Fluffernutter (talk | contribs) →User:Hot Stop: "I was provoked" isn't an excuse |
→Topic ban request - User:JASpencer: new section |
||
Line 699: | Line 699: | ||
:::::You may be right as a general rule, but not in this case. Buck was out of line.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC) |
:::::You may be right as a general rule, but not in this case. Buck was out of line.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::{{ec}} Sorry, but "I was provoked" isn't an excuse for attacking someone in my eyes. Looks like Buck was trying to carry on a content-related conversation Hot Stop didn't want to have, so yeah, bad style on Buck's part, but there's nothing anywhere in what Buck said or did that justified Hot Stop's flying off the handle the way he did. In no universe will "fuck off dick face" resolve any content or editorial dispute; the ''only'' thing that behavior does is poison the atmosphere and make the dispute so personal that it obscures the original locus of the dispute. I'd also note that Hot Stop shows no apparent evidence in his unblock request or post-request interactions that he understands that his behavior was unacceptable ("I understand what I was blocked for" and "...but I was provoked by his behavior" do not equal "I understand that I cannot speak to my fellow editors that way, even if they've annoyed me") or that he intends to avoid it in the future.<p>If people want, I suppose we can discuss Buck's behavior here as well, but personally, I see nothing in his behavior toward Hot Stop that deserves more than a sigh and a recommendation that he try to avoid poking bears in the future. At any rate, it has no bearing on Hot Stop's behavior whether or not the person he was railing against was perfect or totally wrong - in either case, he didn't have the right to resort to name-calling. [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 00:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)</p> |
::::{{ec}} Sorry, but "I was provoked" isn't an excuse for attacking someone in my eyes. Looks like Buck was trying to carry on a content-related conversation Hot Stop didn't want to have, so yeah, bad style on Buck's part, but there's nothing anywhere in what Buck said or did that justified Hot Stop's flying off the handle the way he did. In no universe will "fuck off dick face" resolve any content or editorial dispute; the ''only'' thing that behavior does is poison the atmosphere and make the dispute so personal that it obscures the original locus of the dispute. I'd also note that Hot Stop shows no apparent evidence in his unblock request or post-request interactions that he understands that his behavior was unacceptable ("I understand what I was blocked for" and "...but I was provoked by his behavior" do not equal "I understand that I cannot speak to my fellow editors that way, even if they've annoyed me") or that he intends to avoid it in the future.<p>If people want, I suppose we can discuss Buck's behavior here as well, but personally, I see nothing in his behavior toward Hot Stop that deserves more than a sigh and a recommendation that he try to avoid poking bears in the future. At any rate, it has no bearing on Hot Stop's behavior whether or not the person he was railing against was perfect or totally wrong - in either case, he didn't have the right to resort to name-calling. [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 00:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)</p> |
||
== Topic ban request - [[User:JASpencer]] == |
|||
JASpencer and I have had a contentious history here at Wikipedia over in the [[Freemasonry]] topic area. He makes no attempt to hide the fact that he is biased against the topic, and we've had similar issues on ANI before. However, and not for the first time), JASpencer is stalking my contribs. He has keep voted on several AfDs I started in unrelated areas ([[WP:Articles for deletion/Awa Santesson-Sey]], [[WP:Articles for deletion/Tahoe-LAFS]], [[WP:Articles for deletion/Aliya (singer)]], and [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Is_there_such_as_a_thing_as_a_.22bad_faith_keep.22.3F]], just to name a few from the last few days. In every case, he is voting or commenting to bait me, and additionally to offer some sort of personal criticism, which is generally irrelevant to the topic. I do not need to put up with this behavior, which started this last time [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JASpencer&diff=prev&oldid=527971873 after I posted on his talk page] to ask him to stop reverting edits against consensus on the [[Freemasonry]] article. I was later asked a question by another editor on my talk page, to which JA commented and the other editor [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JASpencer&diff=next&oldid=527993445 took exception]. JA has also started several threads on various noticeboards about the [[Continental Freemasonry]] article, because he simply is not satisfied with what anyone is telling him. Prior to that, he hadn't gone near my other contribs or edited the Freemasonry article for months (that I am aware of), and a user compare report should indicate that. |
|||
This situation has been going on for years, and I have had enough of it. I'm sure some of my fellow editors at [[Freemasonry]] are also tired of this behavior, but it's been targeted at me directly more so than anyone else in that area. I don't care why, but it is a fact. Therefore, I hereby request a community enforced topic ban for him not only on Freemasonry-related topics (broadly construed), but an interaction ban regarding my edits and other contribs. I have no issues staying away from other material he edits (mainly Catholicism-related items, which is why I know there's an issue when he pops up at an AfD on a Russian pop singer or a computer encryption protocol), because it's not in my areas of interest or expertise. [[User:MSJapan|MSJapan]] ([[User talk:MSJapan|talk]]) 00:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:33, 17 December 2012
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) |
|
Organized edit-warring
The Syrian civil war article is currently home to a POV-pushing operation. To paraphrase Lothar [1], the vast majority of participating users agree that Kurds should form a third party in the infobox, but three users (Sopher99, Futuretrillionaire, I7laseral) continuously "filibuster" any attempt to implement the WP:CONSENSUS through coordinated edit-warring. By my own count, the three users are currently opposed in their position by twelve other participants [2]. The standard, usual excuses ("its all just votes", "its not resolved") are employed, by which the entire community might hypothetically oppose the users without them having to stop edit-warring. -- Director (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is no real consensus for a third column. There was a consensus for the double dividers. You kept adding a third column without consensus. That's why you were reverted by multiple editors. I don't see why this matters needs to be brought up at ANI. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I concur with Futuretrillionaire. First off. Wikipedia is not a poll.
- The first "vote" did not address better alternatives already suggested or the issue of undue weight.
- A second attached discussion was created from the first in which many more users agreed to the solution of using a double line to increase the presence of separation in the infobox. Sopher99 (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Even if users did not like the double line, which they did like it, we would still be able to implement the alternative solution of adding a headline note about the Kurdish incidents. This solution only had one oppose. Sopher99 (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Looks to me more like you three bullied people into retaining a two-column infobox, not caring much whether there's one or two lines separating the Kurds. Lothar von Richthofen introduced the double line. In his words: "FWIW, I (and most others) agree that the Kurds should indeed form a third party, but several individuals filibustered a recent discussion on it, so I threw in the double-line as a temporary fix." [3].
- @Futuretrillionaire, I was reverted by you three, not "multiple editors" - and in spite of a clear consensus. That's why we're here. -- Director (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- The double line was only proposed as a temporary solution, until the three or four editors (Futuretrillionaire, Sopher, Lhaseral) who disagreed on a third column could cool down. 11 users voted for a third row, including the one who proposed the double line. FunkMonk (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Plus me, just arrived and viewing the situation in disbelief. That's 12 by my count. But its "all just votes", don't you know.. -- Director (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually Ekograf and Mor oppose the three column line. So its 5 against 12. However 3 of the 12 are ips who don't edit the page. 4 of the Top 5 editors of the article support the ouble column. And only 1 of the top 12 editors oppose the double column. Lastly there was no consensus because the vote did not adress undue weight or the alternatives Already suggested. Sopher99 (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a 3RR violation? Would this not be better served by using that noticeboard and the DR/N for the content dispute?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, Director added the third column 4 times, violating 3RR. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not quite. Having read the discussion and noted the consensus on the issue, I amended the infobox. I reverted its removal three times (not four). I did not revert anyone the first time, in fact I worked hard to implement a more appropriate representation of the conflict, as recommended for some time by most participants on the talkpage. I had no idea as to whether the edit would be at all disputed. I am very careful to abide by policy, Futuretrillionaire. To be technical, if anyone it was your "group" that did post four reverts [4][5][6][7]. And in a very prompt and coordinated manner, one must note. -- Director (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your first addition counts as a revert because you well knew that the the third column has been added and removed multiple times before. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Is that so? I actually had no idea. In fact, apart from a couple fleeting edits, today is the first time I ever got seriously involved in the article - and encountered a wikiclique blocking edits by anyone who disagrees with them, be it a dozen users or more. -- Director (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your first addition counts as a revert because you well knew that the the third column has been added and removed multiple times before. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not quite. Having read the discussion and noted the consensus on the issue, I amended the infobox. I reverted its removal three times (not four). I did not revert anyone the first time, in fact I worked hard to implement a more appropriate representation of the conflict, as recommended for some time by most participants on the talkpage. I had no idea as to whether the edit would be at all disputed. I am very careful to abide by policy, Futuretrillionaire. To be technical, if anyone it was your "group" that did post four reverts [4][5][6][7]. And in a very prompt and coordinated manner, one must note. -- Director (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, Director added the third column 4 times, violating 3RR. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Plus me, just arrived and viewing the situation in disbelief. That's 12 by my count. But its "all just votes", don't you know.. -- Director (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
This issue is much more difficult than it appears to be. KNC, under auspice of KSC (Kurdish Supreme Committee) agreed to join NC (main opposition group). KSC is composed of both PYD and KNC although PYD won´t have their representatives in NC (but they agreed with this solution after objections of their inclusion by pro-Turkish and pro-MB representatives). So with this in mind we would have two groups (NC and KNC) in two parts of infobox although one is part of another. EllsworthSK (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- So true.......but it is still a content dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not in my view. As I said on the talkpage, imo this is a textbook example of a clear user consensus, grounded in sound arguments, being blocked by WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING and edit-warring, as described at WP:NOTUNANIMITY:
"Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system, as well as tendentious editing. There is a three revert rule to limit efforts to stonewall the editing process."
- The group of three editors functions in coordination to WP:GAME the system by way of avoiding an obvious 3RR violation by a single user. In such a way, and by insisting on unanimity on the talkpage, they block beneficial changes for the apparent purpose of POV-pushing. I agree with FunkMonk [8] that the idea appears to be to inappropriately stress the Kurdish faction's alignment with the Turkish-supported rebels. -- Director (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds exactly like you are unhappy that you cannot gain a consensus and three editors still cannot live with the content. Good luck with that. You seem to be wikilawyering.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)(edit conflict)}(edit conflict)There comes a point where "live with" is just not what happens in consensus-building. There was recently a long RM at Talk:Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940) where users holding a minority viewpoint did not budge, but consensus was still judged in favour of the majority. It's nice if people can live with it. Certainly the ideal—but not the reality. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- It looks to me that there WAS consensus, then a little while later a bunch of IPs and other random people came it and reopened a discussion, and now you are siding with the newer people by saying there was never consensus. In this case, there WAS consensus and it was changed, and the newer people opened a new discussion where there was NO consensus to change, so it sticks with the option chosen by the previous editors. Does that make sense? Those three are entirely within their right to keep reverting, even past 3RR because the edits are going against consensus and need a talk page discussion consensus first. Hopefully that all made sense, as I am quite tired at the moment. Jeancey (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)(edit conflict)Um no. The consensus you refer to was a month old and was "wait a month and then re-discuss". A second discussion occurred, and a new consensus was formed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- It actually does make some sense, except the part about going past 3RR as there is no real excuse to do so. One need not edit war to get their way. If a new consensus was not gained, (and this assumes you are correct (still not sure) then that change should not be made. It sure would help if at least one person would demonstrate this through all the bickering.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- See, here's the deal. DIREKTOR is edit warring. So that assumes that he/she disagrees with whatever consensus may have been formed as well because they refuse to accept it. So there is a dispute.....a content dispute and that doesn't go here at AN/I. It goes to DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong. DIREKTOR came to the page as a third party and saw that a pre-existing discussion had a consensus and enacted it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not demonstrated at all with any diffs. Not shown to respect the decenting opinions or shown any reasion that their concerns were not within reason. This is no consensus. Rememebr this is not a vote.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I recommend this filing be closed as having nothing that admin need intervene in. This is a clear content dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not demonstrated at all with any diffs. Not shown to respect the decenting opinions or shown any reasion that their concerns were not within reason. This is no consensus. Rememebr this is not a vote.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong. DIREKTOR came to the page as a third party and saw that a pre-existing discussion had a consensus and enacted it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- See, here's the deal. DIREKTOR is edit warring. So that assumes that he/she disagrees with whatever consensus may have been formed as well because they refuse to accept it. So there is a dispute.....a content dispute and that doesn't go here at AN/I. It goes to DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds exactly like you are unhappy that you cannot gain a consensus and three editors still cannot live with the content. Good luck with that. You seem to be wikilawyering.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, from having a quick peruse over the dispute at hand here I would suggest taking it to WP:DRN rather than this page. However, I don't see a voluntary resolution being reached so I'm not sure how valuable that might be. As far as I can tell, there seems to be a consensus to include the third column which is greatly opposed by three specific editors. In terms of the addition of the third column, I haven't read enough/know enough about the conflict to comment on that, I'm merely looking at the discussion on the recent addition and removal of that column. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- That was my impression as well when I arrived on the talkpage yesterday. I dare say in an article on a current civil war, a 12:3 or 12:4 consensus is about as good as anyone can possibly hope for. I also agree that, when a dozen people disagree with you, and you continue to edit-war and block the edit - there's little hope of a voluntary resolution.
- I submit that, in my opinion, the content dispute has long been concluded, but that the group of users in question are simply WP:FILIBUSTERING through WP:EW. For almost a month now, the agreed-upon, beneficial changes have been blocked by this disruption. -- Director (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, it does appear to be WP:FILIBUSTERING to me in an attempt to push a minority view through. In an article such as this it is unlikely a unanimous decision is highly unlikely so a 3:1 or 4:1 consensus would be appropriate. Perhaps an admin or someone more versed on the topic/policy can weigh in to confirm a consensus and that filibustering is taking place, or vice-versa. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Here we go again. WP is WP:NOTAVOTE. The discussion is still on-going. It's actually 5 that oppose the third column. Most of the supporters made borderline !Votes.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh so you're saying, if we accept your above interpretation, the number of people who support the edit are only double? Wow. The discussion is not "on-going", its rehashing old arguments and its going in circles. This is not a proper factual dispute, as it concerns an infobox organizational question, and thus you really could just continue "disagreeing" and not accepting the consensus in perpetuity. That's called stonewalling; and the 3RR rule, which you violated, was introduced (among other reasons) specifically to prevent that. -- Director (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree that there is a consensus. What there is is a vote and an editor claiming consensus from that vote. There are still editors (I am not involved in editing this page) who disagree and have not accepted the content. That is not a filibuster (which is an individual refusing to get a point) but a lack of agreement and a clear dispute. I agree that DR/N may not lead to any agreement as the discussion seems to be blowing off a number of editors as having no say. I suggest an RFC to bring in a larger number of eyes to the dispute.
- Oh so you're saying, if we accept your above interpretation, the number of people who support the edit are only double? Wow. The discussion is not "on-going", its rehashing old arguments and its going in circles. This is not a proper factual dispute, as it concerns an infobox organizational question, and thus you really could just continue "disagreeing" and not accepting the consensus in perpetuity. That's called stonewalling; and the 3RR rule, which you violated, was introduced (among other reasons) specifically to prevent that. -- Director (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Here we go again. WP is WP:NOTAVOTE. The discussion is still on-going. It's actually 5 that oppose the third column. Most of the supporters made borderline !Votes.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, it does appear to be WP:FILIBUSTERING to me in an attempt to push a minority view through. In an article such as this it is unlikely a unanimous decision is highly unlikely so a 3:1 or 4:1 consensus would be appropriate. Perhaps an admin or someone more versed on the topic/policy can weigh in to confirm a consensus and that filibustering is taking place, or vice-versa. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Still see no admin intervention needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Director in that the discussion has ground to a halt. It's going round and round but, overall, the discussion has stagnated and come to an end. Sure, in terms of people commenting and arguing, it's still going, but nothing is actually being accomplished anymore. Regarding WP:NOTAVOTE, you are correct that Wikipedia is not based on simple voting, as it is not a democracy however straw polls tend to be used to gauge whether or a consensus might exist, to allow a quick "show of hands", per say, to clarify where people have come down on the discussion. After a length discussion ending with at least 2:1 - 66% (but more likely, 3:1 - 75%) of editors favouring one result, it's safe to say a consensus exists. Further, for two (possibly more) uninvolved editors to come in and come to the same conclusion that a consensus exists, I believe that lends more credibility to that point. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- That just blows off the uninvolved editors that see no consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- In what way? Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 00:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps as much as it blows off the uninvolved editors that agree with the majority or the minority. It is disingenuous to bring up the uninvolved editors who have given no opinion in this discussion. We have given no opinion.UnbelievableError (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Sdoof Noreh
Please look at this page; UK miners' strike (1984–1985): Revision history, the named user has posted a very very offensive and personal attack against me. I find this most unacceptable and inappropriate. I would be most grateful if action could be taken. This user's conduct is out of order. Thank you for your assistance. Christian1985 (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I presume you are referring to this edit? SassyLilNugget (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you for the link. It is not so much the edit, it is the absolutely disgusting comment he wrote above with the edit referring to me as "extreme right-wing...". I think this is grossly inappropriate and abusive. I would like action taken against this user. I have done absolutely nothing wrong. Christian1985 (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Its not civil, but its not the worst thing ever. I'd say this should go to a content review board. Also, his user contribution history shows only this edit.[9] So the 'always causing trouble' part is funny and begs for a look at what a CU will find as the user implies a familiarity with Christian without any posts prior. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your advice. But just for the record this is not an isolated incident. I have been the victim of such offensive name-calling before by IP users who take exception to me [correctly] challenging or reverting unconstructive edits they have made on articles so they retaliate by going on my talk page calling me "far right" "Nazi" and all sorts of other disgusting terms. I have a feeling this is an IP user who I have dealt with in the past. Christian1985 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Then I would go to WP:SPI and make a formal request for an investigation if you believe they are the same individual using single purpose accounts or such to harass you instead of confronting it from their main account. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we have such a thing as a "content review board", ChrisGualtieri. And an SPI investigation will not link an IP to a named user, as then their geographic location is revealed, thus invading their privacy. I have hidden the edit summary so that only admins can see it. -- Dianna (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's a bit nit-picky and I swear we have more then a dozen 'content' related notice boards which serve to 'review' the material they are presented with and decide what would be best. Is it the proper name, no, but everyone
knowsshould know what I meant. And seriously, tying an IP to a user is not a good idea, but it doesn't mean that the IP can't be blocked in such a way. Long-term abuse accounts typically have that exact message displayed. The numerous IP addresses used by Burgz33 comes to mind.[10] So its not outside of the realm of possibility, though it is unlikely. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's a bit nit-picky and I swear we have more then a dozen 'content' related notice boards which serve to 'review' the material they are presented with and decide what would be best. Is it the proper name, no, but everyone
- Thanks very much for your advice. But just for the record this is not an isolated incident. I have been the victim of such offensive name-calling before by IP users who take exception to me [correctly] challenging or reverting unconstructive edits they have made on articles so they retaliate by going on my talk page calling me "far right" "Nazi" and all sorts of other disgusting terms. I have a feeling this is an IP user who I have dealt with in the past. Christian1985 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
As an IP user i don't like seeing attacks on a user like this, because it ruins the rep of IP editors. i've left a message on Christian's talk page for future attackers telling them to leave him alone, as i am an anti-drama person. (meaning i don't want to see drama on wikipedia, and if i can help to stop it then damn it i will) 199.101.61.190 (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Behavior of "Sports and Politics" warrants admin attention!
This topic has evolved into mutual recriminations among a group of disputing editors who accuse one anothr of tendentious editing and personal attacks. There have already been examples of both, from both sides at the time of placing this notice. Please add to this discussion very carefully and avoid further attacks or tendentiousness. This admin for one will block any hint of disuptatious behaviour from any party. I invite any admin who concurs to do the same, and any admin who thinks this is a bad idea to remove this notice freely.
Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like to draw your attention to "Sports and Politics" (S&P)'s behavior and see if some administrative action is warranted.
In a recent ANI post S&P created in which she tried to make some unfounded accusation of another editor (of invoking "a legal threat to try and push forward their POV on an article"), S&P has instead drawn attention to her own behavior, as observed by TP (see this, and this):
"...in the processes of reverting, you warn ... of an edit war".
True to her spirit, S&P has just demonstrated yet again such a behavior.
S&P has slapped a "revert warring" warning on my talk page while she herself has reverted the same changes 3 times, when I clearly stated in my revert note that "this has been discussed in ANI and DRN. Even the version you proposed contain reference to "high-tech warfare".
Apparently, this is not the first time S&P has shown such a tendency.
If we dig a little deeper, you would notice that S&P has shown a consistent pattern of engaging such and similar tactics in the past: such as this, this, this, this and this.
Time for some administrative action against such behavior?!
Showmebeef (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is purely and simply a content dispute. I'm surprised that I haven't been mentioned here too, because I've agreed with User:Sport and politics. A waste of Administrator time. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is not SIMPLY a content dispute (though it has arisen from a content dispute). This serves to demonstrate a certain "behavior pattern" of a certain editor! Showmebeef (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sport and Politics behavioural problems are quite extensive and is the most disruptive and devious editor I have encountered on Wikipedia, this is just the tip of the iceberg. However, it may be better to focus on revert warring for now. --Andromedean (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe its late....but what is the behavior we are talking about here?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please see my reply to Kim down below--the behavior is "...in the processes of reverting, you warn ... of an edit war". Showmebeef (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe its late....but what is the behavior we are talking about here?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- And there we have it. The content dispute has Showmebeef and Andromedean on one side, and Sport and politics and me on the other. Sport and politics and I have firmly opposed the addition of masses of what we see as undue content, for months. The former two are forum shopping, and have been for months. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Can you provide any evidence that I have been "forum shopping"? And how do you term this kind of groundless accusation?? Showmebeef (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies. You may not have been forum shopping, but the person you have aligned yourself with here certainly has. It may have been unfair of me to group you with Andromedean with regards to that particular behaviour, but when you choose your allies you indicate at least some acceptance of their overall behaviour. I don't really want to get deeply involved in this discussion. When the "Controversies" section first appeared in the London Olympics article I suggested that, just as for all previous Olympics articles, it was a bad idea. You can actually find some thoughts of mine about Criticism sections in any article on my Talk page. It pre-dates this issue by some time. I think clumping negatives together in articles is a very bad look for Wikipedia. I predicted it would lead to bad things for the London Olympics article, and it has. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just because I agree with some of the viewpoints or choices of some content of an editor doesn't mean I chose to ally with that editor; nor does it indicate my acceptance of the "particular behaviour" of that editor. However, by extension of your own logic, and by your own admission that you and "Sport and Politics" are on the same side (which I take it as meaning that you two are allies), do you mean to say that you accept S&P's "particular behaviour"? Showmebeef (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies. You may not have been forum shopping, but the person you have aligned yourself with here certainly has. It may have been unfair of me to group you with Andromedean with regards to that particular behaviour, but when you choose your allies you indicate at least some acceptance of their overall behaviour. I don't really want to get deeply involved in this discussion. When the "Controversies" section first appeared in the London Olympics article I suggested that, just as for all previous Olympics articles, it was a bad idea. You can actually find some thoughts of mine about Criticism sections in any article on my Talk page. It pre-dates this issue by some time. I think clumping negatives together in articles is a very bad look for Wikipedia. I predicted it would lead to bad things for the London Olympics article, and it has. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Can you provide any evidence that I have been "forum shopping"? And how do you term this kind of groundless accusation?? Showmebeef (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- And there we have it. The content dispute has Showmebeef and Andromedean on one side, and Sport and politics and me on the other. Sport and politics and I have firmly opposed the addition of masses of what we see as undue content, for months. The former two are forum shopping, and have been for months. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Amadscientist I would recommend looking through Tparis' comments first as an uninvolved admin, along with her aggressive attitude including the hidden part of the talk page which I attempted to display, and refusal to discuss as you recommended in the DRN, until the last few days when made to. However, it may be best to focus on the revert warring for the time being, since her appeal to Jimbo Wales for extended editing rights linked by showmebeef. It tells a story, along with her contribution history during August & September , but it takes time and patience to go through it all.--Andromedean (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- You have provided some difs, but have not explained fully what they relate to. I also don't understand "Hidden part of the talkpage" you attempted to display. Yes, I read through TParis' comments and I fully agree with what he said, and yet he felt no need to take an action but suggest edting another article. So, OK...they have not taken that advice, but what is it that they have done since those comments that you feel another uninvolved admin (or Tparis) would step in to level sanctions over. Of course I suggested you not discuss conduct...on the DR/N as that is not the venue to discuss such issues. But if you are asking for an admin to intervene (and I am not suggesting they shouldn't or wont), you should disuss it with enough detail that even someone like myself, that is familiar with the content dispute, can clearly see are actions that cross a line. I guess I am simply saying, please don't make us go through it all just to figure out what the current issues are that you feel are a continuation of that conduct. Its ok to just tell us. (Also, while the legal threat was not an actual threat, I can at least see why they may have thought so and at least believe it was a good faith misunderstanding.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'd be more inclined to say the Andromedean is the cause of a lot of the ruckus more so than S&P. If anything the collapsed section on the talk page shows more of their combatative behaviour rather than S&P's. The endless horse flogging and ad hominems. Andromedean's behaviour in the recent RFC/U for HiLo48 is also illuminating. Blackmane (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- You have provided some difs, but have not explained fully what they relate to. I also don't understand "Hidden part of the talkpage" you attempted to display. Yes, I read through TParis' comments and I fully agree with what he said, and yet he felt no need to take an action but suggest edting another article. So, OK...they have not taken that advice, but what is it that they have done since those comments that you feel another uninvolved admin (or Tparis) would step in to level sanctions over. Of course I suggested you not discuss conduct...on the DR/N as that is not the venue to discuss such issues. But if you are asking for an admin to intervene (and I am not suggesting they shouldn't or wont), you should disuss it with enough detail that even someone like myself, that is familiar with the content dispute, can clearly see are actions that cross a line. I guess I am simply saying, please don't make us go through it all just to figure out what the current issues are that you feel are a continuation of that conduct. Its ok to just tell us. (Also, while the legal threat was not an actual threat, I can at least see why they may have thought so and at least believe it was a good faith misunderstanding.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Amadscientist I would recommend looking through Tparis' comments first as an uninvolved admin, along with her aggressive attitude including the hidden part of the talk page which I attempted to display, and refusal to discuss as you recommended in the DRN, until the last few days when made to. However, it may be best to focus on the revert warring for the time being, since her appeal to Jimbo Wales for extended editing rights linked by showmebeef. It tells a story, along with her contribution history during August & September , but it takes time and patience to go through it all.--Andromedean (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I would ask the OP to please post some diffs demonstrating actionable behaviour by S&P please. There are several diffs but they are all from other people about her, not evidence of her own behaviour. Please be precise in the diffs and a specific request for action would be helpful as well (eg blocking, page protection etc.)
Can I also caution all who have contributed to this RfC not simply to continue that battle over here. I have already seen enough comments from the familiar names over there. It would be good to see (a) specific diffs, (b) new voices in the discussion, (c) less rehashing of well-established animosities and (d) no more personal attacks in this thread please ("disruptive", "aggressive", "devious" etc...) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Kim, for the suggestion. I'd like to say that the trigger for this post was that S&P has reverted 3 times (revert1, revert2 and revert3), and then slapped me with an "edit war" warning after I have reverted the last one. The original change was made with a note in the talk page that "88 and Showmebeef have both confirmed they accept the last change. Please don't revert and misrepresent what was actually reported by the reputable media". When I made revert to S&P's last one, I also did with an edit note that "this has been discussed in ANI and DRN. Even the version you proposed contain reference to 'high-tech warfare'". S&P made the reverts using the reason that it needs a consensus before it can be changed. However, the change referred to a direct quote from a reputable source, and it has been discussed multiple times in the talk page in the past, and then in the DRN, and most recently in an ANI. What consensus do you need? You know S&P is not going to agree to a "consensus", and that's the way she is holding this section of the article "hostage" (as observed by TP in in an earlier ANI, see this. And this "edit warring" trick came right on the heel of TP's observation (see this):
- "...in the processes of reverting, you warn ... of an edit war".
- Some of the diff's I listed was merely trying to show a pattern of S&P's behavior as observed by other users. I could certainly come up with a list of more "diffs demonstrating actionable behaviour" of S&P. Just give me a little more time, please! Showmebeef (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- This appears to be very unclear, vindictive and highly cherry picked, also none of them so far of actual editing by myself. I have looked through the diffs and they have been in some cases entirely misrepresented. For example the diff regarding edit warring here is actually about weather edit warring was any three edits or was only reverts, I was also a new editor at the time. Sport and politics (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- S&P, not three hours before you made this post, I asked people (about three edits up from here) to avoid personal attacks. I don't know what else to call the use of the word "vindictive" and I note that in this sorry tit-for-tat you have got Showmebeef turning it back on you lower down this page. This immature exchange is typical of the poor state of relations between the two camps. If anyone from either side further lowers the tone with a personal attack, I'll block them if I catch them quickly enough. Your collective poor standards of collaboration are the issue here in your race to the bottom, behaviour-wise. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest some reading of the collapsed discussion on the talk page which clearly demonstrated there was no consensus and multiple editors took part in it. Andromodean was the only editor to actively take part in that discussion and advocate making the the changes which have now been made. So to claim there is a consensus to make those changes after reading the collapsed discussion is quite frankly a difficult conclusion to come to. In that discussion more editors favoured complete removal of the section than favoured making the changes proposed. A link to the collapsed discussion can be seen here. Sport and politics (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Sport and Politics' Pattern of Behavior
I have, in my opening paragraph, described the pretty blatant behavior by S&P for edit or revert warring. I believe it warrants some administrative action or at least the attention of this board--the reason being that S&P has a history of engaging such behavior. Here are some examples that serve to demonstrate such a pattern:
- In this example, an editor has observed that S&P has dished out "at least 5 reverts within a 24 hour period (diff's for the 5 reverts are listed):
- "Not only is this edit warring,[11][12][13][14][15] but with at least 5 reverts within a 24 hour period User:Sport and politics also violated the bright-line threshold of WP:3RR, and was lucky not to be blocked. I'd strongly suggest you follow User:Cla68's advice and discuss on the article's talk page instead of continuing to edit war. Neither WP:BRD nor WP:BOLD are justification for edit warring and violating 3RR. I don't see any civility or wikiquette violation by Cla68, on the contrary, Cla68 has been extremely civil throughout, while Sports and politics has been quite uncivil. Dreadstar ☥ 21:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- In this example, S&P removed (reverted) the whole section (Technologies used for Cycling) twice when other editors noted that "version added addressing full range of issues so they can be discussed" ( this) and "don't revert good-faith contributions" (this)
Showmebeef (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I rest my case. Having only made my first edits on 8 July and things are being paraded as "evidence" against me from 29 July, some context and rationality is needed. I think this whole case has just been shown to be without any genuine basis of fact and is purely perception on the part of the complainant. Also adding content to a wikipedia article simply for the purposes of "discussing the content " as seen in this diff here is not how Wikipeida works. That flies in the face of standard editing practices of be Bold, then Revert, then Discuss, not be Bold, then Discuss, then Revert. There was also no stopping the content being added to the talk page for discussion as opposed to it being threateningly placed in the article, in the manner it was as shown in the previous diff.
- This Diff does not mention the quoted section as claimed. It in fact says "Section taken out for some reason, replaced!", when the user had full knowledge that a discussion on that section was ongoing and at the time there was consensus for complete removal of the section, which is not the same as the consensus which developed and the one we have now, but at the time that was the leading consensus.
- As for the other three Diffs one is removal of an unnecessarily added word and one is the reverting poorly worded and non encyclopaedic content and the other is the removing of giving undue weight to what the BBC does as the article is not a commentary on how the BBC covers the Olympics.
- Sport and politics (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
By no means are we attacking you, we just think that your behavior is breaking the rules and we're merely speeking on it, or is that a crime now? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am not quite sure where the above comment has come from. I am also not sure where I have said any one is "attacking" anyone. I have simply given my opinion, without calling anyone anything and have pointed out where the above "evidence" falls down. Would you please care to elaborate on your statement above 199.101? Sport and politics (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
your statement on how you started on july 8th and people started brading your edits together from july 29th. it's the one that preceids my comment, it looks like you feel that you're being attacked, but i may be mistaken. in any case, i wish for all this crap to stop as it will not help anyone at all, whether it be you or andromedean. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have no feeling of being attacked, I have simply pointed out that the diffs provided do not really stand up "as a demonstration" as claimed by Showmebeef and reaching that far back in to a users edit history will show up newbie editing which is wholly different to their editing style being undertaken today. Also the "evidence" claimed has already been dealt with by the appropriate forum and the complained of behaviour has ceased. There was also an apology from me in that forum. I would actually like an apology from Andromodean for their repeated claims of being "partisan and nationalistic", having a "political agenda" and being "eager to censor". It would be nice to get one but I don't think I will get one though. Sport and politics (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am merely providing some facts here, as Kim has suggested, to establish a pattern of behavior. If you consider that as "attacks", so be it. As someone who's involved in editing an article with you, I don't think my words against yours serve as much volume as other (uninvolved) editors' comments and observations, such as this one (on your talk page and was later deleted by you):
- "I am watch(list)ing the 2012 Olympics Controversy page, and your talkpage, in the interests of studying how this situation eventually plays out. I believe your editing style, the resultant aggravation and edit warring, and bad faith displayed on all sides has generated an excellent experiment in Wikipedia governance. This article, handled with the proper attitudes and compromises, would have settled down quickly. Thank you for providing a great case study in how broken the Wikipedia dispute resolution process is.→StaniStani 04:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)"
Showmebeef (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am again confused by individuals saying I am thinking I am being attacked. I have specifically stated "I have no feeling of being attacked" so I am not sure where the sentiment is coming from that I am feeling that I am being attacked. I am also not sure of the relevancy of the quote provided. Sport and politics (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I misread the part about "attacks", but the rest of my reply is still highly relevant as it is (yet another) editor's keen observation. And it's not about being ""partisan and nationalistic", but about "your editing style, the resultant aggravation and edit warring, and bad faith displayed", a pattern that has been displayed over and over again, as testimonies by other editors can attest to (which I've provided links earlier). Showmebeef (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have read a lot of claims by individuals, but that's all they are just claims. Can you please provide some substantive diffs which back up the continued claims which are made. Otherwise it is just unfounded speculation and individual perception. Sport and politics (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- How about this current one?! You have reverted 3 times, and then turn around slapped me with a revert warning? And you've done it right after TP has observed that "...in the processes of reverting, you warn ... of an edit war"?! BTW. I have this question to all admins and all other more experienced editors: can any reasonable editor do that? Is it "legal" even on Wiki for an editor to engage such a behavior?? And how about some admin action just for this kind of behavior?! And now since you've asked for it--I will do my due diligence and provide some more evidence to illustrate your pattern of behavior. However, since I do have professional and family obligations to fulfill, I will ask others who are involved more patience as I come up with more evidence. Showmebeef (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- In relation to the above and to the reference to the edit war. I was issued with a warning and I ceased the behaviour. Showmebeef though then continued reverting after Andromodean and myself stopped. That was therefore continuing the edit war. As was clearly made to me there is no "entitlement" to three reverts. It is in my opinion a little but rich to complain about edit warring when Showmebeef was happy to continue the edit war. The reversion in question from Showmebeef can be seen here, the warning placed against me seen here, the warning placed against Andromodean here and the warning place against Showmebeef here. ShowmeBeef has also not contributed to the discussions on the talk page since 1 September so has made no attempt at discussing the current issue(s). Whereas while Andromodean and I fundamentally disagree at least there is an open dialogue on the talk page regarding the issues at hand. Sport and politics (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't wish to engage in a war of words here with you. Any interested admins/editors are welcome to check the edit history of the article (and if they can afford the time and patience--the archive for the article and talk page) for themselves, see how that has evolved and draw their own conclusions. And they are welcome to come back here and comment. Showmebeef (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I do think an apology is in order from andromedean, as long as it will stop this drama. to me, i'm not on either side, i'm just one who wants to stop the drama. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Andromodean
As we are discussing here poor behaviour I think its time to lay bear the long running very poor behaviour of Andromedean. Below are a chronological list of diffs of contributions which have been made by Andromodean, mainly but not exclusively in relation to this track cycling technologies section of the controversies at the 2012 Olympics article.
reference to the use of a "strawman"
claims of conflict of interest
claims of not acting in good faith and "acting irresponsibly"
claims of "I don't believe you don't understand this!"
claims a source hasn't been read
further claims sources are not read
claims I have a "political agenda" and" An agenda to censor the essential fact"
claims of "national interest" and "censor the article"
claims I "wrecked it"
claims of "removing objective data"
claims of "censorship of hard facts"
claims of bad faith editing
claims of "really eager to censor objective information"
advocating of edit warring "better still revert to this and lock it"
demonstration of ownership
claims of conflict of interest
claims of "Petty excuses to censor the article, failure to declare any conflict of interest."
claims of disruption and bad faith and a demonstration of ownership
demonstration of no good faith assumption
claim of "how desperate people are to find any excuse to censor this information"
direct personal attack
claims of "blatant abuse"
demonstration of ownership
direct personal attack
claims of an agenda
claims of "you seem to be vey knowledgable and astute with using the rules for a new user"
bad faith claims and indirect personal attacks
claims of bullying
veiled threat of " If they don’t I will resume editing, and expect others to respect that decision"
editing of other users comments on a talk page
bad faith claims and direct personal attacks
direct personal attack
direct personal attacks and claims of "the absence of any coherent argument you has simply waded through the rule book and invented them" and "dilute the article with propaganda."
claims of lying "you have repeated this lie" and "proves it is deliberate deception on your part"
direct personal attacks
claims of deliberate "deception"
claims of "attempt to hide discussion"
claims of "attempted to hide" discussion
claims of "following" and Misleading the community"
assumption of bad faith
claims of a "refusal to comply"
threatening use of language
claims of "Harassment"
direct threats
claim editing has been used to "subvert the meaning"
start of the forum shopping at no original research noticeboard
tea-house forum shopping
Neutral Point of View Noticeboard forum Shoping
Village Pump forum shopping
forum shopping at an RfC/U
Please can Andromodean be investigated as they have shown over a long period of time very very poor behaviour and have engaged in personal attacks, forum shopping and other unwelcome behaviours on Wikipeida. Sport and politics (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- So, slinging mudd and hoping some of it sticks, I see. I read the first five diffs and nothing in those five gives me concern at all. In fact, the third one seems troubling about you should it be true. I'd ask Andromodean to substantiate it with diffs because if it is true you are ignoring some WP:RS for your preferred sources, then I would be extremely concerned.--v/r - TP 14:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think not. If i am to be investigated. I only think it fair, right and proper that another user who has violated the rules, policies, guidelines and required behaviour standards be investigated. One user or group of users cannot have their cake and eat it. Please also not I am admitting no liability of any kind in this statement. Sport and politics (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I never said you had no right to investigate yourself, but the diffs you've provided are very weak. I'd suggest you trim them to the 5-10 best (or worst rather). Also, be sure you are putting your paraphrasing in context as well. Your "direct personal attack" for example is not one when the entire sentence is read.--v/r - TP 14:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think not. If i am to be investigated. I only think it fair, right and proper that another user who has violated the rules, policies, guidelines and required behaviour standards be investigated. One user or group of users cannot have their cake and eat it. Please also not I am admitting no liability of any kind in this statement. Sport and politics (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That is your opinion and I respect your right to hold that opinion. I have to disagree though as while on their own they may not be in your opinion "weak", It is the sheer volume of them and the increasing personalised nature of them and the blanket nature being applied to all who have an opposing POV. also other users have described Andoromodean as "less than collegial". I will do some trimming as you suggest as well and will post that below. Above is mainly a demonstration firstly of how drawn out this has become, secondly the nature of the dispute and thirdly that it is not a one sided situation as is being painted in the original complaint made against me. Again I am admitting to no liability in the making of this statement. Sport and politics (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- At first glance I have to admit that the reappearance of so many familiar names lining up on opposite sides makes me want to propose interaction and/or topic bans for the lot of them. I fear this AN/I is destined for a long, undignified and ultimately unsatisfactory existence. If we're going to indulge in "he said..." - "but she said..." argumentation can I appeal for less wall 'o' text from all sides? If you have complaints about a fellow editor's conduct, please pick the worst five diffs, label them neutrally and let them speak for themselves. At present I see nothing jumping out as a blockable offence anywhere. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm giving you good advice here (Sport and politics), "volume" means nothing on WP:ANI. What you're doing is throwing as much as you can at Andromodean and hoping some of it sticks. ANI treats that similarly to WP:TLDR. You're get no traction. If you want to have an impact, pick the 5-10 best and editors will pay more attention. The way you're going about it is going to turn others attention away from your point of view.--v/r - TP 14:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That is your opinion and I respect your right to hold that opinion. I have to disagree though as while on their own they may not be in your opinion "weak", It is the sheer volume of them and the increasing personalised nature of them and the blanket nature being applied to all who have an opposing POV. also other users have described Andoromodean as "less than collegial". I will do some trimming as you suggest as well and will post that below. Above is mainly a demonstration firstly of how drawn out this has become, secondly the nature of the dispute and thirdly that it is not a one sided situation as is being painted in the original complaint made against me. Again I am admitting to no liability in the making of this statement. Sport and politics (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
List of most serious diffs:
Sport and politics (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
List of diffs to demonstrate forum shopping:
Sport and politics (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing here speaks well of Andromedean's behaviour. Equally, looking at the wider context of these diffs nothing speaks well of the behaviour of her opponents either. The only diff that looks really problematic to me on its own is the third; I don't like it when one editor calls another a liar. However on its own, that diff from early last month is not about to get me to block. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion it is already clear that it is not on its own. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to simply point out that this ANI is NOT about Andromedean. Please don't try to turn this into one and shift the focus here. They could start whatever at an appropriate forum/platform elsewhere. This post is about S&P's behavior. If there is anything, I am surprised somebody is keeping such an extensive list. I can't help it but the word "vindictive" kept coming to mind! And it may well serve to show a pattern in S&P's behavior! Showmebeef (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Per WP:BOOMERANG, anyone relevant to the ANI can be discussed if appropriate. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Showmebeef, if you call another editor "vindictive" again in this thread or elsewhere, you will be the one having a short rest from editing. Dressing the word up in an ambiguously worded sentence is not going to make it OK. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK, please take that word out of my comment. I will refrain from doing that again. Showmebeef (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I know why that word "kept coming to mind"--because S&P used it first:
- "This appears to be very unclear, vindictive and highly cherry picked,.... Showmebeef (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I know why that word "kept coming to mind"--because S&P used it first:
- KDM - In ref to your comment about lying, Andromedean is actually correct that it was a lie. Cla68 expressed support for Andromedean as well as a few others that can be seen here.--v/r - TP 16:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- TP you are confusing two different discussions the "lie" diff refers to the most recent DRN and the track cycling section not the Hijab section you have linked to.Sport and politics (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK, please take that word out of my comment. I will refrain from doing that again. Showmebeef (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Seriously, this is a lot of huff and drama. I've previously had someone edit my posts and reinterpret my posts for their own devices. If anything this should go to WP:RFC/U because its not immediate and while lasting, I don't think ANI is the proper place to carry on such minor disputes at this stage. And if they won't do that, then the both of them need to take a week or more off from editing in the same areas or stick to making new fresh content that will keep everyone out of each others hair. Distance quells anger, try it without going tit-for tat. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I just want to see some fair action taken, that will stop all the drama and that will bennifet the encyclopedia. I don't think we need any more of this "He did this!" "she did that!" stuff, so i'll support whichever decision gets made on this matter as long as it stops or stifles the drama, because the internet has enough drama as it is, we don't need more here. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is worrying that some people may be frightened of posting now allowing S&P off the hook again, and some editors are arguing based on good faith edits which conform to wikipedia policy. ; May I also point out the following policy. (The Assume Good Faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence). I will post such evidence shortly. Also bear in mind some of us work for a living, and don't have the time to go through volumes of text. --Andromedean (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- You may not have to assume good faith when you have evidence of misconduct. For this reason I asked you repeatedly to a) cease making the claims, or b) present the evidence at an appropiate forum so that we can actually defend ourselves. You did neither until I posted my zero tolerance warning on your talk page. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Andromedean - it's time for you to substantiate your accusations. Please provide diffs of article edits that contradict reliable sources that show evidence of biased editing by S&P. We've established that ya'all have equally poor behavior, but can you prove that S&P is not following editing guidelines or not? Same goes for S&P if they can.--v/r - TP 15:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- You may not have to assume good faith when you have evidence of misconduct. For this reason I asked you repeatedly to a) cease making the claims, or b) present the evidence at an appropiate forum so that we can actually defend ourselves. You did neither until I posted my zero tolerance warning on your talk page. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Evidence of Misleading Statements in the DRN by Sport and Politics
This is what Sport and Politics (S&P) claimed in the technology in track cycling Dispute Resolution Notice in an attempt to sway it (my highlighting). There were four participants in total including myself, showmebeef , sport and politics and one other unregistered user.
- "If Andromodean is the only hold I think its not time to ignore this person as they are just being plainly obstructive. The three of us have made sensible compromises and Andormodean has made wild statements and nonsense "straw-man" claim simply to attempt to demonstrate their POV and OR as the one which must be accepted. If Andromodean cannot compromise in anyway like the other three involved editors have then they are being obstructive and are disrupting Wikiepdia. I can agree to the version placed boldly in the article with no hesitation. Amadsceintist has pointed out their first draft was not taking BLP in to account fully and had unweighed criticism which skewed the piece. All the information now in the section has a reliable source which is accurately quoted and not deliberately selectively misquoted as was done by Andromodean."Sport and politics (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
In fact S&P will have known views were equally split, and near agreement between myself and showmebeef with compromises made before and after the DRN by myself. and showmebeef was reasonably agreed with several pre DRN versions as can be viewed from the talk page. The objection was hers and the other IP editor.
- "Thanks for both your inputs. Certainly showmebeef views are similar to my own and the first version of amadscientist is near to what I would agree to….."
.--Andromedean (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC).
Moreover, I subsequently quoted the following statement by showmebeef to Sport and Politics to prove that he wasn’t in agreement with the post DRN version
- "Andromedean: let it be clear that I have not agreed to the version that 88 has put there on the page, not even close! I thought we were still debating various topics. Even on the discussion on "home advantage" issue, I have made my concession and made the suggestion I could accept. 88 countered with a different version which I haven't consented to. Personally I'm rather disappointed, to say the least, with 88's rush to put this version on the main page without a final roll call." Showmebeef (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
however Sport and Politics just kept on misleading editors post DRN. (bear in mind that the volunteer recommended further discussion and not mediation)
- "Agreement was reached leave it at that, or it will simply be seen as wholly unnecessary disruption." --Sport and politics (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Diff here
- "There was very very strong consensus that the version before the DRN case was opened was not fit for purpose, was misleading, biased and a violation of BLP policies." Sport and politics (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Diff here
- ".....there is now only one editor actively attempting to make any changes, no other user has expressed any support for any changes to be made to the version currently in place that was a result of the Dispute Resolution process. ….." Sport and politics (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Diff here
However, why should she have ever agreed to any version? Because the post DRN version misquoted and misrepresented the source to make it sound much less controversial. Bear in mind this section was about the controversial use of technology in cycling.
The original article I quoted, and the actual BBC source states this:
- "But is Boardman not concerned that this high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage? "Well, I'd like to think so," he laughs. "We haven't done our job if they're not."
However S&P wanted this version to remain
- "When asked if the British team will put some countries at a disadvantage, former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team, Chris Boardman replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not." Reference Here
Now remember the original accusation by Sport and politics
- “All the information now in the section has a reliable source which is accurately quoted and not deliberately selectively misquoted as was done by Andromodean.” diff here
Neither am I aware of any other misquotes I made.
so she is misleading people into claiming I am being obstructive and uncooperative using selectively misquoted material at the same time as supporting text which obscures the whole point of the controversy! This is only the tip of the Iceberg, but I would additionally recommend looking through the talk page from the start to examine Sport & Politics aggressive and misleading behaviour and that I was trying to be civil and reasonable. --Andromedean (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment by involved IP proposing interaction bans for all involved and suggesting further sanctions for two editors
I did not want to post here, but Andromedean quoting AGF deserves a comment. His arguments where from before my responding to an RFC full of ad hominem attacks (several diffs provided above and in previous discussions). The claims where that other editors where working against the principles of Wikipedia, specifically WP:NPOV. This is a very serious personal attack in my opinion; it is an attempt to completely discredit the person you are discussing with. Unlike Kim Dent-Brown above, I see this as at least equally serious as a claim of lying. I asked him repeatedly to refrain from using such claims (or alternatively take them to an appropiate forum) as they made his genuine argument hard to see. In the end I posted this warning on his user talk. This zero tolerance policy from me had the desired effect. It was possible to discuss conduct without repeated attacks on your integrity. After he was unhappy with the outcome of the DRN he reverted to his previous conduct, if slightly more mildly phrased. I reported him (seen here), per my warning and I must say I was disappointed that no warning or admonishment was administered. Just saying that the conduct was against policy and that repeat offences could lead to bans would have defused the situation far better than "no administrator action required". As you can see he has continued with using ad hominem arguments since then. (I'll point out that my simple warning improved his conduct for over a month.)
Sport and Politics conduct is not flawless, and I don't condone all of it. She is often balancing close to WP:3RR, however she does accept consensus against her, as well as the DRN result in this case, and 3O when I disagreed with her.
Showmebeef has almost without fail remained polite. Some lapses over the cause of a content discussion that has dragged on for so long is understandable.
Interaction bans seems logical to avoid further escalation (include me and Showmebeef). An article ban for Sport and Politics and Andromedean also seems like a good idea. Frankly, I would also consider stricter sanctions against Andromedean, as I cannot see how repeated claims that all editors who disagree with him is working against WP:NPOV, a pillar, benefit Wikipedia in any way. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- 85: As I only wish to speak for myself and not for others: I don't wish to take myself out of editing the article in question here (as you may have volunteered yourself, if I am not mistaken). Showmebeef (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- No need. To avoid escalation I have proposed IBANs for all four (so unless you enjoy debating with Sport and Politics you should have no problem). I propose ABANs (including the talk page) for Sport and Politics and Andromedean. I also propose civility restrictions for Andromedean for his repeated lack of good faith demonstrated in a large number of diffs provided in this and previous discussions. (PS:I entered the edit window prior to the close, and didn't notice it was closed during my fixes. I did not intentionally add to the discussion after the close.) 85.167.109.64 (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why I want to subject myself to an IBAN, as I have shown to be able to carry out a rather civilized conservation or a discussion, with any editor. I don't think I've lost my composure even with S&P. As I've mentioned early, please speak for yourself, and I don't wish to be spoken for. Showmebeef (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, and hope you think the same of me. I have no idea if IBANs can be one way though; and I don't see why you would wish to enter a discussion with her at a later date. I'm sure the IBANs can be lifted when no longer neccessary. (Edit conflict. In response to your change: An IBAN is not voluntary, though I'll leave whether it is required for us up to the admins.)85.167.109.64 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, I want to make it clear that I don't want an IBAN. If you want it, then that's your wish. Thanks! Showmebeef (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nor do I, but it may be in Wikipedia's best interest if we get one. However it seems IBANs can be one-way, so perhaps they won't be neccessary for all uf us. In any case that is not our call. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is no need of an IBAN between you and me. If there is an ABAN as you proposed, then it should take care of the things. Showmebeef (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for saying that. I agree. 85.167.109.64(talk) 00:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for understanding too, as I do have to carry my credential around and I for sure don't want to carry an IBAN under my user id. Showmebeef (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just a minor procedural point. If you folks can sort this out with voluntary, mutual agreements about not editing particular articles or interacting with one another that would be great. Voluntary, mutual agreements like this are not bans. And when bans do occur, they are not voluntary, rather they are imposed upon editors by the consensus of the community. Nobody gets to decline a community-imposed ban, which is why it'll be much better of you folks can sort this out between you. Good luck with doing that, which will be much the best outcome. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see that happening for all the editors involved, but I hope they'll prove me wrong. I'll back off now as the article seems stable, and I see no benefit to adding more here. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just a minor procedural point. If you folks can sort this out with voluntary, mutual agreements about not editing particular articles or interacting with one another that would be great. Voluntary, mutual agreements like this are not bans. And when bans do occur, they are not voluntary, rather they are imposed upon editors by the consensus of the community. Nobody gets to decline a community-imposed ban, which is why it'll be much better of you folks can sort this out between you. Good luck with doing that, which will be much the best outcome. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for understanding too, as I do have to carry my credential around and I for sure don't want to carry an IBAN under my user id. Showmebeef (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for saying that. I agree. 85.167.109.64(talk) 00:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is no need of an IBAN between you and me. If there is an ABAN as you proposed, then it should take care of the things. Showmebeef (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nor do I, but it may be in Wikipedia's best interest if we get one. However it seems IBANs can be one-way, so perhaps they won't be neccessary for all uf us. In any case that is not our call. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, I want to make it clear that I don't want an IBAN. If you want it, then that's your wish. Thanks! Showmebeef (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, and hope you think the same of me. I have no idea if IBANs can be one way though; and I don't see why you would wish to enter a discussion with her at a later date. I'm sure the IBANs can be lifted when no longer neccessary. (Edit conflict. In response to your change: An IBAN is not voluntary, though I'll leave whether it is required for us up to the admins.)85.167.109.64 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why I want to subject myself to an IBAN, as I have shown to be able to carry out a rather civilized conservation or a discussion, with any editor. I don't think I've lost my composure even with S&P. As I've mentioned early, please speak for yourself, and I don't wish to be spoken for. Showmebeef (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- No need. To avoid escalation I have proposed IBANs for all four (so unless you enjoy debating with Sport and Politics you should have no problem). I propose ABANs (including the talk page) for Sport and Politics and Andromedean. I also propose civility restrictions for Andromedean for his repeated lack of good faith demonstrated in a large number of diffs provided in this and previous discussions. (PS:I entered the edit window prior to the close, and didn't notice it was closed during my fixes. I did not intentionally add to the discussion after the close.) 85.167.109.64 (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- 85: As I only wish to speak for myself and not for others: I don't wish to take myself out of editing the article in question here (as you may have volunteered yourself, if I am not mistaken). Showmebeef (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you 85.167, i agree. it's what i've been trying to say all along. they need to stay away from each other and if that means not editing the article for a shot while, then so be it. so thank you very much, i do support. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
solution from concirned ip
Ok people, just as mentioned in the previous section, there should be an interaction ban between the users in question (ading showmebeef into it) because this is only causing more arguments and is getting a little annoying and i hate to say it, childish. i mean we're just going in circles here, nothing is going to come of this unless all of this stops. i've seen this kind of shit before, in which some people were having a feud over an article, and they kept on trying to blame each other. Once the blame was focused on them, they kept on denying some of the evidence and stuff (not saying there's denial in this even though it looks like it), then it goes in circles and gets annoying to the point where blocks are handed out. i don't want to see blocks being handed out, so i'm going to suggest an interaction ban and maybe protection on the article from now untill let's say December 22nd, (a period of 7 days) so this shit can straiten out, and we can get back to our lives again. how's that for a suggestion? i sure hope we can stop this so everyone involved can be a little bit more merry for christmas and the hollidays, mmkay? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposal
- Maybe it's time for an uninvolved admin to step in and close the thread before things get more out of hand. This whole thread is just a mess with little to no actual evidence being presented of anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I fail to see how the most serious diffs provided can be seen as unproblematic. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
second that one. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not my fault i'ts your fault
here's the thing sports and politics, as much as i feel that both sides should be held accountable for their actions, i notice that you're trying to deny the blame for your actions. if i murdered someone then it would still be my fault even if that someone injected poison into my arm. so, in the same way, even if andromadean is as guilty as you say, you still have to except your portion of the blame and stop trying to go "It's not my fault it's your fault." because that will only draw out this disgussion more. i move for a closure of this threat and all parties concirned to except the blame for their actions, because otherwise blocks will be handed out and i don't want to see that at all. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Aggressive and emotive editing at BP
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could I make a plea for some more uninvolved admins to get involved in BP? There are a small number (3 or 4) of editors who have a very high degree of emotional involvement in the topic and are editing aggressively with personal attacks etc ([26] "your wish for whitewash" etc. A rather gentle attempt by a recent arrival at the article User:Martin Hogbin to try to get changes worked up from the article rather than straight in the lead was repeatedly reverted and met with a rather aggressive "I find your suggestions ... lack an unbiased perspective" [27] I tried since a few weeks ago but don't have the time or inclination and coming in as an uninvolved admin trying to help with content seemed to lead to being rapidly accused of "whitewashing" too. Someone needs to go in an force a long editing break on some of the major antogonists but I suggest without trying to get involved in the content issues first (unlike me) to ensure it is entirely uninvolved. --BozMo talk 12:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing you quote is remotely close to personal attacks ... has dispute resolution been attempted? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Accusing an editor of being biased without supporting evidence is a personal attack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I see some aggressive tones on that article, but every one of those editors is experienced enough to know how and when to take the issues to WP:DRN. I would say that calling an editor biased is a borderline personal attack that depends on if it can be supported by diffs (and should have been from the start). But I'd say that it's not actionable. These editors are in a heated argument, but they are discussing and that's what matters.--v/r - TP 14:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- What TP said. You have to expect a little rough and tumble in a collegiate environment. The diff you provided showed he has an opinion about your bias but it isn't particularly inflammatory. What we do not want to do as admin is micromanage the tone of discussions, only stepping in when the problem is such that it interferes with the free flow of ideas and opinion. This is not at that stage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, BP is not the hot bed it once was. Its not like someone is trying to get you sanctioned for your alleged 'bias', that's when I'd take action. Though if it continues it should for to DRN just to get some more opinions and thin out the enmity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Accusing an editor of being biased without supporting evidence is a personal attack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Behavior regarding User:Bwilkins
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Bwilkins' logs
- 146.7.56.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- User talk:Bwilkins#Response to block on IP 146.7.56.192
- User talk:Philipmj24#User rights removal
- 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Men's 200 metre individual medley
This began when I was adding external links related to the 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m). They were links that showed the individuals competing in the events. However, Bwilkins didn't not think they were appropriate. I asked him why and he directed me to WP:EL. He refused to answer my question and engage in any conversation.
Then Bwilkins proceeded to remove my Autopatrolled and Reviewer rights. His reasoning was, "your recently bulk creation of a number of inappropriate individual articles related to individual events from the 2012 FINA championships have shown that you unfortunately cannot be trusted with those enhanced rights, and I have removed them accordingly." I feel that I cannot engage in dialogue with this individual because he doesn't want to. He instead wants to abuse his powers to make a point. He then deleted a large number of pages I worked really hard on because he felt they were inappropriate. Can somone please tell me how they are inappropriate? What about the 2012 Summer Olympics? the 2011 World Aquatics Championships? the 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m)? If they have pages related to individual events, why can't the 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m)? I don't see the problem. They were sourced, relevant, and notable. It was a major international event that warranted individual events. I have done these type of edits for years, have I been wrong this whole time? If Bwilkins actions are correct, that means possibly thousands of articles related to individual events in sporting (Olympics, championships, regional games) can be up for deletion. Philipmj24 (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I see we do have 2008 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m), 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) and other years going back several years. Spot checking some of the other events show the same thing, that your articles were consistent with historical trends here, which matters. I'm seeing that the rationale provided has to do with external links you added. Without having an opinion on the quality of those links, I'm not sure why deletion of the articles was needed. Rather than jump to conclusion, I'm interested in hearing from BWilkins, as I'm thinking there may be more to the story than what I have found, but the reason for his actions aren't obvious at first glance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- And I did asked him about the external links because that was a concern of his. He refused to answer my question. Here is an example of an external link I was adding. I would like feedback from other editors here, is there anything wrong with that type of external link? Philipmj24 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Although I'm tied up with a major release happening later today, I wanted to say this: I reviewed previous years' FINA articles (Dennis notes them above). There appeared to be a main article, but not individual articles for every single event at the FINA championships. As such, I certainly did not touch the main 2012 championship article. The main article gives a breakdown of ALL the events and results in the pas. As such, according to past history with the championships, I removed the individual non-notable events in themselves. Philip's creation of those non-notable event-pages was therefore problematic, and inconsistent with having patrolled status. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)x2 I'm more concerned about the rights being removed than the articles. Bwilkins, from Philipmj24's perspective, it seems you were involved as an editor when you removed his external links. He then tried to engage you as an editor on why you removed them. You then used your tools as an administrator in a way that seems like retaliation. Can you clear this up? Also, editing while logged out is not blockable unless it's intentionally deceptive. Owning up to the edits while logged in to the editor reverting them makes it not deceptive.--v/r - TP 14:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- BWilkins, you are incorrect. The 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) has individual pages for all of the events. The 2011 World Aquatics Championships has individual pages for al of the events. Philipmj24 (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- BWilkins, you also say "non-notable." I would also argue against that. It is a major internatonal event with over 160 countries and almost 1000 competitors. Philipmj24 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- The only article where I agree with the deletion is 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Schedule. The rest shouidn't have been deleted (and accordingly there was no reason to remove any rights). Fram (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fram, I created that page in order to save space because it was originally on the main page. If you look at the Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics page, I also did that there with no objections. Philipmj24 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Pool schedule should also be deleted. The schedule in itself has zero notability, and fails WP:NOTDIR. Fram (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fram, I created that page in order to save space because it was originally on the main page. If you look at the Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics page, I also did that there with no objections. Philipmj24 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- The only article where I agree with the deletion is 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Schedule. The rest shouidn't have been deleted (and accordingly there was no reason to remove any rights). Fram (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- BWilkins, you also say "non-notable." I would also argue against that. It is a major internatonal event with over 160 countries and almost 1000 competitors. Philipmj24 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- BWilkins, you are incorrect. The 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) has individual pages for all of the events. The 2011 World Aquatics Championships has individual pages for al of the events. Philipmj24 (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)x2 I'm more concerned about the rights being removed than the articles. Bwilkins, from Philipmj24's perspective, it seems you were involved as an editor when you removed his external links. He then tried to engage you as an editor on why you removed them. You then used your tools as an administrator in a way that seems like retaliation. Can you clear this up? Also, editing while logged out is not blockable unless it's intentionally deceptive. Owning up to the edits while logged in to the editor reverting them makes it not deceptive.--v/r - TP 14:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- We've all spotted that it wasn't in fact BWilkins that blocked 146.7.56.192, right? Uncle G (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)*x - I did find 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Men's 200 metre individual medley and saw that Philipmj24 created this article, and it is in terrible shape. I'm betting more of these minor articles exist, but WP:WAX applies, so that doesn't speak to their appropriateness. Speaking solely as an editor (taking off the admin hat...), BWilkins is correct that we are better served without the individual articles which are not likely to get filled out, are not likely within policy as a stand alone article, and just make the place messy. Putting the admin hat back on, your question seems to be "should BWilkins have taken those actions he took?". I don't see abuse, even if I am of the opinion that it was done in a very non-optimal way. I would have sent them to CSD instead of deleting them outright, for example, simply because I like two hands touching every delete that isn't vandalism/trolling/obvious. Since similar articles exist, I would call this less than obvious. The line between admin and editor are often blurred, which is why I would strongly recommend a second pair of eyes at CSD for anything like this, but policy doesn't strictly prohibit it. I don't see anything actionable, even if I recommend different methods next time. It does across as being a little gruff. As far as taking away the rights, that is within the rights of each admin to determine and it certainly doesn't look like anything other than his opinion as to the appropriateness of your having the bits. I don't no evidence of it being vindictive, with ulterior motives or being done as a punishment. Some would agree with his choice, some would disagree, but there is no misuse of the tools involved, only his judgement based upon the circumstances. You can still request another admin restore the bits and they are free to do so, so his actions are not permanent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- You say, "not likely to get filled out." You don't know that. You gave one example of a page that wasn't filled out and I take responsibility for that, but stub articles are common within Wikipedia. Is that a reason to delete a page? There were also examples of pages that were fully filled out. It doesn't look good, I agree, but that's not a relevant argument in deleting a page. Philipmj24 (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Which is why I took off my admin hat while saying it. As I said, I think his actions were less than optimal, but I'm not seeing abuse. As always, I'm open to reviewing any diffs, but I can't call his actions abuse simply because I disagree with them and found them a little gruff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree, Dennis. I'm concerned about the removal of rights. But I've always known Bwilkins to be level headed and well reasoned so I'd like to wait to hear him address that specific part of it.--v/r - TP 15:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I never accused him of abuse, but his actions were wrong and needs to be reverted. Also, I find it very troubling that an admin would have this kind of power without any oversight. If it wasn't for these boards, no one probably would of questioned his actions. I love Wikipedia, but these types of actions are certainly dampening my commitment. Philipmj24 (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- To clarify, I did accuse him of abuse, and I would probably reword that. Philipmj24 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I never accused him of abuse, but his actions were wrong and needs to be reverted. Also, I find it very troubling that an admin would have this kind of power without any oversight. If it wasn't for these boards, no one probably would of questioned his actions. I love Wikipedia, but these types of actions are certainly dampening my commitment. Philipmj24 (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think Dennis' explanation is well-reasoned. A CSD or PROD tag on the articles would have left more of a "paper trail" so everyone could see why they were problematic. Since BWilkins has said he's a bit rushed for time, I think it's fair to take him at his word, realised it was just cross purposes, get Philipmj24's bits back via another admin, and for everyone to take a deep breath. Remember, every time you raise a thread here, God kills a kitten. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree, Dennis. I'm concerned about the removal of rights. But I've always known Bwilkins to be level headed and well reasoned so I'd like to wait to hear him address that specific part of it.--v/r - TP 15:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Which is why I took off my admin hat while saying it. As I said, I think his actions were less than optimal, but I'm not seeing abuse. As always, I'm open to reviewing any diffs, but I can't call his actions abuse simply because I disagree with them and found them a little gruff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- You say, "not likely to get filled out." You don't know that. You gave one example of a page that wasn't filled out and I take responsibility for that, but stub articles are common within Wikipedia. Is that a reason to delete a page? There were also examples of pages that were fully filled out. It doesn't look good, I agree, but that's not a relevant argument in deleting a page. Philipmj24 (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)*x - I did find 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Men's 200 metre individual medley and saw that Philipmj24 created this article, and it is in terrible shape. I'm betting more of these minor articles exist, but WP:WAX applies, so that doesn't speak to their appropriateness. Speaking solely as an editor (taking off the admin hat...), BWilkins is correct that we are better served without the individual articles which are not likely to get filled out, are not likely within policy as a stand alone article, and just make the place messy. Putting the admin hat back on, your question seems to be "should BWilkins have taken those actions he took?". I don't see abuse, even if I am of the opinion that it was done in a very non-optimal way. I would have sent them to CSD instead of deleting them outright, for example, simply because I like two hands touching every delete that isn't vandalism/trolling/obvious. Since similar articles exist, I would call this less than obvious. The line between admin and editor are often blurred, which is why I would strongly recommend a second pair of eyes at CSD for anything like this, but policy doesn't strictly prohibit it. I don't see anything actionable, even if I recommend different methods next time. It does across as being a little gruff. As far as taking away the rights, that is within the rights of each admin to determine and it certainly doesn't look like anything other than his opinion as to the appropriateness of your having the bits. I don't no evidence of it being vindictive, with ulterior motives or being done as a punishment. Some would agree with his choice, some would disagree, but there is no misuse of the tools involved, only his judgement based upon the circumstances. You can still request another admin restore the bits and they are free to do so, so his actions are not permanent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- While I have a brief second, let's back the truck up a moment. I became aware of User:146.7.56.192 via an unblock request. User:Alexf had blocked that IP, and reverted many of their edits. I declined the unblock request, as I did not personally see that their edits had been appropriate. I do not personally recall undoing any of their edits. It turns out that the IP was User:Philipmj24 editing while logged out, which he admitted on my userpage when he asked what was wrong with the edits. I directed him to WP:EL. I see that he replied to my reply on my talkpage, but that it did not appear that he had actually reviewed what the concerns were (and I've been busy as hell) so I have not replied on my talkpage yet. This morning, I did click to see what Philip's contributions had been since our first discussion before replying to him - I wanted to ensure he had not continued the same edits that had led to his IP being blocked. I saw the rapid creation of a number of pages that appeared non-notable. I then went back to a number of previous years FINA pages, Olympics pages, and any set of articles that could have been similar to find out what the typical pattern of articles was. I noted in my quick review that individual event pages did not typically exist, and that their info was generally well-provided on the main page. To me, the event pages were not individually notable. I believed (and still do) that if the individual pages had been patrolled by someone else other than the creator, they would have been CSD'd very quickly - hence, I saw this as a potential problem with the Autopatrolled right. In short, I am most definitely NOT WP:INVOLVED with the editor or the articles as an editor. I became aware of a potential problem that became escalated as a bigger problem. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I get removing autopatrolled since that directly concerns article creation, but I have no idea why removing the reviewer rights was appropriate. That has nothing to do with article creation and in its current state concerns only vandalism and BLP violations. As to the deletions themselves, neither of the rationales given (A7 and A10) were appropriately applied. Being an event in an international sporting championship would seem to be a de-facto claim of notability and it is certainly a credible one as we often have individual articles on individual sporting events in an international competition. It certainly doesn't qualify as duplicating an existing topic as the individual events are distinct from the championship as a whole. This strikes me as being something for AfD to consider, not something subject to the discretion of a single admin.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Bwilkins, I'm glad you showed up. This is very troubling because you obviously did not review the pages in-depth enough. Pages for individual swimming (and athletics) events are common! Look at the 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) page. The Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics page. The Swimming at the 2011 World Aquatics Championships. Do you want more? I can give them to you. If you believe individual pages for these types of events are "not notable", then you could use your powers to immediately delete thousands of pages if you wish. Philipmj24 (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- On the topic of deleting the events, A7 doesn't apply because they weren't "persons, individual animal(s), organizations or web content". I would argue that A10 doesn't apply either. We certainly don't make the argument that A10 applies for the olympics articles and I don't think it's any different here. The main swimming page only gives the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place winners, any other information in the speedied pages is not a duplication. If we want to do a bulk AfD, I could understand it (of which I believe I'd !vote keep), but I can't imagine that these are CSD worthy. Ryan Vesey 15:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (TL:DR; per Ryan) To be nitpicky for a second (and CSD generally requires that we do), I'm not sure the articles would've been CSD'd. They don't fit A7, because they're not in the categories of things A7 covers. Also, note that notability isn't the bar that A7 is concerned with; rather, it's importance, which is substantially lower and something these articles arguably possessed. An argument could be made for A10 I guess, but even then, A10 doesn't cover article splits, so I don't think that it applies, either. So I don't think the outright deletions were correct per the CSD criteria. They could've been prodded, but I don't think CSD was a good option here. No comment about the other stuff, because I don't mess with user rights in general. I also don't think the deletion was abuse, unless this is part of a long-term pattern of behavior; I think it was just an overhasty decision. My 2 cents. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)No, A10 exists specifically for this since it clearly was covered in the parent article and arguably better since it had all events, thus context. The key is that I think he should have tagged it only and let another set of eyes look at it, who could have decided AFD or PROD was better. There was no rush. Again, not abuse, just not optimal. As for pulling reviewer rights, he was within his rights. Removing a user right does not require they abuse that right, it only requires a good faith determination that the user shouldn't have that right. And again, I wouldn't have removed the right, but it seems he pulled it because he felt the editor didn't understand what is and isn't acceptable as content, which means it was a logic based decision. We can't sit here and second guess every admin decision, we can only judge whether or not abuse happened or poor judgement took place. I can disagree with his choices without calling them bad judgement or abuse. ANI is about behavior, and other than being a little more gruff and rushed than he should be, I haven't been shown evidence of a behavioral problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- If this wasn't an attempted article split, which A10 explicitly doesn't cover, then what is? :/ Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no way that 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Men's 4 x 200 metre freestyle relay is an A10 duplicate of 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m). The article on the swimming championships doesn't give information on qualifying races, or places other than first second or third. Ryan Vesey 16:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Could I have tagged them as CSD, PROD or AFD, or even refer the whole thing to a wikiproject related to swimming? ... you bet I could. My judgement at the time was that because some problematic behaviour had already recently occurred (that had led to the original IP block), and based on a rather quick evaluation it appeared that problematic articles were being created, I added 2 plus 2 to get a rather large answer of 4 that stuck out like a zit on prom night, and took the actions that I did. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- BWilkins, you still refuse to answer my question on why the external links were bad in the first place. Can you please tell me?
- Yes. Could I have tagged them as CSD, PROD or AFD, or even refer the whole thing to a wikiproject related to swimming? ... you bet I could. My judgement at the time was that because some problematic behaviour had already recently occurred (that had led to the original IP block), and based on a rather quick evaluation it appeared that problematic articles were being created, I added 2 plus 2 to get a rather large answer of 4 that stuck out like a zit on prom night, and took the actions that I did. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I get removing autopatrolled since that directly concerns article creation, but I have no idea why removing the reviewer rights was appropriate. That has nothing to do with article creation and in its current state concerns only vandalism and BLP violations. As to the deletions themselves, neither of the rationales given (A7 and A10) were appropriately applied. Being an event in an international sporting championship would seem to be a de-facto claim of notability and it is certainly a credible one as we often have individual articles on individual sporting events in an international competition. It certainly doesn't qualify as duplicating an existing topic as the individual events are distinct from the championship as a whole. This strikes me as being something for AfD to consider, not something subject to the discretion of a single admin.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the type link that cause all of this in the first place. Can another editor please tell me what is wrong with them? Philipmj24 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think what I was trying to get at is that BWilkins is a long standing admin who, like any other human being on the planet, might occasionally make a mistake if they're busy. If consensus is that the articles have potential merit, I suggest we undelete them and everyone have it out at WP:AfD. Then we can all go and have a nice refreshing drink before everyone goes ballistic about holding an RfC. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is getting off-topic. Can someone please restore my pages, my rights, and place BWilkins under some kind of supervision? Thank you. Philipmj24 (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- place BWilkins under some kind of supervision. Maybe we can get Bugs to watch him :) just kidding of course. Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Slow down a bit. It has been barely two hours since you accused a long-standing, well-respected admin of abuse. While there is a pretty decent case that BWilkins may have been a little too quick on the trigger, we don't need to rush. If some of the articles deserve restoration, sobeit, but a couple more hours isn't critical. As for supervision, I would have thought someone with three years experience and over 10K edits would have a better sense of this place, there's no such thing, other than this page and other DR venues. So consider him under supervision, just like everyone else.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to clarify here that I'm not seeing anything that has my screaming ZOMG admin abuse!!!! but I am concerned that articles were deleted incorrectly and I'd prefer to see an AfD. I'm also curious as to what was wrong with the external links. Ryan Vesey 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm calm, I'm just amazed that just because BWilkins didn't feel like engaging in dialogue with me and defending his actions, he simply stripped me of my rights and deleted dozens of pages I created. To this moment, BWilkins still refuses to tell me why an external link like this is incorrect. Can another admin tell me what is wrong with this link? This type of link caused this whole mess in the first place! Philipmj24 (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- So sorry that Wikipedia doesn't pay my mortgage, and I have to work for a living in a job that actually has deadlines. Did you take a moment to ask the admin who originally blocked your IP what their issue was, or are you simply reserving your anger for me, even though I have clearly stated my point AND the solution above. One moment you say it's abuse, then you say it isn't, now you're calling for my testicles in a jar. This isn't personal, it was based purely on perception. If it was wrong/too fast in this specific situation, I have provided the appropriate resolution above. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Bwilkins, you were evidently too "busy as hell" to answer my question, but apparently not too busy to strip my rights and delete dozens of my pages without any warning. That is not an acceptable reason. And you still refuse to answer my question! Your still trying to redirect me to another person instead of taking responsibility. What is wrong with the external links? You made the actions based on that specific event, why can't you defend it? Anyways, your reason for deleting the pages in the first place appears to be flawed. You said you "went back to a number of previous years FINA pages, Olympics pages, and any set of articles that could have been similar to find out what the typical pattern of articles was. I noted in my quick review that individual event pages did not typically exist." So if I got this right, you deleted dozens of pages and stripped a users right based on a "quick review"? If you had actually reviewed the pages, you would of found individual pages for swimming events are common. Again, look at the Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics page. The Swimming at the 2011 World Aquatics Championships. The 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m). This isn't mutually exclusive to swimming either, take a look athletic events and winter Olympic events. Philipmj24 (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- So sorry that Wikipedia doesn't pay my mortgage, and I have to work for a living in a job that actually has deadlines. Did you take a moment to ask the admin who originally blocked your IP what their issue was, or are you simply reserving your anger for me, even though I have clearly stated my point AND the solution above. One moment you say it's abuse, then you say it isn't, now you're calling for my testicles in a jar. This isn't personal, it was based purely on perception. If it was wrong/too fast in this specific situation, I have provided the appropriate resolution above. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, y'all. I rarely comment on the ANI drama boards, but I felt compelled to do so in this case. I regularly work on Olympic swimming articles, I am intimately familiar with the structure of our international swimming championship articles and lists and how they are interwoven, and I am a seasoned Wikipedia editor who is familiar with the CSD, AfD and notability policies that are pertinent to this discussion. Philip is a regular contributor to Wikipedia articles on competition swimming, as well as other Olympic sports. He is smart, a quick study, dedicated to improving Wikipedia, and, in my personal experience, his edits are 100% constructive. He was instrumental in the creation of many of the 2012 Olympic swimmer bios and related swimming articles, and is the primary contributor to several Good Articles on Olympic swimmers. Philip is a former active-duty U.S. Marine who used to edit from U.S. government IP addresses, and now attends college in Missouri. Accordingly, he edits about 50% of the time from college-related IP addresses, all of which are screamingly obvious because they are geolocated to the Springfield, Missouri area. Unlike many WP editors, he is less concerned about taking credit for and accruing edits to his registered account. As far as I can tell, he edits for the pure pleasure of building encyclopedia articles about swimming and swimmers.
If any of the admins participating in this discussion would actually take five minutes to review the long-established structure of Wikipedia's Olympic and FINA world championship articles on swimming, they would quickly discover that these articles that Philip was creating are 100% consistent with established practice (please see Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics, and the infobox linking to articles on individual Olympic swimming events). It is apparent that BWilkins, whether well intended or otherwise, is clearly not familiar with these long-established article structures. This article structure is not limited to swimming, either; a nearly identical structure exists for track and field events. If you want a second opinion from an experienced administrator who works on competition swimming articles on a regular basis, ask Courcelles----he is responsible for most of the present category structure for Olympic and FINA swimming championships.
Without assessing fault, there are several points that need to be addressed, and in fairness to Philip should be addressed in an expeditious manner:
- Philip committed no violation of policy that requires that any IP address or his main account be blocked;
- Philip has zero history of vandalism;
- Philip has never edited from IP addresses or alternative accounts in order to manipulate discussion outcomes or to engage in edit-warring;
- the rationales presented for the removal of Philip's tools are factually incorrect;
- given the long-standing precedents for articles regarding individual swimming events at the Olympics and FINA world championships (and similar articles for other sports), the appropriate venue for addressing any notability concerns with these articles would be AfD, not PRODing, and certainly not a long-time admin taking it upon himself to delete them based on extremely shaky CSD rationales that would likely derail an RfA for any aspiring admin.
If BWilkins does not have time to address these obvious errors immediately, I would respectfully request that BWilkins step aside from this matter, and permit another admin or admins to correct them. Thanks for listening. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- (Absolutely nothing to do with BWilkins, but realistically, all of those individual events articles - whether an Olympic or FINA - whether swimming or track or whatever - and whether we've been having these for the last several events - are problematic - basically the equivalent of NOT#STAT. If we're telling the MMA people they can't have individual articles on individual events, we would be hypocritical in keeping these individual swimming articles. I do agree that BW shouldn't have CSD'd them as created, but a larger discussion about their validity (a separate RFC?) should be undertaken. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Masem, regardless of whether these articles should be consolidated or not after considered discussion, there is ample precedent for their present inclusion, the CSD rationales presented for their instant deletion look like obvious overreaches, and the admin actions taken against a long-standing constructive editor who created these articles in good faith based on existing precedent appear to be obvious errors by BWilkins. Let's fix the errors, and address the policy concerns in a proper forum using proper procedure. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- To be clear, I agree with you that the CSD deletions by BW were wrong (given past precedence of having them), and a different venue is needed to discuss the appropriateness of these articles. --MASEM (t)
- Thanks, Masem; I appreciate that. But let's also unblock Philip's IP address and restore his tools as quickly as possible, too. These admin actions were clearly based on misunderstandings on BW's part, and there is no reason why these obviously mistaken admin actions should stand. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- The humourous part of this entire escapade is that if Philip had politely come to my talkpage after I had deleted the articles, gave me one or two links to similar individual event articles from 2010 or 2008 to show me directly that I was in error in my judgement, I would have undeleted them all (except the schedule) in about 30 seconds (possibly longer, if I had been in a meeting). I also would have re-added the rights back immediately. Instead, here we are in hours of drama that could have been resolved at the lowest level. Have a fantastic Christmas, Philip - you're an inspiration. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- The IP wasn't blocked by BWilkins. There's no rush to unblock an IP, that was used by accident. I concur with restoration of the deleted articles, followed by AfDs, to determine which should be retained and which should be retained. I lean toward restoration of rights, but don't see a rush, and would prefer to get a more formal count of yeas and nays, as overturning such an action ought to be done with due consideration.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- BWilkins, if you would undelete as a result of a polite request, I assume you mean that policy supports undeletion, in which case you should do so. We don't fail to follow policy simply because an editor fails to be sufficiently polite in a request.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I have said above that someone else is quite able to undelete accordingly. I've been running in and out of meetings to try and address these concerns (my boss is wondering WTF is happening) and I have always said that people can reverse my actions without my okay. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- (Undeletion shouldn't be construed as precluding a "delete" !vote at an AfD, it simply means that in light of subsequent relevant evidence, the CSD was premature, and a proper deletion discussion should follow.
- (edit conflict × 6)If you're too busy to answer a simple question on your talk page, can't see that as them trying to resolve things without going to ANI, and have to require the other user give you reason to assume good faith with them, you're too busy to use admin abilities to take away rights that the user was not abusing. If you would undelete as a result of possible action, you should make sure that's not the case before deleting them. If you're too busy to do that, you're too busy to use your admin abilities to delete such pages. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how the links meet our criteria at WP:EL. Why would anyone see as an appropriate link a download to what appears to be a timesheet? Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Doug, what you are calling "timesheets" are the official results for each event. Typically, official results are generated for each competition stage of each individual swimming event: (1) qualifying/preliminary heats, (2) semifinals, and (3) final. For swimming articles, we normally incorporate them into the footnotes. The event stages are necessary because Olympic-size 50-meter pools only have eight lanes, and two or three dozen swimmers may make the qualifying time to compete in the Olympics or world championships in a given event. While these are primary sources, they are also clearly reliable sources (arguably, the most reliable sources), and I see no reason why they cannot be included as footnotes under our linking policy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how the links meet our criteria at WP:EL. Why would anyone see as an appropriate link a download to what appears to be a timesheet? Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- The humourous part of this entire escapade is that if Philip had politely come to my talkpage after I had deleted the articles, gave me one or two links to similar individual event articles from 2010 or 2008 to show me directly that I was in error in my judgement, I would have undeleted them all (except the schedule) in about 30 seconds (possibly longer, if I had been in a meeting). I also would have re-added the rights back immediately. Instead, here we are in hours of drama that could have been resolved at the lowest level. Have a fantastic Christmas, Philip - you're an inspiration. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Masem; I appreciate that. But let's also unblock Philip's IP address and restore his tools as quickly as possible, too. These admin actions were clearly based on misunderstandings on BW's part, and there is no reason why these obviously mistaken admin actions should stand. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- To be clear, I agree with you that the CSD deletions by BW were wrong (given past precedence of having them), and a different venue is needed to discuss the appropriateness of these articles. --MASEM (t)
- Masem, regardless of whether these articles should be consolidated or not after considered discussion, there is ample precedent for their present inclusion, the CSD rationales presented for their instant deletion look like obvious overreaches, and the admin actions taken against a long-standing constructive editor who created these articles in good faith based on existing precedent appear to be obvious errors by BWilkins. Let's fix the errors, and address the policy concerns in a proper forum using proper procedure. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- This seems a bit overblown. Bwilkins was and is still rushed, were the actions entirely correct, probably not. Were they malicious, no. People can make mistakes, so at most I would say trout Bwilkins for being rushed and trying to fix it quickly. Ideally, I would have passed it along or just bookmarked till I can deal with it with my full attention. Was just a bad call. While Bwilkins cannot dedicate time to explaining this, I do believe that a temporary restoration, as per Bwilkins comment, would be fine. And as long as we are on the subject of page notability and stuff, I don't exactly care how many pages we have as long as the pages serve a good purpose. Some of these, like the schedule, are ripe for the chopping block. Though, I do see that some of the complex lists and records are better kept in their own articles, lest they ruin the readability of the others. And do not forget that the old Baseball articles got a massive improvement with new sources and works coming out, so they may not be undeveloped forever. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
Support restorations of userrights. NE Ent 18:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Support restorations of userrights.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support restorations of userrights. If there the links, upon examination, were fine, they were fine before the examination that should have been done by the deleting and right-removing admin before such actions were carried out. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support - The rights were not abused, restore per AGF and the lack of discussion prior to the stripping of said rights. Whenever in a rush, I'd mark it for later, the amount of damage those rights could do are low compared to other 'rights'. Bwilkins also is not opposed and would be fine with the action according to a post above. Everyone's eyes are on this so a true abuse of the rights would easily be noticed now. I see no reason to not restore them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Note
- I've unilaterally restored the rights. There wasn't a conversation with BWilkins before this was brought to ANI and with all due respect, this has instead turned into a drama-fest. The easiest way to end the drama is for me to restore the rights based on BWilkins own comment that any admin can restore them, so I have. If any admin wants to restore any deleted articles so they can be worked on, reviewed or taken to AFD, just do it as permission has been granted by the deleting admin. Honestly, I'm a little disappointed. This should have been a simple request on his talk page, but started with claims of abuse and just went downhill. I think BWilkins gets the point by now that he was perhaps a little hasty (but not abusive) and driving the point further is disruptive. I suggest an uninvolved admin simply work with Philipmj24 on his talk page. Please close the thread on your way there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I've started a discussion on the appropriateness of these pages at the village pump. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Mobile Mom spam
A series of anonymous IPs have been adding a spam link to at least three pages, multiple times on one of the pages:
207.210.65.246 to Gestational age (diff)
207.210.65.198 to Beginning of pregnancy controversy (diff)
216.171.104.122 and 66.232.112.111 and 66.232.112.99 to Pregnancy test (diff and diff and diff)
All but one of the IP addresses have just the single edit, and 216.171.104.122 has such a variety of edits I believe it's multiple people. Because of the variable IP addresses, I'm not sure where to start with invitations to the talk pages or warnings or blocks. Any suggestions on how to handle this? LyrlTalk C 03:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I guess if they are acting in concert (or are the same person), we could notify the IP with the earliest linkspam addition, at least to start off.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I forget the step by step way to search for offending links, but I know such a way exists. I did the special search for the url, but nothing turned up. It is more effective to watch for the infringing link for awhile and if it persist put it on the blacklist, but blocking the IPs would probably do little to stop it and it doesn't seem to be an 'attack'. I say wait and see what happens, if it continues then we should address it, the IP hopping is easy enough to do, but so it reverting it. Oh, and maybe such a search should be noted at WP:SPAM for future reference. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- 216.171.104.122 is the chronic spammer main IP. [28] Pick at random the contributions, they seem to be the main IP. I'll toss them a warning now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Google Analytics ID: UA-32139756 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)
- mobile-mom.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.mobile-mom.com
- mobilemom.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.mobilemom.com
- Accounts
- 207.210.65.246 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
207.210.65.198 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
66.232.112.111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
66.232.112.99 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
216.171.104.122 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) - Other related (216.171.104.122)
- clinicalstudyconnect.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.clinicalstudyconnect.com
- electronicsenvy.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.electronicsenvy.com
- Accounts
- 69.164.72.100 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
216.171.104.122 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) - --Hu12 (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Google Analytics ID: UA-32139756 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)
- 216.171.104.122 is the chronic spammer main IP. [28] Pick at random the contributions, they seem to be the main IP. I'll toss them a warning now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I forget the step by step way to search for offending links, but I know such a way exists. I did the special search for the url, but nothing turned up. It is more effective to watch for the infringing link for awhile and if it persist put it on the blacklist, but blocking the IPs would probably do little to stop it and it doesn't seem to be an 'attack'. I say wait and see what happens, if it continues then we should address it, the IP hopping is easy enough to do, but so it reverting it. Oh, and maybe such a search should be noted at WP:SPAM for future reference. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- This would appear to be a classic case for the spam blacklist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:YellowPegasus has identified himself as a reincarnation of User:PIPony22, who was blocked for disruptive editing in 2010. With the new YellowPegasus account, this user's only edits outside of userspace have been a series of disruptive edits to templates – rewording, renaming, replacing CSS classes with wikitables, as well as creating a bunch of new, redundant templates which are currently at TfD. Two warnings, from myself and another user, were immediately archived without comment. It was suggested at the 2010 ANI discussion (linked above) that this user has some sort of behavioural disorder, and I'm fairly sure these edits are being made in good faith, but that doesn't change the fact that this is disruptive behaviour. I don't know what's the appropriate course of action here, I just felt this should be brought to the attention of the community. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- WP:CLEANSTART does not apply to editors who were blocked. Looks to me like this person was blocked, edited anonymously for a bit, and now came out of the closet - both of which are improper. I have indeffed advising them of such (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've added a note to the users page. They did come back improperly, but they admitted the previous account, so they weren't trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I think that to be fair, we have to acknowledge this and try to work with the editor and create a path for them to come back if it possible. It might not be, there may be reasons why they are not capable of contributing here, I don't know. But I do think that in cases where they are being honest, we should at least provide a more clear path for them. The rules on cleanstart (and the 1000 other rules we have) aren't always intuitive, so giving back good faith where it was given by the editor is due. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thought about doing something similar but the current account's contributions] really aren't very encouraging. NE Ent 15:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I had noticed that as well, but being ever the optimist, wanted to provide a path, no matter how unlikely it will be traveled. Since they did admit the prior account, I felt it was the best option. This isn't a comment on anyone else not doing so, it is just how I am. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thought about doing something similar but the current account's contributions] really aren't very encouraging. NE Ent 15:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thought it might be of interest to know they've already got another sock on the go, having had the YP identity link to a Meta-Wiki userpage of their creation under another identity (User:AnnaHendren) who has a lot of the same editing patterns and behaviours here on en.wiki and was active as of a few days ago. Worth considering a SPI because there might be more but I'm not about to go on a fishing expedition. tutterMouse (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
User:AnnaHendren
I'm concerned about this editor if only because of some dubious templates and redirects created by User:AnnaHendren (talk · contribs). Rarely if ever discusses anything except to deny having any socks, but that was before YellowPegasus. See User:AnnaHendren/YellowPegasus, her talkpage archives at [29] and [30], redirects of userspace such as [31]. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PIPony22. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've endorsed for CU at that SPI case. We can probably close this and let it run its course there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Earth100 has had a history of problematic editing. Over the past 2 weeks, he has been involved in an edit war, and I brought him to AN/I for continued personal attacks and fighting against another editor. As of that AN/I he had added original research to articles ([32]), reverted edits that had cleaned up references and removed grammar errors ([33]), and was warned for what another editor labeled a personal attack ([34]). I've been a member of WikiProject Tropical cyclones for a couple years, so I have a lot of cyclone articles on my watchlist, and I noticed that even after I had tried to explain to him the rules of original research ([35]), he was still adding original research ([36]), removing maintenance tags without adding references ([37] and [38]). I have attempted to explain to him numerous times what is and is not allowed ([39], [40], [41], and [42]), but he has continued, and refuses to listen ([43] - the only thing actually in the reference that he listed was the crossing of Palawan after going through the Sulu sea. There was no mentioning of weakening to a category 2 or 1 storm, and there is no mention of decreased convection on its southeastern side). The pattern of disruptive editing has just continued, and any time I have tried to actually have discussion and get proper sources, he just tells me that the sources are wrong, and he's an expert, so it's not original research ([44] and [45]). For the most part, he is helpful to the project, but errors end up getting introduced when information is not properly referenced (and even more so when information not in the source) is placed in. Inks.LWC (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Inks.LWC, please look closely, i'm not without my sources. Besides, the storm itself and the track shows it, and also in wunderground map(history track info from JTWC) showing it's intensity in dates. Please look closely at where i got the sources.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 14:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thats not the point. If Earth100 has sources for information, they need to include them in the article and not simply remove the maintenance tags. In fact, an editor inserting a tag instead of removing content is doing less than they could. verifiability policy clearly states All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.NE Ent 14:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll also note that Inks.LWC initial post here is fairly well done as it contains many diffs and not so much verbiage. Two suggestions: First, never call anything vandalism which is not blatant and intentional disruption -- use the term disruptive editing instead. Secondly discussing on a talk page is highly preferred instead of relying on edit summaries, so this User_talk:Earth100#Typhoon_Bopha is good but it would be better here: User_talk:Earth100#Typhoon_Bopha Talk:Typhoon_Bopha because you get more help for other editors than way. NE Ent 14:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)fix NE Ent 12:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- He should be made to understand that he must use sources for anything he wishes to add to Wikipedia. It is far easier to go by the rule of 'If you are contributing, tell us where you got your information from.' instead of claiming it and referencing improperly. A bad reference or one which doesn't state the information is one that I consider an offense because if you do it once, you might have done it many times before which brings all your contributions under scrutiny. Though I see that discussion is starting on the page and that is a good thing.
Does this really need to be at ANI still?Its not that big of a deal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)- It'd be best to leave this open until Earth 100 acknowledges the concerns expressed -- Inks.LWC has been patient while working towards maintaining WP quality and verifiability so I'd liked to see their efforts supported. NE Ent 15:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, disregard my comment about it. It would probably be for the best, that it be acknowledged here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- It'd be best to leave this open until Earth 100 acknowledges the concerns expressed -- Inks.LWC has been patient while working towards maintaining WP quality and verifiability so I'd liked to see their efforts supported. NE Ent 15:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- He should be made to understand that he must use sources for anything he wishes to add to Wikipedia. It is far easier to go by the rule of 'If you are contributing, tell us where you got your information from.' instead of claiming it and referencing improperly. A bad reference or one which doesn't state the information is one that I consider an offense because if you do it once, you might have done it many times before which brings all your contributions under scrutiny. Though I see that discussion is starting on the page and that is a good thing.
- My apologies. That was supposed to be a uw-tdel4 template (Removal of maintenance templates), but it somehow got changed to a only warning for vandalism template (I'm thinking perhaps I bumped an arrow key or something... I'm honestly not sure). I should've checked the template after posting it, so again, that was my error. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Also, I'm assuming that your second link wasn't supposed to be a repeat of the first link? Were you intending to say that discussion should have been on the article talk page? I did that for Typhoon Bopha, since the addition of unsourced/incorrect material was the result of several editors. I didn't want to clutter up the talk pages of the other two articles since the problems there were specifically with Earth100's edits, so I thought it more appropriate to keep the discussion on his page. (Also, at that point, I was trying to keep it more personal and explain to him 1-on-1 what was incorrect with what he was doing, so it wasn't on the talk page of an article that was getting more and more attention due to the news.) So if it would generally be better to keep discussions like that on article talk pages, I'll keep that in mind in the future as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, oops. Fixed. Anyway I'm just offering an opinion based of past experience in DR -- it certainly wasn't wrong to page on the user talk page, I just think it works better long term to use article talk. NE Ent 12:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Earth100 is going to acknowledge that what he's been doing is inappropriate or disruptive. He's still not properly citing claims ([46] - where an image made for the Wikipedia article was used as a source in that very own article, this morning), he's engaging in original research ([47]), and he's becoming more antagonistic against me ([48]). I don't want to badger him into coming here if he doesn't want to participate in the AN/I, but at the same time, I (and the other WPTC editors) don't have time to correct disruptive edits (nor should that be our responsibility on this large of a scale). Inks.LWC (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
IP Vandal 94.7.158.48
- 94.7.158.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 2.223.63.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
This user was blocked yesterday for 31 hours for persistent vandalism and personal attacks. However today I have reason to suspect the user has evaded the block using another IP. I thought I would bring this to your attention. The user IP 2.223.63.122 has posted identical edits and also vandalised my talk page. They now have been blocked but I feel this should be investigated as I feel there is strong suspicion of block evasion. Thank you for your assistance. Christian1985 (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have notified both IPs that there's a thread on this board. Both geolocate to the same general area in the UK, and they are both the same service provider (Sky Broadband) so yeah, it's likely the same person. Both IPs are already blocked - 94.7.158.48 for 31 hours and 2.223.63.122 for two weeks. I'm not clear what else we can do, even knowing they are the same person? -- Dianna (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Semi protect the Hitchens article to auto confirmed. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Semi protect the Hitchens article to auto confirmed. little green rosetta(talk)
Post by IP with complaint about Dan Catullo
- Dan Catullo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 64.134.220.150 (talk · contribs) posted to my talk page, diff, with a complaint about this article, can admins investigate? I'll respectfully defer to the judgment by admins about this issue. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Whoa. Yeah. If this stuff is all public knowledge and some of the links will need to be examined with logging in as the session naturally closes, but in reviewing some of them, they do seem to merit credible cases brought forth against the individual. While I'm not one for slapping a bunch of mud on an article and staining someones reputation, especially with the strict BLP concerns, this is about as reliable evidence as one can get of 'legal troubles'. Though I do believe the IP has a point about Wikipedia being used to promote the subject as everything in the article is a terrible mess from a NPOV standpoint. I'ma start the axing of the unreliable sourced material and see where I end up. I am not going to put the legal matters in, though this probably will go to AFD and stick, there is a chance it can be saved though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Offshoot Plane to Haiti is tagged for deletion now. I've also noted that many of the claims are overblown and some seem to be outright lies like the 4 Guinness world records for that Creed concert, Guinness has one and it is obvious that it was a publicity ploy. Many of the fame and awards credited on the page are not his and have nothing to do with him. Such as , "Etta James –“Etta James and the Roots Band: Burnin’ Down the House” (2002-Live Music Special/DVD & CD) (Director) - Grammy nomination in 2003 for “Best Contemporary Blues Album” [4]" I don't think much of this can be saved in fact, the only thing reliably sourced right now and deal with him specifically are these court cases. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know what to do with the article right now. I think requiring reliable sources for everything is about as best as we can do. IMDB is a loss, and while he does have numerous legitimate connections and 'credits', they do not seem to be a major role and they are not the focus of coverage in reliable sources. Though a small treasure trove of numerous convictions which lead to jail time and other civil cases are a small mountain. For so much wrong with it, fixing it is a big job. I may just end up redoing the article from scratch. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Offshoot Plane to Haiti is tagged for deletion now. I've also noted that many of the claims are overblown and some seem to be outright lies like the 4 Guinness world records for that Creed concert, Guinness has one and it is obvious that it was a publicity ploy. Many of the fame and awards credited on the page are not his and have nothing to do with him. Such as , "Etta James –“Etta James and the Roots Band: Burnin’ Down the House” (2002-Live Music Special/DVD & CD) (Director) - Grammy nomination in 2003 for “Best Contemporary Blues Album” [4]" I don't think much of this can be saved in fact, the only thing reliably sourced right now and deal with him specifically are these court cases. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Whoa. Yeah. If this stuff is all public knowledge and some of the links will need to be examined with logging in as the session naturally closes, but in reviewing some of them, they do seem to merit credible cases brought forth against the individual. While I'm not one for slapping a bunch of mud on an article and staining someones reputation, especially with the strict BLP concerns, this is about as reliable evidence as one can get of 'legal troubles'. Though I do believe the IP has a point about Wikipedia being used to promote the subject as everything in the article is a terrible mess from a NPOV standpoint. I'ma start the axing of the unreliable sourced material and see where I end up. I am not going to put the legal matters in, though this probably will go to AFD and stick, there is a chance it can be saved though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Simplified Technical English
We seem to have multiple IPs in the 186.227.192.xxx range all attempting to delete material on Talk:Simplified Technical English relating to 'SHUFRA' - a problematic website already raised more than once for spamming, and blacklisted - see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 59#Simplified English. A range block will no doubt solve the immediate problem, but further eyes would be appreciated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Webhost range blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Disruptive deletion of content
Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in a campaign of deleting tagged "uncited" material from pages. His contribution history is quite extensively bolded red.
The policies primarily involved here are:
- WP:V and WP:CHALLENGE in particular;
- WP:Editing policy and WP:PRESERVE in particular.
I have seen two of his edits on articles on my watchlist, All Hallows' School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Anglican Church Grammar School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). He removed a section from All Hallow's on Dec. 6 (diff) and from Churchie on Dec. 16 (diff). On both occasions, he removed content that could have been sourced with a very simple google search, which I have since done. The latest diff, on Churchie, shows that in his enthusiasm for deleting content, he also managed to delete cited content.
There are many other articles where he has done the same, however, most are outside of my interest area (actually a lot of the ones that I can see are on subjects that are in non-English speaking countries and are therefore subject to the WP:BIAS in favour of English language articles. I was unable to find sources for the couple that I tried, but I don't doubt that someone with an interest in those areas might be able to do better than I.
While, technically, WP:V allows uncited content to be removed, it also states that "If instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." (in the section titled WP:CHALLENGE). This doesn't appear to be happening.
I have tried to talk out the issue with Epeefleche twice, first at Talk:All_Hallows'_School#Removal_of_House_System_section, and then again former revision (the content has since been removed).
This is part of a pattern of behaviour which is disruptive, per the definition given at WP:DISRUPT, because, while it isn't vandalism, it is definitively deletorious towards the goals of creating a detailed encyclopedia.
It is also the latest round of Epeefleche's disruptive and tendentious approach to his work on Wikipedia, the last (in which I was involved) was his nomination of just under 200 school articles over a 3 week period over New Years 2011 to 2012, many of which were ill-considered (on at least one occasion it was because a school region was mistaken for a primary school). In that episode, questions were raised by myself and many other editors as to whether Epeefleche was aligning himself with WP:BEGIN, especially considering AfD's were being made with very small gaps of minutes/seconds.
The outcome I want from this is for Epeefleche to work towards WP:PRESERVE and seek sources for tagged content rather than delete content. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Uhm....are you seriously complaining because an editor deleted content with no source? Really? And the other "Churchie" source was a primary source (Henley Royal Regatta - List of Entries 2012) which would require a secondary RS as well...but didn't have. WP:V: "If instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." So you are a mind reader as well as an editor? I don't know about this pattern you speak of from the other editor....but I am beginning to see one here. But of course if an admin wants to force Epeefleche to "work towards WP:PRESERVE and seek sources for tagged content rather than delete content", then go for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Without really looking into it, I would argue that WP:BURDEN trumps WP:PRESERVE, particularly considering that preserve says "Preserve appropriate content...should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies (Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research)" It seems to me WP:PRESERVE is more about not deleting content because it is badly written than it is about keeping unsourced content --Jac16888 Talk 11:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Removing content with no source given is not the same as removing unverifiable content. Unverifiable content should be removed, and content where nobody has bothered to give a source, but that is verifiable, should stay until it is challenged based on its contents, not based on the fact that nobody has given a source. —Kusma (t·c) 11:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". Per Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- At least this edit removed a reference too. --Cyclopiatalk 11:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I said that was a primary source and should have a secondary RS to support it.(uninvolved observation)--Amadscientist (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- While WP:V does say that content can be removed, it also says quite clearly, that an effort should be made to seek sources as an alternative to removing content. In these cases, that material was readily available if an extremely cursory google search was conducted (as I said, the sources came up as the #2 and #1 results). If the intent of WP:V isn't to actually improve the encyclopedia by making people do the tiniest little bit of legwork, then why even state that "it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it"? Why have WP:PRESERVE as part of the Editing policy if it's viewed just as a guideline? It seems to me that Epeefleche has decided to ignore that part of the policy which actually involves improving the encyclopedia, which is an issue. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well WP:V doesn't require people find sources, in fact it makes it clear that ultimately it's up to people who want to keep the info to find sources. And PRESERVE may be part of policy, but it makes it clear it's not required to preserve information which fails verifiability. To be clear, I'm not saying that it wouldn't be helpful if Epeefleche changes the way they deal with unsourced or poorly sourced content, perhaps it would be I haven't looked enough to comment. I'm simply saying nothing is happening here since there's no clearcut policy violation, and ANI is way too soon anyway. (I'm not entirely sure how you even hope to achieve your desired outcome by coming to ANI. Are you asking for a block until the editor agrees to change their behaviour?) Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- WP:V states that it is better to find sources rather than remove. That's not the same thing as saying that finding sources is "not required". Furthermore, it's not unverifiable if a google search turns up the information in 3 seconds, it's just that the sources haven't been provided. I've stated what I want in the opening. If Epeefleche can't cooperate and edit per policy, then, at that point, we can talk about how to enforce the point.
- Separately, just took a quick look at Epee's last 500 edits and saw too more articles which seem to have undergone the same treatment, and are also easily fixed with a simple google search:
- This is disruptive because it could have been done by Epee in the first place (and WP:V and WP:PRESERVE states that it should be done). So I suppose my question is, if removal is preferred to spending 3 seconds doing a google search, do we need a dedicated editor going around restoring content where Epee refuses to use google? I'm sure if I went back further than 500 edits, I'd find yet more examples, but is it my (or anyone's) job to do what Epee won't? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever you may say, the point is it's not required. Someone is unlikely to be blocked solely for removing unsourced information, even if sources can be found, except in exceptional circumstances or when the community has expressed clear concern over their behaviour (such as with an RFC). Remember this is ANI, so we should nearly always approach things from an ANI POV. If you're not doing so, there's a good chance you're at the wrong place. Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well WP:V doesn't require people find sources, in fact it makes it clear that ultimately it's up to people who want to keep the info to find sources. And PRESERVE may be part of policy, but it makes it clear it's not required to preserve information which fails verifiability. To be clear, I'm not saying that it wouldn't be helpful if Epeefleche changes the way they deal with unsourced or poorly sourced content, perhaps it would be I haven't looked enough to comment. I'm simply saying nothing is happening here since there's no clearcut policy violation, and ANI is way too soon anyway. (I'm not entirely sure how you even hope to achieve your desired outcome by coming to ANI. Are you asking for a block until the editor agrees to change their behaviour?) Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- While WP:V does say that content can be removed, it also says quite clearly, that an effort should be made to seek sources as an alternative to removing content. In these cases, that material was readily available if an extremely cursory google search was conducted (as I said, the sources came up as the #2 and #1 results). If the intent of WP:V isn't to actually improve the encyclopedia by making people do the tiniest little bit of legwork, then why even state that "it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it"? Why have WP:PRESERVE as part of the Editing policy if it's viewed just as a guideline? It seems to me that Epeefleche has decided to ignore that part of the policy which actually involves improving the encyclopedia, which is an issue. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I said that was a primary source and should have a secondary RS to support it.(uninvolved observation)--Amadscientist (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Are we seriously talking about sanctioning someone for removing unsourced content from articles? Is today opposite day? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, we're talking about sanctioning (guiding someone to do the right thing, in this case, I'm not asking for a block) someone for removing unsourced content from articles which could/should have been sourced with 3 seconds on google against both WP:V and WP:PRESERVE. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Not going to happen. June 2010 and 2009 is a long time, we shouldn't be leaving in unsourced material that long. And the material deleted at All Hallows about houses, home groups, etc probably didn't belong anyway, our guidelines say don't include "Trivia which is only of interest to pupils in the school (such as school timetables, bell schedules, class-by-class rules, daily lunch menus, location of the toilets, or a room-by-room description of the school facilities)". Sloppiness is another issue but sanctioning would only take place after considerable discussion with the editor and failure to change. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is the same old tired PRESERVE vs WP:V argument that has gone on since day one here. Who wins usually depends on who shows up at ANI that particular day. Removing contentious material that isn't sourced isn't the usual problem, it usually boils down to reasonableness. And primary sources are acceptable, removing them really isn't unless the fact is very contentious. Here I don't really see the sea of red, however. I did see this edit [51] where he claims in his summary he is removing uncited material when he is infact removing cited material and cite. This [52] seemed unnecessary since there is a cite that lists all the movies. The editing seems sloppy, which isn't good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, so you are saying that the primary source actually supports this claim:(bolding done for emphasis) "In 2012, the Open 1st VIII participated in the Princess Elizabeth Challenge Cup at the Henley Royal Regatta, the first Churchie crew to do so.[1]"
- I would argue it had to be removed as not being supported by that primary source.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- And , oh my god that other article is a huge mess. Sloppy is right...but not from the deletion. The thing has an outright raw external link in the article. This is a BLP and none of that was sourced. A flmography or cite that simply lists all the films wont support all the claims being made on the biography.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see mention of Churchie being in any of the competitions before then. Should I reference all the lists of entries going back however long to prove the point, or is this a red herring? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I would find a Reliable Source that actually makes the claim and not synthesize it.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's likely mentioned in the school newsletter, but I can't access it. If you know a kid at the school, you could help out here. Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- A school newsletter is a reliable source?! Is this Wacky Day on ANI or something? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Wacky Dan on ANI? What are you talking about? Is whether or not Churchie went along to a rowing regatta a matter that is so contentious that an WP:SPS would not be acceptable? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- For schools, the school website and history books published by the school are acceptable primary sources for non-contentious material. School newsletters and such are never acceptable sources for anything, and if I saw something "cited" to one in an article I'd remove the material and leave a polite but firm message on the editor's talk page not to use them again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- At least for the schools with which I work, there is no difference between the school website, publications, ASR's and anything else published by the school on the one hand and school newsletters on the other. They all have to be approved for publication by Principals (or equivalents) and usually have to follow a format set by policy. So, really... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I was on both my high school & college newspapers, and none of them needed pricipal/dean approval or had any editorial oversight aside from the editor, who was just another student volunteer and would correct typos but not verify articles. There was a teacher who supposedly gave guidance but didn't do much relating to content aside from telling us not to curse. There was no fact-checking whatsoever. Simply put, they are not reliable sources even for basic information. Additionally, anything for which a school newsletter is the ONLY extant source and has never been covered elsewhere is almost certainly too trivial to be useful in a general-interest encyclopedia anyway. That said, evaluating reliable sources is out of scope for ANI so I won't elaborate further. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- At least for the schools with which I work, there is no difference between the school website, publications, ASR's and anything else published by the school on the one hand and school newsletters on the other. They all have to be approved for publication by Principals (or equivalents) and usually have to follow a format set by policy. So, really... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- For schools, the school website and history books published by the school are acceptable primary sources for non-contentious material. School newsletters and such are never acceptable sources for anything, and if I saw something "cited" to one in an article I'd remove the material and leave a polite but firm message on the editor's talk page not to use them again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Wacky Dan on ANI? What are you talking about? Is whether or not Churchie went along to a rowing regatta a matter that is so contentious that an WP:SPS would not be acceptable? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- A school newsletter is a reliable source?! Is this Wacky Day on ANI or something? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's likely mentioned in the school newsletter, but I can't access it. If you know a kid at the school, you could help out here. Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I would find a Reliable Source that actually makes the claim and not synthesize it.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see mention of Churchie being in any of the competitions before then. Should I reference all the lists of entries going back however long to prove the point, or is this a red herring? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- And , oh my god that other article is a huge mess. Sloppy is right...but not from the deletion. The thing has an outright raw external link in the article. This is a BLP and none of that was sourced. A flmography or cite that simply lists all the films wont support all the claims being made on the biography.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I would argue it had to be removed as not being supported by that primary source.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
8I have always interpreted the rule about removal of sourced material as having an implied "reasonably" -- along with essentially all other WP rules. If applied literally, it would be contrary to the spirit of WP:BUTO. What Epeefleche is doing is apparently designed to show us the absurdity of taking it literally--or at least that's the basis for it. Even in BLP, unsourced non negative non judgmental uncontroversial factual material is not removed automatically or single-handedly. If Epee is absolutely convinced that this is the best course to pursue, I will consider whether I and the rest of us should start doing so also to the most prominent articles I can find. (What I think the best course is to explicitly insert the word"reasonably" where it belongs.) DGG ( talk ) 15:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently? I don't see that. That is an assumption. I see someone trying to improve articles and being dragged through AN/I over it. Applied literally. No. I also do not see that. BLP says: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The only thing I would question is whether or not the content was contentious. But I am not sure how you would even make that determination and have always thought that wording odd.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. At this point, you're either on board with verifiability and reliable sourcing or you aren't. If you aren't, then get out of the way because you're on your way out. It doesn't matter which way the editing culture shifts (though nearly everyone seems to understand V by now) as Wikipedia could never go back to unverifiable information for legal reasons. Nobody in their right mind is going to sanction Epeefleche for doing what policy allows, encourages, and even requires them to do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Schools are covered by BLP now?!? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, schools aren't living people, but ideally the same best editing practices do apply because schools, like living persons, can be harmed by inaccurate public information and, also like living persons, can sue for libel. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see anyone calling for his head on a platter. I do see a couple of people saying "You are being sloppy here". And my comment on primary links was a general one, not specific to this case. Primary links are acceptable for non-contentious facts and often the best sources. What would be nice is to see them come here and simply say "I understand your concerns, and will try to be more discriminating in my deletion of material". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- That was pretty well said and kinda humbles me back a bit Dennis. Of course it would be nice if he understood the concerns and I do hope he/she will make a quick visit to at least let editors know their intentions were in good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- But this is ANI so unless some sort of administrative action is being asked for, it isn't really the place for discussion. As I've said above, it may very well be that there are problems with Epeefleche's behaviour but this isn't the place to bring it up. The editor who started this thread has at least brought it up with Epeefleche's behaviour on their talk page first (unlike some ANI discussions). Since that didn't work, but the sort of behaviour here isn't the kind which is going to lead to immediate sanctions, there are other avenues of dispute resolution that should be tried first like a RFC/U. Avenues which are far more likely to lead to something productive then a long ANI discussion which will lead to nothing Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Being that (a) discussions that have been had so far have mainly been of the character Epee: I'm allowed to remove unsourced content; Danjel: But the sources are there, could you spend a couple of seconds looking for them? Epee: But I'm allowed to remove unsourced content (and around and around and around and around); and (b) past attempts at getting Epee to perceive problems in his approaches to editing (i.e., in regards to the mass AfD nominations at the beginning of the year) haven't exactly been successful, an RFC/U would not likely be very effective. This needs to be noted so that, if the behaviour continues, the consideration of the issue can be escalated. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- He's right though. He is allowed to remove unsourced content. In fact he's supposed to. If you can source it and re-insert it, go right ahead (no school newsletters though). Taking someone to ANI or RFC/U requires that they actually be breaking the rules in some way. I couldn't get someone arrested for wearing an ugly hat no matter how many cops I talk to. There needs to be a law broken in some way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- The policies, both WP:CHALLENGE and WP:PRESERVE, say that you should look for a source. The sentence at CHALLENGE says "if instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." That simply is not happening. Considering in these cases a very cursory google search turned up ideal sources suggests that it probably should have. Therefore the rules aren't being followed. That it's happening in at least 4 cases that I can identify (and, as I said, there are plenty more articles where WP:BIAS is an issue), that suggests disruption. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Should", not "must". The original editor shouldn't have added unsourced material in the first place. If material is unsourced and doesn't seem particularly important (like the color coding of houses in a school), I can't see that anyone should be required (or even expected) to search for a source. That path leads to people having to try to document trivia lists.—Kww(talk) 17:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is in all 4 cases, it wasn't just the colour coding of houses in a school that was deleted, but whole sections (including in at least one example, a citation!). While you can't see that anyopne should be required to search for a source, it is the letter of policy that says so, and in these cases, where the information could be supposed to be quite freely available, the required level of engagement necessary to find the sources was, in all likelihood, only marginally more than click-ctrl-a-delete-tab-ctrl-a-delete-tab-editsummary-return. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- The letter of policy does not require that editors search for a source. It recommends that they do. That's different. It's quite reasonable for an editor to decide that the best thing to do with unsourced material is to remove it. That's been discussed many times, and is the reason that the search for sources has not been mandated.—Kww(talk) 18:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- We're arguing around a point that is irrelevant. Yes, it says "should" rather than "must". But the reason why it says "should" is precisely why this particular issue is a problem. Every single one of the cases that I've referred to above had content that any reasonable editor would consider very easily sourced, and, as it turned out, in every case it was easily sourced. Therefore, deciding to remove it in this case was not the "best thing" to do by any stretch of the imagination, it was the lazy thing to do (even there, only if you can say that opening google is arduous). Now if we were talking about obscure contentious claims that might require visits to local libraries and trawling through microfiche, then, yeah, fine, delete whatever. But in these cases (and as I said, I suspect others), the appropriate source was found immediately with Google and was the #1 result almost every time (#2 once). You're excusing lazy editing that does not contribute to the project but is deletorious and therefore disruptive. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, I'm defending the notion that the removal of material from articles is a necessary and productive step. Taking the house color-coding issue as an example, that's material that has no place here. It's trivia. It's detrimental to building an encyclopedia. That it's easily verifiable is irrelevant. I could probably verify every costume change that Lady GaGa has made in concert without leaving my chair. If I encountered an unsourced list of that material in one of her tour articles, I'd remove it without looking for a source on the simple reasoning that even if sourced, the material didn't belong in the article. That's not being lazy, that's editing. Addition and removal of material need to exist in balance, and neither is inherently good nor bad.—Kww(talk) 18:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- We're arguing around a point that is irrelevant. Yes, it says "should" rather than "must". But the reason why it says "should" is precisely why this particular issue is a problem. Every single one of the cases that I've referred to above had content that any reasonable editor would consider very easily sourced, and, as it turned out, in every case it was easily sourced. Therefore, deciding to remove it in this case was not the "best thing" to do by any stretch of the imagination, it was the lazy thing to do (even there, only if you can say that opening google is arduous). Now if we were talking about obscure contentious claims that might require visits to local libraries and trawling through microfiche, then, yeah, fine, delete whatever. But in these cases (and as I said, I suspect others), the appropriate source was found immediately with Google and was the #1 result almost every time (#2 once). You're excusing lazy editing that does not contribute to the project but is deletorious and therefore disruptive. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- The letter of policy does not require that editors search for a source. It recommends that they do. That's different. It's quite reasonable for an editor to decide that the best thing to do with unsourced material is to remove it. That's been discussed many times, and is the reason that the search for sources has not been mandated.—Kww(talk) 18:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is in all 4 cases, it wasn't just the colour coding of houses in a school that was deleted, but whole sections (including in at least one example, a citation!). While you can't see that anyopne should be required to search for a source, it is the letter of policy that says so, and in these cases, where the information could be supposed to be quite freely available, the required level of engagement necessary to find the sources was, in all likelihood, only marginally more than click-ctrl-a-delete-tab-ctrl-a-delete-tab-editsummary-return. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Should", not "must". The original editor shouldn't have added unsourced material in the first place. If material is unsourced and doesn't seem particularly important (like the color coding of houses in a school), I can't see that anyone should be required (or even expected) to search for a source. That path leads to people having to try to document trivia lists.—Kww(talk) 17:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- The policies, both WP:CHALLENGE and WP:PRESERVE, say that you should look for a source. The sentence at CHALLENGE says "if instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." That simply is not happening. Considering in these cases a very cursory google search turned up ideal sources suggests that it probably should have. Therefore the rules aren't being followed. That it's happening in at least 4 cases that I can identify (and, as I said, there are plenty more articles where WP:BIAS is an issue), that suggests disruption. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- He's right though. He is allowed to remove unsourced content. In fact he's supposed to. If you can source it and re-insert it, go right ahead (no school newsletters though). Taking someone to ANI or RFC/U requires that they actually be breaking the rules in some way. I couldn't get someone arrested for wearing an ugly hat no matter how many cops I talk to. There needs to be a law broken in some way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Being that (a) discussions that have been had so far have mainly been of the character Epee: I'm allowed to remove unsourced content; Danjel: But the sources are there, could you spend a couple of seconds looking for them? Epee: But I'm allowed to remove unsourced content (and around and around and around and around); and (b) past attempts at getting Epee to perceive problems in his approaches to editing (i.e., in regards to the mass AfD nominations at the beginning of the year) haven't exactly been successful, an RFC/U would not likely be very effective. This needs to be noted so that, if the behaviour continues, the consideration of the issue can be escalated. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Schools are covered by BLP now?!? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Kudos to Epeefleche for maintaining the quality of WP. This concept that an uncited tag is some magic talisman against WP:V is simply bogus. The yeoman work taking place at the Sandy Hook article is the way WP is supposed to work, not oh I'm pretty sure this is true but I'm not motivated enough to find a citation but I'll complain if it's removed. The tag is simply a courtesy to provide interested editors time to meet WP:BURDEN -- if no one's bothered in, say, six months or so I think removal is entirely justified. I encourage editors to critically review the articles I started Charley Morgan, Print butter and Carly Foulkes and remove any uncited material. NE Ent 16:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to all for their input. Danjel complains that I deleted challenged material ... challenged as far back as 2007 ... for which no citations had been provided. Danjel tells us he has these article on his watchlist. But obviously neither he nor anyone else cared to provide ref support over the past 5 years. Now that the material is deleted, pursuant to wp:v, Danjel seeks to push the burden of finding sources for the material onto the deleter. Precisely the opposite of what wp:v calls for. It's even worse than that. When such uncited material, challenged years ago, is deleted -- Danjel re-enters the uncited material without providing any ref support whatsoever. As admitted by Danjel in his edit summary addressing one of the two above edits, the material that I deleted also contained copyvio. Seasoned editors will recognize this as a not uncommon problem with swaths of uncited material resident in articles. Finally -- the inadvertent deletion of one dead ref and adjacent text is a complete red herring -- Danjel , before he opened this thread. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
To address each of your points:
- Would you like to explain how removal of text from an article, without bothering to look for sources, is the "opposite" to "If instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it"? That's what WP:V says, after all.
- Yep, those articles are on my watchlist. But I have a life, and I work on wikipedia in the spare time that my life allows. When I feel like it, I edit and improve articles.
- Mea culpa, I did restore the edit while I was fiddling around with getting the source right. You got me. Well done.
- Yes, the Churchie article contained copyvio. But you didn't even know that because you didn't look for, nor find the material that was copied! If you had found it, then maybe you could have had an argument for removing the whole section, but as it stood, you were too lazy to actually look.
And that's the problem. Googling takes seconds. If you highlight the text, and then right click and hit google it can almost be done as quick as it takes to delete the content. Particularly for content where you've read it and come to the conclusion that a source is likely to exist, you should do it per WP:V and WP:PRESERVE (you can't cherry pick which parts of those policies you like and which parts you don't). But are you even reading it?
So, the main question is, are you ever going to make use of google (I seem to remember this point coming up in your AfD campaign also), or do we have to assign an editor who go through your work and do it for you? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 19:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Continuing this line of argument is unlikely to be helpful. But if you insist: If any editors here need adult supervision assigned to them, it's the ones who add - or reintroduce - content which is not supported by sources. Blaming other people for removing unsourced content is missing the point.bobrayner (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ "Henley Royal Regatta - List of Entries 2012". Retrieved 4 December 2012.
Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from September 2012)
The page generally presents very pro-rebel biased POV. I added two pieces of information recently and user Sopher99 keeps removing it, claiming that the sources I cite are not reliable. Reverts here and here.
Of course with an ongoing armed conflict it is hard to check reliability, but definitely the criteria of removing information just because it might present Syria's government in good light is not the right one. Please note that even the "names of Fridays" in the timeline are kept along the rebel POV. --Emesik (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Names of the Friday have been a widely reported aspect of the rebellion; so they belong there. Any article on the Friday protests would've started at the time with the name given to that Friday by the rebels (naturally), and we are reproducing what RS are reporting. This seems very much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. SANA is certainly not a reliable source in general, but it is a reliable source on the government's POV, so in that context I think the information should've been kept.
- But more importantly, this is a content dispute, take it to the talk page, WP:DRN, or WP:RFC. If the reversion continues you can report it to WP:3RR. I don't see any admin involvement necessary in here just yet. Yazan (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Buster7 article talk page disruption
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Accolades, Buster7 (talk · contribs) is violating talk page guidelines with unrelated chatter not aimed at improving the article. He is reverting hatting of the unrelated chatter as well. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:TPG: "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal." --87.78.4.182 (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've already warned you about causing drama by hatting discussion. Bringing it here in the pit of ANI wasn't wise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
IP question
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
76.189.123.142 (talk · contribs) threatened to take me here because I mentioned the state in which his IP is registered. I did so because he first called me by user name, and since he doesn't have a user name, I called him "[x]-based-IP". That's public information. Is it a problem? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Did someone check this IP to make sure its not a sock account? Im not jumping the gun here but the IP seems to know alot about wikipedia and is acting uncivil towards some editors to the point of being disruptive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- His removal of my required notification of this thread,[53] labeling it "harassment", has a vaguely familiar ring to it. In any case, the IP is obsessed with the notion that the Newtown school shouldn't have the word "Elementary" in it, and he's been pursuing this in an every-widening list of forums. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- All IPs can be geolocated to one degree or another. Stating that his geolocates to Ohio or the greater Cleveland area isn't outing, it is public information that can be found on thousands of websites. This link is on his very talk page under "geolocation" [54] Same with revealing the ISP, etc. Some IPs locate to specific companies, for that matter. I wouldn't worry about threats. If a user doesn't want his location known, he should register an account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- His disruption includes both removing my [x]-based comment
and also another editor who had marked the discussion as "answered".[Apparently that's allowed.] I'm becoming convinced he's de facto trolling, even if he thinks he's doing the right thing. The article is supposed to be about the shooting, not the name of the school. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- His disruption includes both removing my [x]-based comment
- Bugs failed to provide the diff of the highly-inappropriate way he addressed me on the talk page, by revealing the state of my IP. It was clearly done as a harassment technique and is clear violation of the spirit of WP:OUTING. He should be sanctioned for this. And of course I called him Bugs: that's his user name. But you do not address an IP as "California-based IP" or "London-based IP" or wherever the IP is located! That is unbelievably inappropriate. You address an IP like all other editors do it: IP, IP 76, 76, etc. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)I purposely left out the diff here so as not to worsen any problem it might have caused. Since you yourself have now provided that link, and since Dennis points out that it's not outing after all, your complaint appears baseless. I checked your location because I wondered if you were somewhere near that school. You're not. So I have to figure that your obsession with this non-issue of the school's name is nothing but trolling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- It isn't outing. There is a link on your talk page that tells the whole world you live in the greater Cleveland area. It isn't a bug, it is a feature. IP addresses are not anonymous, on any website. The diff you provided was blunt but not a personal attack and I would argue not even incivil. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Bugs failed to provide the diff of the highly-inappropriate way he addressed me on the talk page, by revealing the state of my IP. It was clearly done as a harassment technique and is clear violation of the spirit of WP:OUTING. He should be sanctioned for this. And of course I called him Bugs: that's his user name. But you do not address an IP as "California-based IP" or "London-based IP" or wherever the IP is located! That is unbelievably inappropriate. You address an IP like all other editors do it: IP, IP 76, 76, etc. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
IP sock?
Looking at the IP's edit history, he started here on the 12th and immediately began a crusade about the names of things. That M.O. sounds very familiar, but an associated regstered user name is not coming to mind. Maybe I should keep a list of these things, but I don't. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't make socking claims without filing an SPI. In this case, you have no master, so there is nothing to claim, thus simply inflammatory. Rest assured, everyone at these contentious articles is being looked at carefully. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not a claim, a question, to editors with better memories than mine. I am well aware that checkusers won't do anything with IP's. Meanwhile, he again removed my required notification to him about the ANI thread.[55] That makes at least 3 times now that he's erased my comments. I don't intend to edit-war them back into the talk pages. I am confident the admins will deal with the IP in due course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your confidence is well placed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not a claim, a question, to editors with better memories than mine. I am well aware that checkusers won't do anything with IP's. Meanwhile, he again removed my required notification to him about the ANI thread.[55] That makes at least 3 times now that he's erased my comments. I don't intend to edit-war them back into the talk pages. I am confident the admins will deal with the IP in due course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
9/11 sanctions
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
J3wishVulcan (talk · contribs) appears to be convinced that government agents are controlling the September 11 attacks article and has been using its talkpage as a soapbox [56], [57], [58], and this gem on my talkpage [59]. They've been amply warned [60] and [61] and logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. I don't consider myself an uninvolved admin in this area. Agent 86, aka Acroterion (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I missed the edit summary on this diff! [62] Acroterion (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have a horse in this race, just seen it on Acroterion's talk page. As the user is getting very close to violating 3RR for their edits/reverts on Talk:September 11 attacks, I placed a warning on their talk page. - 007, aka Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I implore the "authorities" of Wikipedia to not be complicit in censorship - on what was supposed to be a an encyclopedia written by people, for people. I do not believe the suppressing comments on the 9/11 talk page by hiding them is appropriate. Any official sanctions against me will only add even more credence to my thesis about the hijacking of the 9/11 page, to an even greater extent than it has already been proven by the editors concerted effort to suppress my comments. I never expected to encounter suppression of speech on Wikipedia.--J3wishVulcan (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- This guy is clearly here for soapboxing and only soapboxing. He is also slightly...um...nuts. With this edit (and the part in green), he seems to believe the clear sarcastic (and funny) response by User:A Quest For Knowledge above his. I can't see anyone who thinks we are "operatives" and "authorities" editing Wikipedia in a constructive manner. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I implore the "authorities" of Wikipedia to not be complicit in censorship - on what was supposed to be a an encyclopedia written by people, for people. I do not believe the suppressing comments on the 9/11 talk page by hiding them is appropriate. Any official sanctions against me will only add even more credence to my thesis about the hijacking of the 9/11 page, to an even greater extent than it has already been proven by the editors concerted effort to suppress my comments. I never expected to encounter suppression of speech on Wikipedia.--J3wishVulcan (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have a horse in this race, just seen it on Acroterion's talk page. As the user is getting very close to violating 3RR for their edits/reverts on Talk:September 11 attacks, I placed a warning on their talk page. - 007, aka Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I am seeing acceptable edits in other areas, but only going back over a year ago. Aside from this edit, all of his edits this year have been to POV-push. A topic-ban rather than a permablock might be more merciful and helpful. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- J3wishVulcan is definitely soap boxing, failing to assume good faith by accusing fellow editors as being government operatives (the CIA, I assume) and they've apparently broke 3RR. [63][64][65][66] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- User has now reverted five times on the article talk page. A report has been issued at the Edit warring noticeboard. Toa Nidhiki05 19:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have blocked them on the basis of the AN3 report, before seeing this. The 3RR issue is fairly obvious; I think this can be closed now. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I was about to block the editor just after you blocked them; I was going to do it for longer, but ...--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- No big problem, I think. If they return and continue, then they can be blocked for longer. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- The block needs to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
-
- Done. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Hot Stop (talk · contribs) seems to have an issue with using incivil language, particularly in edit summaries. The editor was blocked back in October 2011 for using "fuck off" in an edit summary by Ironholds stating "learn to behave civilly, or the next one will be a lot longer". Almost a year later, in August 2012 I put an edit warring notice on their talk page and the behavior continued, with Hot Stop telling me to "go fuck off" (in hindsight the edit warring notice probably wasn't the best thing for me to do, but I didn't realize I had interacted with this editor before, and only realized it after the "fuck off" statement). I asked them to stop, but it didn't help, and I figured the issue was just the editor having a problem with me specifically, so I just decided to back off and hoped that would solve the issue. Apparently that's not the case, however, since the editor has continued the behavior with others. When an editor asked them not to remove project tags, HotStop responded by telling the editor to "fuck off dick face", and to "take a fucking hint". The editor was told to stop this behavior, and has not done so, and this pattern of behavior apparently is not a short-term thing, and isn't going to just go away on its own. - SudoGhost 23:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not condoning the edit summaries. Nor am I looking at Hot Stop's history. That said, in this particular instance, Hot Stop was provoked. User:Buck Winston posted several inflammatory messages to Hot Stop's talk page (repeatedly reverted by Hot Stop), this in the middle of a dispute where Buck has been edit-warring about the addition of a cat to an article. I have been handling the edit-warring report at WP:ANEW. There are other issues here that concern me with Buck, although they don't directly relate to the reason SudoGhost brought this here. I will notify Buck of this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- HotStop blocked 24h. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't think to notify Buck Winston, and to be fair I didn't notice that Hot Stop had already removed two less-than-civil comments by Buck Winston[67][68], but I don't think "fuck off dick face" is the best way to handle that. - SudoGhost 23:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- No reason to be sorry. I'm not sure I would have notified Buck had I been you. I notified him because I mentioned him by name. And you're right, Hot Stop's comments were not an appropriate response.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, when someone will not stop posting to your talk page I believe it is your right to tell them to fuck off. I think either Buck should get a 24 hour break as well for edit warring or HotStop should be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm glad that's just an essay, as I couldn't disagree more with it. That's neither here nor there, though, unless your point was that it's okay to call another editor "dick face" in certain situations, too. --Conti|✉--00:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll disagree there. Not only is a statement like "fuck off dick face" inarguably a WP:CIVIL violation, I've found that a general rule, the person asking the other to stop posting is generally as much or more to blame as the person being asked to stop. When it gets to the point of "so-and-so is no longer welcome on my talk page", I find that the bulk, if not all, of the problem generally lies with the person making such demands.—Kww(talk) 00:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Sorry, but "I was provoked" isn't an excuse for attacking someone in my eyes. Looks like Buck was trying to carry on a content-related conversation Hot Stop didn't want to have, so yeah, bad style on Buck's part, but there's nothing anywhere in what Buck said or did that justified Hot Stop's flying off the handle the way he did. In no universe will "fuck off dick face" resolve any content or editorial dispute; the only thing that behavior does is poison the atmosphere and make the dispute so personal that it obscures the original locus of the dispute. I'd also note that Hot Stop shows no apparent evidence in his unblock request or post-request interactions that he understands that his behavior was unacceptable ("I understand what I was blocked for" and "...but I was provoked by his behavior" do not equal "I understand that I cannot speak to my fellow editors that way, even if they've annoyed me") or that he intends to avoid it in the future.
If people want, I suppose we can discuss Buck's behavior here as well, but personally, I see nothing in his behavior toward Hot Stop that deserves more than a sigh and a recommendation that he try to avoid poking bears in the future. At any rate, it has no bearing on Hot Stop's behavior whether or not the person he was railing against was perfect or totally wrong - in either case, he didn't have the right to resort to name-calling. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Topic ban request - User:JASpencer
JASpencer and I have had a contentious history here at Wikipedia over in the Freemasonry topic area. He makes no attempt to hide the fact that he is biased against the topic, and we've had similar issues on ANI before. However, and not for the first time), JASpencer is stalking my contribs. He has keep voted on several AfDs I started in unrelated areas (WP:Articles for deletion/Awa Santesson-Sey, WP:Articles for deletion/Tahoe-LAFS, WP:Articles for deletion/Aliya (singer), and Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Is_there_such_as_a_thing_as_a_.22bad_faith_keep.22.3F, just to name a few from the last few days. In every case, he is voting or commenting to bait me, and additionally to offer some sort of personal criticism, which is generally irrelevant to the topic. I do not need to put up with this behavior, which started this last time after I posted on his talk page to ask him to stop reverting edits against consensus on the Freemasonry article. I was later asked a question by another editor on my talk page, to which JA commented and the other editor [took exception. JA has also started several threads on various noticeboards about the Continental Freemasonry article, because he simply is not satisfied with what anyone is telling him. Prior to that, he hadn't gone near my other contribs or edited the Freemasonry article for months (that I am aware of), and a user compare report should indicate that.
This situation has been going on for years, and I have had enough of it. I'm sure some of my fellow editors at Freemasonry are also tired of this behavior, but it's been targeted at me directly more so than anyone else in that area. I don't care why, but it is a fact. Therefore, I hereby request a community enforced topic ban for him not only on Freemasonry-related topics (broadly construed), but an interaction ban regarding my edits and other contribs. I have no issues staying away from other material he edits (mainly Catholicism-related items, which is why I know there's an issue when he pops up at an AfD on a Russian pop singer or a computer encryption protocol), because it's not in my areas of interest or expertise. MSJapan (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)