Hans Adler (talk | contribs) →Mickmacnee unblocking: um, what? |
TerraCognita (talk | contribs) →Loose ends: Which "truly libelous creations" you refer to? Where are semi-coherent anti-American rants? Is there anything anti-American in TigreTiger's or Tiraios-of-Characene's words? |
||
Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
The [[User:Tiraios-of-Characene]] sock has just been blocked, I've rolled back and deleted a bunch of his stuff, but the damage is massive, dating back months. Anyone with Twinkle want to take a whack at this? BTW, s/he was online while I was working, reverting my message on the talk page as "vandalism." Apparently, this person is simply not getting the message. --[[User:PMDrive1061|PMDrive1061]] ([[User talk:PMDrive1061|talk]]) 15:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
The [[User:Tiraios-of-Characene]] sock has just been blocked, I've rolled back and deleted a bunch of his stuff, but the damage is massive, dating back months. Anyone with Twinkle want to take a whack at this? BTW, s/he was online while I was working, reverting my message on the talk page as "vandalism." Apparently, this person is simply not getting the message. --[[User:PMDrive1061|PMDrive1061]] ([[User talk:PMDrive1061|talk]]) 15:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Maybe this is a bit early, but I think a community ban may eventually be in order. I can only speak for myself as a New Page Patroller, but it severely disrupts NPP when people do what he's been doing; I almost missed a couple of truly libelous creations from sifting through the shitload of pages he created. I've about had it, and going off on vitriolic, semi-coherent anti-American rants pushed me over the edge. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 16:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
:Maybe this is a bit early, but I think a community ban may eventually be in order. I can only speak for myself as a New Page Patroller, but it severely disrupts NPP when people do what he's been doing; I almost missed a couple of truly libelous creations from sifting through the shitload of pages he created. I've about had it, and going off on vitriolic, semi-coherent anti-American rants pushed me over the edge. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 16:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
::Which "truly libelous creations" you refer to? Where are semi-coherent anti-American rants? Is there anything anti-American in TigreTiger's or Tiraios-of-Characene's words? [[User:TerraCognita|TerraCognita]] ([[User talk:TerraCognita|talk]]) 20:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Continued tendentious editing by [[User:Communicat]] despite warnings and blocks == |
== Continued tendentious editing by [[User:Communicat]] despite warnings and blocks == |
Revision as of 20:13, 2 November 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) |
|
British Isles disputants
Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE/October 2010 to centralize discussion and to save space on the ANI page.Please do not timestamp until this reaches the top of the page. –MuZemike
Problem on BLP noticeboard
Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Problem on BLP noticeboard to centralize discussion and to save space on the ANI page.Please do not add a timestamp until this reaches the top of this page. –MuZemike
User:TigreTiger blocked as a sockpuppet
I seem to recall this sort of strange, idiosyncratic and rapid-fire redirecting from the puppetmaster some time ago. I blocked him for edit warring, he cut loose with this bizarre, anti-American rant and I lowered the boom on him. Would someone with Twinkle please revert this user's edits and redirects? Back to my wikibreak, or so I dearly hope. Thanks, all. PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- He performed a shitload of page moves, too. I undid one, but because he edited the pages afterwards, the easy revert links aren't showing up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- What a mess! We now have, for examples, Rimachi Lake and Rimachi Lake (2) which used to be Lago Rimachi and Lake Rimachi. Clearly that wasn't improvement upon what was there before. Uncle G (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- They are the same man! Please merge! TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've been going through using a "rollback all" script. I'm doing anout 30 at a time so FireFox doesn't crash. Access Denied (400: Bad Request) 15:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Take care with that, see below.
- Thank you; he was creating massive amounts of one-sentence, unreferenced stubs on Portuguese towns a few days ago, and I had to break out an atlas to verify these places even existed. Although mass-creation of these isn't in and of itself a problem, doing it with no references was very disruptive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- At User:TigreTiger you didn't call em "very disruptive", not even "disruptive". And on that talk page, some users pointed out that it is fine to have stubs on towns. TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, at the time I thought you were actually a new user, and I was trying to be encouraging; however, you're almost certainly not, in which case you should know better. It's disruptive when you create a shitload of unreferenced, one sentence sub-stubs, and it's almost worse when you do that on subjects that are inherently notable, because they're harder to delete and we have to be sure they aren't hoaxes. I had to get out an atlas and verify the existence of every single one of those towns, because there were no references for any of them. Fortunately for you I love geography, and I have the patience to do that; most people would have gotten extremely frustrated very quickly. But because I thought you were a new user, I cut you some slack; understand the attitude shift? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Are you judging based on contribution or on whether OTHER people tell you TigreTiger=Schwyz? If TigreTiger=Schwyz what does that make the contributions worse? Why don't you check List of towns of Portugal? You seem to not have a problem with that one. Sorry I don't understand the usefulness of the attitude shift to improve Wikipedia. TTtertiary (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, I'm judging based on the incredibly loud quacking I'm hearing, now that I compare TigreTiger's and Schwyz's contributions. If you don't understand why I say what I'm saying, I'd have to seriously question your competence level. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Are you judging based on contribution or on whether OTHER people tell you TigreTiger=Schwyz? If TigreTiger=Schwyz what does that make the contributions worse? Why don't you check List of towns of Portugal? You seem to not have a problem with that one. Sorry I don't understand the usefulness of the attitude shift to improve Wikipedia. TTtertiary (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, at the time I thought you were actually a new user, and I was trying to be encouraging; however, you're almost certainly not, in which case you should know better. It's disruptive when you create a shitload of unreferenced, one sentence sub-stubs, and it's almost worse when you do that on subjects that are inherently notable, because they're harder to delete and we have to be sure they aren't hoaxes. I had to get out an atlas and verify the existence of every single one of those towns, because there were no references for any of them. Fortunately for you I love geography, and I have the patience to do that; most people would have gotten extremely frustrated very quickly. But because I thought you were a new user, I cut you some slack; understand the attitude shift? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- At User:TigreTiger you didn't call em "very disruptive", not even "disruptive". And on that talk page, some users pointed out that it is fine to have stubs on towns. TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- In this case, should the master account Schwyz, be blocked? He claims to have left the project, but I see on his block log he was already blocked once, for sockpuppeteering, back in August. Seth Kellerman (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- The SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Schwyz reveals that he socked once during his block, but he's off his block for 2 months now, so I don't see how he can be blocked for "block evasion" at present. This looks like a technical mistake that needs to be corrected, as you indicate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- It does not. Only one person decided that User:TakakaCounty = User:Schwyz. But even if run by the same person, Schwyz was abandoned before. TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, he was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, but again, his main account's block expired a week later. Typically a sockmaster would be blocked indefinitely, regardless of his claim that he has "retired". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Where was the abuse BY User:Schwyz? TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Now blocked indef. He hadn't edited since 30 August, but Bugs is right that the sockmaster account should be blocked until the user addresses the socking issue. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- He did not edit since 13 August, see [[1]] - and he was never blocked during his active time. TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- The SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Schwyz reveals that he socked once during his block, but he's off his block for 2 months now, so I don't see how he can be blocked for "block evasion" at present. This looks like a technical mistake that needs to be corrected, as you indicate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Note from TTsecondary
It's RBI henceforth. Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I would like to inform you about the following: This is a secondary account of User:TigreTiger. I know creating this is against the rules, but I think you can understand from the following why I do it. Also: I cannot edit my talk page, despite the fact that the box there says a means for appeal would be to do that. NOTE: I WILL NOT USE THIS ACCOUNT (User:TTsecondary) FOR THINGS OTHER THAN TALKING ABOUT ACTIONS BY User:TigreTiger First: User:TigreTiger is not User:Schwyz! I don't know what people see to think otherwise. Since I don't know on what the claim is based, I cannot defend/bring arguments to show otherwise. Anyway, I reviewed some of the Schwyz stuff and found Schwyz got never blocked during the time he edited. So even if User:TigreTiger = User:Schwyz, there is not block evasion or so. Anyway, if Wikipedia Admins want to have blocked TigreTiger indefinitely, because of his last edit on his talk, then this is fine. I just want to tell you that running a revert script on all my edits can have bad side effects
I had no time yet to go into the merge process. Now the name standardization on what is common for lakes in South America and WP:UE was reverted. Now it will be harder for others to spot that they are the same. The "(2)" marker was not best but I used it as intermediary solution until I would have found out which one to merge into the other. See "What a mess! We now have, for examples, Rimachi Lake and Rimachi Lake (2) which used to be Lago Rimachi and Lake Rimachi. Clearly that wasn't improvement upon what was there before. Uncle G (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)" - He seems to have no clue that they are the same. There are people with good knowledge of geography and they are driven out of the project. Portugal geography is partly covered worse in en WP than in other WPs, apart from pt WP. There is little work only. Wikipedia will have a hard time to get experts editing in Wikipedia if they are badly administered by people that have no clue at all of the topic at hand AND are unfair.
User:JaGa educated me about the dab solver tool, This is a great tool. But it only works if the undabbed target is on the dab page. So to have things on the dab page is really important.
I did disambiguation work on country subdivisions in Portugal and was just starting with lakes and rivers in South America. Since I know the naming schemes I can improve links like to Cundinamarca as a drive by product. I am also able to communicate in Spanish and Portuguese and I have seen lots of geographic names, so spotting Gocha and converting to Cocha (Quechua for lake/water) is easy for me (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huangacocha_Lake&diff=next&oldid=393737459). If you revert that you will just make WP containing more bad stuff again. Just wanted to make you aware of possible problems, with running a revert script on all my edits. I think, technically even if you block me forever for my last edit on my talk page, then - technically - you would not need to revert all edits? Would you? Imagine I had edited for 10 years and then you see one "rant" - block me forever and revert all via a script? Also, can you please tell PMDrive1061 to respect 10min threshold on new articles, like on Tuma River? CSD A3 says so. At least the expanded version got deleted below 10min. And that is what he blocked me for in the first place - for adding the expanded version. He also did not even add a reference to Tuma River in his first post on my page about short articles. His actions should be reviewed. He is too hardcore-right-wing. He reminded me on the Apache shooters in Iraq. He has the power (admin can delete pages, and block users) and uses his power. Wikileaks leaked war crime. And PMD is criminal too. If it was edit warring what I did, as he claimed, then he was a involved party - and used his admin rights to further his position. This is an abuse of admin rights. NOTE(REPEAT): I WILL NOT USE THIS ACCOUNT (User:TTsecondary) FOR THINGS OTHER THAN TALKING ABOUT ACTIONS BY User:TigreTiger. TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Your new account has been blocked. Your message is here for everyone to read.
FWIW, here's the rant he left on his original page: You are lieing, I did create a stub. But as I said, I guess you are ill. I think lieing is ill. If you think lieing is ok, then block me. I also think that blocking other people with false claims of "edit warring" is ill. You showed that you are ill already when you deleted the stub the first time and when you wrote on my talk without any reference to the deleted page. Sorry for you. But also people with limited brain can have a nice life, seems your life is nice with blocking and deleting. Mister PMDrive1061. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Tuma River will survive without you!!!!!!!!!!!! VENCEREMOS. LOS YANKEES hahaha. USA is ill. YOU ARE GOOD EXAMPLE OF USA-ILLNESS. ONE DAY WIKILEAKS WILL NOT ONLY LEAK IRAQ CRIME, BUT ALSO WIKIPEDIA ADMIN ILLNESS. 07:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC) He then went and created another rant on this "secondary account." Jeez, it was a 24-hour edit war block; he reposted that sentence as quickly as it could be deleted. All he had to do was use that print reference of his to maybe tell where the headwaters and mouth are, what towns it passes through, economic importance, etc. He put more effort into screaming obscenities at me than he did in writing content. I patently refuse to let someone like this insult me and my country in this manner. PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did. You were blocked for (a) edit warring for only 24 hours at which time you began that "illness" rant, (b) gross incivility and (c) being a sockpuppet of a blocked user, both of which earned you the indef ban. Your anti-American rants have no place here; this is the only nation on earth where we have to patrol the borders to try and keep people from coming in! I am proud to be an American and I daresay that the majority of users on this site are just as proud given the fact this site is based here in the USA. You have put more effort in screaming and trolling than you did in anything in your edit history. You created a huge amount of unnecessary work for other users, you continue to scream "admin abuse" and to troll this discussion. Couple that with your less-than-perfect grasp of the language, let alone what this site is about, and it should come as little if any surprise that you've been blocked. PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
|
Just properly catching up on this after being on holiday for a bit. I was wondering whether, given the extra inconvenience in undoing moves, it was worth setting up an edit filter to catch users (ignoring say bots and admins) doing a lot of moves in a short space of time as there are relatively few circumstances where this would be appropriate behaviour. Obviously it would have to be set to log only but if we kept an eye on it we may be able to catch people being disruptive like this (or this user returning) before they disrupt too much. Dpmuk (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Funny you should mention that. Mr. Schwyz inspired me to create this tool, which does just that. Primitive, but does the job. --JaGatalk 11:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well that will do it instead, cheers. Really should get more involved in doing stuff like that myself. Dpmuk (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've talked to this user a few times. The user seems either very incompetent or is just putting that on to look like a newcomer. Has there been a checkuser investigation? Inka888ContribsTalk 01:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well that will do it instead, cheers. Really should get more involved in doing stuff like that myself. Dpmuk (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Using JaGa's tool I think I've found another one, although this one is much more suspect - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Schwyz. Dpmuk (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wow s/he has a whole sock drawer. Inka888ContribsTalk 01:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- The socks were Confirmed. Inka888ContribsTalk 04:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Loose ends
Why does the master still have autoreviewer access? Shouldn't all userrights be revoked from the socks?— Dædαlus Contribs 05:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- If the master is indeffed, does it make a difference? I genuinely don't know, just wondering. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The User:Tiraios-of-Characene sock has just been blocked, I've rolled back and deleted a bunch of his stuff, but the damage is massive, dating back months. Anyone with Twinkle want to take a whack at this? BTW, s/he was online while I was working, reverting my message on the talk page as "vandalism." Apparently, this person is simply not getting the message. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe this is a bit early, but I think a community ban may eventually be in order. I can only speak for myself as a New Page Patroller, but it severely disrupts NPP when people do what he's been doing; I almost missed a couple of truly libelous creations from sifting through the shitload of pages he created. I've about had it, and going off on vitriolic, semi-coherent anti-American rants pushed me over the edge. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Which "truly libelous creations" you refer to? Where are semi-coherent anti-American rants? Is there anything anti-American in TigreTiger's or Tiraios-of-Characene's words? TerraCognita (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Continued tendentious editing by User:Communicat despite warnings and blocks
Communicat (talk · contribs) has a long history of tendentious editing which is forming a significant barrier to progressing articles. Admin User:Georgewilliamherbert has previously looked into this in August and gave Communicat a stern warning on 25 August for 'fringe POV-pushing' (see also Talk:World War II/Archive 41#Communicat and fringe-POV pushing and the subsequent discussion) which was followed by two blocks for uncivil comments over the next few weeks. In short, Communicat has a tendency to want to add information which is not correct in articles (even when the sources they provide demonstrate this to be wrong) and is pushing a fringe source which has repeatedly been found to be unreliable and is edit warring when other editors try to remove the dubious material they add. I will provide two recent examples that demonstrate that this behavior is continuing:
- Communicat has been seeking for some time to include a claim in the World War II article that the United States was in charge of the civil administration of North Korea in the years after World War II, despite the country being occupied by the Soviet Union. This began with a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page on 9 September (see Talk:World War II#Arbitrary break onwards) in which there was no support for including such a claim in the article. Despite this on 17 September they added material to the article which strongly implied that the US was administering all of Korea and added some further questionable claims about how the division of the country took place (diff) which I reverted. This lead to further discussion of the topic on the article talk page in which the sources Communicat was providing to support their view were eventually demonstrated to say exactly the opposite (Eg, they stated that the USSR did in fact administer North Korea after the war) - see the posts from 1 October onwards (particularly the posts by Hohum and myself on 3 October) and other sources which demonstrate that the USSR was administering North Korea were provided. On 10 October Communicat edited the article again but did not include this claim about Korea (diff) - I reverted this again as there was no consensus to include the changes and it contained several other dubious claims (this reversion was supported by the other editors active on the article's talk page).
- Despite this, on 24 October Communicat added what was pretty much the text on Korea which had been rejected in the World War II article to the Aftermath of World War II article (diffs), again implying that the US was administering all of Korea (along with lots of other changes). This was reverted by User:Edward321 (diffs), leading to an edit war between him and Communicat. The end result is that Communicat is still trying to include statement about the post-war administration of Korea which had no support from other editors and was proven to not be supported by the sources he or she was providing. I note that Communicat has a history of turning existing articles into POV forks (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II.
- As the other example, Communicat has a long history of wanting to add dubious material sourced to someone named Stan Winer. Despite discussions at Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Industrial capacity and production, Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#WW2 origins of Cold War, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#User: Communicat and Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities (and in passing in several other locations) which concluded that this author is not a reliable source, Communicate is still adding material referenced to self published works by this author to the History of South Africa article (diff: [2] on 17 October) and edit warring to restore it after it was removed by Edward321 (diffs: [3] (20 October) and [4] (21 October). Once again, he or she is ignoring a consensus which has arisen from extensive discussions and repeatedly adding dubious material.
As such, it appears that Communicat has not learned from their previous warnings and blocks, and is continuing to push POV claims using sources which have either been found to be unreliable or to not support their position. Responding to this clearly disruptive editing is wasting a lot of other editors' time and I ask that they be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do not understand what this issue is doing on this "incidents" notice board. This is a content dispute.
- Responses to some points presented above:
- Quote: "forming a significant barrier to progressing articles". – The article Aftermath of World War II is or was unsourced crap. It was received absolutely no attention for many years. I have advised Communicat to work on that article instead of trying to tweak the limited space in the WW II article. I cannot see how Communicat's interest in the aftermath article could be a significant barrier to the article's progress!
- If Communicat's "text on Korea" had been rejected in the World War II, it was mainly because of the space constraints in the "aftermath" section of the WW II main article. There has been extensive discussion on the relative importance of topics on the talk page. There seems to be a consensus that the section needs to be pruned down, but no consensus on what is important.
- Stan Winer may not be a reliable source for WW II, but he is an respected South African journalist and a reliable source on the History of South Africa and apartheid.
- The issue of the "civil administration of North Korea" has been blown beyond all proportions. The sources seem to support Communicat's wording, but I do not know if the interpretations people are trying to make of this are correct.
- The last edit by Comminicat in the WW II article was on October 10 after extensive discussion and preparation on the talk page. This was blindly reverted by Nick-D two hours later. He made one edit in all of September with similar results. If any conclusions can be drawn from the edit history, it is more indicative of edit warring and stonewalling by Nick-D.
- It seems that the content issues are mingled with some kind personal antipathy against Communicat. These dissenting editors are now extending the dispute to new articles they have never before been involved with. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Communicat has a record of making edits that are not supported or even contradicted by the sources he cites.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Communicat's most recent attempt to argue against this was to dismiss the sources that contradicted him as the product of McCarthy Era censorship.[19] This is in spite of Communicat previously arguing that some of these sources were reliable [20][21] and ignores the actual publication dates of most of the sources.[22]
- Communicat's most recent edits to Aftermath of World War II involved him deleting a large section of sourced material as well as adding material that is not supported by the source he lists.[23] The source does not mention Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew [24] and does not say Churchill "virtually declared war" on the USSR in 1946.[25] Commincat's edits were also vague, so I clarified that Operation Dropshot was a contingency plan developed to counter of future attacks by the USSR if they occurred.[26] As the differences show, I clearly explained this in the edit summaries. Communicat blind reverted this and the rest of my edits.[27]
- Communicat has also been trying against consensus to introduce a self-published fringe source, Stan Winer, into several articles for an extended period of time [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] as well as repeatedly advocating Winer on several talk pages.[ [52] Communiucat is the only editor to think this source is reliable. That's not why I listed Communicat on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I listed Communicat because he posted a (now deleted) file claiming to be to be the copyright holder, Stan Winer. The picture has since been reposted without Communicat making that claim. (Information provided by Petri Krohn leaves me with strong doubts that Winer is the actual copyright holder for the picture.)[53]) Even after all of this, Communicat continues to try to use Winer as a source.[54][55]
- Communicat is often less than civil.[56] He has been blocked twice for lack of civility [57] and the statement that earned him his first block was left on his user page for 59 days[58], finally removing it 56 days after getting off the block he received for making the statement.[59] and three days after I reported it here.[60] Communicat has never apologized for his personal attacks.Edward321 (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly been making accusations that Communicat is falsificating sources. When you have been proven wrong, you have chosen new forums to make the same unfounded allegations.
- The "large section of sourced material" communicat removed from the aftermath article was left-over material from the WW II article I had moved there – right before I asked Communicat to work on the article. I see little harm done if it is removed from the lede section, especially if corresponding material is added to the relevant sections.
- The last reference by Stan Winer you have listed above was added on 1 September 2010, to the article History of South Africa. As I said earlier, Winer is a published authority on that topic.
- As to the copyright issue, I have expressed no doubt that Winer is the copyright owner of the picture of prime minister B. J. Vorster. The only place where it appears uncut, apart from Wikipedia, is this article by Winer.
- Overall, you seem to be arguing that Wikipedia should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view. Things look very different from the Southern hemisphere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have read and understood this thread. I refute all false allegations by Edward321 and Nick-D who appear to be working in tandem against me. I will not respond further in this forum to their allegations. These and other matters are currently the subject of an application to Arbcom, which application was formally lodged by me shortly before the apparent retaliatory posting of this incident notice. Communicat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
- I don't think the crux of this issue is a content dispute. It's about disruptive behaviour. Communicat endlessly argues even when blatantly proven wrong, in the face of overwheling disagreement, when he has little to no support. He throws insults about bias and conspiracy, even accusing uninvolved administrator Georgewilliamherbert of bias when he tried to help. He has repeatedly pushed for Winers inclusion on WWII articles, and still refers to him on WWII talk pages, in the face of unanimous rejection by editors who voiced opinions there. Diffs to support this appear in earler posts in this thread, so I won't duplicate.
- Communicat does, very occasionally, do something constructive, is suddenly polite, helpful, and engages in reasoned discussion. But it is sporadic and random. (Hohum @) 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I concur with Hohum on this. It's not about content. Sometimes, Communicat is pleasant and collegial, but mostly, he accuses everyone of belonging to a cabal that is out to get him. The simple truth of the matter is that Communicat typically is asserting a fringe position that no one else agrees is valid.
- Contrary to what you assert, Petri Kohn, Communicat has quoted from sources that contradict him. He often cherry-picks quotes from various authors when the full context or other parts of the works contradict him explicitly. Two such instances are discussed at [61] and [62]. --Habap (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Petri, I am one of about 6 editors who has provided evidence that Communicat has added information that was not supported by the sources Communicat cited. Neither you nor Communicat have proven any of us wrong, or you would be able to provide differences supporting your claim. Of course, you should know that if you read the links I posted, just like you should know Communicat's last attempt at using Winer as a source occurred nearly two months after the date you list. I have never argued "that Wikipedia should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view" and am frankly baffled that you have claimed that I have done so. I don't even know what "a Northern point-of-view" is in terms of WWII. Finnish perhaps? Edward321 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have read and understood this thread. I refute all false allegations by Edward321 and Nick-D who appear to be working in tandem against me. I will not respond further in this forum to their allegations. These and other matters are currently the subject of an application to Arbcom, which application was formally lodged by me shortly before the apparent retaliatory posting of this incident notice. Communicat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
The issues here are already discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Edward321. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- This Incident entry regards Communicat's behaviour, the Arb request is aimed at Edward321's, with no other involved party currently named by Communicat. (Hohum @) 17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can confirm that Arbcom has been requested to include Nick-D as an involved party. The relevant posting reads: Nick-D (like Edward321) has the peculiar and disruptive habit of reverting within minutes and without explanation material that I have laboriously contributed. He is apparently allergic to the courteous, customary and practical method of simply inserting a tag in submitted text, asking for correction, clarification, verification or whatever, with which I'd be perfectly willing to comply. Instead, he unilaterally deletes, undoes or reverts. I have repeatedly, consistently but unsuccessfuly attempted to engage Nick-D in thoughtful discussion, both on article talk page and on his user page. I repeat my request to have him joined as a third party in this application for arbitration, and I will then provide evidence of numerous previous attempts to resolve content disputes with him.
- Interested parties may care to note that Nick-D earlier refused consent to open and decisive mediation in respect of his own conduct, including partisan editing and gross POV bias. Communicat (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think that even a casual skim of Talk:World War II and its archives is enought to demstrate that I, and several other editors, have discussed Communicat's proposed changes with him or her in very great length over the last few months (including posting explanations when they're reverted). As noted in my original post, Communicat has generally ignored other editors' comments and keeps rehashing the same issues and repeating the same unacceptable behavior. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have suggested some specific next steps that come from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution [63] as one or all of them may aid in resolving the current problems. --Habap (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think that even a casual skim of Talk:World War II and its archives is enought to demstrate that I, and several other editors, have discussed Communicat's proposed changes with him or her in very great length over the last few months (including posting explanations when they're reverted). As noted in my original post, Communicat has generally ignored other editors' comments and keeps rehashing the same issues and repeating the same unacceptable behavior. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Habap, I have no intention of withdrawing or otherwise backing down from my application to Arbcom, which is still under consideration by the committee.
- Nick-D and interested parties, as regards Nick-D's recent posting above: no useful insight into the issues at stake can be gained by any "casual skim" of the current Talk:World War II "discussion" page or archived editions of the page as suggested by the filing party. Certain complex, important and perplexing matters were and still are at issue, and they also have a direct bearing on Nick-d's (and others') persistent violations of NPOV policy. Anyone sufficiently interested, and with the time and inclination to do so, should read the current and archived pages carefully, objectively and analytically, from top to bottom, before reaching any firm conclusions of their own. In particular, they should note my numerous, unsuccessful attempts to engage in constructive article content discussion with Nick-d, and his facetious replies or absence of replies thereto. It's all there in the record.
- Suffice it to say that a perceptive reading of the discussions will prove that I have engaged in sustained discussion and serious attempts at negotiation with Nick-d (and others), with the sole intention of trying to find a solution to content problems, in order to help improve the article. My efforts have conformed fully with the letter and spirit of wiki's stated dispute avoidance policy. In response to which, Nick-D is now falsely and self-righteously alleging "Tendentious editing despite warnings and blocks". As Petri Krohn has correctly observed above, there has been no tendentious editing on my part. I would suggest that the wording of this ANI notice lodged Nick-d is itself tendentious.
- Misleading reference is made by Nick-d to "warnings and blocks". I was blocked for 24 hours by an "uninvolved" intervening administrator for remarking that some particularly disruptive and bellicose discussants were behaving like animals. Later, I was blocked for 48 hours for remarking that a certain editor was "boring" because he kept reviving a certain dead-horse issue that had already been terminated. These blocks had nothing whatsoever to do with so-called tendentious editing. Indeed, Nick-D's own reasoning is tendentious, and his lodging of this notice is riddled with lies and distortions.
- As for Edward321's claim that he is "one of about 6 editors who has provided evidence that Communicat has added information that was not supported by the sources Communicat cited": this party appears to have a slight problem with numeracy. He is one of only three editors who attempted to provide that so-called evidence, which in any event was not "added" to the article as falsely implied. In fact, Edward321 has himself submitted to the discussion page certain disruptive information that is contradicted directly by the sources he provides. All this too can be found in the discussion page, see my posting of 23:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Enough said. Communicat (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Communicat is correct that he did not add the incorrect info to World War II. On the other hand, has repeatedly proposed changes on the World War II talk page that are not supported or even contradicted by his sources (noted by Users Hohum,[64][65][66][67][68] Nick-D, [69][70][71] Edward321, [72] and Habap.[73][74][75]
- Communicat has added posted information that is not supported or even contradicted by his sources to the article History of South Africa (Noted by Edward321)[76] Western Betrayal (noted by User 67.122.211.178)[77] and Aftermath of World War II (noted by Edward321)[78] Edward321 (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- These and other issues are currently the subject of an application by me for arbitration, to which the filing party of this ANI has now been included as a third party in tandem with Edward321. An evidence page will be opened if and when Arbcom accepts my application, which is still under consideration. I consider it inappropriate to comment further in this forum at this time, which does not mean I concur with the allegations made. Communicat (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- As for Edward321's claim that he is "one of about 6 editors who has provided evidence that Communicat has added information that was not supported by the sources Communicat cited": this party appears to have a slight problem with numeracy. He is one of only three editors who attempted to provide that so-called evidence, which in any event was not "added" to the article as falsely implied. In fact, Edward321 has himself submitted to the discussion page certain disruptive information that is contradicted directly by the sources he provides. All this too can be found in the discussion page, see my posting of 23:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Enough said. Communicat (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to note. The arbitration seems very likely to be rejected (currently 1/5/0/1), and shouldn't distract from this notice. (Hohum @) 20:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's clearly the way it's going. Even if that unexpectedly and dramaticly changes, it would be best to keep this going as several members of Arbcom have said if they take it they will be investigating the actions of all interested parties. Edward321 (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
This post was archived, but I've relisted it in the hope that an uninvolved admin will look into the matter. The RFArb is not at all likely to be accepted and Communicat's disruptive conduct there illustrates this ongoing problem rather well. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is not being ignored, but it's not an easy or quick fixable situation either. Pls be patient for a bit; active discussions on moving forward in the community (Arbcom seems to be solidifying that they want us to handle it) should be happening starting Monday, I think. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thanks George. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- The reason for Nick-D's filing of this notice, and the support given it by some commentators, may be summed up in just one sentence: They want to get rid of me so that they can continue allowing their personal political prejudices to get in the way of historical accuracy and objectivity, through practising a form of censorship by POV-bias and flagrant violations of NPOV.
- Arbcom, contrary to Nick-D's false innuendo above, has not noted any disruptive behaviour on my part. Nick-D remains a named party in my application to Arbcom, which is still under consideration. Communicat (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Arbcom was rejecting the consideration 5:1 last I looked last night, and several members responded positively to my suggestion that we can handle it within the community.
- I would like to request that all parties avoid further nastyness and retract any outstanding, such as your last above Communicat, that we can hold a constructive discussion on this starting now. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thanks George. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is not being ignored, but it's not an easy or quick fixable situation either. Pls be patient for a bit; active discussions on moving forward in the community (Arbcom seems to be solidifying that they want us to handle it) should be happening starting Monday, I think. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- No offence was intended. It was a statement of fact, and it can be proved by me if or when arbom condones the opening of an evidence page.
- As for community involvement: You know perfectly well that you yourself intervened some time ago, and absolutely nothing constructive came of it. If anything, you had the unintended effect of pouring petrol on the flames. Revived "community involvement" as mooted by you would IMO be pointless and irrevelant at this stage, because unless things change for the better in terms of POV bias and stricter adherence to NPOV policy, I want nothing further to do with that particular World War II overview article.
- In the meantime, I suggest basic etiquette and procedure prevail by not prejudging the outcome of Arbcom's pending decision. Thank you for your interest. Communicat (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- If Arbcom choses to take up the case they can do so. They have indicated that they want the community to handle it, though that's not final yet.
- You don't get to pick and chose among uninvolved administrators, if you create an issue that rises to our collective attention. If others want to get involved as well, that's fine and normal. But you've got my attention and are going to have to deal with and live with it.
- Your reaction here seems to be on the border of intentionally burning all bridges with the rest of the community rather than giving us a chance to discuss this in an organized fashion. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia as a whole is not just the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it's the encyclopedia we all edit together. Even if you walk away from those particular pages, issues have been raised that call into question your interest in working with others constructively. You have also raised issues of systematic bias that need to be reviewed, but whether you can work constructively with other Wikipedians on these or other topics in the future are obvious and evident parts of the discussion that is to follow.
- If you want to burn those bridges, you can walk away from the project entirely now at any time. You don't get to burn them and just change articles, because if there's a systematic behavioral problem on your side it's going to happen again at those new articles.
- I urge you to step back from the precipice and to cooperate in constructive discussions on this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- GWH Thanks for acknowledging that there may be issues of systematic bias at milhist project that need to be reviewed. We seem to be making some headway. But as for constructive discussion at milhist project, that may be another story. IMO, the people there seem never able to agree on anything among themselves, and that inability has been a longstanding characteristic of their talk page since longggg before I showed up there a few months ago.
- Consider for instance the protracted dispute about the start date of WW2. which dispute commenced a long time before the advent of my arrival. The dispute was eventually referred to mediation, where the argument then dragged on for so long that the mediator eventually walked away. The argument, unresolved at mediation, still surfaces from time to time. I’m not saying the same people are necessarily involved, but it’s certainly the the case that the same ethos prevails to this day.
- Separately, you have stated above and in messages to my talk page, that I must "retract" my "personal attacks" both here and in my Arbcom application. Forgive my confusion, but it's not clear which specific words you are demanding that I retract. I have made no "personal attacks" that I am aware of.
- Are you saying that I am not allowed to reply bluntly but accurately to serious allegations brought against me? Are you saying I have no right of reply, or to defend myself against such allegations? Are you saying that I am not allowed to state my grievances when applying for arbitration? If so, then what you are saying is unacceptable. Nor do I believe you have any authority to demand that I retract anything submitted to Arbcom.
- Speaking of retraction: I note that you yourself have not as yet retracted your incorrect and prejudicial assertion that I was previously the subject of ANI notices. I also note your reference to the possibility of "a systematic behavioral problem" on my part, while at the same time you’ve not suggested any possibility of "a systematic behavioral problem" on the side of the filing party and/or his active supporters.
- This indicates bias and prejudgment on your part since, as yet, there has been no firm ruling by Arbcom nor by any other impartial entity authorised to pass judgment in respect of the facts and matters currently at issue, nor are you entirely familiar with all the evidence relative to those facts and matters. This apparent lack of impartiality, together with your failure to retract an incorrect and prejudicial statement, does not make it easy for me to assume good faith on your part. But I'll try, anyway. Communicat (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- The above is a fairly typical response by Communicat: allegations of widespread "bias" on the part of just about everyone else, continued assertions that he or she is entirely right despite the comments of other editors and ignoring a blunt warning about their conduct. I think it illustrates rather neatly the problems here. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Block review
- 76.124.180.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have blocked this IP to prevent disruption. I believe that I may crossed over into content disputation, however, and would appreciate input. This IP has been adding what appears to be promotion of a neologism and a website/theory without any discussion across several holocaust/genocide related articles. I've not reverted any of their edits since their block in the event I have over-stepped. If I need to unblock, please let me know. Thanks Tiderolls 16:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Good block. Clear spamming. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you'd know... ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 16:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse block—textbook case of intentional disruption. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 16:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse block -FASTILY (TALK) 18:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse block – Good block. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse block Inka888ContribsTalk 03:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- IANAA, but endorse block. Appears to be well-reasoned and properly-timed. Saebvn (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNee - talk protected.
MickMacNee (talk · contribs) was blocked per an earlier ANI thread. Some people were trying to negotiate an unblock on terms, but Mick wasn't cooperating. On seeing this edit summary, I concluded that the talking was futile and protected his page. It was immediately unprotected without discussion.
I think we are at the point where talking is obviously futile and this user should be considered community banned.--Scott Mac 22:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I note that PeterSymonds had already reblocked with talkpage disabled, that's probably a better way anyway.--Scott Mac 22:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Of note that has now been reverted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
So, two admin action have been reverted by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with no discussion whatsoever? This is very poor. I'm still waiting explanations.--Scott Mac 22:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- The answer is, of course, "Fish". HalfShadow 22:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) (Disclaimer: I'm the admin who made the initial block; that discussion is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE/October 2010#MickMacNee.) The full protection was not a bad idea, since it also prevented others from edit-warring about the addition of unnecessary commentary (but that seems no longer a current problem). As with any potentially controversial reversal of an admin action, of course, HJ Mitchell should not have undone the protection without speaking to Scott MacDonald first. The same applies to changing the block parameters to restore talk page access, which HJ Mitchell has now also done apparently without talking to Peter Symonds, the admin who removed talk page access. Unless a good explanation is forthcoming, this reversal of two equivalent actions by two other admins has the flavor of a wheel war, and may need arbitral action to address.
- I agree that MickMacNee seems to have no interest in discussing the reason for his block or conditions for a return to editing, and that therefore, in view of the aforementioned discussion, he is subject to a de facto community ban. I suggest that we leave it to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee, which he apparently intends to seize of the matter, to take any further action that may be required with respect to this ban or block. Sandstein 22:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Generally agree with Sandstein here - reversing the actions of two different admins without discussion is really not a good way to go about this, though I can see HJM's reasoning. I appreciate that there's a chance Mick may get back to editing with some appropriate restrictions, but it's also clear that he's in no mood to deal with it at the moment, and that the community's in no mood to listen. Protecting the talk page and encouraging him to go via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee is probably the best way of this situation moving forward without further anger from Mick and trolling from others. ~ mazca talk 22:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there consensus to relock Mickmacnee's talkpage and refer him to the arbcom ban committee for any appeal?--Scott Mac 23:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Seems the best way forward to me. The discussion actually seemed to be deteriorating the situation. Courcelles 23:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I object. Removing talkpage access is a serious step that is not warranted here. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Mick's talkpage should be unlocked, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I dislike McNee as much as he dislikes me, but I don't like to see anyone locked out of their talk page as it only serves to further bad will, If people don't want to see what he writes take it off their watchlist. If Arbcom ban him for ever and flog him off the site, then that's another matter, but so far that has not hapened. So leave the talk page unlocked..please. Giacomo 23:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Lock it and get this sorted out ASAP. This whole episode is doing nothing by harm to the whole project. Either get Mick to agree to some very clearly defined restriction and if that can't happen throw away the keys. Bjmullan (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is a section on his talk page for Mick to suggest any editing restrictions for himself. Ask him if he is going suggest any for himself then take it from there. To be honest, if he refuses to take part in that then he's doing himself no favours and a talk page lock would then be appropriate. Jack forbes (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's been done. He told us to go fuck ourselves.--Scott Mac 23:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- C'mon he was being pretty baited. I doubt he meant it to you personally. Giacomo 23:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Really? Well, my opinion has just changed. If his reply to a request is go fuck yourself then locking the talk page might not be a bad idea. Jack forbes (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- PS; Do you have a diff for that Scott? Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- several--Scott Mac 23:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is the pertinent one I believe[79]. That diff also as a comment about seeing admins "in hell" or before an ArbCom appeal-Cailil talk 01:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- several--Scott Mac 23:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Leave his talk page unlocked. That edit summary was pretty brutal, but no less than BilCat's utterly boneheaded comment that caused it - and I don't buy for one second that he was not attempting to bait Mick. I've no opinion on his block, but if the people entering his talk page to discuss the larger issue do so with the intent of resolving the situation rather than inflame it, there is no need for a lock. Resolute 23:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- So what? Is he not in control of his actions? He didn't have to respond to the bait. If someone is baiting, take that up as a separate issue, but if Mickmacnee isn't in control of his actions and has caused this much drama already, throw away the key.--Crossmr (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since Bwilkins added the suggestion that Mick discusses what restriction might be put in place here Mick has edited eight times at his talk page without once adding any suggestions of what restrictions might be place on him. The guy doesn't want to participate in any real discussion about how his behaviour can be changed in order to allow him to continuing editing here. Bjmullan (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- He didn't respond to it the first time. It was only after BilCat posted it a second time that he responded. If you want to add a civility parole on any unblock request, fine. But locking Mick's talk page did not appear necessary until someone seeking to inflame the situation came along. Given BilCat has agreed not to return, locking Mick's talk page could only be seen as punitive at this point. Resolute 00:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I support leaving Mick's page open to him in this case because he was indeed pretty badly baited, but if he does it again, I support cutting it off again immediately. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- So what? Is he not in control of his actions? He didn't have to respond to the bait. If someone is baiting, take that up as a separate issue, but if Mickmacnee isn't in control of his actions and has caused this much drama already, throw away the key.--Crossmr (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- It has been nearly four hours since I tried to discuss BilCat's block with the blocking admin. On the admin's talk page, an admin (Sandstein) and an editor also suggested unblocking. Two other editors, who I believe are admins, supported either an unblock (MilborneOne) or a reduction (Courcelles) on BillCat's talk page. BilCat agreed to avoid Mick's userspace pages, though it seems reasonable to exclude "obligatory" notices (ANI, AfD). Since the blocking admin appears to be offline, is there any reason not to unblock BilCat under this agreement? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- It has now been over 12 hours since I tried to discuss with the admin who blocked BilCat, and still no reply. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Traditionally we give a large amount of lee-way to blocked editors, who tend to be understandably aggrieved that they're blocked. In this case there's also been a fair amount of baiting. My view is that—at this point—Mick should be free to edit his talkpage. If other editors persist in baiting Mick we should firstly consider full-protection. If Mick persists in using posts or edit summaries to breach WP:CIVIL we should consider revoking talkpage access. I'm aware, obviously, that both these things have already occurred; however, they occurred hot on the heels of Mick's block. Good faith editors were trying to de-escalate the situation, and I'd like to see that continue now that—hopefully—the attraction of wading into to a heated situation with unhelpful comments has diminished, and the attraction of mouthing off about blocking admins and baity editors has diminished. As regards BilCat's block: good block, but at this point it's punitive, not preventative - BilCat's indicated that they've learned from their mistake and won't repeat it. Further baiting—by any editor—should be dealt with primarily by full-protection, not blocks (obviously I've no objection to blocks used in conjunction with full-protection, where appropriate). TFOWR 09:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- If editors bait blocked editors, then we should act against the baiter, not the target. I support Mick having access to his talk page. Although he hasn't suggested any restrictions he may be willing to observe yet, he may do so later. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- No argument from me, and that's exactly what happened here (hence BilCat being blocked right now). If the problem persists, however, Mick's talkpage may need to be protected. We shouldn't protect Mick's talkpage against one editor - obviously a block is the better option. Protection becomes the better option when multiple baiters are involved. TFOWR 09:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
-
- Pages ending in .js behave that way. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've never had contact with this editor before. If you would like I would be willing to politely ask him if he has any suggestions to help himself get unblocked. I also think his page should be left open, at least for now, for this editor to be able to communicate with everyone. Anymore baiting, I suggests like what has be said, that the baiter be blocked. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
-
- If editors bait blocked editors, then we should act against the baiter, not the target. I support Mick having access to his talk page. Although he hasn't suggested any restrictions he may be willing to observe yet, he may do so later. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd support an unblock of BilCat when he accepts that his actions to bait both HJM and Mick were wrong, and promises not to do so again. Personally, I read his latest comments as being "I'm sorry I got caught" rather than "I'm sorry I screwed up", especially given he is still trying to shift blame elsewhere. Resolute 14:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Bilcat was unblocked by the blocking admin at 17:47 (UTC). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- And Mick was unblocked by User:Scott MacDonald following talkpage discussion. I support this unblock, though it will definitely be worth keeping an eye on how Mick gets on post-unblock. --John (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed; users who wish to comment on Mick's unblock should do so here to keep things in the one venue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- And Mick was unblocked by User:Scott MacDonald following talkpage discussion. I support this unblock, though it will definitely be worth keeping an eye on how Mick gets on post-unblock. --John (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Bilcat was unblocked by the blocking admin at 17:47 (UTC). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Article at User:Klitem1999 spam?
I'm unsure what exactly to do about this article. It is linked from craigslist, and does not assert notability. It's also been edited only by one user, presumably the founder or an officer. I would delete for CSD A7, but this is in userspace. G11 may apply, but I'm not certain enough to just delete outright. Therefore I'm bringing it here for further review. --Chris (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Feels like G11, but I'm no expert. Vodello (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- And CSD'd as G11, unambiguous promotion or advertising. Applies in userspace as it does in articles. Rodhullandemu 00:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing the article. FYI, my reservation about G11 was not about where it applies (as the general criteria apply everywhere) but whether the article content was unambiguous promotion. --Chris (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't really hurt to tag it anyway if you get a spammy feeling from it. At worst you're wrong. HalfShadow 04:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good point, I'll probably just do that in the future. As an admin I didn't really see the point of tagging since I could just delete, but that would be a better way to request review from another admin rather than bringing it here. --Chris (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't really hurt to tag it anyway if you get a spammy feeling from it. At worst you're wrong. HalfShadow 04:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing the article. FYI, my reservation about G11 was not about where it applies (as the general criteria apply everywhere) but whether the article content was unambiguous promotion. --Chris (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- And CSD'd as G11, unambiguous promotion or advertising. Applies in userspace as it does in articles. Rodhullandemu 00:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Everything Everywhere
Hi. Could an admin with a bit more clue than me (not difficult) please take a look at recent contributions by 91.109.7.124 to Everything Everywhere? These are 1 2 and 3 - I suspect that the editor is not genuine, and may be up to no good, but I don't know, and hope you might. The editing has bad spelling, which does not inspire confidence, and neither, really, does the whois record for the domain, which sounds a bit improbable. The address given looks on Google Maps like an ordinary street of houses - I can't see where a comms HQ might fit in there. Sorry, I know I should WP:AGF and all that but it did strike me all as a bit unusual. Can a clued-up Sherlock forensic interwebs type please have a look? If it is genuine I will apologize most prettily but I am worried that it may be fraud/joke/phishing/whatever and I'd rather err on the side of caution. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- As a non-admin I've given the user a warning. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that very fast response. I continue to worry that it has actual fraudulent potential to harm people - what happens to data typed in if the links are followed? I still feel very dubious about the whole thing - if it is real, then their approach is - er - unusual, and if it's a joke then why go to the trouble of getting a domain? I'm confused. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'll confess myself to be just as baffled as to the motivation here. It certainly looks non-genuine, but if you look at the links provided on the linked (very dodgy-looking) site they go to perfectly valid pages on genuine T-Mobile and Orange websites. One way or another these edits are either (a) wrong or (b) promotional, though, so continued reverting is definitely the way forward. ~ mazca talk 22:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like someone trying to sneak in a dab of spam. HalfShadow 22:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. I suppose what is/was making me nervous was the fact that they'd gone to the trouble of getting a domain, and it's unclear to me what the function of this was. I know the links on their page go to real sites but they also do so from within a frame so not all users can be quite clear what's happening, and I was mildly worried that the frame might somehow facilitate access to information to which they are not entitled. However, it seems to have stopped, at least for now, and thanks, all, for your help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like someone trying to sneak in a dab of spam. HalfShadow 22:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'll confess myself to be just as baffled as to the motivation here. It certainly looks non-genuine, but if you look at the links provided on the linked (very dodgy-looking) site they go to perfectly valid pages on genuine T-Mobile and Orange websites. One way or another these edits are either (a) wrong or (b) promotional, though, so continued reverting is definitely the way forward. ~ mazca talk 22:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that very fast response. I continue to worry that it has actual fraudulent potential to harm people - what happens to data typed in if the links are followed? I still feel very dubious about the whole thing - if it is real, then their approach is - er - unusual, and if it's a joke then why go to the trouble of getting a domain? I'm confused. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Domain names are available for as little as $1. More popular domains (like "dot com") normally are available for as little as $10, if the name isn't already taken. It is not at all unusual for schoolchildren to own one or multiple domain names. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- It looks like an amateur attempt at a phishing site. The page linked from Wikipedia contains a frame of "http://simsnetwork.dyndns.org/eve.htm", which currently maps to "host86-136-116-14.range86-136.btcentralplus.com", which is some British Telecom DSL line. It hosts something that looks like an Orange or T-Mobile page. I'd expect to find some hostile code, or something siphoning off logins, but I'm not seeing that; it refers users to the real sites to fill in forms. Anyway, it's not notable, so kill that link. --John Nagle (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Domain names are available for as little as $1. More popular domains (like "dot com") normally are available for as little as $10, if the name isn't already taken. It is not at all unusual for schoolchildren to own one or multiple domain names. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
RFC/U needs closing
This RFC needs to be closed with some sort of rational recommendation. This editor has been given ample opportunity to deal with the issues raised in the RFC and this discussion on his talk page fairly well sums up the editor’s view of the WP world. Those of us involved in the RFC and with this editor will move on once this one is closed.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- If no one else has taken this one on within the next day or so, I'll close it. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nevermind. Looks like I commented in the last ANI thread on him, so someone else can do the honors. Jclemens (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dropping a link to the previous ANI for reference. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if this is the wrong venue for this (and I expect plenty of people have seen this already). There has been a content dispute going on at Man over an image of a naked man for some time, with an RfC that petered out. In the past few days some of those arguing for the removal have been taking unilateral action by removing the image (one has been blocked, along with a sock), and now removing the {{censor}} tag from the Talk page.
I know it's a content dispute, but I can't help feeling it might help for an uninvolved admin to have a look, offer a judgment on whether any consensus has been achieved and whether the {{censor}} tag should be removed, and recommend the next stage for those who are still dissatisfied. I know it's asking a lot, as it's a very lengthy disagreement, but any who could help would certainly earn my gratitude. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I should just point out here that I haven't deleted the explicit photograph at any stage. SAT85 (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- They really could use more opinions there so if anyone has a moment, please take the time to give an opinion. I've already done this for the record. I've asked them to calm down a bit to allow others to come and comment. I don't want this to get out of control which is possible. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks - I'll keep my hands off it now and see what others offer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Mostly Outside Observation
My only comment was a short statment in the RFC, but I have been observing it for a while. Its been two months of IDIDNTHEARTHAT and quite tedious editing. There may need to sanctions imposed here becuase its a brick wall of one sided dialogue of accusations of Nudist perverts controlling wikipedia The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me, "Nudist perverts controlling wikipedia". What are you talking about? --CrohnieGalTalk 15:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to be a fairly accurate summary of what the people saying the pic shouldn't be included are saying. → ROUX ₪ 15:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- @Crohnie: Didnt you know that being supportive of anatomical figure on the page means your a POV Pushing Nudist Pervert? You can see why exactly why i think some action needs to be taken as its been going like this for a while. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Just for info, the dispute goes further back than what's currently on the Talk page - see Talk:Man/Archive_3 too. My main desire here is really just to get the endless argument to stop, to stop the intermittent edit wars, and if necessary get people to progress to some future stage of the resolution process - that's why I was hoping for some reviews of what's gone on already and some opinions on whether any form of consensus was reached (I think the answer to that is obvious, but my opinions don't belong here). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation of that comment. I guess I fall into that category. ;) I think an administrator needs to go and remove the problem editors. Some have been blocked I noticed but if this has been going on for so long than it's time to stop it now. Editor Boing (sorry name too long, hope this will do.) has been kind enough to stop responding to allow others a chance to read and comment. I didn't look at any archives when I commented. To me it was obvious that there is nothing wrong with the male image. I just didn't like the way the montage was set up which can be reworked once the problem about the image is resolved. The only editor still arguing about the nude image is SAT85. Would someone talk to him and get him/her to back off? Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since when do adult white males lack pubes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- What Softball Lola doesnt like it shaved there? thats a rarity The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- She likes lotsa hare. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- What Softball Lola doesnt like it shaved there? thats a rarity The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since when do adult white males lack pubes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
As an update, we have just had another attack from someone else starting an edit war to remove the image, and the article is now protected. I really think we need someone to force this to a resolution by some means, as it cannot go on indefinitely like this - I'm open to any suggestions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, I don't see any corresponding edit war at Woman. Maybe what's needed is a more clinical illustration rather than what looks like some show-off editor's self-portrait. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that does seem strange, though there does appear to have been some argument about the images on Woman. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- That was the first thing I checked on too. Double standards ftl. Resolute 19:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I posted this on the talk page, but then realized the discussion had moved here. I agree that a more clinical picture or perhaps a sketch could be a compromise. Here is my original statement:
- Outside perspective: Saw this thread on ANI. The image is useful and has a purpose, and the article would NOT be improved if it was removed. The picture illustrates in a clinical, NPOV way that a men are visibly different from women, in that they generally have flatter chests, more muscular builds, and, more specifically, a penis. Note that the Woman article includes a picture of a naked woman. The Boy article has a picture of naked boys (non-clinical; they are swimming). The Girl article does not contain nudity. If anything, the picture is blurry and is not of good quality. Could a sketch or drawing of a nude male be a compromise? Still, the "does removing it improve the article" argument is going to be hard to overcome for the exclusionist camp. It seems to me that those wanting to get rid of the picture in this article would most likely be in favor of removing all nudity from Wikipedia. I am sure there is a forum for that discussion somewhere. If so, perhaps someone could link to it. The Eskimo (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- It seems like all those things are addressed by the Davinci picture further down in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is just a suggestion, but I think some of the recommended remedies at WP:PUSH should be employed with regard to SAT85 (talk · contribs) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- SAT85 was created a year ago, made a handful of edits, and then "sat" dormant for a year before becoming an SPA on this topic. Most curious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Bugs (if I can call you that). I created my account a year or two ago mainly to make a couple of linguistic contributions. I haven't got myself very involved since then, but to me the nude photograph seemed to represent a deliberate step in the wrong direction--unnecessary in the non-anatomical article in question and below the standards of professional encyclopaedias for such pages (see Homo Sapiens in Britannica online). Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It clearly illustrates the subject, period. Objections to its inclusion boil down solely to prudery, period. It's a naked body in a wholly nonsexual context. Guess what? We all have naked bodies. Deal with it. → ROUX ₪ 02:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Heck, I'm naked right now. That was too much information, wasn't it? HalfShadow 02:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- All of these objections to deletion (or replacement with a diagram) have been discussed on the Talk:Man page. This is not about hypersensitivity or prudishness--it is about achieving an emphasis in the lead image that reflects the typically clothed state of men, and about the sort of standards expected of an encyclopaedia (hence see this policy). Regards, SAT85 (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- In a word: bullshit. Define 'typically clothed' state of men? What is 'typical' clothing for a Kalahari Bushman? Or indigenous peoples in the Amazon? Or at a nudist colony? What is 'typical' clothing for a man in Minnesota, Yemen, Romania, Antarctica? This is entirely--as it always is--about prudes being terrified that other people might see OH MY GOD NO a naked human being. Period. → ROUX ₪ 03:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- As a rule, men wear clothing (I can provide a reference if this is what you have a problem with)--Typically doesn't mean invariably. There is currently a silly and unencyclopaedic emphasis on nudity. And as I said earlier, I have no qualms about explicit anatomical diagrams in the appropriate places. SAT85 (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- In an article about "Man", it is an appropriate place. Yours seems to be a "silly and unencyclopaedic" quest. WP:NOTCENSORED, get over it. Heiro 04:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Where is this "silly" emphasis? Just in this article, or more broadly in society? HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, that sentence was a bit ambiguous--in the article. If it was in society as a whole I wouldn't bother with getting the image removed or replaced. SAT85 (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Where is this "silly" emphasis? Just in this article, or more broadly in society? HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm lazy to check the history but the article currently includes multiple images most men with clothes on. I presume it has always done that. I agree it would be silly to fill the article with pictures of nude men and nothing else but I see nothing wrong with include one or more appropriate images of what a man looks like without clothes. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- In an article about "Man", it is an appropriate place. Yours seems to be a "silly and unencyclopaedic" quest. WP:NOTCENSORED, get over it. Heiro 04:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- As a rule, men wear clothing (I can provide a reference if this is what you have a problem with)--Typically doesn't mean invariably. There is currently a silly and unencyclopaedic emphasis on nudity. And as I said earlier, I have no qualms about explicit anatomical diagrams in the appropriate places. SAT85 (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- In a word: bullshit. Define 'typically clothed' state of men? What is 'typical' clothing for a Kalahari Bushman? Or indigenous peoples in the Amazon? Or at a nudist colony? What is 'typical' clothing for a man in Minnesota, Yemen, Romania, Antarctica? This is entirely--as it always is--about prudes being terrified that other people might see OH MY GOD NO a naked human being. Period. → ROUX ₪ 03:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It clearly illustrates the subject, period. Objections to its inclusion boil down solely to prudery, period. It's a naked body in a wholly nonsexual context. Guess what? We all have naked bodies. Deal with it. → ROUX ₪ 02:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Bugs (if I can call you that). I created my account a year or two ago mainly to make a couple of linguistic contributions. I haven't got myself very involved since then, but to me the nude photograph seemed to represent a deliberate step in the wrong direction--unnecessary in the non-anatomical article in question and below the standards of professional encyclopaedias for such pages (see Homo Sapiens in Britannica online). Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- SAT85 was created a year ago, made a handful of edits, and then "sat" dormant for a year before becoming an SPA on this topic. Most curious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is just a suggestion, but I think some of the recommended remedies at WP:PUSH should be employed with regard to SAT85 (talk · contribs) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- It seems like all those things are addressed by the Davinci picture further down in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Wait a minute here. This is really all about the penis, isn't it? Let's call a spade a spade, and discuss if the model had underpants on, would we be losing something important to describe Man? It seems like everything else is just dancing around the fact that we are talking about penises. The Eskimo (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Of course we are. Nobody would suggest that cat not have a picture of a cat, or that chimpanzee shouldn't have a picture of an engine (and they're naked all the time, genitals hanging out and everything). Ergo, man has a picture of a man, without clothing, to illustrate what a man looks like. I find it tedious in the extreme, and depressingly predictable, that the people most concerned with AHMAHGAWD TEH CHILLUNS invariably see sex everywhere. Gives a clue to what's going on in their heads. The rational rest of the world sees a naked human being. Ho hum. Yawn. The regressive paleocons see OH NO A NAKED SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX. I see absolutely no reason why we should even pretend to entertain the notion that they have a valid viewpoint. Wikipedia is not fucking censored. Deal with it. → ROUX ₪ 03:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- And, isn't there always Wikipedia:Options to not see an image? Saebvn (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do have a look at the talk page, where we have discussed the fact that the lead image in Hermit Crab portrays a shelled crab. In my view the issue is quite straightforward, and the real tedium consists in having to go through the minutiae of what explict means in the OED, when an image looks dirty and when one does not, why private anatomy should not be considered exactly the same as other anatomy (just as, ceteris paribus, pictures of decomposing corpses would be uploaded less freely than pictures of live humans, non-censorship notwithstanding)--and so on. You obviously have a very different notion of propriety to me, so let's both of us defer to the standards of Britannica. Best Regards, SAT85 (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- As the 3 above users have stated, agree. Especially Roux comments. Heiro 03:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored, so if the image is used for encyclopedic purposes only--as all Wikipedia images should (i.e. used in accordance with Wikipedia policy), then its use in the article is justified. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- The reason I hate situations like this: some guy visits one of those articles mentioned above (for example, boy) not expecting that there will be a nude picture (something other than an obvious anatomical diagram) there. He later takes his computer to another country and finds out they can search your hard drive as you enter. If he hasn't cleared his cache and otherwise scrubbed the image from his computer, he may now be in a legal mess over what may otherwise be an "innocent" image. Kcowolf (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Best reason ever for censorship. The secret police in another country might not understand why I have a picture on my computer. Heiro 04:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Obviously we all come from different backgrounds. I think it's worth describing my perspective. High school science teacher. A regular occurrence is a visit to our city's museum, a great place with 1000s of kids visiting every day. It has wonderful, life sized, naked, accurate models of humans of all ages which all the kids see, close up. It's just the culture where I come from. To do as SAT85 is suggesting and hide this image in this article is just kinda weird to me. The kids in my town would wonder why, as I do. In fact, to want to hide the non-sexualised naked body, presented for informational purposes, is in some ways obscene to me. While I accept that there are other views, I think that the knowledge that an encyclopaedia will likely contain nudity should be enough for those who want to avoid it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Suggest reducing protection level
All of the registered accounts that have been edit warring the image out of the article [80] are blocked for abusive sockpuppetry or vandalism. For all of his argumentation, SAT85 has been well-behaved in mainspace -- he hasn't removed the photograph [81]. Since there's no reason to let multi-sock disruption lock everyone except admins out of editing, I suggest lowering the protection level to semi, and adding level two pending changes protection. Any almost-new accounts that suddenly appear to remove the image should be blocked per WP:DUCK; the accept=reviewer pending changes protection will ensure that even if the sockpuppet accounts manage to bypass the semi-protection, they will be unable to alter the article that most readers see. If we let them keep Man locked indefinitely, disrupting the normal editorial process, then the sockpuppets win. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. The consensus that is emerging here and at Talk:Man appears to be to keep the image and not allow it to be censored, and the Talk discussion seems to be moving on to how best to present the collage. The only really disruption (other than endless arguing on the Talk page) is indeed from SPAs and socks who unilaterally delete the image. I don't believe they will accede to the community consensus here and won't go away. So yes, I think level 2 PC would be the best longer term approach here. I also think it would be good for one of the admins here to summarize the developing consensus, in the Talk page ANI section, at a suitable point, so if the argument carries on, we can point to that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am not sure what gives you the impression that the "consensus that is emerging here and at Talk:Man appears to be to keep the image". Most contributors seem to think that it looks out of place and that the entire collage should be reworked without it. Quite a few people have commented that Michaelangelo's David and the two other anatomical diagrams lower down are sufficient. SAT85 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, it is simply untrue that "most" contributors think it should be removed - you can't have been reading all the latest comments if you think that. Yes, many think the collage could be improved, so how about we drop the "Urgh, nasty evil nudity" stuff, which has been pretty roundly rejected, and just let people get on with constructive work now? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- What Zebedee said, Heiro 13:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, it is simply untrue that "most" contributors think it should be removed - you can't have been reading all the latest comments if you think that. Yes, many think the collage could be improved, so how about we drop the "Urgh, nasty evil nudity" stuff, which has been pretty roundly rejected, and just let people get on with constructive work now? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am not sure what gives you the impression that the "consensus that is emerging here and at Talk:Man appears to be to keep the image". Most contributors seem to think that it looks out of place and that the entire collage should be reworked without it. Quite a few people have commented that Michaelangelo's David and the two other anatomical diagrams lower down are sufficient. SAT85 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree to lowering the protection and using the pending changes as suggested above. I also think that SAT85 is behaving in a serious way of tendentious editing that needs to stop already. For this editor to claim that editors are saying to remove the image is just plain wrong. Yes, we have said the collage needs to be reworked and some other ideas but removing the image isn't one of them unless things changed lately. This editor has be relentlessly commenting and keeping the discussion going in circles which is not at all helpful in my opinion. I don't know who agrees with me but if you look at the talk page I think you can see what I am talking about. I am not a regular editor to this article. I went there because of the AN/i report asking for more eyes from Boing! said Zebedee. There has been a good turn out too to respond to that request which also can be seen at the talk page. It's time to stop the circular arguements and allow the regular editors to get on with improving this article. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
This editor was previously blocked for (among other things) copyright violations and edit warring (see talk page sections). The block was for a month duration. Despite this, the user has returned to uploading blatant copyright violations and (albeit slow) edit warring to push the logo of his favorite team [82] onto the Twenty20 article, where it has been removed several times with explanations (see his talk page) (and mine) as to why it is inappropriate there, including violating WP:NFCC #10c. He has uploaded additional copyright violations at File:Cmrl.jpg and at File:Hpca venue.jpg. He knows full well from the prior block that taking things from the Internet and claiming them as his is unacceptable on Wikipedia, and in his unsuccessful unblock request back in August he promised he would not do it again. I also suspect that File:Csk clt20.jpg is a stolen image as well. I'm quite concerned about a number of other image uploads by this editor. I'm requesting this editor be blocked again, leaving the duration to the judgment of the blocking administrator. Editor has been notified of this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since a previous block made no apparent impact, and the copyvios are clear (copyright images ripped off from other sites) I have blocked him indefinitely. If at some stage he should develop clue, others may unblock as they see fit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think this case is a perfect illustration of what is meant by the phrase "Users that exhaust the community's patience". There wouldn't seem to be much gained by efforts at probation or a shorter block; it looks like he'd just do an encore. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I first came across this editor when closing a 3RR case back in April. He persisted in messing up disambiguation pages, after multiple explanations. I am not surprised to hear that he was unable to learn our copyright rules. The time that I spent on his talk page trying to explain things was effectively wasted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think this case is a perfect illustration of what is meant by the phrase "Users that exhaust the community's patience". There wouldn't seem to be much gained by efforts at probation or a shorter block; it looks like he'd just do an encore. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a cottonpickin' minute! You can't enact a community ban like that. There is no community consensus to enact a ban - the correct course is to leave it as an indef block. I am removing the erroneous ban notice you placed on his talkpage/userpage (and the erroneous addition to the banned editors list if you have made one). If you want to community ban someone - have the proper discussion!!!!!Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Elen, when a user has been blocked multiple times for long periods by multiple administrators and still does not get the picture, and the only thing to be said about them is their continual exhaustion of community patience, I think it's safe to say consensus exists for the ban. It isn't necessary to (in effect) vote on a ban when it's quite this obvious -- WP:SNOW, you know -- but there's no reason we can't have a
votediscussion if you really want one, I suppose. But since when has a "proper" discussion been necessary? --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)- Your userpage suggests that you have been away and come back only recently (or am I misreading?). You perhaps in that case need to read round a few documents. I'd suggest Wikipedia:Banning policy, particularly Wikipedia:BAN#Decision_to_ban for a start. If it was ever possible for one admin to decide to permanently ban an editor, it certainly isn't these days. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, I didn't mean that I thought that it was possible for one admin to decide on a permanent ban; merely that multiple blocks from multiple administrators used to be interpreted as an exhaustion of the community's patience and thus consensus for a ban (though I note that wording appears to have disappeared). Yes, I am an old hand, having registered in late-2004 and having been an administrator for a long time also. I'm sorry if the procedure has changed. What's the correct format/template? --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. Apologies if my first comment was a bit WTF! I posted it then looked at your userpage. These days, banning seems to need an active decision, it can't be arrived at by a process of escalating blocks. If you want to get the user banned, you would need to start a discussion at WP:AN, and have a reason why a ban rather than just an indef is required. Usually bans are issued on users who sock repeatedly, so that editors are safe from 3RR when reverting their edits. In the case of this chap, unless he manages to post an unblock request that convinces me he understands copyright, he will stay blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it does make perfect sense, indeed. I think we were a bit more savage, once upon a time, in those wild old days of Wikipedia. I think actually, the meaning of "consensus" has narrowed slightly these days; it now seems to require explicit validation rather than an implicit assumption based on cumulative events. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. Apologies if my first comment was a bit WTF! I posted it then looked at your userpage. These days, banning seems to need an active decision, it can't be arrived at by a process of escalating blocks. If you want to get the user banned, you would need to start a discussion at WP:AN, and have a reason why a ban rather than just an indef is required. Usually bans are issued on users who sock repeatedly, so that editors are safe from 3RR when reverting their edits. In the case of this chap, unless he manages to post an unblock request that convinces me he understands copyright, he will stay blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, I didn't mean that I thought that it was possible for one admin to decide on a permanent ban; merely that multiple blocks from multiple administrators used to be interpreted as an exhaustion of the community's patience and thus consensus for a ban (though I note that wording appears to have disappeared). Yes, I am an old hand, having registered in late-2004 and having been an administrator for a long time also. I'm sorry if the procedure has changed. What's the correct format/template? --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Your userpage suggests that you have been away and come back only recently (or am I misreading?). You perhaps in that case need to read round a few documents. I'd suggest Wikipedia:Banning policy, particularly Wikipedia:BAN#Decision_to_ban for a start. If it was ever possible for one admin to decide to permanently ban an editor, it certainly isn't these days. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Elen, when a user has been blocked multiple times for long periods by multiple administrators and still does not get the picture, and the only thing to be said about them is their continual exhaustion of community patience, I think it's safe to say consensus exists for the ban. It isn't necessary to (in effect) vote on a ban when it's quite this obvious -- WP:SNOW, you know -- but there's no reason we can't have a
I doubt AAA went to south Africa to take the Champions League photo. CU could tell us where he was in September YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm guessing at home, fiddling with his...small change. Does this need a CCI? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- There's nine other images of unknown provenance in his contribution history. I've not been able to find an Internet based source for then, but that doesn't mean he didn't take them from the Internet. Two of the nine are unused, and perhaps we should just delete those. Of the seven that are in use, all of them are readily replaceable. I'm not in favor of a drumhead trial and deletion of everything, but it is obvious this user has previously had zero grasp of copyright, and the project wouldn't be harmed by removing his image contributions. Burdening CCI with it, which is already over tasked, seems unnecessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Tell me the two unused ones and I'll delete them as presumed copyvios. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Put a list of the others on his talk page, and ask him to tell you where he got them from. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, on further research: one of the two unused ones is not actually uploaded by him. He did upload a replacement for it, but it was reverted and deleted. That's File:Tcs.jpg. The other 'unused' one (File:Interior of an MTC bus.jpg) is actually in use, via redirect. I'll fix that. I'll post the seven remaining images on his talk page and ask for his input shortly. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done. See User_talk:A.arvind.arasu#Remaining_questionable_images. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- He's come clean on the remaining seven. I've marked five of them for speedy deletion, and granted some good faith that the two remaining images (File:Nmrffgg.jpg and File:Mtc_volvo.jpg) are in fact his. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, since he's come clean on his image uploads, I think perhaps it's time to think about under what terms we'll remove his block, allow him to edit, etc. He seems contrite. Perhaps a conditional unban, where his uploads will be periodically checked and if he's found to be stealing images again and claiming them as his, he will be permanently banned from the project. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- He proved himself unable to follow policy in more than one domain. (See my comment above). His apparent agreements to straighten up never worked out. After a while he would go back to doing the same thing he had agreed not to do. After so many failures, I think we should ask him to wait at least a year before requesting unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- As the first blocker, I'd have to agree with EdJohnston. He claimed the same thing last time as he does now. If at all a consensus to unblock develops, I believe he should be restricted from uploading any images and not more than one revert per week to any article. The problems extend beyond just copyright issues, he's been consistently plugging his favorite team in various articles and introducing various fanboy items to articles (and reverting reverts). —SpacemanSpiff 19:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Bad Faith Editing
- Hah! I see what you did there. HalfShadow 17:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
[83]
[84]
[85]
[86]
[87]
[88]
[89]
[90]
[91]
[92]
[93]
[94]
[95]
[96]
GoodFaithEditor (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is bad faith editing? I think I'm going to need slightly more commentary than simply a diff, because the first one I looked at seemed fine - an improvement to the article, in fact. TFOWR 14:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Never mind - I suspect I showed a little too much good faith in my response. TFOWR 14:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good faith is never a bad thing, unless its an editor named 'GoodFaithEditor'. Syrthiss (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strangely enough, User:ObviousSock is still available. I would have guessed that they'd try that first... --Onorem♠Dil 14:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not anymore I'm not.ObviousSock (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't you read WP:BEANS? I'm tempted to administer a large wet fish. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strangely enough, User:ObviousSock is still available. I would have guessed that they'd try that first... --Onorem♠Dil 14:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good faith is never a bad thing, unless its an editor named 'GoodFaithEditor'. Syrthiss (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Never mind - I suspect I showed a little too much good faith in my response. TFOWR 14:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocked sock is blocked. Edits by banned users are reverted on sight. Syrthiss (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Could you provide a little more detail, please? Did you notify User:Ohnoitsjamie? Are you aware that s/he is reverting edits made by a blocked editor? → ROUX ₪ 14:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Most of these seem to be cosmetic changes. The few that aren't seem to improve the articles. /shrug. --Onorem♠Dil 14:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to reinstate any of the edits that you feel improve the article. Then they would be your edits, and not the edits of a blocked user. Syrthiss (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Edits by socks o banned users are required to be reverted like that. Access Denied 14:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I was responding to the complaint as if it was actually made in good faith. The changes that I said improved the articles were those made by Ohnoitsjamie. (Added comment after edit conflict: No, edits by banned users are not required to be reverted like that, although they can be reverted for any reason...) --Onorem♠Dil 15:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: "GoodFaithEditor" is a sock of banned Long-term Abuser Techwriter2B. This sock account is the fifth that the LTA has registered in the last three days (and the sixth in a week). These socks were all quickly blocked for block evasion as well as for being used exclusively to disruptively edit, Wikistalk, and/or impersonate other editors, all of which are practices that this individual has been consistently engaging in on WP for at least three years. For details of this record of misconduct see his/her very extensive Long-term Abuser page here. Centpacrr (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
BenOneHundred
BenOneHundred (talk · contribs) seems a little suspicious. All of his edits so far are to AFDs, with flawed reasoning:
- "Looks notable to me."
- "It is obviously not Random house, but size does not necessarily equal notable."
- "Agree with Slon02"
- "I agree with Rick"
- "Family Guy is awesome and may become iconic, and writing one episode is notable enough."
I strongly suspect sockpuppetry. Should I be looking for a checkuser yet? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Might be an idea; bizarre one though, mixture of Keeps and Deletes. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Who do you think it is? --HighKing (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's the real issue; "looking suspicious" isn't really enough unless it looks suspiciously like someone in particular. Remember that checkuser isn't a fishing expedition, and it doesn't seem that the user is supporting the views of any particular other user. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- With edits first starting off as editing Afd, it one of the key charecteristics of a sock. Sock case filled. No need to know who it is (per CU policy), just need to have evidence that multiple accounts may exist. (aka not fishing, see Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing @ WP:Checkuser#"Fishing") DQ.alt (t) (e) 17:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- With edits first starting off as editing Afd, it one of the key charecteristics of a sock. Sock case filled. No need to know who it is (per CU policy), just need to have evidence that multiple accounts may exist. (aka not fishing, see Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing @ WP:Checkuser#"Fishing") DQ.alt (t) (e) 17:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's the real issue; "looking suspicious" isn't really enough unless it looks suspiciously like someone in particular. Remember that checkuser isn't a fishing expedition, and it doesn't seem that the user is supporting the views of any particular other user. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Who do you think it is? --HighKing (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hoops gza moving albums/songs unnecessarily
User:Hoops gza appears to be on a spree of moving articles on albums and songs, adding completely unnecessarily disambiguation. logs. I've explained that this isn't necessary and asked them to stop, but they are ignoring me. I have to go offline for a while, so maybe someone could sort them out? If not I'll deal with it later. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
These edits help Wikipedia. I already explained this on your talk page, but you refused to listen. These article (album) titles have other article (song) titles of the same name. There is a clear need to distinguish them from each other. Also, there is no case in which clarification is a "bad" thing. It can only help, never harm, both now and in the future. You have absolutely no argument for why these edits are "unnecessary".Hoops gza (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Friendly word of advice: Listen to Michig on music topics very carefully, if you want to avoid looking silly. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- The entire point of the (album) and (song) additions to the article names is to distinguish between songs and albums of the same name. If there are multiple songs of the same name, then we get into more detail - usually in the manner you suggest (see, as an example, 1 (disambiguation)#Songs). But when there is only one song with a particular name, it is absolutely unnecessary to differentiate beyond (song). Clarification can be a bad thing if it results in article titles that are less clear than they were before the clarification took place - which is why some of your moves have already been reverted. Please stop and discuss the matter here before performing any more moves, Hoops gza. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm also concerned by the rate at which you were moving pages - that's an awful lot of moves just in the past two hours or so. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- You are now edit warring - So (album) has been moved back to its correct title four times by two different editors including myself. I strongly suggest you read the advice above and stop before the inevitable happens. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- ...And I've move-protected that one for 6 hours, to cool this off. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Re. some of my page moves; I hope that you are aware that the world of music is nearly limitless, which means that no editor or group of editors on Wikipedia knows all of the songs for a given song title (all cases where different songs or albums share the same common name), which means that at any time an article can be created for a song or an album where an article for a different song of the same name already exists. What I've done is save the trouble of future editing. Also, on a similar point, just because one particular song with a given title is famous does not make it the only song in existence with that title. So it is inaccurate to simply add "(song)" or "(album)" to those articles' titles. This is particularly true with titles that are common phrases or words, for instance, there is probably only one album in existence called "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", whereas there likely exist multiple albums called "Transformer".Hoops gza (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody needs to know all of the albums and songs that exist, because disambiguation is not needed until new album or song articles are actually created. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
To prove this, I just searched for albums with the title "Transformer" on a music site (which, of course, is likely missing many releases), and there are at least eight different albums called Transformer. Just because Wikipedia only has an article for one of these does not mean that Wikipedia should imply that it is the only album in existence with that name.Hoops gza (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
You're missing one of the several points I'm making. I've saved other editors the effort of editing if or when that might happen. Another example that clarification never hinders, only helps.Hoops gza (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's as may be, but we currently only have one article on any album named "Transformer", and that is the controlling factor here. The title is not definitive, the article is - and there the article clearly notes that it is the Lou Reed album and none other. If the other "Transformer" albums were notable, then they could be listed at Transformer (disambiguation). You're missing the point, though - multiple editors have expressed concern over your position, and we need you to Stop Moving Articles until this has been discussed. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- And seriously - moving The Smiths (album) to The Smiths (The Smiths album)? That's not just pointless, that's absurd. Also, you didn't, as is required when moving pages, fix any of the double redirects made by your page moves (although that's probably just as well, since most of these will undoubtedly be undone). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: the editor just reverted my fixing of that one as well. It would be a good idea at this point for someone uninvolved to have a serious word about why edit-warring against consensus is a seriously poor idea. I've moved that particular obvious example back again, but I'm going to stop whilst the editor is behaving like this, it's a waste of my time (and everyone else's). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Erm, how is changing them all now, when only a few may need changing in the future, "saving effort", exactly? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I have Warned Hoops gza against further page moves, pending this discussion. Diff. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear that consensus is against these moves. Any dissenting voices before I move the remaining articles back to their original titles and revert the associated link changes?--Michig (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've restored the articles to their original titles. Could maybe use another pair of eyes in case I missed something.--Michig (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
He's edit-warring as well: if it weren't for WP:INVOLVED, I'd block him myself. He has been repeatedly reinserting the statement "Going to California" and "When the Levee Breaks" are references to John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. into Led Zeppelin IV despite my having pointed out to him that "When the Levee Breaks" is a 1927 song that cannot possibly make reference to a 1939 novel. I've pointed out WP:BURDEN to him both in edit summaries and on his talk page to no avail.—Kww(talk) 00:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Six reverts and counting.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- 3rr report here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hoops gza reported by User:Dpmuk_.28Result:_.29 Dpmuk (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Black Kite got him 2 minutes before I did. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Aye. I was involved above, but I'm not on this article, and regardless this is a pretty obvious violation of 3RR. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Eh, you were involved, but this is a clearcut case, you were blocking a user for active and ongoing disruption against unanimous consensus here, when he had full knowledge of the community's input here, and any other reasonable admin would have done the same thing. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Aye. I was involved above, but I'm not on this article, and regardless this is a pretty obvious violation of 3RR. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Black Kite got him 2 minutes before I did. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- 3rr report here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hoops gza reported by User:Dpmuk_.28Result:_.29 Dpmuk (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:POINT and topic bans.
This edit to WT:PHYS is of possible concern. Excerpt:
I have therefore decided that I will no longer recognize the validity of the blocks/topic bans on people like (list omitted). I encourage all of them to ignore any bans/blocks as that only poses a problem for the corrupted processes that lead to these people being bocked
Could someone with more tact and persuasiveness than me please convince the editor that this might not be the most productive stance to take? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, do you think that coming to ANI and getting this user blocked on sight fulfills your stated objectives of "tact and persuasiveness"? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Because this seems to me more like an offer that Count Iblis could not refuse than an attempt at diplomacy and tact. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble seeing what you're getting at with this comment. Are you saying that I shouldn't have brought the quoted statement to anyone's attention, or that putting the "could someone with tact persuade him" part in bold text would have stopped anyone trigger-happy from responding before the diplomats?
- Because this seems to me more like an offer that Count Iblis could not refuse than an attempt at diplomacy and tact. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I posted it here because I felt that a) advocating ban and topic-ban violation from editors who had previously been discussed here at length was an action that should be discussed here, rather than on the WT:PHYS page or similar, and b) a diplomatic request from someone with experience with dispute resolution and the tools to stop unacceptable behavior would be more effective than a diplomatic request from myself or most of the other WT:PHYS regulars (these have been tried on multiple occasions, with ambiguous effect).
- What, exactly, do you feel I should have done differently? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good questions. I think ANI is a fast-paced venue designed to tackle egregious incidents which need speedy admin attention. By definition due to the fast-paced action of the place, diplomacy and contemplation often times fall behind the more usual outcome of the place, which is drama and of course blocks served at a relatively fast pace. If one needs a slower pace, more conducive to diplomacy and persuasiveness and less to blocking, WP:AN would have been a more opportune choice. To use an analogy, ANI is more like a drive-through restaurant. AN is more like an Internet cafe. You sit down, have a coffee and maybe a good and persuasive conversation. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Notice diff: [97]. To clarify, I think that this editor is capable of contributing usefully to Wikipedia and is acting in good faith. I just think a spectacular error in judgement has occurred (not malice). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wasn't Iblis himself once banned from advocating on Brews Ohare's behalf? Is that still in force? Tarc (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- That ban is no longer in force. I have however blocked Count Iblis for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Deliberately and explicitly encouraging editors to violate blocks and topic bans is not on. Looie496 (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Enforcing bans and preventing socking can be difficult things to do, but that doesn't mean we should give up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't an isolated incident, as Tarc and Looie note. Protonk (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Count Iblis has posted an unblock request and I have commented there. Protonk (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I don't agree with this block. Evidently any topic bans and blocks need to be enforced as long as they are in force, but merely voicing an opinion about particular topic bans and blocks does not damage or disrupt Wikipedia, and is as such not blockable under our blocking policy. Only acting on that opinion (i.e., evading blocks or bans) would be disruptive, or possibly soapboxing about such issues at disruptive length, but we do not seem to be there yet. I recommend that the block be lifted. Sandstein 21:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and evidently the opinion is entirely ... misguided, but that in and of itself is not grounds for a block. If we were to block all who have ever said very stupid things in community fora, Wikipedia would be a much smaller community. Sandstein 21:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- If this were all in a vacuum, I would totally agree. CI's statement alone is pretty innocuous. But taken as part of the overall campaign and Reichstag climbing w/ brews and the speed of light case, and it becomes just another example of boundary pushing and disruptive editing. Protonk (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Bad block, certainly. Agree with Sandstein completely. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- For the record, any admin is free to unblock or reduce the block. I don't believe that passively allowing editors to encourage other editors to violate policy is a good idea, though. Disagreeing with policy is no problem, but actively undermining it is. I also note that we've been seeing a steadily escalating pattern of provocations from Count Iblis, and at some point a line needs to be drawn. Looie496 (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. On the basis of your agreement, I'll unblock Count Iblis now, because the block is explicitly only for the one comment at issue, which in and of itself is not grounds for a block. However, Protonk is certainly correct that Count Iblis's constant involvement in these disputes is widely perceived as problematic, and I do not think that I would object to a sanction that may eventually be imposed on the basis of a full consideration (and, if required, discussion) of the editor's contributions. I also strongly advise Count Iblis to take the hint and stop what looks like a futile crusade against The Man, or eventually the community will be so fed up with them that more substantial sanctions may result. Sandstein 22:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- It might be worth remembering that the encouragement of users to violate topic/article bans is actually kind of irrelevant; it isn't as though any of the affected users might read Count Iblis' message and be misled into thinking the bans no longer applied. The enforcement should, and will, occur if they violate the bans, and what was written is clearly a personal opinion rather than a misleading claim that the bans are over. It should surely be enough for someone to simply point out, as a parenthetical "health warning" if on an article talk page, underneath Count's comment:
- The above message is a personal opinion. Editors are reminded that violations of community-imposed editing restrictions are subject to administrative enforcement action.
- I think we can get in a position of making a user more and not less determined to see the editing restrictions process gummed up by restricting his comments on the subject, but a gentle reminder of the consequences of following his "advice" might be more in order. This should probably be a template? --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- (e-c) There is a problem here. Wikipedia has an extant policy of WP:IAR which kind of supports what Iblis is saying. Granted, I think anyone who would be stupid enough to take Iblis' advice and engage in acts in violation of a topic ban could be blocked, and should be blocked, because basically acting on bad advice is more than kinda dumb. Had he put forward a better legalistic argument, maybe I would agree that it might be a good idea to highlight the flaws of the current policies or restrictions. But I do think that I agree with the block being lifted for basically just encouraging others to act stupidly. If others actually did act on that advice and act stupidly, however, they would deserve a block. John Carter (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Tact and persuasiveness on ANI? I would never have believed it could happen. Yet many of the comments above just proved me wrong. This is one of the few times I'm glad to have been proven wrong. Thank you gentlemen. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- (e-c) There is a problem here. Wikipedia has an extant policy of WP:IAR which kind of supports what Iblis is saying. Granted, I think anyone who would be stupid enough to take Iblis' advice and engage in acts in violation of a topic ban could be blocked, and should be blocked, because basically acting on bad advice is more than kinda dumb. Had he put forward a better legalistic argument, maybe I would agree that it might be a good idea to highlight the flaws of the current policies or restrictions. But I do think that I agree with the block being lifted for basically just encouraging others to act stupidly. If others actually did act on that advice and act stupidly, however, they would deserve a block. John Carter (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I have thanked Sandstein for lifting the block on my talk page. I've given a detailed reply to Protonk there too. In short, if you look at precisely what I have actually been doing w.r.t. the issues raised, instead of what people are saying about me and also take into account the fact that the Advocacy restriction by ArbCom against me was passed based on the latter not the former, you get a different picture. Count Iblis (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC) See here for the official peer review of this case Count Iblis (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Official peer review," he says. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Deben Dave and TXE
This AN/I post is for information/discussion purposes only; it requires no action.
Deben Dave (talk · contribs) is a telecoms engineering expert; a highly subject-skilled editor who has put considerable amounts of time, effort and knowledge into developing an article describing a historical type of British telephone exchange, TXE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article editor has also contributed a number of useful copyleft images about the exchange for including in the article. The article itself is, in fact, a good and interesting read and contains a wealth of extremely detailed information.
There are however many unfortunate problems with this article: the most serious is that the entirety is practically unsourced and much is likely unsourceable, despite it not being a copyvio; the few general (non-inline) citations present in the article being largely unrelated to the large quantity of content. Dave is also determined to have an Acknowledgements section included, where a series of collaborators are credited for their various contributions for the article (though do not appear to be sources as such). I have tried to explain to him on multiple occasions that Wikipedia policy is that all content must be sourced, that personal acknowledgements are not permitted within article space, and that material is not included in Wikipedia simply on the strength of an article being written by a subject expert and must be sourced (e.g. WP:V, WP:RS, Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought, WP:COI; diffs [98], [99], [100].)
Regretfully, Dave has engaged in tendentious article ownership behaviour in response following my engagement with him, revert-warring to protest the addition of cleanup tags, removal of the worst of the unsourced material and the removal of other inappropriate material such as the "Acknowledgements" section with combative edit summaries ([101], [102], [103], [104]) and at one point blanking the page ([105]). He appears to be under the impression that his expertise justifies this behaviour. He does not appear to be very communicative. There are no other involved parties.
I am extremely reluctant to place blocks on him for disruptive editing as I am absolutely certain he is acting in good faith, but I do not appear to be getting through to him. I note that other editors have attempted to discuss this with him on his talk page relating to other articles, to no avail. I would appreciate comment from other editors on what to do. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- You've been nothing but polite and helpful to the editor - and he just does not seem to get it. This is problematic. As well-intentioned and as positive as his additions have been, this is an encyclopedia and needs full sources - verifiability is a pillar of Wikipedia. I look forward to his comment here in ANI before anything additional. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- After reviewing the article history and the editor's talk page, I agree with all of the above. This is very regrettable, but I would support a community-imposed ban from the article (not the talk page), if Deben Dave does not indicate that he understands that despite his good work on Wikipedia, he still needs to comply with our community norms, notably WP:V and WP:OWN. Sandstein 21:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
If you care to look up and read the references section mostly from the IPOEE journals, you will see that most all though not all the material is sourced. The acknowledge section was particularly relevant as it quotes Professor Flood who was in charge of the original design team of TXE1 and is still alive and provided much valuable information and we just wanted to thank him. We sent him a printed copy of the Wiki article to which he made several corrections and additions. I can provide contact details for verification should anyone require them. I don’t want to own this article just get the information out there and my very good friend Mark126 who has equally put as much effort as I have into in but unfortunately is no longer able to assist anymore. I sometimes think people are killing the spirit of Wiki and instead of just putting tags in why don’t people help by writing sections as they should be instead of deleting them or perhaps it is easier to just apply a tag. What is more important correct format or correct information. Deben Dave (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Also many people provided photographs and by giving them credit it was identifying the source of the photograph. Most of these were from the owners’ own personal collections and not obtainable anywhere else although BT Archives were able to provide a few. Deben Dave (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, Dave. Indeed, as I said to you before, most of the technical material could be sourced -- quite possibly to the sources you mention or others related to them. The problem is the information that you obtained directly from Prof. Flood is that it isn't acceptable for Wikipedia, irrespective of whether you are able to verify that it was from him. A "reliable source" on Wikipedia means not an authority on a subject as in a person, but a published primary or secondary resource that uninvolved people can verify the existence of a claim in. I am sure that Prof. Flood is undoubtedly the authority on TXE, and I appreciate the honour of his involvement; but Wikipedia:Verifiability requires there to be verifiable sources of published material for each of the claims. The Wikipedia meaning of "source" refers to a published reference resource -- contacting him for verification isn't useful. If he has written a book on the subject, that would be perfectly acceptable to use as a reference source, but I can't seem to be able to find one.
- There is an issue of concern introduced by what you mentioned about the images, and I didn't appreciate this aspect. I hate to point this out as it opens another can of worms -- but this suggests that those images that you uploaded under a GFDL/Creative Commons copyright were not owned by you in the first place, and thus were not yours to license when uploading. This is a serious copyright issue, unless BT Archives and the other people mentioned have explicitly said that the material can be released under the GFDL/CC licenses, or that they already are. Sadly, the images will have to be deleted if this is the case, unless the copyright owners of the images have either 1) already released them into the public domain or; 2) released them under a compatible license. In either of these cases, they must either contact the Wikimedia Foundation OTRS address themselves to confirm copyright permission under either public domain or GFDL/CC, or have already released the copyright in a published source. Unfortunately, we can't just take your word for the fact that they've given permission to use the images. (I would be especially worried about the BT Archives images, as it is my understanding that BT Archives license images for non-commercial use only; this is not the same as the images being public domain or relicensable under the GFDL/CC license of Wikipedia.)
- The issues here are not about format; they are about sourcing, verifiability and Wikipedia content standards. I understand what you mean about people deleting content and tagging articles rather than writing sections, but people cannot write sections if the article is not tagged as needing work in the first place (they don't know it exists). --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- "What is more important correct format or correct information."
- Dave, the problem is that we cannot verify that the information is correct if your only source is a personal discussion with someone. We have to be able to read it for ourselves in a published source. We can't just take your word for it. That's the issue here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism-only IP user
I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this, but I think admins ought to take a look at the contributions from 209.34.114.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As far as I can tell, all of this user's contributions are vandalism. Some of the most recent examples are [106] [107] [108] [109] . This user has already received numerous warnings about vandalism in their user talk, and been blocked for it twice. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Eyes requested at Lauren Hodges
An WP:SPA, MR90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been disruptively removing non-contentious, referenced content from the WP:BLP Lauren Hodges. I have tried various forms of dispute resolution, including discussing the matter with this editor on his/her talk page and the article talk page. I also raised the matter at WP:BLP/N a few days ago, but got no assistance. At one point, the article was protected because of edit warring related to this matter (I admit I was not entirely blameless there).
Although the actress is notable enough for a BLP (several notable movie and TV appearances), there is a distinct lack of references available. Nevertheless, the current version is fully referenced and contains nothing that would violate WP:BLP and related policies.
I would appreciate some administrator assistance and/or guidance, even if it's just to kick me in the backside and tell me I'm doing it wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly something has to happen here. MR90 has been repeatedly removing sourced information with entirely misguided reasons, and it has been explained repeatedly that those reasons are flawed. It started with MR90 believing that the information is entirely not encyclopedic and now it appears to be "two users not involved in editing dispute slimvirgin and orangemike found hodges has dubious notability. therefore biographical material inappropriate on wikipedia page." thus no biographical information at all can be included. Which is quite silly. Underlying issue might be that the source is a biography at AMC.com, which I believe shouldn't really pose a problem. Xeworlebi (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note, MR90 has been blocked for one day due to disruptive editing. But I doubt MR90 won't continue after that block has ended. Xeworlebi (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- AGF unless that happens. If it does, bring it to me or back to this thread on ANI and one of us will sort it out. Toddst1 (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note, MR90 has been blocked for one day due to disruptive editing. But I doubt MR90 won't continue after that block has ended. Xeworlebi (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Duck Block Requested
I don't think there's really a need for a SPI on Macfan234, since this is a recently emerged[110] quacker of an old vandal SPA that is indefinitely blocked. If this[111] admission of being Mackfan123 isn't enough on its own (note the "uncanny" similarity in the usernames ;>), the brief and sporadic edits of Mackfan234 are not considerably "constructive"... for the most part[112]. Thank you :> Doc talk 23:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- It hath gone where the woodbine twineth. Looie496 (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Justus Maxumus redux
Could some uninvolved admin review Justus Maximus's unblock request [113]. It has been sitting on his talkpage since lunchtime Sunday. The report that led to the block is here. I'd do it, but he kind of mentions me in the unblock request. Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Pumpie's talk page
Pumpie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
As I'm sure many of you know, or at least, those of you who participated in the indef-block discussion, this user has a very large competence problem, which is in the area of their understanding of English and Grammar.
They have been recently blocked indefintiely, until such time that they can show a dramatic change in their understanding of English.
Although many editors have offered their good faith to this user, it seems it has gone unwarranted. That it has been wasted. They were in fact just waiting for a 'newbie' administrator to come by and unblock them.
Per the above diff, and their persistent denial that they need to take a year-long break from wikipedia, I am requesting that their talk page and email privileges be revoked; from the above diff, it is in my honest opinion that they cannot be trusted with either. I do not think it would be wise to give them access to their email, when in the above diff, they stated they were waiting to trick a new administrator into unblocking them.
This request is not to last as long as the block; it is not to last forever. Only a year from the day their block was issued.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would be reluctant to shut out a good-faith editor from the project even on grounds of competence, without offering mentorship first, specifically from an experienced Greek/English bilingual editor prepared to take the time. I'm not impressed by the appeal to a "newbie Admin", but cultural values differ between countries where corruption is the norm, and those where it isn't. Absent anyone wishing to take this editor on as a protege, on balance a year's block might be enough to get this editor up to speed. Rodhullandemu 01:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It might not be easy to see in the fog of verbiage on that page, but it's been established that Pumpie is also incompetent in Greek. It has yet to be established what his native language actually is (or whether he understands the term). This alone gives mentorship a slim chance of success, and there are also issues of willingness. FWIW; I really hoped we could help him to improve, but he's just in complete denial/incomprehension. Back to claiming his genius will overcome all, talking about social class, etc. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- This may be a totally stupid question, but as you say the fog of verbiage over there defies comprehension and sapped my will to live... anyway. Has anyone asked, directly, what language Pumpie speaks? Has Pumpie ever edited from an IP which geolocates somewhere a reasonable guess of a primary language could be ascertained? → ROUX ₪ 03:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, at least 3 times recently. He first said he would answer later, then he replied that Greek was his native and English his speaking language. Unfortunately apparently his grasp of Greek is also non-native. He's been here since at least 2004; early on, he edited a lot as an IP. There's a statement on the talkpage from someone saying that back then his IP geolocated to Canada. Since then, things he has said imply Greece, but he has also been referring to plans to travel to the US and to a knowledge of every street in Picardy. In short: another citizen of the world, native language unknown. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please see this previous discussion from October 28 which may answer some of your questions Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646#Pumpie including why the block was restored. MarnetteD | Talk 04:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not only is this editor incompetent, he/she has repeatedly made promises and then broken them. This editor really just needs to go away for at least a few months. Looie496 (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- So what of my proposal then? Revoke talk and email access for a year from the day the block was issued. Since they still believe they are going to be unblocked, and since they will try tricking others(newbie admins) in order to achieve that end, I do not believe they can be trusted with either, and the only way to drive through the point that they cannot come back(until the other conditions noted in the original indef block thread are met) is through those restrictions.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- My non admin opinion is to aqree with your proposal. Heiro 04:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- So what of my proposal then? Revoke talk and email access for a year from the day the block was issued. Since they still believe they are going to be unblocked, and since they will try tricking others(newbie admins) in order to achieve that end, I do not believe they can be trusted with either, and the only way to drive through the point that they cannot come back(until the other conditions noted in the original indef block thread are met) is through those restrictions.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not only is this editor incompetent, he/she has repeatedly made promises and then broken them. This editor really just needs to go away for at least a few months. Looie496 (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please see this previous discussion from October 28 which may answer some of your questions Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646#Pumpie including why the block was restored. MarnetteD | Talk 04:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, at least 3 times recently. He first said he would answer later, then he replied that Greek was his native and English his speaking language. Unfortunately apparently his grasp of Greek is also non-native. He's been here since at least 2004; early on, he edited a lot as an IP. There's a statement on the talkpage from someone saying that back then his IP geolocated to Canada. Since then, things he has said imply Greece, but he has also been referring to plans to travel to the US and to a knowledge of every street in Picardy. In short: another citizen of the world, native language unknown. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- This may be a totally stupid question, but as you say the fog of verbiage over there defies comprehension and sapped my will to live... anyway. Has anyone asked, directly, what language Pumpie speaks? Has Pumpie ever edited from an IP which geolocates somewhere a reasonable guess of a primary language could be ascertained? → ROUX ₪ 03:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It might not be easy to see in the fog of verbiage on that page, but it's been established that Pumpie is also incompetent in Greek. It has yet to be established what his native language actually is (or whether he understands the term). This alone gives mentorship a slim chance of success, and there are also issues of willingness. FWIW; I really hoped we could help him to improve, but he's just in complete denial/incomprehension. Back to claiming his genius will overcome all, talking about social class, etc. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
If Pumpie claims a knowledge of every street in Picardy, then I'd hazard a guess that he may understand French. Maybe a French-speaking editor could leave a message in French on Pumpie's talk page and see if there is a response (this being per IAR re English language on En-Wiki). Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- And if they just post more of the same?— Dædαlus Contribs 05:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Several of us can vouch for Pumpie's poor knowledge of French, and he admits himself that he understands it (and German) less well. He's been leaving out non-repetitive passages in his translations of French stations because he knows he can't render them. This is why I and others have breached etiquette and asked him what his native language is. He has not demonstrated competence in any. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- AGF does not demand we ferret out a language in which a user is competent when the user himself is unwilling or unable to declare it. Either his English, French, and Greek are all roundly abyssmal and the user simply cannot comprehend the request to name his native language (unlikely), or he is playing us. Either way, there is simply no justification for additional effort being expended here. Absent any compelling argument to the contrary, I suggest we simply block indef, revoke talk page access, and give him the "standard offer", though obviously contingent on competent communications rather than adequate behavior. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Pumpie is already blocked indef. My proposal was to revoke talk and email access for a year from the day they were blocked indef, per the single diff linked in this report, showing that Pumpie was going to try and trick a newbie admin into unblocking him.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Seconded, I feel WP:AGF has run it's course. There is always email. S.G.(GH) ping! 07:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- My proposal included revoking email access, again per the diff above, we can't trust him with either. This would only last a year from the day of the block, though.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Seconded, I feel WP:AGF has run it's course. There is always email. S.G.(GH) ping! 07:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Pumpie is already blocked indef. My proposal was to revoke talk and email access for a year from the day they were blocked indef, per the single diff linked in this report, showing that Pumpie was going to try and trick a newbie admin into unblocking him.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- AGF does not demand we ferret out a language in which a user is competent when the user himself is unwilling or unable to declare it. Either his English, French, and Greek are all roundly abyssmal and the user simply cannot comprehend the request to name his native language (unlikely), or he is playing us. Either way, there is simply no justification for additional effort being expended here. Absent any compelling argument to the contrary, I suggest we simply block indef, revoke talk page access, and give him the "standard offer", though obviously contingent on competent communications rather than adequate behavior. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Troubling email after an SPI case
FT2 (Talk | email) 14:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
So two days ago I dealt with a sockpuppet investigation. It was a pretty simple case - handful of confirmed users editing on the same topic (Michele Bowie), and I blocked them all. Recently I got an email from the sockmaster requesting an unblock saying that all of the accounts edit from the same router, but are different people who just support the topic. I responded reminding them that they were engaging in meatpuppetry, and canvassing like that is unacceptable.
The response I got was CC'd to the topic (Michele Bowie) and another person I don't recognize. (I've been told to paraphrase the email here.) The response basically said that all of the people will defend themselves in a court of law, that they all have the right to express their individual opinions. It then goes on to say that "contacts of interest" have been started based on this being on Wiki, and that this discussion has been put into field notes for future study. And then it goes into a diatribe about using the N word on Wikipedia and so on.
So basically I'm posting here because I'm at a loss as to how to proceed. I can post the email if I am so requested, but there are stipulations on actually doing that. There aren't really any legal threats, but using Wiki for "future study" or whatever is a little strange. Personally I'm disinclined to grant an unblock, but a little further input as to how to proceed would be most appreciated. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Was the email from some official site or a freebie (Yahoo!, GMail, etc.)? My first impression is that they're only trying to scare you, but they'd likely lose any lawsuit anyway, and any disruptive "study" would be ended with some rangeblocks, I would imagine. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Tell 'em they're definately not getting back in now; post a link to Wikipedia:No legal threats, get on with real business. HalfShadow 03:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Fetch: the email came from "legal_dept@" and then a consulting firm that, according to the Bowie article, she is the CEO of. Really just furthering the COI here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also explain to them that this is not the real world and they don't have all the rights they think they do. HalfShadow 03:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Bowie and deleted the article that seems to be motivating all this. Perhaps they will find something else to do now. --RL0919 (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also explain to them that this is not the real world and they don't have all the rights they think they do. HalfShadow 03:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Fetch: the email came from "legal_dept@" and then a consulting firm that, according to the Bowie article, she is the CEO of. Really just furthering the COI here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Tell 'em they're definately not getting back in now; post a link to Wikipedia:No legal threats, get on with real business. HalfShadow 03:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Handled by email. Explanation given and information provided to user in the event they have further issues, including contact details for OTRS and how to request an unblock. Resolved as far as the on-wiki thread goers. As far as this thread goes, Wikipedia is very much in the real world. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Possible legal threat
I've blocked Chamber97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for this edit. It appears threatening to me but I could be wrong. I've e-mailed the foundation but have not blanked the page or rev/del'd the edits. If I have overlooked something or if my actions were incorrect, please let me know. It's late, so I may not be around. Any action that is necessary might need to be taken in my absence. Thanks Tiderolls 05:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted the page, the Foundation may, obviously, reverse the deletion if they feel it is appropriate. Nakon 06:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good block. That was a very obvious and unambiguous legal threat. Given that the threat was the user's very first edit ever, made 36 minutes after registering, is it possible that this is/was a sockpuppet? Does the diff give us enough data to figure out whose it is? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Dealing with personal attacks
How should I react to and deal with comments of this sort from User:Yinzland. It initially began as sniping during a discussion in article talk (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) but it began ramping up to a rather disturbing level rather quickly. After the 6th post (6), I sent the user a personal message about civility (7), asking them to please dial it back some. That message was fairly ignored, judging from a subsequent post in article talk (8).
At that point I decided that new user or not, this had to stop, and a personal request had failed, so I posted an 'No Personal Attacks' template on his talk page (9) and warned him in article talk (10) that the personal attacks needed to stop. The response i received in his usertalk was:
- "I think I've made it clear why I've chosen to talk down to you. You actually attempted to hijack a wikipedia page by adding ridiculous and not even all that amusing misinformation simply for your own amusement. You proved this by your original wording of the paragraph and by your countless hypocritical claims of speculation. If this was a serious subject that you were arguing for, I may have respected that. But dude, you're fighting to legitimize misinformation. I have no respect for that. But to cut to the chase (given that this is MY talk page) shut the fuck up you obnoxious little bitch."[114]
and from article talk:
- "Shush sweetie, the adults are talking."[115]
- "Shush sweetie, the adults are talking."[115]
Wikipedia has rather specific rules here against precisely this sort of behavior. For my part, I was advocating an adherence to policy in the article that few others were, Yinzland included. At no point, however, did my behavior take on the attack-y edge Yinzland has.
The user has been warned three times, and they have chosen to ignore each request to either back off or seek to be more civil. I am not sure how to proceed, but I don't feel like editing in a combat zone. I am thinking that he's earned a block, but then, I'm the victim of the personal attacks; of course, I'm going to want that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I've notified the user of this complaint. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked 3 days for NPA/HARASS, mainly per [116], which is completely unacceptable. –MuZemike 06:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse block this user is the one who may wish to revisit Websters for the term "adult". S.G.(GH) ping! 07:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strongly endorse block, per above. Not acceptable. Nakon 08:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the assistance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
SRQ again, at her very worst
Community Banned Editor SRQ's latest post is so far beyond the pale I am almost at a loss as what to say, other than she is a liar and a very sick person.. I believe that this time she has managed to break every conceivable rule in Wikipedia.DocOfSoc (talk) 07:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
TYVMDocOfSoc (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
|
Personal attacks by 93.182.189.31 on AFL talk page
93.182.189.31 has abused me on AFL talk page with an on going issue. He/she called me a druggie. Here is the comment they wrote, "Sorry for chiming in on your delusions GPW, but what kinda hippy delusional recreational drugs are you on if you think an admin has agreed with you? Whatever they are, I wan't some, then I'd probably agree with you, which after spending 10 minutes looking at your history on Wikipedia, would be a first." I'd like you to block this ip editor if possible. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It appears the IP recieved a warning on their talkpage after these comments, see User talk:93.182.189.31. As the alleged attack is fairly moderate I don't think any more action than a warning is needed at present. I have informed the IP of this ANI thread. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- As someone who was involved in that same conversation, I agree that the IP's comments were unacceptable and that the warning is fair, but I would suggest that the posting and debating style of GuineaPigWarrior has been part of the problem. A broader look at that aspect of the page may be appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It sounds more like you need Wikipedia:Mediation for that than you need ANI. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- You may be right, but I was truly hoping to get to a point of sensible discussion. (I'm an optimist, and I hate initiating problem escalation.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It sounds more like you need Wikipedia:Mediation for that than you need ANI. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- As someone who was involved in that same conversation, I agree that the IP's comments were unacceptable and that the warning is fair, but I would suggest that the posting and debating style of GuineaPigWarrior has been part of the problem. A broader look at that aspect of the page may be appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- As an aside, Polargeo: how did you inform the IP? My understanding is that IP contributors don't know when they get posts. I started out as an IP contributor, and was told that folk had sent messages to me - messages I never knew about. It might be better to insert a comment in the article discussion of the relevant page. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I left a message on the IP's talkpage. If you wish to leave further messages on the article talkpage then please go ahead. Cover all bases. We can only do so much and what I did was a lot more than the poster of this ANI thread did. Polargeo 2 (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- As an aside, Polargeo: how did you inform the IP? My understanding is that IP contributors don't know when they get posts. I started out as an IP contributor, and was told that folk had sent messages to me - messages I never knew about. It might be better to insert a comment in the article discussion of the relevant page. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Above user is vaguely "edit warring" to get the content at Raghav (Raghuvanshi) (article about an Indian clan) onto the page Raghav (about a singer). This included a cut/paste of Raghav (Raghuvanshi) -> Raghav and then Raghav -> Raghav Mathura. I've suggested to the user that he/she opens a move discussion to decide which is the primary topic (I am not sure) but they have simply continued to revert my corrections. As it stands Raghav is a cut/paste move and I am at 3RR (plus have work to do). Can someone try and get the editor to enter into dialogue and explain the issues involved. Cheers --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 11:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have left a message as well a formal 3RR warning on the user's talk page. Favonian (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I noticed he carried on and started using an IP sock, so I've blocked both 48hrs. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks all :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I noticed he carried on and started using an IP sock, so I've blocked both 48hrs. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
A situation of COI, SPAs, vote stacking, and tag teaming
Afer this sockpuppet investigations (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha/Archive) it was discovered that the users involved were co-workers and not socks. However, they are admitedly members of the current reincarnation of The Irving Literary Society and I believe play some sort of leadership/promotional role for that organization. As a result, these editors sole interest in editing wikipedia is to promote their orgnaization and its members. This COI is having a dramatic effect at several AFDs, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Neil Falcone, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Raitiere, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Shalvoy, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination). It was my undersatnding that they were warned by an admin about editing in this area after the close of the sock investigation. Users involved include User:Cmagha, User:Lebowski 666, User:Wehatweet, User:Coldplay3332, and User:Tea36. 4meter4 (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, there were warnings. This, for example. David Biddulph (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but unfortunately their editing pattern has not changed and they are not being upfront about their COI in the relevent AFDs. I think it is time that some blocks be administered.4meter4 (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've looked at the AfDs and related articles and I concur with 4meter4's version of events completely. There is an unpleasant whiff of coordinated activity. The articles being discussed must be judged on their own merits, but this sort of process abuse must be discouraged. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I concur; this runs counter to and is a perversion of collaborative editing. I don't know if a block is necessary, but counseling definitely is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've looked at the AfDs and related articles and I concur with 4meter4's version of events completely. There is an unpleasant whiff of coordinated activity. The articles being discussed must be judged on their own merits, but this sort of process abuse must be discouraged. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think the harder issue to understand is the line between coordination, and articulating one's views. The review did not find us to be co-workers; we are in different parts of the country, and those with conflicts have disclosed. The individual positions are pretty standard. What I find difficult is the "gaming" that goes one -- filing complaints against people to intimidate them. There are really only two final positions to take, 'Keep' or 'Delete'. You don't have to be in a conspiracy to line up one way or another, right? Coldplay3332 (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- In this case we have a group of editors who mostly edit within a very specific group articles around a topic (Cornell's Irving Society and related people) which some of the editors have an admitted conflict of interest. All of the editors blatantly ignore wikipedia policy in the pursuit of a particular common agenda (ie promoting Irving and its members). All of this shows COI and SPA. Because of the use of numbers in vote stacking and tag teaming, it is difficult if not impossible for neutral editors who want to follow wikipedia guidelines (like WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability, and WP:No original research) to get any valuable editing done.4meter4 (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Help me understand why you consider me a conspirator, and yet this activity is not problematic at this point, and at this point. We just check in, read and comment. But this is coordination at these points, isn’t it? Coldplay3332 (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think my comment above pretty much explains it. As for evidence, your editing histories speak for themselves. Please see WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:Vote stacking, and WP:Tag teaming for relevent policies.4meter4 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Response Please review WP:COWORKER, which says that since you share the same IP address you should act as if you are only one person entitled to one vote at AfD, etc. Voceditenore and I have no editing in common until the restoration of the deleted Irving article in October 2010. All of our communication has been on-wiki, and we have voted in the opposite direction at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination). Perhaps all of your coworkers should nominate just one Wikipedia spokesman and take special measures to refrain from editing on the subject of Irving and its purported alumni. Alternatively, once you see that any coworker has edited, avoid creating the impression that you can be considered as someone different in that discussion. However, the lack of improvement in behavior since the blocks were lifted is unfortunate and requires further action from an administrator. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Response to Coldplay3332 It's fine for editors to articulate their views on user and article talk pages and at AfDs and to inform each other what's going on elsewhere in Wikipedia. But in an AfD, they should always make their potential conflict of interest clear in that AfD, not somewhere else (or nowhere). In this, this, and this AfD, four members of this group (not, I emphasise, you) all !voted "keep", yet none of them disclosed any of this, including the articles' creator. All of them were advised by an administrator when they were unblocked either to be upfront about their affiliation and/or potential conflict of interest, or if not, to avoid editing in the same areas. Perhaps, you (and they) thought participating in the same AfDs didn't count as editing in the same areas. But, I'm afraid it does. Voceditenore (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- As I was writing my response above, I see you were !voting "keep" in those three AfDs too [117], [118], [119], despite the advice the administrator had given you here. Ah well... Voceditenore (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that after these users were blocked, User:IndtAithir was created, and he has self-indentified as someone who "wants to work for" Daniel P. Meyer. (He could mean that he works for Meyer and is pleased, or that he does not yet work for Meyer but aspires to do so, or something else.) This account bears watching as well. Racepacket (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Of note. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. This moved off of 4meter4's talk page rather quickly, didn't it; his discussions with Racepacket about bringing the Cornell Board of Trustees into this discussion? Was that to intimidate the Cornell students participating? Never good to have evidence of similar behavior to the allegations you are making on the record; psychologists call this projection. The others probably understood the coaching the way I did, for future endeavors. To not finish my participation in these 4 proceedings would be to back down to bullying; that rewards belligerent behavior. Cmagha (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Cmagha, this whole issue might go away quietly if regular editors became convinced that you and your colleagues were willing to follow Wikipedia policy. Indignation about the people who are pointing out the problems to you is not helping your cause. When people remind you to follow policy, that is not 'bullying.' If it turns out that there is no other way to address this problem, I think that a topic ban for several editors might be considered in a future thread. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- At the time I made those comments Cmagha, you and your compadres were blocked indefinitely as socks and I had no reason to believe you or they would be back on wikipedia. I never made any comments to you or the other editors in an attempt to try and influence your votes or other actions undoly. Having created hundreds of articles at wikipedia (possibly over a thousand now), in an array of areas I think I have safely established that my interests here are not personal but merely in wanting to establish what is best for the encyclopedia. I have never attended Cornell and am not close to anyone who has. I merely want to maintain wikipedia's credibility and veracity.4meter4 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Request for topic ban
Unfortunately this group has repeatedly ignored requests to follow wikipedia guidelines and, as exampled above, has often resorted to personal attacks and speculations on the motives of others to dismiss any comments or objections they don't like. I haven't seen any willingness to work collaboratively or any acknowledgement of wiki's policies beyond attempts at wiki-lawyering to avoid them. This is not a new problem, but something that has been going on for months. Plenty of opportunities over the last year have been given to these editors without any positive results. This is not a wait and see moment, but a last straw moment. I think a topic ban would be an excellent solution. All of these editors should be banned from editing or participating in talk page discussions at The Irving Literary Society, any articles about its members, and all and any articles related to Cornell University for a time period of two years. They should also avoid editing the same articles with one another. Hopefully, they will continue to edit at wikipedia and in the process become more familiar with wiki policy and its propper implementation during that time. 4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose There's no allegations of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or any other violation of wikipedia policies of conduct guidelines. If they were making money through collaboration instead of just advocating for a marginally notable set of topics they are jointly interested in, COI might be enough to justify a topic ban. The system must be robust enough to tolerate groups of people working in concert openly. Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - I broadly agree with Jclemens; however, this group had not been "working in concert openly" until just recently, so they might be in need of a little administrator supervision and/or guidance. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Election Day in the US
A quick note - don't forget that today is Election Day in the United States, with lots of national and local officials on the ballot. So, for my fellow Americans, vote early and often. But also, for my fellow admins, keep your eyes open for shenanigans relating to issues, candidates, and the like. This recent changes list, of changes related to the 2010 election, may be worth watching, if you're into that sort of thing. We've already seen some POV BLP issues on candidate articles, though we're not at panic mode yet. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Other watchlists, for reference:
- Gubernatorial Elections
- House of Representatives
- Senate
Thanks for keeping an eye on this. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Request for semi-protection
95.143.195.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has removed a tag from this article for a requested move three times within the last several hours although there is an ongoing discussion in which they are not participating.[120] Since it does not appear to be a fixed IP, I am requesting semi-protection. TFD (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I concur with TDC, the article needs semi-protection. There are also multiple reverts in the article by regular editors, in what looks like an edit war. The article is also making major progress so I do not see this as harmful. Inference by IPs and socks may however escalate the situation. P.S. – It bight be useful to check the IPs for open proxies. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have left a remainder on the talk page. Some, including a registered editor and an ip editor, are dangerously close to a block. There are only three ips that have edited in the last few days so semi seems unneeded for now. I have watch listed the page and will be available to help. JodyB talk 15:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is NOT helpful: the remainder on the talk page will have no effect on IP editors or regular users editing anonymously to avoid scrutiny. As you said, the article is "dangerously close" to something. Semi-protection would help cool down the situation. I am afraid the article may otherwise end up being fully protected. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:RFPP is the correct forum. 3RR is a bright line, even though the IP keeps removing the merge notice it is a bad idea to keep reverting it back. But i think this is manageable w/o semi for the time being --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 16:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Concur. But it is not just the move notice but the text in the lead - that is a content dispute. JodyB talk 16:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- The IP (as 95.143.195.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 95.143.195.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has violated 3RR. Suggest a 24 hr block for the IP or a stern warning to cease edit warring. No need for semi unless other non-autoconfirmed editors join in or there is socking from the original IP. -Atmoz (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding is that a block would be ineffective, because the IP could just reboot their modem and get assigned a new IP address, which is why I recommended semi-protection. TFD (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Warning was placed on the article talk page for all. The ip is not alone here. There is some fine discussion underway but some are adamant about the lead and the template notice. JodyB talk 16:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree the IP is not alone in edit warring. But it is the only one that crossed the 3RR line. As they haven't edited (from an IP) since the warning, the block is probably not needed. Further edit warring by anyone on the article should be dealt with in the usual manner.
- @TFD: As there is only 1 non-autoconfirmed user edit warring, semi is not appropriate. If the IP is blocked and then socks, we can be deal with then. -Atmoz (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Warning was placed on the article talk page for all. The ip is not alone here. There is some fine discussion underway but some are adamant about the lead and the template notice. JodyB talk 16:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- NO!, this is not a "content dispute", as JodyB suggests above. This is sock puppetry to avoid something. The IP address :95.143.195.64, geolocated to Sweden, is not controlled by some Swede, but is somehow compromised. Why else would the IP be spamming a Singapore free classified ads site with sex ads? ([121], [122]) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Please provide a diff of that spamming. JodyB talk 17:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think I see what you are saying but this is about this encyclopedia. If you think there is a sock then prove it. But as it pertains to this article it is clearly a content dispute. JodyB talk 17:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You misunderstood me. The IP is also used to "spam" other parts of the Internet – or at least provide anonymity by hiding the originator of the message. It is thus an open proxy. The implication is that this is not a content dispute between others and someone from Sweden, but someone using proxies to bypass 3RR and avoid scrutiny. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding is that a block would be ineffective, because the IP could just reboot their modem and get assigned a new IP address, which is why I recommended semi-protection. TFD (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
[123] [124] [125] [126] [127] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.143.195.64 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)If you are correct that this is a Tor node then it needs to be blocked and that ends the problem. However that is not certain. There are others around here better equipped to check that. Maybe someone will look and let us know. However the original complaint was not about Tor's or open proxies. The history is clear that this ip editor and another are back and forth over the lead and the template. JodyB talk 17:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've just blocked the small range, as almost certainly an anonymising proxy. The IP before it was probably also a proxy. No comment on the rest of it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- So that handles it all and protection is not needed. Agreed? JodyB talk 17:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, it does not! If someone is "anonymously editing" using an anonymising proxy – quite possibly one of the regular editors, then what stops him from just using some other proxy in the TOR network. Besides, we also have these edits by 74.115.214.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have reason to believe that 74.115.214.155 is also some kind of anonymizer. It geolocates to Crownsville, Maryland, yet it is being used by someone who claims to be in California! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I will file an SPI request based on behavior as it appears to be clear who it is. However I am unfamiliar with how addresses work and request that you explain how we could know that the edit orginates from anywhere other than where geolocate states. TFD (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- So that handles it all and protection is not needed. Agreed? JodyB talk 17:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've just blocked the small range, as almost certainly an anonymising proxy. The IP before it was probably also a proxy. No comment on the rest of it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)If you are correct that this is a Tor node then it needs to be blocked and that ends the problem. However that is not certain. There are others around here better equipped to check that. Maybe someone will look and let us know. However the original complaint was not about Tor's or open proxies. The history is clear that this ip editor and another are back and forth over the lead and the template. JodyB talk 17:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNee unblocking
First of all, apologies to Sandstein for not discussing it with him first, but I've unblocked MickMacNee.
I have no reason to dispute the initial block. Indeed when I saw it reported here, my reaction was "well, he had that coming". Mick has a troubled editing history, and he and I have clashed and there's no love lost. I note the initial block was endorsed, but I also noted that people didn't rule out an unblock, if conditions were met, and if there was some expectation that Mick would change his ways. Initially there seemed little chance of that. Indeed after some of his responses on the talk page, I locked the page, and took that as the end of the matter. Throw the key away and forget him. The story looked inevitable.
However, pushed by Giano, I thought I'd make a final attempt to mediate something. Asking any Wikipedian to eat humble pie, admit their sins and promise to be good, is unrealistic. Yet that's what the earlier negotiations with Mick were attempting to get him to do. Has ANYONE ever done that? In the end, we don't need anyone to confess guilt, we just need them to recognise the behaviour that makes it impossible for them to continue with Wikipedia, and indicate a willingness to amend it/
Thus, I went as Nixon to China, and had this discussion with Mick. I had no desire to unblock him if there was no chance he'd avoid being reblocked for something pretty soon - but he did indicate he understood that. Please do read that discussion before commenting here. As a result of it, I unblocked him.
If I'm wrong, I'm a naive fool, and I'll be the first to block him. If, however, he does take "evasive action" to avoide the usual circle (of indef block - unblock - more drama - community endorsed ban) then we win. Anyway, if consensus is to reblock, then with a heavy-heart I'll admit my failure.--Scott Mac 17:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Given the discussion here[128] I believe you should have sought consensus for unblocking Scott. That said, I have not made up my mind either way as to whether I support this unblock or not. I recognize Mick's last comments as a step forward but not enough specifics were discussed for me to make my mind up immediately. As it stands I would support Sandstein's move to go to RfAr but if Mick can give concrete assurances I open to changing my mind--Cailil talk 18:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- He has indicated that he intends to edit in a way that will give no one cause to block. If he does that, great. If not, he'll be blocked. If the community wants a topic ban, let the community impose one. However, asking for "assurances" or him to suggest the sanctions is simply an attempt to demand contrition, that never works.--Scott Mac 18:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- No but I would have preferred a comment saying that he wont make anymore pointy afds and will avoid ad hominem remarks ie an acceptance of site policy not necessarily of wrong doing that's all--Cailil talk 18:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- He has indicated that he intends to edit in a way that will give no one cause to block. If he does that, great. If not, he'll be blocked. If the community wants a topic ban, let the community impose one. However, asking for "assurances" or him to suggest the sanctions is simply an attempt to demand contrition, that never works.--Scott Mac 18:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm all for second chances, and for second second chances, etc. But this... well, it may have been unwise. The fact that this was acknowledged in the discussion with Mickmacnee should probably give one pause. There is some support for the unblock in that discussion, though, so the thing to do would have been to bring it forward for discussion. I have no specific reason to object to the unblock, but the fact that I had no opportunity to do so before the unblock may be a source of drama. It may even be a source of DRAMA. But, as you say - if Mickmacnee edits in an acceptable manner, it's a net positive for the project. Ding. Woo. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- From my superficial reading of the situation the block seems to have been a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason, and the same applies to the
banblock discussion. To quote Sandstein, "This is not a ban, but a block, intended to prevent recurring disruption until such time as another equally effective measure to prevent further disruption is found." This was not a community ban, and Scott MacDonald did exactly the right thing. Mick MacNee appears to be sober now. If he can stay that way, great. If he can't, reblocking him is not a big deal. Where is the problem? Hans Adler 18:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- This discussion has moved into 3 venues now; I'd stopped one and directed people to the other venue at the exact same time as Scott put this here. Well, I don't mind where this particular discussion happens, but if it's happening here, could someone please stop that discussion and move it here, or vice versa if it's still going to happen there? Thanks in advance, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- No socks, no block. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking as one of the editors who endorsed the provisional block in the original discussion, I think the resolution of ScottMac and MickMacNee is worth a try – Mick may not acknowledge the problematic nature of his edits, but he seems to understand the practical constraints of his current situation. I only wish this had been proposed, subject to rational debate, and concluded on by disinterested editors instead of the personal call of one. This is another instance of the disheartening trend of one administrator after another unilaterally taking action and then being overruled, without any calm, adult interaction between them. These practices are corrosive to our principles of collective decision-making. Skomorokh 18:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- If some admins were not so unhelpfully territorial when they make a block in a certain way in certain circumstances, then the major part of the problem is addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, the major part of the problem would be addressed by not unblocking disruptive editors. Sandstein 18:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I thank that is another significant issue, Ncmvocalist. If we could get away from "I've blocked X, no-one unblock without my say-so" and "I've unblocked X because I thought I should" to "let's, together, have a discussion on whether x should be blocked and come to a reasoned conclusion", dispute resolution would get a lot less dysfunctional and drama much reduced. Skomorokh 19:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with this approach. Preventative blocks are not suited to be the subject of a popularity contest, which is what any large community discussion of the sort you propose inevitably becomes. Blocks are the individual responsibility of administrators, and are only subject to community review after the fact. That is what admins are entrusted to do. That is why we do not have a long community discussion about every item on WP:AIV. The more discussions, the more opportunity for gaming and favoritism every which way. Sandstein 19:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- If some admins were not so unhelpfully territorial when they make a block in a certain way in certain circumstances, then the major part of the problem is addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Skomorokh is correct. The problem, Hans Adler, is that we will almost certainly have at least one another superfluous 100KB ANI drama as a result of this unblock. As I said on Scott Mac's talk page, I believe that he was entirely mistaken to unilaterally undo a routine block that is still needed to prevent disruption, in the face of clear (if subsequent) community consensus for the block, and without discussing his action with the blocking admin first. The discussion that is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE/October 2010#MickMacNee clearly indicates that if MickMacNee should ever be unblocked, then only with stringent restrictions that effectively prevent continued disruption. But no such restrictions are currently in place, and MickMacNee has given no credible assurances for future good conduct or even that he understands why he was blocked. Indeed his contributions while blocked are limited to blaming others for his predicament ([129] et seq.) and he has continued to act disruptively while blocked (edit summary: "fuck off you idiotic moron. is that clear enough for you you fucking special retard?"). In the absence of any recognition that he even knows what his own misconduct was, any assurances on his part are not credible.
- We are not in the business of negotiating with people who disrupt Wikipedia. We remove them from the project until they convince us that they comply with our norms and stop wasting our time. This applies to longtime contributors as well as to run-of-the-mill vandalism-only accounts. This ill-considered unblock has all but ensured that more valuable volunteer time will be wasted containing the disruption generated by MickMacNee.
- Unless this discussion results in agreement that the unblock was worth a try after all under these conditions, I intend to request that the issue be resolved by arbitration, because it would then be clear that the community cannot handle the recurring disruption by MickMacNee on its own. Sandstein 18:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- "The problem [...] is that we will almost certainly have at least one another superfluous 100KB ANI drama as a result of this unblock." Is that a threat? Do you think that's appropriate? You blocked an editor indefinitely, which means any admin can unblock after satisfying themselves that the reason for the block no longer applies. At the moment the only cause for disruption is your ill-considered opposition to the unblock. Hans Adler 20:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sandstein, "We are not in the business of negotiating with people who disrupt Wikipedia" - I assume you are not using the royal "we", it's rather hard to know. Rather than focus your attentions on McNee perhaps you ought to look at the greater picture of establishing a more fair, logical and peaceful system of justice than is acheived amid the noise here on ANI. In my view, taking this to Arbitration before McNee has a chance to prove his newly found intent to improve looks like a fit of pique on your part. Giacomo 19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sandstein, since when did "stringent restrictions" ever "effectively prevent continued disruption"? The only thing that prevents that it a user conforming to the necessary norms - or being physically prevented from disruption by banning. You say we are "not in the business of negotiating with people who disrupt Wikipedia". Yes, we bloody well are. If that negotiation means that the person understands what's expected then that's what it is all about. Now, it is quite clear, either Mick will wish to work as part of this project, in which case (whether he likes it or not) he'll modify his behaviour, or he won't and we'll reblock him. The simplest thing now is to take him at his word and hope for the best. Your wounded pride's vindication is not a priority.--Scott Mac 19:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would absolutely agree with you that this would be the way to proceed if this was the first, or second, or even third block of MickMacNee. It is, however, not. "Hope for the best"? Yeah, sure. Sandstein 19:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, all right, this is not worth our time. Let's try it your way - with the understanding that you will be available to reimpose the block in the event of any disruption whatsoever on the part of MickMacNee. Sandstein 19:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- * As a convenience: MickMacNee (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --John Nagle (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- For the record, I believe Mick's block was harsh and too wide in scope, but overall acceptable as it addressed a systematic problem that was getting worse. But also for the record, I disagree with the unblock. There was a *clear* consensus for the block. The community blocked Mick until we got to the point where Mick would recognize and address the concerns voiced by the community. He's now unblocked. Hmmmm. Could someone please point out to me where Mick has:
- Acknowledged the specific parts of his behaviour that are causing a problem
- Indicated if he agrees or disagrees that his behaviour is problematic
- Indicated which behaviour he intends to modify
- The idea that Mick won't/can't/shouldn't admit mistakes (and that's acceptable?), or have a different code of behaviour when drunk (and that's acceptable? (if true?)), or that admitting anything is "climbing down" or "admitting defeat" is risible. In the absence of any acknowledgment or indications by Mick, he's effectively been given the green light to continue, and should he transgress again, there's nothing to indicate that the transgression falls within the scope of undesirable behaviour (since he's not acknowledged any wrongdoing, or indicated what behaviour changes we can expect). --HighKing (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- For the record, I believe Mick's block was harsh and too wide in scope, but overall acceptable as it addressed a systematic problem that was getting worse. But also for the record, I disagree with the unblock. There was a *clear* consensus for the block. The community blocked Mick until we got to the point where Mick would recognize and address the concerns voiced by the community. He's now unblocked. Hmmmm. Could someone please point out to me where Mick has:
Revision Deletion
Not sure if this is the right place, but can an admin delete the edit summary for The Proposal (film) written by Israelirussianlk (u) (t)? You might also want to block the user. Although the current vandalism is the first in three years, as far as I can tell, he's never done anything but vandalize.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Troll-standard vandalism, personally I think we over-use this rev-delete function. I'll take a look at the contribs of the user. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Blocked by Favonian (talk · contribs), but I see no reason to delete that edit summary; in my opinion it does not meet the criteria for redaction. It is just common vandalism. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Correct. It's just routine vandal blithering. On another note, though, when an account idle for three years becomes active with vandalism in a new area, it's reasonable to suspect that the account has been compromised. Does Wikipedia have a system watching for password-cracking attempts? --John Nagle (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wow. You don't find the phrase "AMERICUNT FEMINIST DIPSHITS" grossly "insulting, degrading, or offensive"? No wonder no one at Wikipedia can agree on a definition of civility.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is, but the offender is blocked and there is really little need to remove random crap (which is not pointed at anybody in particular) from the history. Marking as resolved. Sandstein 19:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- For my edification then (as it's really no skin off my nose), does the grossly offensive material have to be directed at a particular person to warrant deletion? The policy itself doesn't actually say that, but if that's its practical implementation, I'll try to remember it in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's more that this sort of stuff is so very common that mostly we don't even bother to rev-delete it unless there's a possibility that even deeply hidden in the history it could cause actual offence or other trouble to somebody, so there's not really a need to inform admins about every such incident. Blocking the account is higher on the priority list. Sandstein 20:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Reinforcements needed to play Whack-a-troll
I'm busy reverting edits from a "comedian" using this IP address and this one, who appear to be the same gentleman discussed here. Pretty self explanatory. As I can't patrol my own pages 24/7, would someone mind monitoring the pages I created until he gets bored again? Thanks, Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)