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) |
|
Romila Thapar: False Allegations of Sock Puppet: Please Investigate.
This needs a timestamp to archive, apparently. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Disruption from two users at a GA-rated article
- 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This WP:GA rated article is currently facing disruption from two different users whose primary purpose on this project is to promote the deceased guru Osho.
- Redheylin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Focus on topic of Osho [1], Adding unsourced info to the article and making POV changes: [2], [3]
- Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - WP:SPA on topic of Osho [4], [5], Has history of already being blocked for Disruptive editing: Poorly sourced POV edits despite warnings, this recent edit [6] seems to be a violation of WP:POINT, especially in light of the subsequent comment made by the POV-pusher at the article's talk page: for example see this inappropriate edit summary [7]. User then went ahead and created an entire new page to push this WP:POINT disruption in his dispute over use of the term "follower" at 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot. [8] (in its present state this article is mostly WP:NOR violations) that page was then tagged by a third-party user to be merged to Osho [9], but Off2riorob (talk · contribs) changed the tag for some reason to propose a merge of this unrelated article into the GA 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot [10], where Off2riorob was already disruptive, above, we begin to see that the entire creation of this page violating WP:NOR is also a violation of WP:POINT: disruption of the project to push a point of Off2riorob (talk · contribs)'s position regarding his desire not to use the term "followers" in 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot. There is now an AfD on that page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osho Follower.
Would appreciate some attention from additional admins at this article. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have warned User:Off2riorob for such editing a few times, so I essentially agree with the above. I can't say I'm familiar with the User:Redhaylin but the articles need to be watched for poor sourcing and unsourced statements. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- For what little it might be worth, I've added it to my watch list. Unfortunately, my watch list is a few thousand articles long. Any additional eyes on the article would probably be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Update: Long ranting unrelated WP:NOT#FORUM postings by Redheylin (talk · contribs): [11] and [12]. Cirt (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've dropped a message/warning to Redheylin and informed him of this thread. لennavecia 01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your note:
- "while you may, for example, know "high ranking followers" to be an improper term, there's not really much that can be done without reliable sources to backup your position". Please note; the editor who has complained of me reverted my modifications, preserving misrepresented sources. It turned out there was a dispute with another editor on the same question, which is that of introducing original synthesis into biographical materials on living people. I have attempted to resolve the dispute and concluded that the above editor is intent on disruption since he refuses to withdraw the faulty reference. I have asked him to do so and I have told him his acts may be considered disruptive. I asked him to do so on the basis, not of my knowledge but of goodwill, taking account of first-hand material provided, and advising that academic sources could be produced that would back the point. I offered a 24-hour respite. The editor has since added references to support other contentious statements.
- "it's important to slow down and remember that we need reliable sources when in content disputes". I am asking another editor to provide references for biographical material on living people, showing how misunderstandings may arise and showing I have reason to challenge these statements and that, if he will not withdraw them out of goodwill, there are references available. The intention was to assume goodwill. No hostility was or is intended - this has been fabricated and I regard this as disruptive.
- Also, regarding the Osho Follower AFD, please keep comments in the AFD on-topic, commenting on the content, not the contributors. The proposal for deletion on a related page by the same editor is a result of an edit war with another editor - his proposal says as much. This other editor drew my attention. I have backed a merger with an existing page. Making the page was wrong, but I have pointed out to the compainant editor that his edits were the starting-point and, once again, I consider this disruptive on both editors' parts. Unlike the above editor, I have desisted from formal warnings. Noting the block of the other participant in this edit war beneath, I ask you to examine the history of contributions and assess the part the complainant has played in all this and the assumptions of bad faith in his complaint. Please do not castigate me for reasoning with him, thankyou. Redheylin (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see an issue with the sources Cirt has cited. They include book and online sources, spanning several years. All appear to be top quality sources, which I think is something most of us have come to expect from Cirt. If there are any particular sentences you believe are incorrectly worded, present references that support your claim. If there are any BLP issues, post them out, specifically, either here or on WP:BLP/N, so that they may be quickly dealt with. And for the AFD, you admitted in the AFD that none of your comments were on-topic. لennavecia 23:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Update: Redheylin (talk · contribs) warned by admin Peteforsyth for making personal attacks in an AfD [13], at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osho Follower. Cirt (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Warning at user's talk page: [14]. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- According to admin User:EncMstr, Redheylin (talk · contribs) posts to talk page of admin Peteforsyth constitute near-harassment. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Off2riob blocked 72 hours by YellowMonkey
This block seems premature and overly harsh, since the user seems to be editing in good faith. The user complained, and I asked Yellow here about this. I don't immediately think this warrants any 72 hour block, but this needs feedback. rootology (C)(T) 01:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note above comment by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs): I have warned User:Off2riorob for such editing a few times, so I essentially agree with the above.. Cirt (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) He was just blocked a month ago for similar edits. He has been warned in the past few days. For others reading over this, relevant talk page discussion here. I think the block is good. At worst, it should have been 48 hours as opposed to 72. لennavecia 01:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Endorse block. The user was disruptive and was already blocked for this behaviour. He was many times warned but blanked each warning. What else YellowMonkey could do? Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, no worries. I wasn't sure from the lack of any notice, but this is a good block. rootology (C)(T) 02:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Last week Off2riorob came over to my user talk and interrupted a discussion about a featured article drive, then went over to Synergy's user space and edit warred with Synergy--all because Rob had taken a very strong personal dislike to me. Which was very strange because Rob and I had never interacted. Went over to Rob's user talk and posted a polite query in hopes of clearing the air. Gave up after a couple of posts; he was not receptive at all. Held off making any warning or complaint because a review of Rob's edit history showed he was in a content dispute with someone I mentor. For the record though (since Rob conjectured cabalism last week) I have never discussed Off2riorob with Cirt, Yellowmonkey, or Rootology. In light of his block last month and numerous warnings afterward, it seems lenient that no other block happened until today. DurovaCharge! 02:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Luckily for me Jennavecia has already said basically what I would have. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Last week Off2riorob came over to my user talk and interrupted a discussion about a featured article drive, then went over to Synergy's user space and edit warred with Synergy--all because Rob had taken a very strong personal dislike to me. Which was very strange because Rob and I had never interacted. Went over to Rob's user talk and posted a polite query in hopes of clearing the air. Gave up after a couple of posts; he was not receptive at all. Held off making any warning or complaint because a review of Rob's edit history showed he was in a content dispute with someone I mentor. For the record though (since Rob conjectured cabalism last week) I have never discussed Off2riorob with Cirt, Yellowmonkey, or Rootology. In light of his block last month and numerous warnings afterward, it seems lenient that no other block happened until today. DurovaCharge! 02:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Good faith reduction to 48 hours?
Off2riorob is responding more favorably now, perhaps a good faith reduction in the block period would help matters get back on track. DurovaCharge! 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm fine with this, but I wouldn't unblock then reblock to adjust the time, as that just makes for a sloppy and unnecessarily long block log. Instead, I think one of us involved in this thread should unblock around the 48th hour and note in the unblock summary that the block was shortened per consensus at AN/I, should such a consensus be reached. لennavecia 23:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be consensus around this. Can somebody who's good with international time conversions and stuff tell me when that will be in U.S. Pacific Daylight Time? Assuming I'm not asleep or in the midst of something major, I'd be happy to perform the unblock. -Pete (talk)
SlamDiego's Continued Vandalism of Marginalism Talk Page
Can somebody say something to SlamDiego about his continued vandalism ([22], [23], [24], [25]) of the Talk:Marginalism page? 209.217.195.139 (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly asked the complaintant to stop spamming econ talk pages with links to his 'blog. In the case of these 'blog entries, the relevant content could have been copied-and-pasted or paraphrased. He is simply trying to drive traffic to his 'blog.
- The material in question at Talk:Marginalism is 'blog spam, discussion of 'blog spam, and a personal attack by a third party.
- (The 'blog entry to which he there links contains a short list of references in support of the notion that marginalism should be seen as a response to Marxism. This notion was long previously addressed within the article.)
- I think that Robert's 'blog (robertvienneau.blogspot.com) needs to be added to the list of sites to which links are banned. —SlamDiego←T 00:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Warned for spamming at User talk:209.217.195.144 - however there appears to be a dynamic IP at Talk:Marginalism, so if the spamming continues a rangeblock may be in order. Cirt (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- SlamDiego offers no evidence, of course, to substantiate his personal attack. In fact, the vandalization SlamDiego is implementing deletes a suggestion from another user that SlamDiego's presumptions are incorrect. I'm not surprised at one administrator confusing a pointer to a demonstration that some reliable sources take an on-topic view with spam. I'm somewhat surprised that some others don't step in to point out all the Wikipedia rules SlamDiego is breaking. 209.217.195.152 (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Warned for spamming at User talk:209.217.195.144 - however there appears to be a dynamic IP at Talk:Marginalism, so if the spamming continues a rangeblock may be in order. Cirt (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Directorichr repeatedly vandalizing Dr Sushil Kumar
Directorichr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a COI account (self-identifying as a, or the, Director of the ICHR), which is repeatedly adding hoax or improper "references" to the Dr Sushil Kumar article. He has multiple warnings, and was given a final warning, but continues to add the improper references, and never discusses his edits in Talk pages. I gave him a final warning about incorrect formatting and improper links over a week ago, and yet here he is reverting back to his own edits. He needs a warning block to force him to discuss his edits on a Talk page. I reported this to AIV, since this is clearly a vandal who will not stop reverting to his own version, but my vandalism listing was removed with no action. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've reported this to WP:UAA, they will take it from here and decide what action (if any) is appropriate. C.U.T.K.D T | C 07:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- As noted in the instructions at the top of WP:AIV, editors "must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop." To date, Directorichr has received a {{uw-npov2}} [26], {{uw-unsourced2}} [27], and a level-one warning about external links [28]. Requesting that this editor be blocked for "vandalism" when he or she has never received more than a level-two warning is overly bitey and not enough assumption of good faith. Clearly Directorichr is a new editor with little clue as to how Wikipedia works (and less of an idea of how he needs to work within the Wikipedia system), but I seriously do not see him as being a vandal. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- As I explained to Kralizec on the AIV page, which he ignored, the user received a final warning at User_talk:Directorichr#Problems_with_Dr_Sushil_Kumar. But just how many times must a person be reverted, and how many times must he be asked to respond on the Talk page? He has yet to edit a Talk page, though he did put a comment into the article itself. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- In reviewing his talk page, I only see a single instance where someone invited him to use a talk page [29], and that was his own, not the one associated with the article in question. How are editors totally new to the Wikipedia concept even going to know that articles have talk pages if we do not, you know, tell them? — Kralizec! (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- As I explained to Kralizec on the AIV page, which he ignored, the user received a final warning at User_talk:Directorichr#Problems_with_Dr_Sushil_Kumar. But just how many times must a person be reverted, and how many times must he be asked to respond on the Talk page? He has yet to edit a Talk page, though he did put a comment into the article itself. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- As noted in the instructions at the top of WP:AIV, editors "must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop." To date, Directorichr has received a {{uw-npov2}} [26], {{uw-unsourced2}} [27], and a level-one warning about external links [28]. Requesting that this editor be blocked for "vandalism" when he or she has never received more than a level-two warning is overly bitey and not enough assumption of good faith. Clearly Directorichr is a new editor with little clue as to how Wikipedia works (and less of an idea of how he needs to work within the Wikipedia system), but I seriously do not see him as being a vandal. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
ChildofMidnight (again) personal attacks and refactoring others comments
--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) See:
- refactoring of 2 other users comments at Talk:Barack Obama
- refactoring of another users comments
- Personal attack/incivility
- Another personal attack/incivility
I tried to engage the user regarding the refactoring of other users comments. The user deleted it of course. As with past reports here at ANI regarding this user, something needs to be done. Past reports have went archived with no kind of action or involvement by admins, specifically this ANI thread. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is one of four users coming to my talk page to harass me despite repeated requests to go elsewhere. I suggest reading my talk page and investigating the history a bit before responding. This is Baseball Bugs and a couple of others trying to stir up trouble. (I trust this won't be taken as a personal attack?) This is ALLSTDR's second bogus ANI report of the day againt me. Earlier he accused me of "maliciously" moving an article when several editors suggested doing so in an AfD. This stalking is problematic, and if someone wants to encourage Baseball Bugs, ALLSTDR and the others to steer clear, it would be much appreciated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- No one is "stalking" you. You're just everywhere tendentiously editing for everyone to see. And to correct you, I haven't filed another ANI report regarding you today so I don't know where you're getting this "ALLSTDR's second bogus ANI report" stuff from. I did ask a policy question at AN regarding moving a page that was in an ongoing AfD. AN and ANI are 2 different places and that AN report was yesterday. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a very selective review of the edit history relating to the allegations. The original "refactoring" (which amounted to the correction of two typos) resulted in a disproportionately aggressive comment on CoM's talk page which "of course" was not deleted.
- This led to some unhelpful piling on from uninvolved editors, including comments with inappropriate tone.
- During this, CoM made what he later explained to be a (failed) attempt to clarify (without changing the meaning of) another piled on comment.
- In CoM's comment to LadyofShalott, CoM referred to "[her] and [her] gang of bobbleheads." AgnosticPreachersKid chivalrously defended LadyofShalott—twice—by placing warnings on CoM's page.
- Somehow, the referrer of this incident beat APK to the punch and made this report.
- None of this rises to a level worthy of administrative attention (unless there are admins who happen to be kindergarten teachers with spare time).
- This referral should be closed with prejudice. Bongomatic 06:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I try to avoid this page, but Bongomatic's um, assessment leaves me no other choice (btw, thanks for noting my chivalry). I've seen CoM comment on various talk pages, but have avoided getting into the middle of any edit/talk page battles until an hour ago. I noticed CoM referred to User:LadyofShalott and others as "bobbleheads". (minor PA, but the user is constantly stirring up trouble and knows better) I didn't template, but left a basic "cut it out" warning. Apparently, CoM didn't see anything wrong with the comment and began an attempt to "prove" how I'm wrong. CoM then referred to LadyofShalott and others as wind bags. I left a second warning and returned to my normal routine. I take another look at the talk page and noticed the ANI link (Gosh darnit. Allstarecho beat me to it! /end summary of Bongo's psychic powers). It looks like CoM and Bongo appear to have everything figured out for us, no? CoM was just minding his/her own business until some mean, ol' editors came by and left horrible, horrible warnings. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 07:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neither the warnings nor the referral to AN/I is "horrible, horrible"—they're both just silly. I don't see how CoM's (not particularly constructive) comments constitute personal attacks as per policy whatsoever (unless "bobbleheadness" can be construed to be a racial, sexual, religious, political or ethnic affiliation). Bongomatic 08:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- If they're silly, what adjective best describes CoM's behavior? The recent comments appear to be the latest examples of CoM causing problems. "bobblehead" =/= "dickhead", but the same principle applies. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 08:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would say "unnecessarily provocative" (but within policy). Bongomatic 08:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would say deliberately annoying. BTW, thanks for dragging this discussion onto my talk page for no apparent reason. I'm returning to my regularly scheduled program now (you know, building the encyclopedia...the reason we're here). I trust you'll be able to finish analyzing the situation for us (I must have overlooked the reason you're even commenting on this thread). I'm just hoping a sysop with common sense will look into CoM's recent behvior (the past few weeks) and realize it's more than "silly". Let the tribal council resume. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 08:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would say "unnecessarily provocative" (but within policy). Bongomatic 08:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- If they're silly, what adjective best describes CoM's behavior? The recent comments appear to be the latest examples of CoM causing problems. "bobblehead" =/= "dickhead", but the same principle applies. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 08:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neither the warnings nor the referral to AN/I is "horrible, horrible"—they're both just silly. I don't see how CoM's (not particularly constructive) comments constitute personal attacks as per policy whatsoever (unless "bobbleheadness" can be construed to be a racial, sexual, religious, political or ethnic affiliation). Bongomatic 08:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I try to avoid this page, but Bongomatic's um, assessment leaves me no other choice (btw, thanks for noting my chivalry). I've seen CoM comment on various talk pages, but have avoided getting into the middle of any edit/talk page battles until an hour ago. I noticed CoM referred to User:LadyofShalott and others as "bobbleheads". (minor PA, but the user is constantly stirring up trouble and knows better) I didn't template, but left a basic "cut it out" warning. Apparently, CoM didn't see anything wrong with the comment and began an attempt to "prove" how I'm wrong. CoM then referred to LadyofShalott and others as wind bags. I left a second warning and returned to my normal routine. I take another look at the talk page and noticed the ANI link (Gosh darnit. Allstarecho beat me to it! /end summary of Bongo's psychic powers). It looks like CoM and Bongo appear to have everything figured out for us, no? CoM was just minding his/her own business until some mean, ol' editors came by and left horrible, horrible warnings. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 07:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to be perfectly clear, Child of Midnight should not be editing other user's comments (helpfully or not), nor should that editor call other folks a "gaggle of wind bags" because, yes, that is a personal attack and very much the kind of thing for which one can (and probably next time will) receive a block. C of M has indeed engaged in some problematic editing, and at this point I would say that the level of tolerance, at least as far as I'm concerned, for further problematic editing is pretty much at zero. There's currently an Arb case about Barack Obama articles, and since a lot of the troubles here relate to editing on those articles I suggest (echoing an earlier suggestion on a different ANI thread by Wizardman) that editors discuss problems with C of M (or C of M with other editors) over at that case if they have not already done so (I think some of that is already going on).
Having said that I think there are a number of editors, for example Allstarecho, who need to give Child of Midnight a wide berth. C of M was wrong to edit others' comments (even in a semi-helpful way as happened at first), but it was blown-up into far much of a to-do than was necessary. Let's try to keep this ongoing dispute off ANI for a few days or longer, and maybe instead kick the whole thing over to Arbcom within the confines of the Obama case.
Personally I do not see a need for admin action at this time, but the whole situation bears watching which I will try to do, and perhaps this should stay open a little while longer in case other admins want to weigh in. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- See the top of this page: "To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts." Incivility is bad, but as someone who's been called a fringe POV pusher, quack, idiot, ect. more than a couple times (who hasn't?), it doesn't belong here. The refactoring is quite trivial but also probably quite annoying. CoM should stop feeding the flames. II | (t - c) 10:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- That would apply to most situations but ChilofMidnights track record suggests this is the latest chapter in a string that has gone largely ignored. I won't profer "the patience of the community" statements but that this is an experienced editor who knows better and seems to be testing the limits of other editors' patience is a sign of more problems to come. Personally I see AllStarEcho as perhaps a bit proactive but generally they sniff out rather accurately problematic editors and editing. This may not need admin action as much as admin attention to keep an eye out. -- Banjeboi 10:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The one time I changed someone's comments, years ago, out of the same apparent innocence that CoM showed yesterday, I was strongly rebuked for it. The difference is, I learned, and CoM refuses to learn. You do not change anyone's comments without permission. PERIOD. The default value is NOT, "modify only if they don't object", it is "DON'T MODIFY unless they expressly give permission". There are only two other exceptions I can think of just now. One is a comment that in itself is a gross violation of the rules, which grammar and spelling problems are not. The other is modifying left-margin alignments for the sake of clarity in following a thread. And only do those exceptions with caution. Even now, CoM continues to justify his behavior, and just a little while ago that would-be admin referred to anyone who dared to challenge him as "a gang of bobbleheads". [30] No admin action really needed here, other than to keep that guy on the "trouble" radar. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also fixing links. Fixing links doesn't apply to the don't modify rule since you're not actually changing what they've said. HalfShadow 17:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's true. Another area that's fair game is section headings, especially on an article talk page, as no one "owns" those. Sometimes it's handy to put a link on a heading if it refers to a subject, or change it if it's either inflammatory or has become subtly incorrect due to the evolution of the discussion within. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- However, it's not appropriate to change a Section Heading in such a way that its meaning is changed simply because you disagree with it. E.g., if editor A starts a section called This article is not NPOV it would be off-base for editor B to change that section header to This article is NPOV Dlabtot (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's correct. But neutralizing a controversial heading could be fair, such as changing it to "Is this article NPOV?" if there is disagreement about the claim. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- However, it's not appropriate to change a Section Heading in such a way that its meaning is changed simply because you disagree with it. E.g., if editor A starts a section called This article is not NPOV it would be off-base for editor B to change that section header to This article is NPOV Dlabtot (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's true. Another area that's fair game is section headings, especially on an article talk page, as no one "owns" those. Sometimes it's handy to put a link on a heading if it refers to a subject, or change it if it's either inflammatory or has become subtly incorrect due to the evolution of the discussion within. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not that it is terribly important in the grand scheme of things but my "soapy box" descriptor that seemed to have touched this off (I was uninvolved with any of the aftermath) was intentional, and not a typo. Effervescent wit. and all. Tarc (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Proposal for sanctions
Seeing as this is a recurrent problem, I'm proposing sanctions per the Obama probation. I'm not sure which, however: a topic ban seems like overkill; but a civility parole is, as history proves, useless. Thoughts? Sceptre (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Anything now would seem pointless in the middle of the ArbCom. Not to mention CoM has continously evaded sanctions before. Grsz11 13:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Proposal for disputants to avoid trolling
I suggest the communuty endorse a prohibition requiring Baseball Bugs, Scjessey and ALLST☆R avoid making diruptive comments on my talk page. I've asked them to avoid harassing me, but this polite request has not been complied with. Civility and basic good sense suggests that parties in a dispute avoid harassing one another. I don't leave irrelevant comments on their talk pages and I'd appreciate it if they showed me the same respect. If they have evidence of supposed impropriety (like *gasp* a harmless and good faith copy-edit) they should state their case at Arbcom. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Show me a diff where you told me not to post on your talk page, and I'll apologize - and I'll bloody well stay off your talk page. Also "I don't leave irrelevant comments on their talk pages" is a red herring. I have never asked you (or anyone else that I can recall) not to post on my talk page. And even if you forbid others to post on your talk page (which is within your right, if you ask), you are still welcome to post on mine at any time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why don't you just apologize and agree to not refactor comments, particularly from people who are "harassing" you? And they should similarly let you delete their comments at will, which is generally accepted as a right of any user. II | (t - c) 17:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- No one has said he couldn't delete the comments. In fact, I specifically told him he could. But he can't refactor another user's comments. As is always the case when he comes under the spotlight, this is nothing more than the "they are always picking on me!" defense he is well known for. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 17:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Somewhat conversely, if you decide to leave someone alone to make mistakes, instead of cleaning up after them once you know they consider your attention unwelcome, then you can be confident that others will take care of any problems, without being someone that ChildofMidnight already distrusts.
More simply: I don't think that feedback from users that ChildofMidnight thinks are out to get him or her can possibly be helpful, unless the goal is to make him or her more upset about seeing the same names over and over again. Use the community. Let others share this load. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Somewhat conversely, if you decide to leave someone alone to make mistakes, instead of cleaning up after them once you know they consider your attention unwelcome, then you can be confident that others will take care of any problems, without being someone that ChildofMidnight already distrusts.
- No one has said he couldn't delete the comments. In fact, I specifically told him he could. But he can't refactor another user's comments. As is always the case when he comes under the spotlight, this is nothing more than the "they are always picking on me!" defense he is well known for. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 17:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
"Refactoring is a... stronger term than copy editing." (from wp:refactoring) They're not the same thing, so let's not confuse matters. I suggest that if someone copyedits comments and an editor wants their mistakes to remain in place, they should simply make a polite request expressing this view. They can also revert the change so as to restore their mistakes and move on, as common sense suggests.
Wikipedia is a collaborative wiki, so helping one another with common courtesy and decency is encouraged and generally appreciated. We are all expected to assume good faith, and even refactoring is expressly allowed: "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page." Sometimes it's difficult to assume good faith, it hasn't served me well with certain editors, but it would be a shame if those reading this thread were left with the mistaken impression that courtesy and collaboration were dead on Wikipedia and that our policies and guidelines prohibit helping one another out. This is simply incorrect, erroneous, wrong, misguided, and innaccurate (redundancy for clarification purposes). I encourage every editor to act in good faith and where copy-edits and even refactoring take place to assume good faith. Helping out is a wonderful trait that should always be encouraged. Those telling you otherwise have either failed to read the appropriate policy pages or are confused. Mistakes happen, but it's good to correct them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it's perfectly fine to refactor discussions, for a variety of reasons. Insisting on one's refactoring, if others involved complain about it, becomes rude. I tend not to copyedit other people's comments, because... I don't know, that would feel to me like I'm violating a boundary. I've been wrong about others' spelling, too. ("Lede," it turns out, is a word! Now I don't correct it, it just irritates me every time I see it. A crime against language if I've ever seen one; nearly as bad as "whilst".)
I think that a lot of people will be bothered by having their remarks copyedited, and it's probably best to err on the side of not doing that, but kudos for the good will expressed by doing it! -GTBacchus(talk) 18:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note: In my statement above, I said that "insisting on one's refactoring, if others involved complain about it, becomes rude." I do not mean by this statement to suggest that ChildofMidnight has insisted on any refactoring agasint others' wishes. I have no knowledge of ChildofMidnight's edits in this regard, and was simply making a general statement. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Again, I strongly encourage all of the disputants here to present their views of the situation over at the Obama ArbCom proceedings. I don't think further comments here on ANI are going to get anywhere. Let's let the committee address these issues since we have a case running which is able to deal exactly with these kind of wide-ranging, ongoing disputes related to Obama articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
CoM continues to demonstrate his unfitness for the admin role, at the very least. Admins have to be able to take a lot of heat, and he is not up to it. He gets challenged, he tells people to stay off his talk page. Lack of maturity. Furthermore, he raises a factual question on another page, I try to answer it [31] and he ignores it. All the warmth of a cactus. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not a remotely helpful post Bugs. This discussion has nothing to do with anyone's fitness for adminship (we're not at WP:RFA), not responding to a talk page message is not a nefarious action, and your final sentence is an incredibly gratuitous personal attack. You have a problem with this editor and the two of you don't get along, so I suggest you avoid one another. If you think their behavior is worthy of sanctions, write-up evidence at the ArbCom case about Obama articles. Your preceding comment is little more than drama mongering and just wastes everyone's time. I'd support marking this whole thread "resolved" at some point soon. Nothing constructive is going to come of this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- CoM has been wasting a lot of people's time lately himself, in case you hadn't noticed. CoM is an editor who promotes coddling vandals at the expense of article content, and that's my main issue with him. You're right that, as usual, nothing is going to come of this. Mark it resolved. The sooner the better. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- This seems like a clear personal attack. "Coddling vandals at the expense of article content"? I trust the appropriate authority figure will issue the needed warning to this "editor". ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm referring to this highly insulting essay which you wrote following the WND siege against the Obama articles: [32] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- And of course there's his own trolling. Sometimes smartasses just need to be told to fuck off. Here's a hint. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 21:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm referring to this highly insulting essay which you wrote following the WND siege against the Obama articles: [32] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- This seems like a clear personal attack. "Coddling vandals at the expense of article content"? I trust the appropriate authority figure will issue the needed warning to this "editor". ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- CoM has been wasting a lot of people's time lately himself, in case you hadn't noticed. CoM is an editor who promotes coddling vandals at the expense of article content, and that's my main issue with him. You're right that, as usual, nothing is going to come of this. Mark it resolved. The sooner the better. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> Pointing out a pattern of abusive reports is not trolling. Please cease these endless disruptions and focus on improving the encyclopedia. Isn't there someone willing to close this ridiculousness? Does leaving it open for more of these trolling personal attacks serve a useful purpose? I think not. ALLST☆R, Baseball Bugs and Scjessey have all been warned (repeatedly) here and elsewhere to avoid further harassing behavior. Hopefully this time they will comply. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Labeling another's edits as trolling has never helped anything. Please refrain from doing it, unless your desire is to create drama, in which case... still, please refrain. You sound just like them right now. Just like them. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, brother. I thought I had managed to stay completely out of this, only to read "You haven't quite caught up to Wikidemon on the abusive reporting front".[33] I'll add that to the Arbcom case and not comment beyond saying that I have no interest or participation in this latest incident, and ChildofMidnight's statement to Allstarecho about me is a completely false, and gratuitous, accusation. Wikidemon (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for making my point. That You haven't quite caught up to Wikidemon on the abusive reporting front line he left was nothing but trolling. Some nerve after coming here to complain about trolling, I'd say. People keep saying take it to the Obama arbcom case.. umm, why? This isn't about Obama. It's about his behavior all the way around. But you know what? It seems no admin gives 2 squats about his documented pattern of "disrupt, blame, troll" so why should we? I'm done with it and him, unless something outrageous comes along. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 23:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Although I have strong feelings on the matter, I am here only to state for the record that the accusation against me is completely false, and that I do not wish to be part of this AN/I case. I object to being repeatedly dragged in this way. I would have said so instead on ChildofMidnight's page where the accusation appears, but ChildofMidnight is in the habit of deleting my attempts to defend myself there (and sometimes elsewhere) as "trolling".[34][35] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs)
"I will not comment, except to comment," :) that the above statement by Wikidemon is gratuitous nonsense. Wikidemon has filed and involved himself in a series of bogus ANI reports including, now, this one. He needs to focus on improving the encyclopedia instead of <insert description here> (GT has suggested I should avoid using the word).
As the full gaggle has now reported in and been accounted for, I trust we can move on to editing the encyclopedia. If there are no objections, and no admin is willing to issue a restraining order on these harassers, I move for a closing of these unconstructive threads. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Woah, wait a minute. CoM is an admin? My God! Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- CoM is not an admin. Black Kite 23:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Cut it out, ChildofMidnight. You are deliberately falsifying things. I have not once filed a bogus ANI report against you or anyone else, and if you do not agree, I ask you to can it. Your mean spirited harassment of me, and now a lot of other Wikipedians, is unacceptable. I'll give you a chance to remove or strike your comment. If not I will ask Arbcom and the administrators to deal with you. That is two parallel tracks. We will see who is willing to put their foot down. I should not have to deal with this kind of vexation. Please do not respond to this, other than to remove your offensive post. Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this resolved or not WIKIDEMON keeps adding baiting and disruptive comments (an activity that can also be described with a T word). Can I remove them or am I going to be accused of nefarious troublemaking? Do the threads need to be archived before he stops the abuse? Seriously. When is enough, enough? I'm tired of being dragged through the mud by these ridiculous and abusive reports and the endless stringing out of new threads with more nonsense. If they stay away from my talk page, there shouldn't be any problem. I know I'm an awfully charming and wonderful person, but self control is important and it's time that Wikidemon, Scjessey and ALLST☆R showed some. All they need to do is stay away from me and leave me alone. It's not hard. Thank you very much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- This was marked resolved over an hour ago - we are way, way past done here. Take it to the ArbCom if you must. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Rickrolled!
Sorry to be the bearer of yet another problem but an experienced Wikipedian, Jojhutton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), just got blocked,[36] and unblock-declined,[37] for edit warring over a rather clever rickroll that has been on/her talk page for some time and seems to have been deemed acceptable per a previous AN/I thread here. The editor seems to be taken aback and vows to come here once unblocked to deal with admin. abuse. Maybe there's a way to handle this gently. Personally, I think it's kind of funny... but shouldn't we first decide whether using fake "You have new messages" banners is okay (it's fairly widespread) before blocking people for it? I'm probably bowing out for a while, but please remember to enjoy any discussion that results. Wikidemon (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's annoying, but it's not difficult to spot the fake ones just by hovering on the link. I haven't seen anywhere that users can be blocked for it. This seems way over the line. Grsz11 18:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, Jojhutton should be unblocked per this discussion 2 months ago about the same thing. The admins edit warring on his talk page should be slapped with a trout as well. Once that's done, we can deal with the issue of using a system template in this manner. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I currently agree with unblocking here. I don't see how WP:EL applies there as it is a style guideline (I believe WP:POL states that kind of guideline is meant for articles). I'm not 100% sure if WP:OWN, which was used to justify keeping him blocked after requesting unblock, applies per WP:UP#OWN. FunPika 18:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- (after ec) I don't think the block is appropriate, and I'm somewhat inclined to lift it. I won't do that without hearing from more of the community, though. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- SMI's are annoying, but the user wasn't even using a span class=plainlinks to hide that it was an external link... I'd support unblocking, but I'd also support a guideline prohibiting simulated mediawiki interfaces. –xeno talk 19:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unblock, and let's have a guideline prohibiting this sort of thing, please. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- My take on this is that I wish it were explicitly forbidden. Misleading external links don't benefit the encyclopaedia, and practical jokes do not help build community spirit - all they do is waste the time of volunteers, and discourage participation.
- Unfortunately, that isn't the case. WP:USER says that simulating the MediaWiki interface is discouraged, rather than forbidden. So now we're in a situation where a user insists on their right to have particular material, which is generally frowned on, prominently displayed on their Talk page, despite requests to remove it. Should we run through the tedium of an RfC, or an MfD, every time a user decides to play this joke on us? I would rather allow people to have the message bar only until they're asked to remove it, after which, well, they've had their little joke and now it's time to stop disrupting people's Wiki time.
- I support an unblock if this editor agrees not to re-add the contentious material, and I wonder why they haven't already done so. It looks rather like they're stuck on the WP:REICHSTAG. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can't see how we could fairly require him to take the banner down absent a community consensus that they're to be forbidden. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)He shouldn't have to agree to that since there's no policy against it. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- We have policies against disruptive and tendentious editing. There's also WP:IAR, which reminds us that building the encyclopaedia is supposed to be the goal here. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- That ANI just two months ago resulted in no action needed. This block should be reversed promptly.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c) x 4 I have to agree. Unblock and reinstate rollback. And Allstarecho, unless I'm missing something, I only see one set of edits that could be considered edit warring. —Travistalk 19:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- First removal, First revert. Second removal, Second revert. Third removal. Not technically 3RR but still warring. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c) x 4 I have to agree. Unblock and reinstate rollback. And Allstarecho, unless I'm missing something, I only see one set of edits that could be considered edit warring. —Travistalk 19:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- (Outside, non-admins view) - It is rather pathetic that a user has been blocked for this. Has the blocking admin had a sense of humour transplant or something? Sometimes I wonder what WP is coming to. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)Unfortunately, a sense of humour (or indeed, a sense of proportion) is not a prerequisite for becoming an admin. Silly block, just undo it quickly and move on to something more important than a little light-heartedness in userspace. DuncanHill (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- As it appears that Toddst1 has stepped away from Wikipedia for the time being, per the obvious consensus, I carried out the unblock myself. —Travistalk 19:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly feel that Toddst1 needs to be investigated (formally or informally) in some way for this, if he is willing to block on this occasion, I wonder what else could be going on with this user. Blatant misuse of admin tools, I am now uncomfortable that such a user has this power. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- As it appears that Toddst1 has stepped away from Wikipedia for the time being, per the obvious consensus, I carried out the unblock myself. —Travistalk 19:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, good. User:TravisTX unblocked him. Good on you, Tex. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your support. Although I wasn't able to edit, I was following each and every comment. (Yes I have no life, Spring Break).--Jojhutton (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
From WP:USER: This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception... The Wikipedia community generally frowns upon simulating the MediaWiki interface, and it should be avoided except when necessary for testing purposes. How is insisting on this content, after being asked to remove it, anything other than deliberate disruptiveness? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the appropriate words are "it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception". DuncanHill (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's deliberate disruptiveness, but we've collectively asked for it by continuing to tolerate such nonsense. There's plenty of editors whose basic attitude is "if you can't show me a specific rule specifically against what I'm doing, I'll keep doing it." Such people are fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia, but we don't have a good way to make them go away. Good luck solving this problem. Friday (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest that the apparent lack of any sense of proportion is incompatible with being an admin, but I'd probably get jumped on if I did. DuncanHill (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Friday... hi. You say, "it's deliberate disruptiveness". I would have to disagree. True, I can't read the editor's mind, but neither can you. I find it much, much easier to believe that the editor is showing a sense of humor, and wishing to entertain people. The idea that this editor deviously plans to "disrupt" the project with a funny joke... I just don't buy it. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's deliberate disruptiveness, but we've collectively asked for it by continuing to tolerate such nonsense. There's plenty of editors whose basic attitude is "if you can't show me a specific rule specifically against what I'm doing, I'll keep doing it." Such people are fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia, but we don't have a good way to make them go away. Good luck solving this problem. Friday (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and now for the real discussion: Should this content be allowed or forbidden? I say forbidden as it is extremely annoying and misleading, particularly to less-experienced users. Nonetheless, this wasn't an appropriate block. —Travistalk 19:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm striking part of my earlier comment, since it might give the impression that I'm interested in climbing the Reichstag myself. I have no particular interest in Jojhutton being blocked or unblocked, but as far as policy is concerned I do feel strongly that insisting on having such content in one's User space is disruptive. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The more things change, the more they stay insane.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] DurovaCharge! 19:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Moving on to the real issue, I think any discussion about whether or not to allow such use of the MediaWiki interface should either be discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia talk:User page. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
We've had protracted discussion on this, with the only result being this compromise wording that is susceptible to varying indications. Changing the wording is worthwhile, but trying to achieve consensus to prohibit or allow these jokes is probably a lost cause.--chaser - t 19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- If the community has discussed and that's the strongest language that can be agreed upon, all the more reasons for admins to not start an edit war with and then block users for this non-offense.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, WP:SMI specifically says, The Wikipedia community generally frowns upon simulating the MediaWiki interface, and it should be avoided except when necessary for testing purposes. Uses of the interface in this fashion is obviously not done for testing purposes and therefore are not allowed. The guideline has, apparently, been there all along - unless of course someone was just being bold and added the SMI section without any consensus to do so. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Edit warring to keep a forged part of the interface to point to a rick roll? And the block is questionable how? Lots of people would like to use a fake link to send unwitting people to a youtube video, it is not appropriate to use fake links to trick people into going to an external web site. Edit warring to insist upon it is certainly blockable. What a strange direction this discussion has taken. Chillum 19:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is absolutely and utterly harmless. If someone linked to a website that had a problem such as malware or spyware or linked to porn that would be one thing. There's no good reason to block for this. We've discussed it before and repeatedly concluded that such messages while possibly silly aren't worth fighting over. Enough drama. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not the place to promote external links such as you tube videos. I think people should be able to make an educated decision when clicking on links. Not everyone wants flash videos on their computer, they may have a slow computer or a slow browser. Perhaps they just don't like that video and should not be tricked into going there. Chillum 20:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- If I had the faintest idea how to do it, I would insert a "cup of tea" picture with a hidden link to the video of "Relax" here, but I don't so I won't. DuncanHill (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- After months of editors calling each other Hitler, vandalizing things, gaming admin nominations with sockpuppets, and promoting paranoid conspiracy theories, it warms my heart that the worst problem on Wikipedia at the moment is that Jojhutton created a rickroll good enough to earn a block - I suggest a barnstar for Jojhutton for a good rickroll, a barnstar for Toddst for getting rickrolled, and the rest of us retire presently to the WP:SPIDER page. This really is very funny the more I think about it. Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Quite so. Look, to the right! There is my cousin Ernest. He's a conspiracy theorist, and he's very happy right now that this Rickrolling issue is taking up administrative time; makes it easier for him to expound his grand insights. Cheers, Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC) I am actually an alternate account of Durova and if anyone complains she will never do this again; it's meant in good humor.
- Alas, poor Ernest. We knew him, poorly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Now, Durova, you've been around here long enough to know that humor is strictly forbidden. Consider yourself warned. —Travistalk 22:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Quite so. Look, to the right! There is my cousin Ernest. He's a conspiracy theorist, and he's very happy right now that this Rickrolling issue is taking up administrative time; makes it easier for him to expound his grand insights. Cheers, Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC) I am actually an alternate account of Durova and if anyone complains she will never do this again; it's meant in good humor.
Apology - I now realize that I failed to notify Toddst1 or Sandstein, the blocking and reviewing admins, of this discussion. I was away for my computer for a couple hours while all the fun happened. It's probably not fair to criticize anyone in their absence because they haven't had a chance to share their thoughts... nor do I think it's really necessary. They were doing good work, just a decision that others do not agree with. Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise
This admin has initiated a block against me unfairly. His exact words were that he did because "This is only a short warning block". However, wikipedia states explicitly that :
- Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect
I have done absolutely nothing wrong; I presented an opinion at the Assyrain People article that was supported by consensus and opposed by a certain admin. When I called in another admin and posted the logic explaining my position, I was blocked by this admin, and he gave no reason other than the faulty warning block.
No warning was given to me that a block was imminent. And blocks are not meant to be used as warnings either.
In his very poor choice of words, "disruptive filibustering" was why I was blocked, and Mango juice then went further to point out this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assyrian_people&diff=284006672&oldid=284006519#Affected_articles_by_the_article.27s_new_title as being disruptive to good faith edits of the article - really? Take a look for yourselves please and judge whether or not I was doing this.
This admin has even gone so far as to accuse me of having a "blatantly hostile, non-cooperative attitude", even though if you look at my edits, which constitued roughly 2 or 3, I made no such attitude develop.
Finally, this admin has refused to respond to where my mistake was.Gabr-el 18:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well... what you posted in that section wasn't conciliatory... nor was it likely to lead to resolution... and it was a bit inflammatory. I wouldn't have blocked you for it, though, nor would I call it "disruptive filibustering". That seems a rather poor way to respond to a talk page post, even one that's a bit intemperate. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- For the record: Your mistake was here. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Does that justify the block? Gabr-el 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe not, but for you & TheTriZ to burst onto the scene, thump your chests, & shout about how many more followers you have than the other guy can only make the most patient Admin's ban-finger itchy. Maybe you can make an argument that Fut. Perf. stepped out of line, but honey works a lot better than vinegar. Dial back on the attitude & maybe you can avoid causing an Admin to lose her/his patience in the first place, rather than spending a lot more time being blocked & then complaining about the injustice. -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Does that justify the block? Gabr-el 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Me and Triz never "bursted into the scene" thumping our chests, since we had monitored this for a long time - in fact the blocking admin was the one who bursted into the scene, thumping my chest with this block; What does it mean for us to thump our chests, especially since we're online? Me and Triz have had very civil conversations with one another. I was countering his point that its not about bring in whole hords of new users to tip the balance of the vote. And how does one dial back on the attitude, if one is not given a warning to do so? Gabr-el 20:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your post in question was neither very moderate nor very collegial, by any reasonable standard. However, your last question: "How does one dial back on the attitude if one is not given a warning?," is extremely pertinent. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- So, just how constructive is it for one side to say he's going to swamp a discussion with 50 followers, & be responded to by a claim form the other that he's bringing 200 followers -- & emphasize his point with bolding? Both of you have been squabbling over what the title of this article should be for a long, long time, so it's not as if you haven't been warned about your behavior before this. This is fairly obvious stuff, so I'm not particularly sympathetic to your complaint that "I didn't know, so I shouldn't have been blocked". -- llywrch (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your post in question was neither very moderate nor very collegial, by any reasonable standard. However, your last question: "How does one dial back on the attitude if one is not given a warning?," is extremely pertinent. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Me and Triz never "bursted into the scene" thumping our chests, since we had monitored this for a long time - in fact the blocking admin was the one who bursted into the scene, thumping my chest with this block; What does it mean for us to thump our chests, especially since we're online? Me and Triz have had very civil conversations with one another. I was countering his point that its not about bring in whole hords of new users to tip the balance of the vote. And how does one dial back on the attitude, if one is not given a warning to do so? Gabr-el 20:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
So, there's this user. He was trying to correct what he perceived as anti-Kurdish bias in Al Qamishli. He was not in violation of WP:3RR, but could be interpreted as edit-warring, at that article. He was then blocked with very little warning by Khoikhoi. Since then, he's been sockpuppeting to avoid the block. I don't know enough about the subject to know whether the article was indeed biased as he claims, and these ethnic conflicts give me hives, but there was something that struck me as odd. Could someone who knows something about the Syrians and Kurds and their conflict take a look at the contribs and the block and have an opinion? Thanks. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless of the veracity of his claims, if he's socking to get around the block, he's going to be blocked until he stops that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- The article has now been 'infinitely' semi-protected by Khoikoi. I'm a bit dubious about infinite being necessary. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Protection from undoing a controversial move
An editor who was involved in a number of disputes over page titles has been protecting his controversial moves by making unnecessary edits to redirect pages. As a result, a regular non-admin editor can not move the page back over the redirect because the redirect page has got a history of edits. To undo such moves it requires an admin to delete the redirect page before moving back.
I refer to User:Biophys' edits here and here. When other editors tried to make a move back by copy-pasting, such moves were smugly reverted, see this history as an example.
He also tried the same technique at Mikheyev v. Russia to protect the contentious title Phone call to Putin, but that redirect page was eventually deleted so I do not have a corresponding diff. Essentially same technique was employed here. Likely he used this technique before for which I do not have the corresponding diffs either because of deletion of the pages.
These edits were discussed before here, and I warned Biophys here not to do that again. Unfortunately, I do not have much power to stop him from doing this, but I personally find these edits as unethical exploit of WP's limitations and disruptive in general.(Igny (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
- A few things to notice. First, Igny (talk · contribs) is not a neutral side, since he has been placed on formal editing restriction by Tiptoety. Second, I reacted to edits like this (there are many more similar edits), which were done by a group of Russian users including Russavia, Offliner and Igny. If I understand correctly, the existing policy requires people to discuss controversial moves and mergers, find consensus (if possible), and then to ask an administrator for a help if administrative tools are required (for example to move an article). This is a policy I certainly agree to follow. Thanks,Biophys (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- First, I've never claimed I was impartial. I've put this notice here not to discuss the controversies over the articles, nor the disputes which we were both part of. I am not here to discuss the moves/mergers, whether they were justified or not. I want to discuss this particular trick of yours to protect the moves from undoing, it is akin to having the power of admins to protect pages and using it in edit wars. I actually think this issue is not be new, most likely you've learned this trick from someone else. So is there a way to stop you and your like from doing this? (Igny (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC))
- Slinging mud at your opponent... Way to go, Biophys. (Igny (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC))
Making edits to redirects to prevent moving over them is a very "dick" thing to do. I have seen these deleted before, as they should be, and Biophys should be blocked if he continues. On the other hand, Igny should not cut-and-paste move. Hopefully this case will show that admins are willing to, as in the past, speedy-delete such "garbage" revisions. --NE2 02:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- What was the point of reporting the incident here, if the matter has been debated already at the talk page of Tiptoety? I am sure he is very capable of taking any action if needed.Biophys (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Did you notice that Tiptoety suggested that it be taken here? --NE2 04:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, I did not. I can see your point though and will try to avoid this in the future. In practice, such tricks can stop a "war of moves" and force all sides to start negotiations. When consensus is reached, an administrator can make a requested move in a second.Biophys (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Did you notice that Tiptoety suggested that it be taken here? --NE2 04:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I gave Biophys a warning. Hopefully he would not do it again Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Sansonic/Lowbiologist - sockpuppetry and harassment
User:Sansonic was blocked for a week on the 15th April for sockpuppetry of two accounts, User:Coffeeaffection and User:Silvesterking. Sansonic did not defend themselves. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sansonic/Archive. The main article involved was Starbucks.
Yesterday (the 16th), a new editor User:Lowbiologist edited the talk page of Starbucks six minutes after registering, and added material that had been proposed by Sansonic. I reopened the sockpuppetry case, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sansonic. Lowbiologist has denied being a sockpuppet, and has accused other editors of bullying Sansonic.
I now believe that they are aiming to harass me. There are two reasons for this belief: 1. The username could be construed as a personal attack on me, as it is clear from my userboxes that I am a biologist. 2. Today (17th April) they have copied my userpage to their own, see [48].
As this spans sockpuppetry and civility issues I thought it best to post here, but please move to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts if it is inappropriate here. Can a checkuser please be run, and appropriate sanctions be imposed? Thanks. Fences and windows (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- CU confirms Lowbiologist (talk · contribs) is a sock of Sansonic (talk · contribs). Sansonic's block has been lengthened to a month. Resolved for now. KnightLago (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd disagree with the "resolved" tag quickly; surely simply lengthening a block for a bit shouldn't be our response? Sockpuppeting in an attempt to gain false consensus, editing in violation of a block, sockpuppeting after previous blocks for it and (arguably) in such a way as to harass other users? I'd go indef (if I had the tools, of course), but maybe there is something I'm missing. Ironholds (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the quick response. We shall see whether Sansonic resumes disruptive editing in a month. Fences and windows (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
lolwut — hammer in aisle 3, please — GRAWP
Seems a rather obvious you-know-who GRAWP-sock . I'll leave it and the music stuff it's been dicking with to others. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Refactored for clarity. Those who've been there know his other sig is 'lulwut' Seen the ASCII art? Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No, IPSock!
These are not my IP Addresses, and someone is inaccurately attributing them to me!BLuEDOgTn 03:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
User talk:69.247.19.250
User talk:76.29.32.11
User talk:76.16.99.162
User talk:76.16.97.218
User talk:76.16.96.234
User talk:76.16.103.79
User talk:71.58.128.61
User talk:71.231.58.8
User talk:71.201.186.107
User talk:71.199.159.41
User talk:69.247.19.250
- What is it that you request from admins? Sandstein 05:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive behaviour by a user
I wish to bring your attention to the actions of Brisbanelionsfan1 and edits made from his (or a partner in crime's) IP address.
Earlier today, the IP posted this message on the talk page of Ben W Bell, linked to a blog which ridicules Ben. Two hours later, Brisbanelionsfan1 (BLF1) posted a message/troll on Ben's talk page, feigning support.
To put this in perspective, Ben was involved in the reverting and discussion of BLF1's disruptive edits earlier in the week where the 3RR rules was broken. Almost all of BLF1's edits since signing up for an account have been to the Brisbane Lions article and it's talk page where he tries to stir up trouble. His first scheme was to add a detailed list of controversies that the club's players have been involved in off-field. Numerous users objected to this and explained so on the talk page but the edits continued. At the same time he and the IP have added to the 'membership base and sponsorship' table, the average crowd sizes for the 2009 season, as they happened to be low (the league is only a couple of games into the season). His agenda to editing on wikipedia is to denigrate the Brisbane Lions and judging by his edits to this date and his 'ironic' username that seems to be all he is interested in. After discussing the issue of crowd averages on the talk page, where users again explained that they shouldn't yet be added, he defended his case. However, after a decent crowd in last night's home game which has driven the average up, BLF1 has removed it from the table with this summary - "because the season is yet to be complete. do not enter a crowd average yet" Jevansen (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
*Update* - The blogger is a Queenslander with an interest in record low crowd numbers, who talks about a 'Brisbane Lions player glassing a woman in a Gold Coast bar' and who brags about doing 'Facebook trolling'. It's pretty obviously BLF1 in my opinion. Jevansen (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I just followed those links. One of those links regards rugby, which I have no interest in. I am obviously a Queenslander, hence my name. The only relevant link regards the Lions player who got into trouble. That is the extent of the overlap. Calling somebody a troll, and then saying here's a link that proves it is pretty tenuous. --Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 09:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talk • contribs)
- The facebook link isn't evidence of you being the blogger, the other links already prove it is you. I added the third link to show what type of character you are and that this is just another 'troll' for you. Your blog is filled with rants about crowd figures and about sportsmen getting a free ride from the media after bad off-field behaviour. The exact same stuff that you troll about here. Here's another. I've leave it there for now, the administrators have enough evidence to work on and I'm sure they will make the right decision. Jevansen (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see you are happy to make judgements of character. I hate to disappoint you but that blog doesn't belong to me, but it should hardly surprise you that I have linked to it. I am indeed interested in some of its content. What you fail to address is the issue that I have added sourced, relevant material to an article that has been removed because what appears to be a group of fanboys do not want negative information to appear on the page. It is linked to here [49] so that my bona fides can be shown. This is not a troll. Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 10:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talk • contribs)
- You're digging yourself into an even deeper whole now. It is one thing to happen to 'find' the blog entry (eg googled Ben's name) and then it can be argued, as implausible as it is, that it's merely a coincidence that the blogger shares your views. But now you're saying that you were already a fan of the blog? So ... out of the blue, in the same week that you and Ben are involved in a dispute on wikipedia, this blogger decides to make a post about this user? Now that really is some coincidence!
- Addressing your second point, the group of 'fanboys' that have reverted your material consist only of one Brisbane Lions supporter, Shaggy9872004. In over two years on this encyclopaedia, I don't believe I have ever edited the article, other than to remove vandalism and disambiguate links etc (same as I do for all other 15 clubs). If I'm a Brisbane Lions fan as claimed then I don't seem to have much interest in them. Ben I believe, going by his userpage seems to be from the UK so he clearly isn't a 'fanboy'. The only other user to have reverted your edits and or discuss this on the talk page is User:The-Pope, who going by his userpage and edit history is clearly a Fremantle supporter. That's quite some group!
- That's some convoluted logic. As you can see from my edit history I was putting in links to off-field incidents. That is how I have got there in the first place. All of which is avoiding the point that I have had valid edits continually removed. You are playing the man and not the ball here, not to mention getting bogged down in tangential issues. The link to my edits is above. I note that you are incapable of addressing the single question of why it is only overwhelmingly positive history that can get onto the Brisbane Lions page. My editting was not disruptive. And that is what we are here to discuss. --Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 12:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talk • contribs)
I am the person in question. No I didn't write the blog entry, but was amused to find it. The edits that I have made to the Brisbane Lions page have been to get some balance into the page. However, whenever I post something that is not considered positive about the Lions, it is deleted. I put up a NPOV tag, but it was deleted by other members who do not want scrutiny on the page. I strongly believe that the page should not be a press release. As to the link, I thought it was amusing as much as anything. I wasn't logged in when I first linked to it, and the second comment I left for clearly humourous. There is no harmful intention here, and I apologise if it has been m
On the crowds issue. I posted crowds that were removed. After a single good crowd the very same person who was removing them was the one who updated, reinforcing the notion that only good news will be accepted on this page. The comment that I left "because the season is yet to be complete. do not enter a crowd average yet" was exactly the same one that was given as a reason by the other user for not putting an average in. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I would've thought.--Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 03:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)istakenly construed that way.Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 03:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talk • contribs)
Copyvio report assistance
We got an OTRS complaint ( # 2009041810003627 ) that alleges that images were taken from The North Spin website images page for photographer Dan Stijovich and uploaded to Wikipedia apparently by User:ANigg. Specific example reported was File:MH-47G_Flight.jpg taken from here.
I have emailed the photographer (Dan Stijovich) to try and confirm that they aren't that WP account, which is possible (please do not block the account until we can confirm that). In the meantime, I was reviewing contributions by ANigg. Another image pair popped up: File:AH-1Z_NAWCWD.jpg and source here. In that case, there's a veeeery slight modification - the Wikipedia image has a 2-digit nose ID number (05 vs 005) and there's a yellow reflection on the windscreen missing on the WP image. I think the WP image is the modified one, but haven't pulled them into photoshop or a similar tool yet to try and validate that.
I'm going to be busy for the next 12 hours. Can I get some assistance reviewing ANigg's image contributions ? In particular, if these appear similar to images on The North Spin website.
Thanks in advance. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW, tail number's also been altered in that second comparison pair. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just for information: There is a slight difference between "our" File:MH-47G_Flight.jpg and the image on http://www.thenorthspin.com/photos_people_dan_s/31.jpg. The latter has a bright red spot behind-above the cockpit.--Túrelio (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Another match [50] File:UH-72A_Lakota.jpg Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- … which duplicated File:USA Lakota.jpg (which itself lists a different source). Uncle G (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
And another: [51] matches File:UH-1Y China.jpg. The original is copyright Kevin Whitehead, and in this diff ANigg describes it as self made and provides a name that is neither Kevin Whitehead nor Dan Stijovich. - Bilby (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - correct that. Superficially the same, (same angle, location and time), but not identical photos. - Bilby (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)- I really should run all the tests before commenting. I layered the photo ANigg claimed over the one by Kevin Whitehead, and they are identical in angle, distance, location and time of day. The very minor differences are removals from the Whitehead photo, presumably in Photoshop. So I'd call it as a definite copyvio - ANigg can't really be both photographers. - Bilby (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- There seem to be artifacts in File:UH-1Y China.jpg where you can see the manipulations, where the red streamer from the tail rotor has been morphed to the background shade, and the cables above the horizon exiting the laft of the frame. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I really should run all the tests before commenting. I layered the photo ANigg claimed over the one by Kevin Whitehead, and they are identical in angle, distance, location and time of day. The very minor differences are removals from the Whitehead photo, presumably in Photoshop. So I'd call it as a definite copyvio - ANigg can't really be both photographers. - Bilby (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- [52] (Photographer Tony Silva) looks to be File:USCG 1.jpg. I think that is all of ANigg's photo contributions identified... Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Is a block appropriate, then? He's been around since March 07, he should know better. Ironholds (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
i feel jayron32 needs 2 be reined in
I am writing bc I asked 173 to help me & now Ive brought 173 trouble.
I feel j32(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayron32) needs 2 be reined in.
See comments here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:173.79.58.33 .
- I deleted your page history as an extension of good faith that you would stop being a disruption by repeatedly removing the WHOIS data from this page. You immediately returned to continue the same disruption, despite the fact that I, as a gesture of peace, asceded to your deletion request ~j32
...Good faith? Peace gesture. WTF? Y does jayron think that he did 173 a favor? 173 has the right to request the deletion. No 1 was holding a gun 2 j32's head making him answer the deletion request. Look @ j32's edit summary :o yea? What is j32 getting excited from blocking others? That isnt what wiki is 4. Now j32 has blocked 173 4 1 month, incorrectly saying 173 is editing war. What edit war? After the deletion 173 blanked the page, which 173 is allowed 2 do. The page was blanked only 1 time so where/when was the edit war? Per this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space. It says quote :
- Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users, and can encourage further disruption; removal of template warnings is rarely an urgent or important matter, and it is often best to simply let the matter rest if other disruption stops.
that even ips r allowed to edit/delete/revert/blank their page. It also says that repeatedly re adding that which has been deleted is antagonistic. 173 was helping me out & I dont want this bs on 173. Thanks. 70.108.88.137 (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- {{whois}} tags are not supposed to be removed from IP talk pages. Your friend was told this, and continued to remove them from other IP addresses as well. Additionally, this IP appears to be a sock account of previous users who have done this. Please learn to use proper grammar in the future. Matty (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
matty, jeremy : 1)173 says: Ask them for a link to where it says that. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space it says that ips may remove it & that continually re adding it is antagonistic. It also says here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings that
Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages.
Furthermore @ the bottom of everypage is this :
[WHOIS · RBLs · Traceroute · Geolocate · Tor check · Rangeblock finder · Global Blocks] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean] ,
thus all any person has to do is click and they get the info they seek on the ip's ISP.
2)I didnt remove any info from anyone else's pages. After the abuse I received when attempting to help I told my friend I tried but you're right they're are being unfair assholes, so I'm stepping back. Since Mar30 I have only edited my user and discussion pages. I am not a sock. I was attempting to help a friend.
3)What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVIL? Noone will call him on his rudeness and delusions of grandeur? He acts as if the deletion as something so fantastic that he did, when in truth has he not someone else would have.
bwilikns: No thanks. Isnt 1 of wiki's basic tenets anonymmous editing. Registration isnt required. & even if I was registered it wouldnt stop j32's inappropriate actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.88.137 (talk • contribs)
- Firstly, the WHOIS template is not a comment. The spirit of "allowed to remove comments" refers to the ability of users to remove comments they don't want to see (although removal can be implied to "I've read it"). The WHOIS template allows users to quickly find out information about the IP address which could be necessary. There's also the argument that that page technically doesn't "belong" to the person behind it - what if that user changes IP address or ISP? While users are given a broad range of leeway with regards to their userspace, some things still are frowned upon - and here, I believe you've seen that there's enough agreement that IPs should not be removing the template. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- In the majority of cases, you are correct. Any registered user may delete items from their personal talkpage. Of course, as an IP editor, the talkpage for your IP address is shared by anyone who eventually uses that IP address, which means it truly is not your personal talkpage. In many cases, a specific IP address (or range of IP addresses) has been "problematic" in the past. In that case, the WHOIS data has been added as a necessary tool. It may not have been you, merely someone who used that IP address (just like the police might have concerns about a certain rental car - it was used by many people!) As such, it becomes improper to remove the WHOIS data from the page, just like it would be improper to remove a block notice while a user is, indeed, blocked. It in no way violates your privacy, or is problematic as long as you remain an IP editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- The rule allowing the removal of comments from talk pages should not be extended to IPs. They don't own their IP, they are just using it. What is more they need X warnings and a final warning before they can normally blocked. We can't have anonymous editors removing warning templates. They can always create an account if they want a userpage of their very own, but IP user pages are not assigned to a specific user. Chillum 14:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Precisely. IP addresses do not own the IP address talk page. If they set up a user account, they don't "own" that talk page either, but they have much more flexibility. They don't have to set up a user account, as noted, but by not doing so that also restricts their privileges. It's their choice. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have always been in favor of NOT allowing anon IPs to edit wikipedia. More often than not, the result is usually vandalism. Yet since there is no rule against an IP editing, we cannot stifle anyones ability to edit any talk page (or removal of content).--Jojhutton (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- In my experience, the large percentage of IP address edits are either junk or sockpuppetry. There's also a fair number of useful edits. But it means that anything on my watch list edited by an IP gets my "special" at tention. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Does it make a difference that this appears to be User:Lilkunta, logging out and using multiple ips to avoid his block? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- It might. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Does it make a difference that this appears to be User:Lilkunta, logging out and using multiple ips to avoid his block? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- In my experience, the large percentage of IP address edits are either junk or sockpuppetry. There's also a fair number of useful edits. But it means that anything on my watch list edited by an IP gets my "special" at tention. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- The rule allowing the removal of comments from talk pages should not be extended to IPs. They don't own their IP, they are just using it. What is more they need X warnings and a final warning before they can normally blocked. We can't have anonymous editors removing warning templates. They can always create an account if they want a userpage of their very own, but IP user pages are not assigned to a specific user. Chillum 14:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
For anyone looking for more information on this situation, a similar thread at WP:AN has been started to discuss usage of the abuse filter on this set of IPs as a rangeblock would cause too much collateral damage. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lilkunta/Archive. MuZemike 15:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Ban proposal
I think this is time to propose a community ban on Lilkunta (talk · contribs) due to the excessive abuse coming from this set of IPs and tremendous disruption made on the mainspace as well as ANI. Thoughts? MuZemike 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:BAN, and I quote "If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where an administrator has blocked the user long term or even indefinitely, and where no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock him or her, the user is considered to be community-banned" the ban appears to be already in effect. Additionally, there is a discussion over at WP:AN which are discussing ways to use the Abuse Filter to curtail this users particular pattern of disruption. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware of that. The AN post seems to focus more on the technical means of stopping the disruptive editing, while this ANI post, well, focuses on more of the social aspect. That's why it seemed to make more sense placing this here than over at AN. We can wait and see what the abuse filter accomplishes, but I'm skeptical however. MuZemike 22:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
More vandalism by banned user User:Kuntan puppet User: C K Luckose
Once again there is vandalism by banned user User:Kunta. He has created a fake id in the name of the Kerala State Secretary of SUCI (refer the article SUCI) which was verified by email correspondence with their office. It has been marked for speedy deletion. Admin intervention is requested. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think a request for Checkuser may bear more fruit, asking the ip range be investigated for the purpose of executing a rangeblock. If the collateral damage is small, then doing so may stop the ip socks from popping up with such regularity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not good at setting up checkuser cases, or in this situation, adding a new item to an existing case. Could an expert please look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pioneercourthouse and fix as needed? Thank you! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- An RFCU won't go far seeing as it's historical. You're looking for WP:SPI now. :) D.M.N. (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Which I find every bit as confusing. If someone would set this one up for me, I promise to take notes so that I can do it myself the next time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- ...and declined by CheckUser because it's clearly a WP:DUCK case. What you need is an NES Zapper instead of CheckUser. MuZemike 17:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Which I find every bit as confusing. If someone would set this one up for me, I promise to take notes so that I can do it myself the next time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, would someone mind indef'ing User:Blenkidink, based on the "quack" investigation? OOPS, already done. Thank you! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Repeated uploading of copyvio images
Fighter 10 (talk · contribs) has been uploading images then claiming them as his own work (when they are clearly not) then indicating that they are public domain. I've tagged almost all of his uploads with {{db-i9}} but only for those that I manage to find the source website. I suspect that all of the other images he uploaded are also copyvios but since my online research skills are not absolute, I couldn't find the source websites for those remaining images. To err on the side of caution, I suggest deleting them anyway especially since these images are ones for which we can find free alternatives. --seav (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Warned user and informed him/her of this discussion. Since there have been previous warnings, block on next occurrence. Toddst1 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, since the user has proved himself untrustworthy w.r.t. images we should simply delete all images that he has uploaded. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Mrs Nesbitt
Mrs Nesbitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has admitted to vandalising with several accounts here and is currently vandalising Tupton Hall School. Sock FIT BLOKE WIV NICE ABS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already banned for socking. Bagatelle 16:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked. Icestorm815 • Talk 17:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Truth93
Truth93 (talk · contribs) admits to being indef blocked Babylon93 (talk · contribs) at User_talk:Kittybrewster#Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Babylon93. He continues to evade block and threatens to ignore WP:RS and WP:OR. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring in POV sections
2009 Tea Party protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) started out admittedly as a POV slanted article. Various editors had been slowly working the POV slant out of it and addressing many issues within the article. Editor JCDenton2052 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pushing the variety of POV into the article, labeling the movement as a Conservative moment, while labeling anyone who disagreed as a Liberal. One editor Showtime2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) boldly removed a couple egregious sections and helped cleaned up the article. Later on after other editors had continued to work the article, JCDenton2052 reverted all the changes back to a version that he/she agreed with and accused Showtime2009 of blanking the article.
Could an admin take a look at this when they get a chance? Thanks, Brothejr (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- In past days, one group of editors was labeling only conservatives and another was labeling only liberals. I felt that labeling only one side was a violation of WP:NPOV, so I decided to label everyone who could reasonably described as a conservative or liberal (e.g. Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann). I created a section on the talk page to try to reach consensus on whether labels should be used or not.
- The other issue is that one editor blanked 8k of content without first sharing his concerns on the talk page. I restored some of the good faith additions that he removed. I am of course willing to discuss shortening the article on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked JCDenton2052 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 24 hours. On the edit history, he's blown far past 3RR and is dueling all comers on that Tea Party page. Article history here, user main space history here. Feel free to unblock if required with demonstrated consensus on this page here. rootology (C)(T) 19:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- JC is asking for an unblock, a listing of just a handful of reverts, that alone put him past 3RR are listed here on his talk. More eyes, please. rootology (C)(T) 20:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Certainly there was clear edit warring going on, but I think the article could use some attention from editors who are more capable of leaving their politics at the door. For someone to try to claim that Bill O'Reilly, for example, is not a conservative or that to say he is somehow pushes POV is ridiculous, and certainly there are plenty of sources to show that teabagging protests were led by right wing groups. JCDenton2052 may have been going about it the wrong way, but I think as far as the content of the article goes his edits conform more to Wikipedia standards than those of many others contributing there. A quick look at the edits on the talk page show tremendously slanted political opinions being expressed and used a justifications for editing the article. We've got someone claiming that the mainstream view that the protests were organized by conservative groups is somehow a FRINGE view and that the whole section discussing it as something debated in the media should be removed. We've got politician bashing. We've got all sorts of nasty stuff going on. More eyes are needed there. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- His edits were better, but blasting up to the 10RR range is not a good idea... rootology (C)(T) 20:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest that his block not be lifted. JCDenton2052 did the same to me, and I reported him only a couple of days ago for accusing me of blanking material without ever going to talk. JCDenton2052 does not understand what Blanking is. earlier report JCDenton2052 then retaliated for my ANI report with a vandalism report against me here. Arzel (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Unblock requested
Declined once, asked again. Please review here. rootology (C)(T) 20:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Help with a difficult user unwilling to disengage
User:TomCat4680 seems unable to stay away from my talk page despite having been asked three times by me and once by an admin. The editor seems to have taken an extreme dislike to me because I nominated an article he created for deletion. Based on his contributions and behaviour, I believe that this editor is actually a minor, despite the claim on his userpage that he is 28.
The editor has made personal attacks against me here and here, which he later retracted at my request. This and this probably qualify as personal attacks as well. So far, I've been accused of by TomCat4680 of incivility, assuming bad faith, disrupting wikipedia to make a point, accusing people of being sockpuppets, 3RR violations, and probably other things, none of which have any merit. Please see the discussions at Talk:Fuel_TV#Trimmed or User talk:Delicious_carbuncle#Fuel TV.
I'm trying to keep away from the user, but that's impossible if they won't stay away from my talk page. Can an admin please use their magical persuasive powers? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note that while I was writing this up, TomCat4680 again visited my talk page to deliver more nastygrams. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with the afd. You violated WP:HEY by nominating it because you didn't even give me a chance to expand it like I was planning after I woke up that morning, and are losing; absolutely no one has agreed with you on it. You never put any tags like: expand, refimprove, or put anthing on its talk page as to why you object to it. etc etc. per policy. You just speedy afded it, thinking you are the know all say all master when it comes to determining notability. Just like no one but your sock puppet accounts have agreed with you on Talk:Fuel TV. Admit it. It has everything to do with your unwillingness to reach a consensus as requested multiple times and instead engaged in a 3RR war and got the page sysoped. You are clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by doing this and in turn proving once again how much of a lone wolf you are, instead of a team player. I offered you several an olive branches but you threw them in my face. Why don't you read WP:5P again before accusing me of things. And the admin didn't agree with either of us either by the way, he was just stuck in the middle of it. Tour sarcastic edit summaries don't help either. Why don't you just stop assuming bad faith and realize this petty bickering isn't helping. Oh and by the way I'm 29, not 28. Learn some math. Today is April 18, 2009. My birthday is April 6, 1980. I almost failed algebra and even I can figure that out. If you don't believe me I can send you a copy of my driver's license. The only immature one here is you. I think you're probably in middle school, at least you act like it. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- TomCat...as I just said on the AfD, you need to WP:AGF that the editor was doing what he believed was best for Wikipedia. A nomination at AfD is not a personal insult to you. Indeed, an article I worked on for 3 years (which means it actually lasted for 3 years) was recently deleted - I have yet to even ask to have it userfied yet. Don't rush process. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Read his talk page before you determine who's assuming bad faith and who isn't. I sent him a kitten and a cookie to show WP:WIKILOVE and he threw them in my face. Anyways, his afd is failing miserably per WP:SNOW, and the more pressing issue here is the content dispute at Talk:Fuel TV. I have filed an RfC, which has yet to be responded too, clearly showing that I'm open to a neutral third party arbitration. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Seniority means nothing if you don't follow the rules. He's obviously nothing but a vigilante. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Proposal Tomcat: Stay off the other guy's talk page. Carubuncle + Tomcat: Try really hard not to say mean things about each other. Since it sounds as if you don't have much editing overlap, this shouldn't be hard. I'm not an admin, but i believe that if either of you calls the other a "vigilante" or similar loaded terms (i.e. "vandal" "petty" etc...) again soon, short civility blocks might be in order. Agreed? Alrighty then.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- All I really care about here is resolving the dispute and sysop block at Fuel TV. He's the one being uncivil, NOT me. He's also making unsubstantiated SPA claims against another editor at Talk:Fuel TV and in turn the editor (probably THE most helpful editors in the article's history) was blocked without a fair trail. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Bali ultimate, feel free to read through the discussion on my talk page. I don't think I've been incivil or even overly impolite in defending myself against all manner of increasingly bizarre accusations (see new sockpuppetry accusation above). I was as patient as I could be, since I'm of the genuine belief that this is a minor we're dealing with, but it became disruptive. I don't intend to respond to TomCat4680 here, but it should be plain from their comments that this is a one-sided argument (which I don't want any part of). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the last time the other fellow edited that talk page was 16 hours ago, and their edit was to clarify in the face of your umbrage that they had meant to call someone other than you an SPA. [53]. Do yourself a favor. Step away.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll never post on his page again after the carriage dispute and sysop block at Fuel TV gets resolved by a neutral third party editor. Why is everyone here ignoring the issue and instead attacking the person and not the problem? DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER! TomCat4680 (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop calling me a minor. Its only further proving how uncivil you are. Everything you do and say proves it. Put you stick away for God's sake. I'm twenty nine years old. What do you think 4680 means?. You clearly have a lot of issues. Go see a therapist. I swear to God if you give me your email address I'll send you a copy of my driver's license right now. Whatever you do, don't ever go to law school, you'd be the worst lawyer in the history of the profession. You probably belong in a mental institution for your paranoid schizophrenia. No one's out to get you. I just want to get the content dispute resolved at Fuel TV. All you want to do is discredit other editors, CLEARLY disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by this immature name calling and refusal to resolve the issue. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- TomCat4680 blocked for 24 hours - violation of WP:NPA just a few lines above. I would not have acted if I believed that any progress was likely, since the accusations are exactly the same as made in the first post to this thread (with a few more choice comments thrown in). However, if anyone thinks that unblocking will facilitate a quicker resolution of the underlying issues then please do not refer to me; you hereby have my agreement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Beat me to it. Hopefully the break will do him good. GARDEN 21:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
To clarify a couple of things - I've already stated in a couple of places that I've walked away from Fuel TV because I have no interest in edit warring over whether a list of red links are included or not. The article is currently protected and the way TomCat4680 prefers it, so I'm not sure what the issue is there. And just to be completely clear, I may be wrong about TomCat4680 being a minor, but that is my genuine belief. I don't say it to be insulting to him (or to other editors who are minors). In my experience 29 year olds don't usually make statements like "I think you're probably in middle school, at least you act like it". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Suicide threat
An IP has threatened suicide here due to some breakup with some person named Heather. Someone needs to contact the local police. Geolocate states the person is in Goose Bay, Newfoundland. ISP is Aliant. єmarsee • Speak up! 19:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think we typically just WP:RBI for this. I've done the B this time. –xeno talk 19:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's not policy, but we usually follow WP:SUICIDE. I'll try calling the ISP.--chaser - t 23:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No, someone should call the police and warn them. If it's serious, that's good. If he's being an idiot, fine, he'll enjoying explaining that one. Anyone local? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- All we have is an IP address, no name, no address, no nothing. What exactly do you want to tell the police? Also what explaining would they have to do anyways? It's not illegal to threaten suicide is it? Revert block ignore. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, it is illegal in some states (not sure about Canada) to attempt suicide. In North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma it is illegal to attempt suicide. So, if they theaten it, more than likely they are going to try. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 18, 2009 @ 22:55
- The IP resolves to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador. Could someone confirm that local police have been contacted? If not, I will. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, it is illegal in some states (not sure about Canada) to attempt suicide. In North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma it is illegal to attempt suicide. So, if they theaten it, more than likely they are going to try. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 18, 2009 @ 22:55
- All we have is an IP address, no name, no address, no nothing. What exactly do you want to tell the police? Also what explaining would they have to do anyways? It's not illegal to threaten suicide is it? Revert block ignore. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved administrator please take a look at, and attempt to sort out, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydraulic geoengineering please. Brief background: article created at Hydraulic geoengineering. Article sent to AfD. On its way to deletion until original author moves page to large-scale hydraulic engineering projects, but doesn't change the content. Author insists that because the title changed, a new AfD is needed. Hydraulic geoengineering and large-scale hydraulic engineering projects get deleted by involved admin. Author re-creates large-scale hydraulic engineering projects. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Is it National Neologism Week, I wonder? Over at WP:RFAR we have a request to unblock Eddie Segoura, which will raise a groan from a few of the old hands here. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was totally open about what I was doing and why. The AfD had been up way too long so I tried to sort out the (valid) WP:NEO with a split/move. I updated the AfD page and (later) all the commetning editors' pages. I am not trying to circumvent the system, and I was given a suggested title on which to place the content by another editor. If the issue is NEO, then a non-NEO name should be a full resolution of the issue. This is the first time I've come across this preceise issue, so sorry if I dont' know correct protocol. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- to clarify, I think it needs a new AFdAndrewjlockley (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, if the content is the same as the article that was deleted per an AfD discussion - as happened atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydraulic geoengineering - then any "renaming" can be deleted per WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of deleted page). It isn't the title, but the content that is discussed - and the original AfD commented that the only sources were mirror sites and blogs, neither of which are considered reliable sources. If you have a userfied copy, then I suggest you find neutral third party references that can be inserted into the text. I trust you now understand, the content is not encyclopedic no matter what title it bears. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK can you userfy it back for me and I will tidy it up Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Will do (by "tidy" I trust you mean, "add reliable third party sources"). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, and other cleanup Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done, and noted on your talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, and other cleanup Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Will do (by "tidy" I trust you mean, "add reliable third party sources"). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK can you userfy it back for me and I will tidy it up Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, if the content is the same as the article that was deleted per an AfD discussion - as happened atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydraulic geoengineering - then any "renaming" can be deleted per WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of deleted page). It isn't the title, but the content that is discussed - and the original AfD commented that the only sources were mirror sites and blogs, neither of which are considered reliable sources. If you have a userfied copy, then I suggest you find neutral third party references that can be inserted into the text. I trust you now understand, the content is not encyclopedic no matter what title it bears. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Jza84 abusing his admin position and engaging in Wikihounding
There is a content dispute at Association of British Counties between User:Jza84 and myself. Jza84 has used his admin privileges to block the page with his preferred version. Additionally, this user is hounding me. I have made a small number of edits recently and he has engaged in a mass reversal of them, even including clearly non-controversial components. Here are some diffs: [54], [55], [56],[57]. Blacklans (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, I actually do see a little bit of merit here. Jza is certainly protecting his preferred version (I'd prefer "The City of X" as that's good grammar) Sceptre (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Freely admit this. But guys, I'm slightly bored of this, respectfully, and in a terrible mood. I've the support of several users (just look on my talk page). This user is also breaking fundamental and simple rules on standard English and citing sources.
- Assume I have no idea about the subject of the article or why the edit was problematic(it is safe to assume that) and explain it to me please. Is this about content or grammar? Chillum 22:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- There are towns called Lancaster, Bradford etc, within larger areas called "City of Lancaster" etc. These articles are on the smaller (town size) unit but Blacklans doesn't understand that, and thinks that because he can find references to a "City of Lancaster" in the sources, that the towns covered by the articles are cities themselves. From an American perspective, think of it as confusing New York City with New York State; one is within the other, but they have different statuses. As per Malleus, Jza, Nev1, Majorly, myself on the talkpage – all of whom are very experienced in UK geographic articles - Blacklans is just plain wrong. – iridescent 22:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(conflict)See also his intimidating remarks at User talk:Blacklans#Disruptive editing. Blacklans (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I have explained to Blacklans that his edits to articles such as Lancaster, Lancashire, are not based in fact and provided sources to support my assertion. His response was "The sources are irrelevant". I think he is now being deliberately disruptive. Nev1 (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- For reference, here is my full quote "The sources are irrelevant. You simply haven't grasped what I'm getting at, even though I've spelled it out elsewhere. Yes, I know about the local government status of these cities, and I agree with you to a certain extent, but there is no reason why we shouldn't refer to these cities as "cities". Try driving into Durham. You are greeted by "Welcome to the City of Durham". Now we can probably accommodate your local-government-centric view, and my pragmatic view, by an agreed set of words. It worked at Durham so we should use that model elsewhere. What do you think? " Blacklans (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)OK. It's a little confused here though.
- Blacklans believes Carlisle is a city. It's not. The (wider) City of Carlisle is a city (of course). Blacklans seems to be an advocate of the Association of British Counties, i.e. he probably feels aggrieved at the sweeping changes to centuries of geographic tradition in England that occured by way of the Local Government Act 1972.
- The LGA1972 abolished Carlisle's city status in 1974. ABC people still think of it as a city (different) article by way of tradition, and that the City of Carlise is only a title used for local governance - it isn't. It's law, and it's verifiable.
- It's like saying Oldham is a metropolitan borough in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham - its bad practice. And Blacklans keeps inserting this without diligence. He probably wants Carlisle to say its a City because it has honorific value for his settlement - but it's not the reality of the situation and its effectively a scaled down version of nationalism and WP:SYNTH.
- It's like confusing Quebec with Quebec City(Canadian version)? Chillum 22:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Probably closer to the various meanings of Halifax, Nova Scotia, in that they all describe the same city but at different scales. – iridescent 22:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- (adding) In fact, exactly the same situation as with the no-longer-formally-existing City of Halifax compared to the current Halifax Regional Municipality. – iridescent 22:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Almost, but imagine Quebec was originally called Quebec City, but was abolished, and a new, larger, more buerocratic Quebec City was created, and the original Quebec lost it's honorific title. Then we're almost there. --Jza84 | Talk 22:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's like confusing Quebec with Quebec City(Canadian version)? Chillum 22:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Please note that I filed this complaint to draw attention to the aggressive actions of User:Jza84 and not particularly to debate the content of the disputed articles. Jza84 has his opinion, given above, supported by some like-minded editors who follow him around. We can take up all the above discussions at the Talk pages concerned, but over the last few weeks Jza84 has popped into Wikipedia, reverted my edits, and popped off again, without bothering to discuss the edits - not even in edit summaries. I agree with some of what he says, but there are ways and words we can use to accommodate all views, and the reality of the various situations, but Jza and his followers are not interested; they force their POV with, in the case of Jza especially, an unnecessary hostility. As an admin, should he be protecting articles in the way he does? Blacklans (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Blacklans has made statements that appear to be examples of an association fallacy combined with personal comments directed at some perceived (yet false) quality of Jza84, Nev1, and myself (i.e., that we and possibly others in different places could be the same editor solely on the basis of us sharing the same considered opinion about the matter referred to here because we pay careful attention to the reliable authoritative sources.) I find it sad that he thus starts to complain here, since it necessarily means this poor behaviour on his part must now be raised to more public scrutiny than myself and others probably intended it to be. The relevant diffs are here. If any action were to be taken against Jza84, I feel it would be unfair to do this without taking some action against Blacklans, and I feel there are issues of what might appear to be the more serious breach of wikipedia principles here. (I note he is beginning to make similar suggestions in the above comment now.) DDStretch (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocked anon back with new IP
Anon user
- 81.158.54.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
recently blocked for vandalism and personal attacks, is back with
- 86.143.154.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
doing the same thing. Orpheus (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- blocked Theresa Knott | token threats
COI editors(s) edit-warring on BLP Julie Bindel
On the surface this seems like it's only a content issue however at least two editors are tag-team edit-warring and the duck test suggests offsite campaigning is also taking place with at least one SPA and possibly a sock or two. I will try to be brief:
- Julie Bindel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a UK feminist activist and regular columnist of the Guardian. In 2004 one of her columns was rather disparaging toward transsexuals and an activist organization, London Transfeminist Group[58] has seemingly opposed her ever since with arguably little sucess but one big protest at an awards ceremony in 2008.
- Zoeoconnell (talk · contribs) is certainly a part of this activist group and even wrote the press release for the protest and served as the media contact[59]. This editor and ZoeL (talk · contribs) have been edit-warring to preserve some rather, IMHO, negative POV material on the BLP article primarily sourced to blogs and Indymedia. Zoeoconnell has also installed themselves as the goto editor on the talkpage despite COI and disregard for policies. All attempts to remove and reword the material have been met with, reverting. To thier credit every other change I've made except to this one section have stuck.
As it was certainly a stalmate and they were tag-team reverting me I started a RfC on the talkpage showing what I saw as using only reliable sources and doing so in accordance with NPOV and BLP policies. This unearthed a third Zoe, Zoe.R (talk · contribs) and spa georgiagrrl (talk · contribs). They all prefer the previous version which they assert was approved by admin user:CIreland who I've invited to participate.[60] Zoeoconnellhas since started removing a {{fact}}[61][62][63][64]; harassing/threatening/imtimidating (whatever you wish to call it) myself[65] and another editor.[66] They have also stated that an admin approved using the prior version and they weren't willing to concede much of these issues unless an admin ruled they must.
Here's what the article looked like prior to my editing there with the POV section encompassing more than half the short article. Every change I've made outside that section has been left alone. I've posted on the BLP board but it seems to be quite backlogged and was about to take this to the RSN board but really this is been a farce and I need some suggestion how to get the negative POV material that is poorly sourced off, get the blogs and Indymedia off and try to keep it from being re-added. -- Banjeboi 23:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)