy deletion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- May I suggest AFD the article, as that will stop the dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, but stalking and harassment is. Can you explain how you found this article, despite it being obscure, two days old, in a topic area you normally do not edit? The excessive tagging almost looks like a retaliation for me adding a notability and a secondary sources needed tag to the Richard Tylman article. And as I said there is additional evidence available, that I can send to an uninvolved and interested administrator. Pantherskin (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Your personal squabble aside I did look at the article, run a Search Engine Test and review the meager results and post my thoughts on the talk page of the article. Nefariousski (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. I came to the same conclusion earlier today. There may be some Russian-language sources that help establish notability under WP:ACADEMIC, but if I doubt it. I would expect Borisov's own CV to include his highest honors. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be somewhat surprised if the AfD didn't end in a keep. Certainly speedying an article under A7, no indication of notability, that asserts the subject to be a professor at Moscow State Univ. is so questionable an action as to invite scrutiny about the possible motivation. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but professors—even department chairs—are a dime a dozen. They are routinely speedied under A7. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll keep that in mind in the future. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
You still did not answer how you found this obscure article that you then excessively tagged and nominated for all kinds of deletion. Given our past interaction which showed some extent of hostility towards me I am not convinced that this is a coincidence. Pantherskin (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know what this is about?
Some weird edits on arbitration related pages, eg [101] and this and contributions by user:Excellentedits. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have blocked this account for harassment. (Referring to Excellentedits, not Dougweller!) I find as a fact that the edits are not, in fact, excellent, or even acceptable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I should have asked Antandrus first, he's explained it elsewhere. This is resolved. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Previous report, which fizzled out with no action, here.
A.montenegro (talk · contribs) has been appearing every month or so to whitewash/textdump quotes on an article about photographer Edgar Martins. His additions fail NPOV, and attempts to explain this to him on the article talk page, his talk page and various edit summaries have not gotten through to him. The user does not engage in discussion in any form, and simply continues to revert the article to his preferred, non-neutral version: his first go was partially reverted and partially integrated, again, again, again, again. It looked like he might at least be trying with this shorter addition, but alas, he continues to whitewash and textdump with no response to messages. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have indef'ed the account, on the basis that their insertion of the same content against consensus and with no apparent desire to discuss the matter is disruptive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I just went back to the article talk and found a tl;dr dump by the user from around the time I added this report here (oddly, its addition didn't then and continues to not show up on my watchlist, so I guess it's lucky I happened to go back to view the page later on?) stating that they have filed "official complaints" with Wikipedia about their/the article's treatment [102]. Not sure if this makes any difference in anything, but it seemed like a good idea to add it to this report. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Legal threat
I have no experience whatsoever in this area; can uninvolved admins please have a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Mark Weisbrot and advise me if there's a problem there, and if so, how it is handled? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, saying that an article is libelous is not a legal threat, no more than saying that an article is a copyright violation. Very many of
yourour (fixed, sorry) articles are libelous, copyright violations or otherwise violating applicable US law at any given time, unfortunately. It would be a legal threat if the editor said "It's libelous and I am going to sue you for it!" or words to that effect. Sandstein 21:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Um, did you read the discussion? He was not saying the article was libelous; he was saying that my diff-backed statements about his edits "verged on libel". We're talking about him, not the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- "Be aware of waht the law says" "OMFG you threatened me!" is the caricature version of how I read that conversation. Made into a ludicrous paraphrasing of how it ran, can you see the difference now? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, I don't actually find your response clarifies at all. It appears that you also think he was talking about the article, rather than my diffs about his editing of the article, which are characterized as "verging on libel" of him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I tried. I often find using an extreme example a useful way of demonstrating a point, but I rarely try and make it work in the written form, so translating to text will be an issue. (edit conflict: it doesn't matter what he was referring to, the substance still stands, which is why I didn't mention that in my response) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just using the word "libel" isn't really a legal threat, though I think it strays into WP:NPLT territory, as it could be construed as an attempt to scare the other editor. The word "libel" is a red flag for a lot of people, and is best avoided here. I've left a note for Rd232 in case he cares to comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's important for editors to be able to point that out. Perhaps "I have no intentions of action myself, but be careful because..." would be better, however. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The implied corner of the policy (as opposed to the clearcut threat) is one I am not familiar with, that I will openly admit. Surely, there must be a way of nicely saying 'be careful' without chilling? Otherwise, you leave someone to get into real trouble. We don't know that user's intent, but I certainly think dropping such a mention should be doable in some way. Has there ever been a discussion on how? Might be something for the village pump if not. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- There isn't much at the harassment policy; accordingly, read it for myself :P. It isn't perfect, but I'll accept it will do. I still believe my proposed wording works under that, though. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
(after 3 ecs) I am reminded of why I don't enjoy coming to AN/I, but where else does one go with possible threats? Sandstein has completely misread the statement at BLPN, where Rd232 was saying that my characterization of his sourcing on the State Dept issue verged on libel. Can I at least get a response I can understand to the real issue? I haven't deciphered Sandman's response, and Sandstein missed it. Thanks, Verbal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Er, I'll re-read it, but since this is not a request for admin intervention, and so as not to duplicate the discussion, may I suggest somebody close this thread? Sandstein 21:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- No! Can you please not complicate the BLPN thread with the legal threat issue? The tendentious editing and reverting and edit warring issues there are relevant; why should that thread be complicated by a threat? Doesn't that belong here? Also, if this is not the correct place for intervention of possible legal threats, could someone please tell me where that would be? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- If it's unclear, let's clarify here before closing. First, I understand Rd232 was talking about something you said about him, not talking about the article. Second, saying "I think that was libelous" is not a legal threat. He is not threatening to sue you. However, it can be a perceived legal threat, as described at Wikipedia:Harassment#Perceived legal threats. As it states there, repeated use of such language could lead to a block, but one-off's like this are, instead, met with requests to clarify the intent. Rd232 has done so, on his talk page. As long as it doesn't become a habit, it seems to have been resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- All right, I think I'm clear now; thanks :) Was this the right place to raise the query? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO, yes, if you weren't satisfied with his response to you on his talk page. Until we create the Legal threats noticeboard, anyway (please, God, let that be a redlink when I hit save...). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yes, as it says in WP:NLT: "Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator." Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 22:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thanks again everyone, good to close this thread whenever you want. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- All right, I think I'm clear now; thanks :) Was this the right place to raise the query? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- If it's unclear, let's clarify here before closing. First, I understand Rd232 was talking about something you said about him, not talking about the article. Second, saying "I think that was libelous" is not a legal threat. He is not threatening to sue you. However, it can be a perceived legal threat, as described at Wikipedia:Harassment#Perceived legal threats. As it states there, repeated use of such language could lead to a block, but one-off's like this are, instead, met with requests to clarify the intent. Rd232 has done so, on his talk page. As long as it doesn't become a habit, it seems to have been resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Per WP:NPLT, "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats" - key word being reasonably. To quote my original comment in full:
It's pointless to pick out all the inaccuracies in that comment (an obvious one: I said "mostly written about Venezuela's economic policies" just up the page - how does that translate to "confined to"?), though the misrepresentation of the State Dept sourcing issue alluded to verges on libel. Anyhoo, for some reason there is an upswing in interest in Venezuela articles, and I certainly agree with Sandy more people being involved would be excellent.
Yes, I apologise for using the word libel; but in the context I do not think it overly reasonably to construe an actual threat. What's really not reasonable is to waste people's time with this at ANI after I'd clarified the lack of threat on both my user talk page and WP:BLPN. And to add insult to injury, Sandy at BLPN repeated the claim which prompted the remark, despite it not having any actual relevance to the BLPN thread in question. Frankly if I was looking at this as a third party, there'd be trout flying around. One for me, one for Sandy. Bon appetit. Rd232 talk 22:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The apology is appreciated (although I can't say I agree with some of your other statements :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Possible Admin Abuse
I was blocked by User:Materialscientist for 'abuse of editing privileges.' I politely contested my block on my user talk page, as I am allowed under the terms of the block, and the admin User:Beeblebrox not only extended my block, but he locked my talk page from editing. You can find out why I think my first block was unjustified on my talk page. I can see absolutely not justification for the extension of my block. My IP address is dynamic so luckily I can post again (I hope this isn't in violation of the rules). Anyway, my issue is with User:Beeblebrox and not User:Materialscientist, even though I found his original block to be unjustified. Thanks for any help! 209.235.156.28 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, this is my user talk page! User talk:209.235.156.67. 209.235.156.28 (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have notified both users of this discussion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Time to close this. Not worth even worrying about. Funny, though. WP:PLAXICO, anybody? Avoiding a block will get you blocked for a longer period of time. Woogee (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- This user is only here to disrupt, and has been removing whois templates from numerous talkpages and stalking another editor who adds them. No evidence of any intent to actually work on, you know, Wikipedia itself, just a "protestor." Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hahaha "Plaxico'd" I'm definitely going to start using that. Nefariousski (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like 209.235.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) has been used exclusively for this sort of nonsense, recently; rangeblocked for a month. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
A possible editor for hire?
- Aldenmedia (talk · contribs). According to their Twitter page, Alden Media is a small web media company specializing in clean, simple web design with websites, social media profiles, and more. According to their website, Along with creating websites, we work with clients to integrate tools such as Twitter, Facebook, and Linked In, etc., into the website that is created, and create a more interactive experience for the people visiting the website. A possible editor for hire? Woogee (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't be the first. raseaCtalk to me 00:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- -
- Given that their first contribution is to create Down in the Valley (Retail Chain) which I personally would have tagged for deletion as advertising, perhaps so. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia tolerates lots of paid editors. Why should Aldenmedia be treated differently just because it's honest about it? I'm against paid editing in general but... I prefer honesty and sunlight, at least. If I have to deal with paid editors, better paid editors who are honest and straight forward rather than dealing with game playing and lots of whining about "outing" and "harrassment."Bali ultimate (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm actually thinking it's a one man company - and if it designed this [103] its a ----- web designer to boot.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Removed BLP violation. -- 32.174.160.76 (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mind! I was referring to the company. It is by no means a BLP violation to offer the opinion that if the company designed that page it's not a very good design company - or not very good at HTML, which comes to the same thing in web design. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Removed BLP violation. -- 32.174.160.76 (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm actually thinking it's a one man company - and if it designed this [103] its a ----- web designer to boot.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Is that relevant? If he had an awesome webpage would you allow the paid editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.174.71.124 (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- IP editor - are you Aldenmedia? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- The IP sources to Florida, Alden Media is in Maine. Woogee (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Might be wintering-over in Florida. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- The IP sources to Florida, Alden Media is in Maine. Woogee (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ok,Ok let's all just calm down and not make this a bigger deal than it has to be. I've blocked the account because regardless of whether they were being paid, their name represents an organization. So, let's just call it good and leave the accusations out of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Recreation of deleted article after block for same
User:Armynews has created Michael corleone hill and variants thereof over and over again, (see his talk page), despite repeated warnings leading up to a block this past January 1. Today he's back at it with Michael hill (army officer). Glenfarclas (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)