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) |
|
Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I want another pair of eyes on it. User:Tdinoahfan completed the above article, after Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show was deleted following an AFD vote. Because he provided no sourcing, I tagged it for speedy as a possible hoax; he's reverted it, and continued to do so every time I retagged it. I've hit 3RR now, so I'll go no further. I left a note on his talk page, which has gone unanswered: is there anything further that needs to be done? I'm willing to stop speedying for good if this can be proven to exist.
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- It exists...not sure how close it comes to WP:N, but it definitely exists...I'd suggest you do a quick Google Search next time before bringing it here. I got 71,000 google hits when I searched it. I won't speak to the AfD because I can't seem to find it. Frmatt (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ordinarily I would. In this case, precedent existed for a deletion, and it was recent (couple of days ago). I figured there was probably something else going on here that I didn't know about. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Now deleted. It was protected (inexplicably). Further attempts at restoration should go to deletion review. Protonk (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think User:Tdinoahfan's most recent edit illustrates that he isn't here to participate in collaborative editing. Soxwon (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- It could illustrate many things. No harm, no foul. Protonk (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- It was protected, and the speedy should have been declined, as the AFD for previous discussion was because it was deemed a hoax. It never went to full discussion etcetera, and now apparently exists (or at least someone went to great lengths to pretend it does, complete with youtube video links of it). I am asking Black Kite to undelete it long enough to determine if it truly exists (there appears to be YouTube of it, etcetera).. (oh, and addendum: FRICKIN EDIT CONFLICTS) SirFozzie (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Can you give me a few minutes on this, please? I have quite a strong suspicion this might well be a G5 as well as a G4. Also, I'm pretty sure that's not the only AfD there's ever been on that article - there's a lot of ways of punctuating it. Black Kite 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not a problem, there is no deadline, after all :). I was just looking at it from a procedural standpoint, that the AFD wasn't a valid speedy reason, and that the reason for the speedy last time does not appear to be true now. I have no opinion on the notability or appropriateness of an article on it. SirFozzie (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Found it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show. Now, as for the G5 aspect... Black Kite 22:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's 1st Movie! Black Kite 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Found it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show. Now, as for the G5 aspect... Black Kite 22:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not a problem, there is no deadline, after all :). I was just looking at it from a procedural standpoint, that the AFD wasn't a valid speedy reason, and that the reason for the speedy last time does not appear to be true now. I have no opinion on the notability or appropriateness of an article on it. SirFozzie (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Can you give me a few minutes on this, please? I have quite a strong suspicion this might well be a G5 as well as a G4. Also, I'm pretty sure that's not the only AfD there's ever been on that article - there's a lot of ways of punctuating it. Black Kite 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- It was protected, and the speedy should have been declined, as the AFD for previous discussion was because it was deemed a hoax. It never went to full discussion etcetera, and now apparently exists (or at least someone went to great lengths to pretend it does, complete with youtube video links of it). I am asking Black Kite to undelete it long enough to determine if it truly exists (there appears to be YouTube of it, etcetera).. (oh, and addendum: FRICKIN EDIT CONFLICTS) SirFozzie (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- It could illustrate many things. No harm, no foul. Protonk (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think User:Tdinoahfan's most recent edit illustrates that he isn't here to participate in collaborative editing. Soxwon (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
(de-indent) The last one really doesn't apply here again, it was deleted because of WP:CRYSTAL, which again, no longer applies (note that it said that it was fine to recreate after it was released), but this one [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show probably is a good deletion and it should go to DRV. (although I would support replacing the article with a redirect to the main Ed-article). Good work, BK :) SirFozzie (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) One of the AfDs that Black Kite is referring to is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's 1st Movie. That was easily findable through the most recent AfD. While I've been assuming good faith with Tdinoahfan's creation of this article, the alleged EE&E movie has been the subject of repeated recreation. I agree with Protonk that, at this point, the correct venue for restoration is DRV. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- If the speedy had been declined, I'd be fine with it - as I say, I have no opinion one way or another. My reasons for bringing the whole thing to ANI in the first place have to do with the way in which the creator handled the article, reverting my changes and making no attempt to handle my concerns properly. Also, I would note that it seems to have been raised at DRV already, if I understand comments on the creator's talk page correctly. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been EC'd so many times now many of my original points are moot now but I've been involved with this article for some time and there is a huge history here of bad article writing regarding this specifically so whilst it does exist it doesn't mean it's notable and the most recent AfD shows that, the create-protect for most variants of the title is because the fans are a little overzealous. treelo radda 22:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note User:Tdinoahfan has been blocked for incivility and edit warring. Martin451 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have indeffed the editor since they wouldn't stop edit warring on WP:DRV. I did try to explain the process to them. If they request unblock showing they can edit properly then fine, but they've already been blocked for disruption once, and their account's only 2 days old. And I'm pretty sure they're a recreation of a blocked user anyway. Creating an AfD with their 3rd edit? Um. Black Kite 22:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Tdinoahfan's specific style of grammar and spelling and speaking as if people hate the show seems familiar, xe is most likely a sock of someone but I'm unsure who, I'll dig around. treelo radda 22:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I came up with nothing (though think it could be someone who was banned recently) but if anyone wants to tell me who created Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show most recently it might help me make a case. treelo radda 23:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Tdinoahfan's specific style of grammar and spelling and speaking as if people hate the show seems familiar, xe is most likely a sock of someone but I'm unsure who, I'll dig around. treelo radda 22:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have indeffed the editor since they wouldn't stop edit warring on WP:DRV. I did try to explain the process to them. If they request unblock showing they can edit properly then fine, but they've already been blocked for disruption once, and their account's only 2 days old. And I'm pretty sure they're a recreation of a blocked user anyway. Creating an AfD with their 3rd edit? Um. Black Kite 22:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note User:Tdinoahfan has been blocked for incivility and edit warring. Martin451 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Just a friendly reminder to admins. Don't ratchet up blocks due to post-block ranting (though it is hard to ratchet up 'indef') Protonk (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is fairly normal for the fans, you'd be best not letting them go this far with their arguing, you'll be there all week. treelo radda 23:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Same guy as CNGLITCHINFO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Can someone provide a link to the DRV? At the very least the deleted article titles should be redirected to the main article (Ed, Edd n Eddy?) and whatever cited content exists included there. The response to the articles repeated recreation looks reactionary and inappropriate to me. Why not try to solve the problem? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is easily solved. That's for the article to be written with sources showing notability, as opposed to re-creating the version that was deleted at AfD because it had neither. Black Kite 00:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Even easier would be to redirect it to the main article, perhaps with a small section all its own, indicating that it was selectively released but hasn't been widely covered as is noted in the consensus of this AfD discussion [1]. Redirects can be protected you know. That would solve the problem once and for all. (It turns out the section already existed. So all that's needed is a redirect. See below) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Admin assistance needed
Could an Admin please redirect Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show (which has been protected) to Ed, Edd n Eddy#Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show where this content is included. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Done
- Thanks Protonk. I think this thread is resolved and exhausted. Unless of course we can work in something about Ottava? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- CoM, a friendly word - please do not try to antagonise other editors. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- As one who is beginning to understand Ottava's side of these controversies that he seems to find himself in frequently, I might have made the same satirical comment if I had thought of it first. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good advice. I'm not sure which bit you're referring to though as my comment just above was meant as a harmless joke. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- CoM, a friendly word - please do not try to antagonise other editors. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Back anew...
As Lewbertswart45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the same obstinate attitude over including showcruft and user-sourced info on Brainsurge. Immediately reported to AIV. Nate • (chatter) 07:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- ...and has been blocked. But this probably isn't over. Nate • (chatter) 11:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Block review: university wants to be notified of vandalism, not blocked
The students at Lancaster University have been busy on Wikipedia. While some edits are without doubt constructive, others are far from it. Today's vandalism from 194.80.32.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) includes some really creative stuff. However the IP's talk page also has seven notations indicating that vandalism should be reported to the school rather than on the talk page, and that the university would prefer to deal with it, rather than have us block the IP.
This issue was brought to my attention when I processed a block request for the IP at WP:AIV. While I would normally be inclined to let the university administration deal with the issue, the 13 previous blocks combined with the steady and continuous stream of vandalism (which shows no end in sight) leads me to the conclusion that enough is enough. As such, I have applied a {{schoolblock}} with a one year duration.
Any admin who feels I have been too hasty should feel free to reduce or remove the block as they see fit. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Completely support this block. Tan | 39 01:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I saw where the one user claimed that this will block 20000 people. I don't see the problem with that. If they want to edit, they can register an account from elsewhere, and not be inconvenienced. While it is good that they are reacting to it, it does not change the fact that each of those 20000 could potentially make 4+ bad edits, and that quite a few seem to have taken that chance. Sodam Yat (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
←I have notified Steveb (talk · contribs) of this discussion after seeing that they have responded to most of the warnings on the IP's talk page in an official manner indicating that they are an official of the university. (Could this be a shared account? I say that because of the almost constant usage of we in their replies) -MBK004 01:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I've allowed account creation. If a vandal registers, it'll be easier to narrow them down for the administration, I'm thinking. Also: they're students. May as well... Xavexgoem (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Makes it harder for us to track, plus they will still get autoblocked... Prodego talk 02:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I guess it's just IMO. <shrug> Xavexgoem (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- The school may be trying to prevent autoblock from causing massive disruption. One student could cause much of the university of lose Wikipedia editing access. For that student, it's fun. For others, it's hell. For that student, just cause a block and other computers get blocked. Just one visit to the computing center and another to the library could disrupt a lot of users. Ipromise (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I guess it's just IMO. <shrug> Xavexgoem (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- one year is excessive. The students change from year to year, and this year's sins should not be visited on the incoming class also. The block should run at most till the end of the school year this spring. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's a British university, so they're only a month into their new academic year. Black Kite 08:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, DGG - if you want a block to run until the end of the academic year, it would need to be a 9 month block (end of the school year is officially 31st August) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's a British university, so they're only a month into their new academic year. Black Kite 08:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Has the individual (Steveb) that claims to have jurisdiction over this IP verified their identify with OTRS? Just a thought. Netalarmtrick or treat! 06:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- steveb: If I had ever heard of OTRS I might have used it. Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Steveb, you can read about it here -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- steveb: I don't really see that proving my identity makes any difference if WP admins will never read a response to a complaint, and it's moot now anyway - my institution has what amounts to a permanent ban on anonymous contributions, so it really doesn't require any further input from me.
It would be great if account creation can be left in place so that those that wish to make a positive contribution can do so with a minimum of fuss. Steveb (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- steveb: I don't really see that proving my identity makes any difference if WP admins will never read a response to a complaint, and it's moot now anyway - my institution has what amounts to a permanent ban on anonymous contributions, so it really doesn't require any further input from me.
- Steveb, you can read about it here -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
We see here another edu institution trying to do the right thing - allowing students to edit and taking action against those who are making bad faith edits. It seems to me that WP should welcome this editor, and try and link them with others in similar situaions, and create some policies / guidelines to help them do their jobs and help keep wp clean. Misuse of computers in english unis is taken pretty seriously. Remember Civility (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it seems to me that obvious sock puppets shouldn't comment on administrative pages. But look, they do anyway. Auntie E. 17:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Its not a sock, it's an alternate account. Please assume good faith. An apology for you assumption of bad faith and accusation of damaging the project would be nice, but is not expected. Thanks for your contribution, which completely failed to address the problem of edu institutions wanting to help prevent damage from their users on WP, and getting no help to do so. I say, again, we want people like that on WP. Template warnings from NPP get ignored. A letter from your IT security warning you that you may lose your place at uni (which has considerable finanial implications in the UK) would be more effective, no? Remember Civility (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I think that suspending or expelling students for ordinary vandalism is an excessive punishment. By contrast, when your IP is blocked, you can still use Wikipedia, just not modify it. Blocking protects Wikipedia without serious real-life consequences. Bwrs (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- So you think we would expel a student for adding rude words to a WP article?? Normally just getting someone face-to-face is sufficient to make them realise that computer misuse has real-world consequences. Steveb (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I can see Steve is trying his best here. If all of those students who need to edit WP register with an account, will the subsequent block on the Uni's IP prevent those who have registered being able to edit in their own account? Is that technically unavoidable? Leaky Caldron 10:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK. So can those students requiring access for legitmate reasons not register? Then the IP block safeguards against the vandalism? I'm not sure if this helps Template:Schoolblock, whether it's already been considered or whether it is a total distraction to your problem. Anyone having problems registering could do so via you presumably? Leaky Caldron 10:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's reasonably common to block anonymous editing-only (reading will be fine) from a range of IP addresses. There should be no problem with users on that IP range creating a userid. I have rarely seen any hiccups with that process. Granted, users who thought they had logged in will be surprised to see a "blocked from editing" notice. It should be a wakeup call for people that they are, indeed, being watched. Does the University have an appropriate "Terms of Use" statement and security briefings for students that talks about "accountability and availability" issues? Getting students realizing early that nothing is truly anonymous, and that they are 100% accountable for anything they do and say not just on the internet, but everywhere seems to be a challenge these days. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Account creation can better be handled by e-mail requests, or the account creation module, where we can control it better. Once someone creates an account outside of these functions we can't easily connect them to the university absent grounds for a checkuser, which wouldn't be likely. I would prefer that steveb would verify his identity through OTRS, then I'd be inclined to give him account creation rights. BTW, I don't understand why we should care what the university does to the students, that's their business.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 11:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Toddst1 ANI resolve abuse and User:Dbachmann semi-protection abuse
Here is the discussion of the previous ANI, that I filed exclusively against Dbachmann: discussion
Toddst1 resolved the issue with quote "no abuse found"
WP:SEMI states: Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users.
I challenge the decision made by Toddst1 and want to know a detailed explanation of his action in light of wikipedia semi-protection policies and the previous mentioned discussion. I still request sufficient action against Dbachmann, who accused me in the discussion of edit warring, lawyering etc. --91.130.188.8 (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Speak with them individually. This is not the place to discuss this.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 13:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- And you were edit warring, and you are wikilawyaring...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 13:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- What's the big deal? If you're right, you'll be able to discuss it on the article talk page, get consensus, and the change will still get made. You ought to do that anyway, before repeatedly reverting to changes when you can see that others disagree with you. I'm an administrator, but I don't know anything about Telegu, so I don't know who's right in this content disagreement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- And you were edit warring, and you are wikilawyaring...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 13:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- The big deal is, that I already made my point in a summary and Dbachmann ignored it and semi-protected the article.--91.130.188.8 (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Going after your logic, every admin can protect a site whenever they want (also in case, they were part of it).--91.130.188.8 (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I checked your contribution history, and I can't see any posts from you at Talk:Telugu language at all. If your goal is to get your desired changes made, that's the place to discuss why they are correct and get consensus for them. I don't think that a conversation about semiprotection rules at WP:ANI will help you get your desired changes into Telegu language as effectively. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Going after your logic, every admin can protect a site whenever they want (also in case, they were part of it).--91.130.188.8 (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been accused of a lot of shit, but abusing {{resolved}}
tags - that takes the cake. Toddst1 (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Especially from somebody who claims not to be wikilawyering...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 14:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to be abusing a
{{resolved}}
tag here in just a minute. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Any more of this, and I am not going to agree this is "resolved" unless measures are taken to impress basic wikiquette on 91.130.188.8 (talk · contribs), if necessary using blunt instruments. --dab (𒁳) 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- It just gets better. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- And forum shopping at RFPP. Syrthiss (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- (E/C) FWIW, the IP address, in classic forum-shopping mode, asked for unprotection at RFPP. I declined it, and suspect that a block may become necessary, since two AN/I threads and a thread at Talk:Jimbo Wales is not enough drama. Horologium (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think you mean User talk:Jimbo Wales :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- <facepalm> Yes, that was what I meant. (This is what happens when one is attempting to do several things at once; none of them turn out very well.) Horologium (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I held off commenting on the original thread until DBachman had had a chance to respond. I must now say that I feel that a group of admins seem not to be willing to pay attention to what the OP was complaining about. Yes, plonking a level 3 warning on DB's talk page was not a good idea, nor was the "forum shopping". However, please bear in mind that this is an inexperienced editor (their account has existed for about 3 weeks, with just over 70 edits). Looking at the page in question, I feel that if someone had come to RFPP asking for it to be protected, any of the admins here would have declined, saying that there was insufficient vandalism/edit-warring at this time. Does WP:BITE not apply to editors after their first couple of days? I would count this editor as a newcomer. Just my 0.02 -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Although not an admin, I looked carefully at the contribs and situation. I'm a firm believer in the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. An IP editor was bold - inserting information that clearly did not match the sources being used (yes, he did some other edits too). Those edits were harmful to the overall article. Those edits were reverted (which may have reverted some ok edits too as collateral). Without any discussion, the IP reverted that reversion as vandalism - the BRD cycle broken, and no attempts to discuss. At this point (incorrect material, no discussion, calling valid revert "vandalism"), 1+1+1=3 ... time to protect from an editor who clearly was not participating in the cycle. I would highly doubt that the admin was protecting a favoured version, they were protecting from the insertion of bad data that was promoting a specific language. Now, if this were me, and I semi'd an article that I was involved in, I likely would have brought it up here myself to explain and achieve validation of my action. The admin prevented disruption to an article - unfortunately, it was an article they had some involvement in. For the IP to say that they discussed in an edit summary is BS; we discuss on the article talkpage. The additional
disruptionactions by the IP (opening a new ANI notice against the closer and running to Jimbo because community consensus was against him) merely emphasizes the non-understanding of policy, process, and makes me think we have a WP:SPA who is trying to promote a certain language (as per the article edits), no matter what. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)- Thanks for your response, Bwilkins. I agree that the protection was to prevent 'bad data' being entered into the article rather than any other motive, and I understand what you are saying - but I still feel that if this had gone to RFPP, the request for protection would have been declined - and I still feel that a newcomer has been harshly treated. I personally wouldn't have semi'd the page (yes, I know I'm not an admin, but I'm talking theoretically!) - I would have given the IP editor a 3RR warning - if they reverted again, then the IP could be blocked for a day (or however long), rather than semi-protecting the page. Just my take on the situation. YMMV -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Although not an admin, I looked carefully at the contribs and situation. I'm a firm believer in the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. An IP editor was bold - inserting information that clearly did not match the sources being used (yes, he did some other edits too). Those edits were harmful to the overall article. Those edits were reverted (which may have reverted some ok edits too as collateral). Without any discussion, the IP reverted that reversion as vandalism - the BRD cycle broken, and no attempts to discuss. At this point (incorrect material, no discussion, calling valid revert "vandalism"), 1+1+1=3 ... time to protect from an editor who clearly was not participating in the cycle. I would highly doubt that the admin was protecting a favoured version, they were protecting from the insertion of bad data that was promoting a specific language. Now, if this were me, and I semi'd an article that I was involved in, I likely would have brought it up here myself to explain and achieve validation of my action. The admin prevented disruption to an article - unfortunately, it was an article they had some involvement in. For the IP to say that they discussed in an edit summary is BS; we discuss on the article talkpage. The additional
- I notice that Bwilkins said the IP made mistakes and promoted bad data, while the admin was trying to prevent bad data. I looked at the edit as well and see the exact opposite. The edit changed the article to say that Telegu is the third-most spoken language in India rather than the second. The cited source which the IP added, an Indian census page, says that Hindi is the most spoken (257 million), Bengali has 83 million, and Telegu has 74 million speakers. So on that point the IP appears to be correct unless I'm missing something? On the other factual point is ambiguous because no sources are provided. II | (t - c) 02:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
"van" or "Van"?
According to Tussenvoegsel, when a Dutch person whose surname includes a tussenvoegsel is referred to by their surname, the tussenvoegsel should be capitalised (e.g. Van Nistelrooy, Van Persie or Van der Sar). However, User:84.91.100.2 is ignoring this rule at 2009–10 UEFA Champions League group stage and continues to write "van Persie" despite my messages on his talk page asking them not to. Could an admin please have a word with this user? – PeeJay 19:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've warned the IP with a van-3. Hopefully that will be an end to the matter. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- If the person in question was registered as "van Persie", then the correct way to write the name is "van Persie". This is not uncommon in Dutch. By the way, the word "van" is not a "tussenvoegsel". It is a "voorzetsel". What is needed here, is a wp:source for the specific name. There is no general rule for this. DVdm (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I did not know this - but then, I ain't Dutch. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neither am I. I'm Belgian, but we have the same phenomenon. By the way, have a look at van Persie's article and look at the consistency in the spelling :-)
- Cheers, DVdm (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd never heard of a "voorzetsel", but that's only because I was introduced to the concept via the tussenvoegsel article. Anyway, the article seems to suggest that, in the Netherlands, when the surname alone is used to refer to the subject, the "van" should be capitalised. I'm fairly sure that the names are capitalised in Belgian conventions too, but IIRC, aren't most Belgian names capitalised anyway (e.g. Anthony Vanden Borre and Daniel Van Buyten)? – PeeJay 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- A voorzetsel is a preposition. "Van" translates to "from".
- In Dutch (the common official language of the Dutch in the Netherlands and the Flemish in Flanders, the northern half of Belgium) most names are indeed fully capitalized, but by no means all. Mine is not (type: "Van de m...", with capital V only), and apparently van Persie's is not. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- In Natalee Holloway, which contains many Dutch names, we learned that you only capitalize "van" when a first name or title is not used.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- So I am correct in saying that, in 2009–10 UEFA Champions League group stage, my version is correct ("Van Persie", not "van Persie")? – PeeJay 22:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- In Natalee Holloway, which contains many Dutch names, we learned that you only capitalize "van" when a first name or title is not used.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd never heard of a "voorzetsel", but that's only because I was introduced to the concept via the tussenvoegsel article. Anyway, the article seems to suggest that, in the Netherlands, when the surname alone is used to refer to the subject, the "van" should be capitalised. I'm fairly sure that the names are capitalised in Belgian conventions too, but IIRC, aren't most Belgian names capitalised anyway (e.g. Anthony Vanden Borre and Daniel Van Buyten)? – PeeJay 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
User: StephenPaternoster
StephenPaternoster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The above editor has been inserting unsourced material of low quality across Anglo-Viking and Anglo-Saxon articles, much of it reading as OR and fairly useless (possibly it was this. Or possibly that). He refuses to engage in any discussion over his edits on talk pages, even deleting other users' comments on article talk pages that pertain to his edits. He has also been reverting grammar and spelling fixes, declaring it to be 'fine as it is'. Following the latest reverts, he came up with this offensive edit comment. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever else comes of this, he earned a block for the edit comment. You aren't coming off too sterling yourself (calling his edits dross in edit summaries), btw. Syrthiss (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Only 31 hours? For that inexcusable summary, I would have blocked him for at least a month, and brought it here for a review of an indef. Horologium (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Implied threat of violence in the edit summary. Paternoster needs to become Our Father Who Art Indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I support a longer block for that edit summary, a month would be fair. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe Our Father needs to have a month added to that proposed indef, for butchering the English language. I'm sorely tempted to revert everything he's done that's at least the most recent change to an article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I support a longer block for that edit summary, a month would be fair. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Implied threat of violence in the edit summary. Paternoster needs to become Our Father Who Art Indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Syrthiss, his edits were dross (worthless) in my view, I was commenting on them and not the editor (who I'm sure has much to offer when he realises he is not a lone crusader). He refused to enter into any discourse over why his work was being removed/edited, so bluntness was all that was left. If people won't talk, there are few options available. Apologies if that seems overly harsh. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that a comment like that doesn't really explain the problem. My edit summary for the first reversion was simply "editorializing", since it reads like a little original research essay. And the second one I reverted (so far) I labeled "editorializing, speculation, and poor English", the latter referring to that guy's tendency to write like a 3rd grader would talk, in run-on sentences. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, now that I think of it, he writes the way Casey Stengel used to talk. However, when Casey wrote his autobiography, he worked with a professional writer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted a few items from his most recent updates, thus putting several articles about Vikings and such on my watch list due to the pillaging of those articles by the user in question. I feel as if I ought to post something on his talk page, but he'll just zap it like he did the block notice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, now that I think of it, he writes the way Casey Stengel used to talk. However, when Casey wrote his autobiography, he worked with a professional writer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that a comment like that doesn't really explain the problem. My edit summary for the first reversion was simply "editorializing", since it reads like a little original research essay. And the second one I reverted (so far) I labeled "editorializing, speculation, and poor English", the latter referring to that guy's tendency to write like a 3rd grader would talk, in run-on sentences. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Syrthiss, his edits were dross (worthless) in my view, I was commenting on them and not the editor (who I'm sure has much to offer when he realises he is not a lone crusader). He refused to enter into any discourse over why his work was being removed/edited, so bluntness was all that was left. If people won't talk, there are few options available. Apologies if that seems overly harsh. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Usually I'm worried that I'm being too harsh. My first inclination was for indef, but figured I'd give him a small benefit of the doubt. If someone wants to block our father the antisemite for longer, I'm fine with that. Syrthiss (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I support a block extension for this awful anti Semitic comment. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support block extension - there's no way that comment can be acceptable Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- The block has been extended for a very long time (indefinitely), which serves him right for saying such an awful thing and the extension will also save Bugs from having to correct his spelling. Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have him reblocked to indef. I wanted to make sure that he was unable to edit (the original block would have ended soon) pending any further discussion here, as so far it seems the consensus is my original block was too lenient). Syrthiss (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- That the startling and offensive edit comment justifies a ban is indisputable. However, a lot of what is said above is irrelevant and a summary indef. is disproportionate for an editor with no apparent track record. Leaky Caldron 14:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have to agree with the above. I do believe 31 hours might be too short as a preventative measure (there needs to be some break so he can re-think his approach or the same behaviour will occur), but I do feel the motivation behind his edits was initially good, if misguided. Ideally we would find an editor willing to mentor him when he emerges from the block and we will have a constructure editor out of it all. Obviously this will only work if Stephen starts communicating with other editors, but if he doesn't then he will likely earn another block anyway. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Mentoring is one thing. But who's going to teach him how to write English? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- One would assume it was more a lack of attention to his language rather than lack of knowledge, considering his location. I've often seen mentors copyedit propose edits as well. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- If his userpage is to be believed, he is a 15 year-old who was born and reared in England. It's disturbing that a teenager would use such a vile and disgusting metaphor to indicate displeasure with another editor, particularly because of the photos on Narson's userpage. Horologium (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- One would assume it was more a lack of attention to his language rather than lack of knowledge, considering his location. I've often seen mentors copyedit propose edits as well. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Mentoring is one thing. But who's going to teach him how to write English? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hold on, he has communicated on his talk. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- He is sorry and won't do it again...well I suppose everyone deserves a chance, I could support a block of at least a week to show him how serious the community takes that kind of comment, it would be illegal in some countries, and then keep an eye on him. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I cannot support an immediate unblock, but I may have a bit of a personal antagonism towards that edit summary. My partner's mother was one of the lucky Jews in Bialystok; she was exiled to Siberia rather than murdered (including those sent to Auschwitz). Horologium (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- He is sorry and won't do it again...well I suppose everyone deserves a chance, I could support a block of at least a week to show him how serious the community takes that kind of comment, it would be illegal in some countries, and then keep an eye on him. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have to agree with the above. I do believe 31 hours might be too short as a preventative measure (there needs to be some break so he can re-think his approach or the same behaviour will occur), but I do feel the motivation behind his edits was initially good, if misguided. Ideally we would find an editor willing to mentor him when he emerges from the block and we will have a constructure editor out of it all. Obviously this will only work if Stephen starts communicating with other editors, but if he doesn't then he will likely earn another block anyway. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I see that the general consensus is slightly veering towards leniency. My personal opinion is that any editor who can make such a callous, heartless, unfeeling and vicious edit as that edit summary (burning in Auschwitz) is, should never, ever be allowed to edit here. But I have been to Auschwitz, and perhaps he has not. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Totally reprehensible though the comment was, and deserving of decisive action, the purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of a block has to be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. He needs to get himself over here and provide apologies and assurances.Leaky Caldron 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- ? The user cannot edit here due to the indef, though I did make the offer to cut and paste any defense he cared to raise on his talk page to here. His unblock message does apologize and does say that he won't do it again. If I've misunderstood your comment, my apologies. Since I'm the one currently holding the block, I'm not going to respond to the unblock request myself. Syrthiss (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I had not read it when I posted above, but his talk page says: "I am sorry for what i done and i will not do it again i won't attack personal people it is not right and i will not do it again". You could have copied that over. It looks like an apology and an assurance he will not do it again. Leaky Caldron 17:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't unblock him yet - I gather he's only young and it's poor form to encourage the young to believe that just apologising will make everything all right instantly. Give him a week, and discuss some of his worse edits on his talk page in that time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agree that a longer block is needed. This is not being punitive, it's being preventative: absolute racism in that format has a ripple effect on the project. If a whole slew of people who were affected by the comment see that the editor received a very minor tap on the wrist, then you'll get a collective howl, AND set a precedent for future situations. I know this isn't a crystal ball, but the action/lack of correct action will have longstanding ramifications. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking more along the lines on not coming back until he’s shown an appreciation of proper behaviours. If, as suspected, he’s a school student, ask him to produce an essay based on the 5 pillars or some suitable civility topic. If it passes in a week (or longer) fine, if he cannot be bothered let the block remain. We are allowed to be creative aren’t we? Leaky Caldron 18:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I am about to scram for the day. My thoughts on the above essay idea - really, I suspect he wouldn't want to write one and I myself really don't want to read it. Wikipedia is not a 12 step program, or therapy. My thoughts are this: if we accept that he is sorry, then a week away isn't going to make him sorry-er. If we accept his apology, we should unblock him now. If we think that his comment is just an indication of future disruption to come then we should recognize that the block is not punishment (to address Leaky Cauldron's concern) and is to prevent further disruption. If that is the case, the indef should stand and his unblock should be denied.
His current status is that Beeblebrox was placing the unblock on hold, assumedly to come discuss with me, and then rescinded his offer based on the edit summary. Before I log off, I'm going to go restore the unblock to the state it was before Beeblebrox placed it on hold as that is my last read on what the user wanted. Syrthiss (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not acting as an apologist for this editor. WP:Block lead is clear the purpose of blocks and repeats 2 further times (wp:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goal, Wp:Blocking_policy#Duration_of_blocks) that they are not for punishment. An indef. Block cannot stand without justification and there appears to have been no attempt at education either as per, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Education_and_warnings. He’s entitled to be treated per policy even if he does not have the competence to check out and understand the policy. My suggestion was merely to test his desire to join the community in view of the grave and wholly unacceptble error he made today. Leaky Caldron 20:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- He has again blanked his talk page and the editor that was looking at his unblock dropped out as he said he couldn't continue to be neutral after reading the edit summary, don't forget that we are allowed to add our own common sense to the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If he's actually 15 and is actually using his own name, that's trouble enough right there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I would support an extended block. Bwrs (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- He's blanked his talk page, including the unblock request, so I think we're done here and can let the indef block stand pending any future unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Harassment by User:Wdford
Background (I): It is now almost three years since I've made the first of my altogether 5000+ edits at Wikipedia, and I've learned at lot during these 3 years. So, at the upcoming Friday, at 10 a.m. local time, I will be giving a 30 minute presentation on Wikipedia at my University, for about 20-30 undergraduate students who are studying to become grammar school teachers and are having a session on web 2.0 teaching materials. One part of my presentation will be concerned with editing experience at Wikipedia, any I will give an honest account of my experience. Currently I am considering telling the students this story:
Background (II): Some articles at Wikipedia are about highly controversial topics. One of them is the article "Ancient Egyptian race controversy". The controversy is about the question which skin colour the ancient Egyptians had. Why is this topic so controversial? In short: Because some white people think that every person of African heritage who is interested in the topic is promoting [a fringe pseudo-historic 'theory'] Because some black people think that everyone who denies that the ancient Egyptians had a darker skin then people from Europe is a white racist who tries to deny them their heritage. Probably not unsurprisingly, it is almost impossible to write an article on the topic at Wikipedia. After during one of these discussion quite a lot of material was removed from the article, I though: Why not recycle some material - and I added this to the article Great Sphinx of Giza.
First Incident: Yes, there actually is a small debate about the question whether the the Sphinx depicts a black person or not, and why shouldn't this be discussed in the appropriate Wikipedia article? At least until somehow there is an acceptable general article on the topic. Of course, there was some discussion, but considering how controversial the topic is, everything went nicely. Until an editor called Wdford from South Africa joined the debate on the article. I won't bother with recalling the details, however, this resulted in me giving up on the article.
Second Incident: Wdford then did some work at the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy, which I have mentioned previously. As could be expected, they didn't actually managed to work it out in the discussion there, so at some point, Wdford and more then one other editor were banned from the article. I thought that this was my big chance. I previously had identified four good books on the topic, two by white authors and two by black authors, and I thought that I now had the opportunity to fix the issue. Initially, everything went well, and I was able to get the support of all other involved editors. And then, the ban, that kept Wdford away from the article, was lifted. Wdford almost immediately gave me an confrontation at the article, and after I had notified the adminstrator noticeboards two times and no one had intervened on my behalf, I gave up on that article, too
Third Incident: I mean, there are many other articles at Wikipedia that could use a good editor. Last month, for example, I noticed an article "colloidal silver". That stuff was used until the 1940s as internal medicine, resulting in an unknown number of cases in which people's skin turned grey as a side-effect; currently that stuff is marketed again as an alternative medicine, with the same side-effects and unsubstantiated claims of effectiveness. There was a discussion of the article at the noticeboard, and I took part at this discussion. This discussion was rather long and ugly, and after it was over, Apparently everyone was so tired of the flame war, that no one wished to continue the controversy at the article - well except from one unacceptable edit by whom? Wdford, who had not participated at all in the discussion. I asked myself, what he possible might want to to do there. Harass me? But despite my instincts, I started to work on the article. But to my surprise, it went quite well. I turned out that it even was possible to have a constrcutive discussion with one of the editors, with whom at had a very confrontational discussion at the noticeboard previously. But this ended, when Wdford decided that he wanted to rewrite the lead and to restructure the article.
His edits were, honestly, bad. Again, I will not go into the details (you can read the discussion online at Talk:Medical uses of silver yourself, if you want), but there was no way I could agree to his edits. I tried to explain this to him, but after one day of discussion I noticed that it was still impossible to have a discussion with him.
The End? How does this story end? I don't know yet. But I think it wouldn't be fair if the first people I told this story to were some students who have never edited Wikipedia. So, I am giving the Wikipedia community, and especially its administrators, a chance to deal with the issue now. I am feeling harassed, as in "wp:harassment", by Wdford. Probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but he is trying to prove that he can write a better article than me, and honestly, he simply can't. He is lacking basic skills necessary for that, like the ability to evaluate sources. But he is also unable to accept criticism in any way, and every time I criticise him, he responds by accusing me of "acting like I own the article" or that like. Under these circumstances, there is no way I'll be able to recall the positive experiences I've had editing Wikipedia on Friday, so I decided to post this thread now, which at least gives this story a (small) chance of a good ending before then. Zara1709 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think presenting the problem concisely with diffs would have been more helpful than writing a detailed story. In any case, this is clearly a content dispute, as you seem to acknowledge, "Probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but he is trying to prove that he can write a better article than me, and honestly, he simply can't." Dispute resolution is the appropriate way to get this matter resolved, I don't see how an administrator is necessary or could help any more than any other uninvolved editor could. -- Atama頭 21:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can't describe this issue with full diffs, it was already depressing enough to write it this way. And probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but the effect is the same. He is making it impossible for me to edit the article, and he is effectively driving me off Wikipedia. Why would I spent about 6-8 hours fixing the structure of a controversial article when he can come along and simply wreck it up again? And since this is already the third article where there is a problem, this is certainly not a contend issue, but a problem with the editor. An administrator could have fixed the issue a few months ago, if he simply had restored the topic ban against Wdford. An administrator, or any other motivated editor, needs to get down to it, read Wdfords comments and the discussions on the article I've mentioned, and then, if he comes to the same conclusions as I, needs to explain to Wdford that I mustn't continue what effectively is harassment. But if no one is willing to support me here, I am going to take a break from Wikipedia for 6 months, advise a group of 20-30 students not contribute to Wikipedia (writing articles is fun, but the discussions about them often aren't) and this article, medical uses of silver, will likely be again the topic of a few threads at the noticeboards, since Wdfords edit restored similar ambiguities and misquotations like the ones that made the article an ANI case in the first place. Zara1709 (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Any admin who was thinking of sanctioning Wdford would probably wish to read the talk page of Medical uses of silver before doing so. You'd make a better case there if you would write brief comments instead of great walls of text. It is hard to rule in your favor when your case is so vague, and needs thousands of words to explain. WP:DR is your best option. Coming to ANI frequently is not a good use of your time, or ours. It's nice that you are willing to work on difficult articles, but to then complain when you find opposition is paradoxical. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I did expect some difficulties at the article, and I was prepared to deal with these difficulties. But I did not expect THIS! Honestly, if some editor with whom you had previously difficulties shows up at another issue, on which you have already spent some time, wouldn't you suspect that he his harassing you? An the reason I am writing such great blocks of text is simply. Wdford is avoiding a discussion of the actual content issue, so I have to repeat and explain my view on that again and again. (Just like you have to continue to repeat the mainstream view when you are dealing with a fringe editor.) I received some support from another editor, so probably we can solve the issue at the article - but probably not. If you want to know what problem I have with Wdfords edits, just check out my last post on the article talk page. If Wdford isn't able to identify a fringe source when he sees it, then isn't a good editor, but that alone wouldn't be a problem. But if he is unable to admit that he made a mistake and takes the revert of his edits as a a reason to start a confrontation, (and not as a reason to discuss those edits) then someone needs to get involved and explain him that this attitude is unacceptable. Zara1709 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Any admin who was thinking of sanctioning Wdford would probably wish to read the talk page of Medical uses of silver before doing so. You'd make a better case there if you would write brief comments instead of great walls of text. It is hard to rule in your favor when your case is so vague, and needs thousands of words to explain. WP:DR is your best option. Coming to ANI frequently is not a good use of your time, or ours. It's nice that you are willing to work on difficult articles, but to then complain when you find opposition is paradoxical. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can't describe this issue with full diffs, it was already depressing enough to write it this way. And probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but the effect is the same. He is making it impossible for me to edit the article, and he is effectively driving me off Wikipedia. Why would I spent about 6-8 hours fixing the structure of a controversial article when he can come along and simply wreck it up again? And since this is already the third article where there is a problem, this is certainly not a contend issue, but a problem with the editor. An administrator could have fixed the issue a few months ago, if he simply had restored the topic ban against Wdford. An administrator, or any other motivated editor, needs to get down to it, read Wdfords comments and the discussions on the article I've mentioned, and then, if he comes to the same conclusions as I, needs to explain to Wdford that I mustn't continue what effectively is harassment. But if no one is willing to support me here, I am going to take a break from Wikipedia for 6 months, advise a group of 20-30 students not contribute to Wikipedia (writing articles is fun, but the discussions about them often aren't) and this article, medical uses of silver, will likely be again the topic of a few threads at the noticeboards, since Wdfords edit restored similar ambiguities and misquotations like the ones that made the article an ANI case in the first place. Zara1709 (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Edit-warring, disruptive SPA, possibly COI
User: Xeugene has repeatedly made disruptive edits to the page Pacifica Forum, including dissing Elie Wiesel at least once (using the term "Wiesel Words") as well as repeatedly insisting that David Irving is not a Holocaust Denier contrary to consensus. In addition, Xeugene has not edited any other articles besides Pacifica Forum, which leads me to believe that there may be a possible SPA case here; the person's username seems to suggest that they may have some close connection to the Forum, possibly a COI.
This appears to be a long-running violation of multiple Wikipedia policies including 3RR, edit warring, repeated insertion of unsourced material and/or links to inappropriate sources, removal of properly sourced material, insertion of irrelevant material, and removing categorizations. This has gone on for several months and I really don't know what to do; since there are so many issues at play I'm not sure which noticeboard is best. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Xeugene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Pacifica Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Have you attempted to discuss this matter with the user? Have you notified them of this discussion by placing
{{ANI-notice}}
on their talk page? Jehochman Talk 13:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I did place the ANI-notice on their talk page, and they haven't responded to it yet. I haven't attempted to discuss the matter with the user, though, because I wasn't quite sure what the appropriate thing to say would be. I didn't want to get into a fight or accidentally say something I'd regret later. That's why I asked for help. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
User Softvision on talk pages
User Softvision (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is abusing talk pages with unsourced original research of the the-article-and-relativity-is-wrong type. He has been warned about this repeatedly by myself and by others ( [2], [3], [4] ). He then goes away, and after a while, returns. Today, after someone else removed his talk page sections, I left some 3rd and 4th level warnings on his talk page, which he promptly removed, toghether with similar warnings by others. A bit later I got this 10-edits string on my talk page. Assuming good faith, I have no other option than to assume wp:NOCLUE. Can someone effectively take some kind of administrative action? DVdm (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I asked him to back off on the original research and flooding your talk page. Not sure what good it will do, but... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks already, but I just got another one. This seems to be a copy of his reply on his talk page. You got another copy on yours, so it seems. DVdm (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was a bit more clear about the likelihood of blocking this time, and reminded him that we both told him to stay off your page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks already, but I just got another one. This seems to be a copy of his reply on his talk page. You got another copy on yours, so it seems. DVdm (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
attacked by webhamster
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Today I was verbally attacked by User:WebHamster via two of his socks one of which is still active. I have tried to open an enquiry at (IPsock|WebHamster) in respect of his sock known asUser:Fred_the_Oyster but I am not sure of the correct procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackieupstairs (talk • contribs) 23:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- The way this is generally done is to open up a sockpuppet case at WP:SPI. However, when you do so, be sure to have evidence ready that shows why this editor should be considered the same person as WebHamster. Reviewing their behavior, I see nothing to indicate that except for an edit war at Affinity (band) between yourself (as an IP) and him which ended with a semiprotection of the article. I also can't find any "verbal harrassment" of you from this editor or any other editor. -- Atama頭 00:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Jackieupstairs appears to be a single purpose account for attacking WebHamster, also at least one of the accounts claimed to be a sockpuppet was an impersonator, and was blocked as a sockpuppet of another user. snigbrook (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- User:Fred_the_Oyster does look suspicious, though. Started editing after an 18 months break a couple of days after WebHamster was indeffed, and shares many of his interests. Yes - WP:SPI is the way to go. Black Kite 00:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am not a single purpose account please refer to my contributions to for example the comedians both before and after I upgraded my IP number (a fact mentioned on my talk page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackieupstairs (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is public knowledge that webhamster is "Kurt Adkins" as shown for example in the authors name of [[5]]. I just removed a link from this page The_Goon_Show inserted a while back by webhamster. [6] It’s a site selling copies of BBC owned works. Whois records or the "Click on the email" confirm that site is operated by Kurt Adkins. Kurt Adkins incidentally is the registered domain owner of many more sites which either directly link from Wikipedia or are a link from a one of the other sites e.g. www.kinkybrits.co.uk. I could go on to show other socks of his such as those with mysteriously the same aspergers syndrome based in Manchester) however to focus on this particular sock one simply types "Fred the oyster"+"Kurt Adkins" into Google and see the results highlighted. The reason he has attacked you dear Jackie is you stumbled upon one of his other money making links from the Affinity article. "....tree diagram designed by Mo Foster and Kurt Adkins" That link (disguised in Japanese) is a redirect to airmailrecordings.com which earns him 12000 yen from poor suckers drawn into buying a copy of music which by all rights should belong to Affinity. So Jackie please do not take these attacks personally as Kurt Adkins does have a history from when 11 users have been suspended Incidentally he was accused then of running many aliases [[7]]or [[8]] Kurt describes himself as "an IT consultant" therefore multiple IP address cloning or dynamic ip address switching with proxies will be of no problem to him. I am not sure how much evidence admins need before they realise that Kurt Adkins = webhamster = fred the oyster86.176.164.80 (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm with snigbrook, both the Jackieupstairs account and 86.176.164.80 accounts look like they are out to attack WebHamster who has given up on Wikipedia because of these kinds of attacks. Block both the account and the IP now before they cause more damage. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC) PS. Note the similarity in the above IP address and the one that registered Hamster of doom (talk · contribs), an account impersonating WebHamster [9]. Nev1 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would have thought the allegations i made were of more importance than who i am, although i can see why you are reluctant to answer or deal with those allegations. I am not causing any damage to Wikipedia other than exposing the truth. For somebody to directly link out of Wikipedia to their email address used to take payments and then subsquently try and allege that e-mail address (identity) was stolen is real comedy, particulary when they use the same IP range of numbers as 20,000 other editors in order to try and add weight to their childish and deceptive claim their ID was stolen. Please do not insult the intelligence of either the good admins or other good editors and please refrain from making vicious attacks on a female editor. Its becoming a little too predictable that when Kurt loses the plot there to his rescue are the same names all from the same area.86.176.164.80 (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there an admin in the house that can block this IP and the main account? Auntie E. 18:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry forgot to deal with
KurtsNev1's point on Webhamster leaving - he did not leave - his account was blocked!! that is why Kurt is using his Fred the Oyster account.86.176.164.80 (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry forgot to deal with
Can an admin have a look at this ip there are some what look like outing comments on his take page [10] Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi and thank for all your help. I now realise that it is all about money and selling dodgy pirate music/tv. I really do not wish to get embroiled in his nasty ring of deceit although I did wonder why would anyone get so defensive and abusive over minor edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackieupstairs (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've warned User talk:86.176.164.80 to use WP:SPI and do something productive or I will block. I'm out for a bit so feel free to message me if he continues. -- Ricky81682 (talk)
Concerning images uploaded by User:Robkelii today
User:Robkelii has uploaded a lot of images today (see contribs) without adding the required source and licensing information for such images; a lot of these images have since been given speedy delete tags. The user has already been given a bunch of warnings (including a final warning) to stop uploading images without specifying appropriate source and licensing data. After the final warning, the user continued to upload additional images without adding the required source and licensing information. As of right now, the user still does not appear to have made any effort to add source and licensing information to images that he/she uploaded today. The process of having to put speedy delete tags on each of these images has become very tedious and annoying due to the large number of images that need to be tagged. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- A quick look tells me (from the EXIF data) that the uploader more than likely took these photographs themself, and needs education as regards Commons uploading and licensing rather than criticism; I see nobody has engaged this editor, but on the other hand, neither has he asked for advice. Let's see his response here, but I don't think it helpful to drive away a good-faith contributor without taking a little effort to discuss. Rodhullandemu 01:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- The user has received several notices and warnings (see this for example). The uploads still continue unabated. I'm blocking to give us time to catch up. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Trulexicon
Trulexicon (talk · contribs · logs)
This user has spent almost the entirety of their time on wikipedia reverting references to Larry Sanger being the co-founder. That issue is long resolved to everyone's satisfaction (except her and Squeakbox's, both of which come back and revert to the founder version time and time again), consensus favours the co-founder description, something that is ably supported by sources from the time, including Jimmy himself and the WMF (anyone interested might like to look up the archives of Jimmy Wales). I ask that someone uninvolved step in here. I realise this is a content dispute, but there are underlying behavioural issues, like completely disregarding the consensus that has been formed and the almost-an-SPA status of their account. ViridaeTalk 09:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies for the inattention. It seems to me, looking at Trulexicon's edit history, that Viridae's characterisation of the account as SPA-like is warranted. I also see no justification for Trulexicon's single-minded editing over this issue; that sources support Larry Sanger as the co-founder is, as far as I'm aware, a long-held consensus position, and the alternative view receives little or no support.
- To address the intermittent but ongoing disruption, one solution would be to topic-ban Trulexicon from any founder-related areas, which I am happy to impose if it has the support of other editors/admins. However, Trulexicon's limited editing interests mean this might amount to a de-facto site ban, so my preferred response is to give Trulexicon a chance to voluntarily diversify their editing into more worthwhile areas under the following conditions:
- Any edits relating to Wales/Sanger should be proposed on the relevant talk-pages for discussion before making them (note that this is not a carte-blanche to tendentiously make use of argumentation; Wikipedia is not a battleground)
- The zero-revert rule should be followed by Trulexicon on all articles in this area
- Established consensus must be respected; if it is challenged, use should be made of the proper channels
- Any further disruption on either the articles or talk-pages will lead to to blocks of increasing length.
- Pending further input, I'll leave Trulexicon a note setting out the above. EyeSerenetalk 09:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Ani medjool
I'm bringing this here because I feel I'm out of my depth with this. The editing of Ani medjool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been raised with me by two separate editors on two separate occasions. Deborahjay raised an issue with Ani medjool's editing with me on 17 October (further details). The editor was nominating Commons files for speedy deletion. I issued a uw-generic4, which was later removed by Ani medjool as delete lies.
Today, Hertz1888 raised an issue on my talk page about Ani medjool's editing (see most recent contribs of Ani medjool). I do know that Ani medjool is subject to the WP:ARBPIA case and has been notified of this. Therefore I'd like to leave this in the capable hands of more experienced admins than myself to take any action that is felt necessary. I will notify Ani medjool that the issue has been raised here. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have only taken a quick look at Ani medjools editing today at Golan mountains, and as far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with his edits. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- [ NPA redacted ]
- I think the crux of the recent editing issue is whether or not the Golan Heights are considered by the Wikipedia community to be a part of Israel or a part of Syria. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- An article on a winery is definitely not the place to discuss an area's political or legal status. The whole purpose of wikilinks is to make it possible to find more information on a linked subject, such as Golan Heights. Tomas e (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think the crux of the recent editing issue is whether or not the Golan Heights are considered by the Wikipedia community to be a part of Israel or a part of Syria. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've looked at some of the edits in question. While some of the changes made by Ani medjool may be debatable, I do not see them as disruptive. While it is perhaps incorrect to change the category at Petroleum Road, for example, to read simply Category: Roads in Syria, it is perhaps equally incorrect for it read as it did before Ani medjool's changes as simply Category:Roads in Israel. The Golan Heights is considered to be Syrian territory that is Israeli-occupied by most of the world. Israel's annexation of it is not recognized as legal anywhere except Israel. All of these articles need to be reviewed. As a quick neutral fix, I might suggest they be categorized simply as being in the Golan Heights, without designating them as either Syrian or Israeli to avoid taking sides in this territorial dispute. Alternatively, they might be categorized as being in "Israeli-occupied territories" to reflect the majority worldwide POV on the matter. Tiamuttalk 14:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I do nothing but correct false information propigate by misinform editors. Golan is Syria not israel. If United State build winery or ski resort or military base in israel or other country we not say it located in United State, we say it located in country it build in. The same be truth in this situation. If jew or israel state choose build winery in SYRIAN territory it do not make it part of israel! I also think the ADMINISTRATOR who instigate personal attack on Supreme Deliciousness should be admonish by wikipedia, because as admin and respect member of wikipedia, the editor should know not to make personal attack and should know difference between personal attack and regular response. I question neutralness of admin because of his personal attack against editor who not share same view has him, and there fore this admin do not belong making decision in this case. Ani medjool (talk)
- Comment The redacted comment was not intended as a personal attack on Supreme Deliciousness. It was a statement of fact re SD's POV. It was also made clear that the SPI referred to cleared SD. If it came across as a personal attack to SD the I publicly apologise to him for the remarks. It's not a question of neutrality here; I don't know enough about the Middle East and the background of individual editors in the ARBPIA case to be able to deal with this myself. Which is why I've raised it here and am happy for other admins to deal with the situation. I myself will not be taking any action against you, Ani medjool. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment—It is clear that Ani medjool's edits are not simply controversial and disputable, they are pure vandalism. For example, in this revert, he removes a category and insert a controversial statement but also with improper spelling. He has also made a disruptive edit to a template, which is especially problematic. I wouldn't mind participating in a discussion about the content of the edits, but don't feel that User:Ani medjool should be allowed to continue these making edits like this until he has had time to familiarize himself with Wikipedia and its policies. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Counter-Comment - Poor spelling/grammar/capitalization is not vandalism. Don't get me wrong; I'm not stating that he should be allowed to continue editing (he doesn't seem to be cooperating terribly well, which is necessary), but I just should hope that any action taken would be solely for the preservation of wikipedia's article standards, rather than based on any assumptions of vandalism or other malicious intent. (a fine hair to split, perhaps, but I think important) 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
English not my first language, I sorry you have problem with my spell and language skill. It not vandalism, the edit I make, because international community recognize Golan Heights be part of Syria that currently under military occupation by israel. This do not change fact that place in article be located in Syria and not Israel. Vandalism be disruptive false insert of material to article, I just attempt to correct false information with truth: that Golan Height is recognize as Syria not Israel and there fore article about thing in Golan Height should be attributed to Syria and not israel. If other editor do not beleive this be Syrian and instead it be part of Israel, i stop making edits. But i request discussion because this important issue that has for long time not be addressed. Ani medjool (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Ani medjool, you have edit-warred, POV pushed and politicized many non-political articles. For instance, at "Talk:Falafel#Images" you and another editor complained that the falafel photos taken in Israel should be removed because of the fact they were taken in Israel. Furthermore, your comments on that talk page telling me that I should "cease cry and cease play of traditional "poor me. poor jew" wolf call" are not constructive. Those actions, and others, have made it very difficult for editors to Assume Good Faith when dealing with your edits. --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 02:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - When looking through his previous edits, it is more than difficult to assume good faith. It's impossible, as it is clear that he is incapable of putting aside his political beliefs and contributing positively to Wikipedia. He isn't here to help the website; he's here to spread propaganda. The best example of his intentions is one of his past reasons for edits: "the picture in ramallah is good enough, its better than the one in jew city". -- 99.253.230.182 (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Koavf and renaming of categories
On the 3 November a rather large group of categories were nominated for speedy renaming. In spite of a reasonable objection which should trigger a full blown discussion and which instantly nullifies the speedy request, User:Koavf made the changes to a vast number of categories. I am attempting dialogue with the user at present, but no explanation for the actions have been forthcoming. Hiding T 09:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- He is under probation - see WP:RESTRICT. You are welcome to enforce it accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
**What are the terms of the probation? Hiding T 10:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Explanation As posted on the above user's talk:
- I am aware of the speedy CfD process and have even moved a category from it due to objections. In this case, I suppose I misread the exchange between the two editors; I figured this was a case that had resolved itself due to discussion (e.g. this), but I was clearly mistaken. This is a matter of oversight rather than disregard for process and I consequently have no problem assisting you in reverting my changes.
- So, let me reiterate here that I am happy and willing to do my part to undo these edits, but I cannot do so immediately. Since it is entirely possible that this will be resolved by the time that I come back to Wikipedia, I apologize to those who put forth the effort, but I simply cannot do all of this right now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Topic ban
Under the terms of the probation, I have topic banned User:Koavf from adding or removing categories from any page. Am prepared to discuss this with other administrators. Hiding T 10:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Is this to be permanent, or do you forsee that it would be possible to lift this at some point in the future? The original complaint was about moving cats, not the addition or removal. As far as I can see, you haven't banned Koavf from moving cats, which would be in line with the complaint raised. Mjroots (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Appropriate response in the circumstances. Where a sanction does not provide an explicit duration, it is considered indefinite. A slight amendment to say "adding, moving or removing" may give less grounds for differing interpreations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Perfect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I see this as appropriate. The user certainly seems to have a hard time learning from past errors w.r.t. categories. I have usually tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there does come a point when you have to say a user's not "getting" it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Reverting
Is it possible to get a bot to revert the changes made? I started re-adding Category:PlayStation 3 games to the affected articles manually but it was a much bigger job than I first thought. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 10:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I could likely set up an automated awb account I have if there is consensus that it is okay, since the remit for the account would not cover the changes. Hiding T 11:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- The edits that User:Koavf made to remove Category:PlayStation 3 games from articles do not fall under the rubicon of out of process speedy renamings, so I am unsure they should be reverted. Hiding T 11:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is outside of speedy renamngs, but his changes (removing Category:PlayStation 3 games from games already in [[Category:PlayStation 3-only games (and same for Xbox 360 and Wii games) goes against longstanding acknowledgement of WP:DUPCAT and guidelines/discussion at WP:VG (that is, CONSOLE-only games should also be in CONSOLE games even if the -only category is a subcat of the general CONSOLE one). At least something at that scale (100s of articles) should have been discussed somewhere before being done. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Sockfarm of edit warriors!
For a recap on the full story: Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations#Help!
And now, although the initial IP block has expired, it looks they have created yet another account just to continue to edit war (although this one has not yet done anything else abusive). 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- From the above linked SPI talk page, it sounds like Luna Santin has done what can be done for now. If socking/personal attacks/edit warring continues, consider an update at that talk page instead of here, just so everyone's on the same page. -kotra (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Uncivil Argument over Phillip DeFranco
I recently edited the wikipedia article about Phillip DeFranco to remove a section i believed should not be part of the article, the section in question is taken from an interview with a British youtuber, who expresses her opinions about Phillip DeFranco, however within the article this is presented as fact twice in the article, I deleted these sections as I thought they were mearly the work of vandals however Alizaa2 (talk) reverted my edit with an angry edit message, I placed a message on his talk page asking about his reasons for doing it, and responded in a hostile manner, the argument was carried out between our respective talk pages, I asked a more senior member of Wikipedia than I, Kyle1278, to take a look into the disagreement as he has history with the Phillip DeFranco page as well as past interaction with Alizaa2, and he refereed me too this page. With some looking into past article revisions, it became clear that the section in question was added by Alizaa2 and since then he has stubbornly reverted all edits that have tried to remove the section. I believe that the user is displaying Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles as well as contributing sections that go against Wikipedia:NPOV. 81.86.244.17 (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have removed the content from the article and warned Alizaa2 about WP:BLP and WP:Civil violation. I suggest that interested users discuss on the article talk page to decide if and how Paperlilies' opinion needs to be included in the article text. Abecedare (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Axmann8 returns
Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Here [12] asks for an unblock. He admits to block evasion since his block, and claims his block was "politically motivated". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think this sums it up nicely. TNXMan 16:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ja! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Since he admits to evading his block, I wonder if it's time to re-open the SPI on that guy? Maybe I've been falsely blaming PCH for stuff that Axmann has been doing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ja! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I was in communication with Axmann and attempted to help him adapt to and understand Wikipedia culture back in march before he was indefinitely blocked, I'll chime in with a note here: My efforts to help rehabilitate him were greatly hindered by the constant attention some people decided to give him (I'm definitely looking at you here, Bugs, but you weren't alone). Constant AN/I posts for every potential misstep, especially where admins are already well aware of the situation, are not helpful. I believe he could have been counseled to become a productive editor, but it would require peace and quiet for some time and an understanding that he will make further mistakes during mentorship. henrik•talk 19:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm all in favor of giving every opportunity and extending good faith. How Axmann was chased off was unseemly. But I think an editor who chooses a Nazi username would be pushing our limits even if the political climate on this site wasn't as partisan and antagonistic to those who don't toe the dominant liberal/leftist world view. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think it only fair to point out that most of the conservative/rightist editors in Wikipedia have little if any more tolerance for Naziism than the liberal/leftist ones (who I see no signs of constituting a majority, unless you measure liberal/left with an AnnCoultermeter). --Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- That was the point I was trying to make. Sorry if I was unclear. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think it only fair to point out that most of the conservative/rightist editors in Wikipedia have little if any more tolerance for Naziism than the liberal/leftist ones (who I see no signs of constituting a majority, unless you measure liberal/left with an AnnCoultermeter). --Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikihounding
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- this appears to be a bilateral conflict best served by working out differences in other venues; mediation, WQA, something like that. There's nothing here that I see that requires direct administrator intervention on either side. I'd like things to stay that way, so I am closing this before it desends into a cesspool of acrimony and drama. If it is important to get other editors to review this situation and take sides, try RFC instead. --Jayron32 20:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Collect has just commented on all seven open AfDs I have commented on (6 of which I set up) and taken a contrary position, yet not commented on any other AfDs: Conservatism in North America (Oct. 28), National liberalism (Oct. 30), Naïve liberalism (Oct. 30), Small-c conservative (Oct. 31), Small-l liberal (Oct. 31), Small-l libertarianism (Oct. 31), Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (Nov 2). This appears to be Wikihounding: ...the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. I was previously in conflict with Collect at RfC/Collect. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- At face value, this appears to be textbook wikihounding. A statement from Collect would be appreciated. Tan | 39 15:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Alas -- not hounding by a long shot. If you will recall, I was very active on XfD before my break -- I am catching up on the open issues, and you will note that the few overlaps with TFD are minimal in the total context of my posts. TFD seems, moreover, to have been inordinately interested in me per [13] "He's back.[14] The Four Deuces (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)" and [15] "== Collect == Do you really think that Collect is waiting until the 1RR is over? He said he was taking a short trip into the mountains, but I expected him back long ago. I asked Soxwon but no reply. Have you heard anything? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC) " which would seem to imply that TFD was following me rather than that I was following him. [16] [17] etc. show his fadscination with me, and the ability to make many and varied charges. As the edits at issue now were all in the precise same category, it is likely indeed that a person commenting on one would comment on the others, and that is precisely what happened, TFD's clear and prolonged distaste for me notwithstanding. I am well over the nine thousand edit mark -- I have no cause to "hound" anyone in 7 edits for sure! Collect (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Adding: My total overlap on XfD with TFD is eleven articles. My overlap with Ikip is 51. My overlap with Ironholds is 41. If I am hounding TFD, Ikip and Ironholds have the better case, for sure! And with minimal overlap with you, I overlap once on XfD. Sorry -- I am a big user at XfD and that is the simple truth. And I would hasten to point out that I am not a "deletionist" and therefore my 80+ % "keep" record would rather imply that I am more likely to find reasons to keep than to delete. Proposers of deletions tend, for some reason, to seek deletion of articles. Thus that ratio is totally consistent with my record over hundreds of XfDs. And with the XfDs all falling into the same area of reasoning, it is highly unlikely that I would Keep some and Delete others. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I cannot believe this was a simple coincidence given the timing and nature of the !votes, and your past history of tendentious editing and conflict. To me, it's obvious that these were deliberate !votes by going to AfDs in which TFD participated. Your past AfD voting patterns are irrelevant. However, more opinion is needed here. Tan | 39 16:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Deal with facts, please. That you had a conflict with me in the past ought not weigh a microgram. My XfD voting pattern is very consistent, over many hundreds of !votes. These pages all fell within a very narrow category in which I have !voted many times. TFD has hounded me in the past, and kept close tabs on every edit I have made. And since these !votes were in line with all my !votes in the past, make up under 5% of my recent edits, and all fell into the same category, it is an extraordinary stretch to assume anything more than coincidence because that, frankly, is what it is. And since my return from break was not predicated on any reason remotely connected with TFD, whilst he apparently kept daily tabs on me, even contacting other editors, I suggest that you look at his behaviour and not mine here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I cannot believe this was a simple coincidence given the timing and nature of the !votes, and your past history of tendentious editing and conflict. To me, it's obvious that these were deliberate !votes by going to AfDs in which TFD participated. Your past AfD voting patterns are irrelevant. However, more opinion is needed here. Tan | 39 16:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- This does not appear to be a serious issue to me. All members of the community are still welcome to comment on XfDs, are they not? Previous history between editors should not matter. Would TFD be complaining here if Collect had Wikihounded him to his AfDs and voted to delete? I think not. I am sure Collect's arguments and their merits will be judged appropriately by the closing administrator. GlassCobra 17:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, saying this does not appear to be a serious issue is ignoring the Wikihounding portion of the policy WP:HARASS - as TFD posted above, "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." Of course all editors are welcome to comment on XfDs. Even disregarding past history, I have a hard time believing that commenting on seven AfDs in a row, all ones TFD participated in, taking a contrary stance, without any other AfDs in the mix, is coincidence. Tan | 39 17:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- You believe that I would comment on some -- and miss others which he posted in? That my !Votes were somehow deficient in reasoning? That 6 out of 17 !votes represents stalking in any way? I would ask any person who has no preconceptions here to review my posts on those XfDs -- heck review every single !vote I have ever made - and come back with any conclusion other than the simple fact that where I research a topic involved in an XfD and post the multiple links that the !vote is in any way biassed. Meanwhile, did you note his apparent obsession with me -- even posting to other editors as to my break? And note further that every one of the !vote posts dealt with the issues at hand, and did not "confront" TFD in any way. Nor can I conceive that the handful of !votes can be construed as intending to cause any editor any "distress" both of which are needed for "hounding" to exist. And also you should note that no other AfDs in the lists of a few days back were related to these. BTW, I find that I also posted at ArbCom as a result of seeing Vision Thing's page -- and where TFD (and a hundred others) are involved. Unless, of course, you can suggest that my end of break was deliberately timed to harass TFD? Frankly at this point, I feel hounded and harassed by TFD, to be sure. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- @Tan - I believe that editors should be allowed to disagree with each other and not be accused of Wikihounding. Collect's opinions on XfDs are perfectly acceptable; further, one vote at a couple XfDs does not "inhibition" make. If anything, noted by Collect's points above, TFD is the one doing the stalking. GlassCobra 18:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation. However, I did note above that more opinions were needed, and I certainly don't plan to take any action without clear consensus. Tan | 39 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Five successive posts from TAN:
- “At face value, this appears to be textbook wikihounding…”
- “In summary, you're saying that it's a complete coincidence that the AfDs you !voted on today were all ones….”
- “I cannot believe this was a simple coincidence given the timing and nature of the !votes, and your past history of tendentious editing and conflict…..”
- “I have a hard time believing that commenting on seven AfDs in a row,…..”
- "Well, I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation."
- Responded to with a polite, definitive, plausible explanation. Let’s just forget about WP:AGF eh?. Where's the evidence of intending to create irritation, annoyance or distress? Leaky Caldron 18:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't consider the explanation to be "plausible", but thanks for the summary of my edits, I'm sure that's helpful to everyone. Tan | 39 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid i'm not seeing this the way you are Tan. They're all AFD's on politics, and Collect has a history of interest in political articles. If he followed TFD from politics to botany to sports to films etc, then the evidence would look a lot different to me. I think there's room to AGF that these edits were not so much coincidental as topical as opposed to malicious.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't consider the explanation to be "plausible", but thanks for the summary of my edits, I'm sure that's helpful to everyone. Tan | 39 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation. However, I did note above that more opinions were needed, and I certainly don't plan to take any action without clear consensus. Tan | 39 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, saying this does not appear to be a serious issue is ignoring the Wikihounding portion of the policy WP:HARASS - as TFD posted above, "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." Of course all editors are welcome to comment on XfDs. Even disregarding past history, I have a hard time believing that commenting on seven AfDs in a row, all ones TFD participated in, taking a contrary stance, without any other AfDs in the mix, is coincidence. Tan | 39 17:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep reasons are specified, within the bounds of probability and do not constitute an attack on the nominator. Also, Collect has been offering opinions on other AfDs and MfDs. I know nothing of either of these editors, but I cannot see the problem hereElen of the Roads (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think collect has given a polite explanation here. Even if the coincidence seems strong to some editors, it makes sense to AGF and accept it. So far, there is no actionable pattern here. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Collect seems to have missed several open political AfD discussions that I did not contribute to: Dermocracy, Postsocialism, Hunter Liberals, Saddam Hussein – United States relations, Brownism. Collect's vote on the AfD for Naïve liberalism is the hardest to explain. While I nominated it for deletion and five editors have voted to delete, Collect has provided the only dissenting vote.[18] He refers to its being "used for a forum name to discuss the topic" then provides a link to a site that says, "There are no entries in Naïve liberalism forum. Become the first person to post messages in this forum by using the form below!"[19] The Four Deuces (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Eh? I admit to using the Google precis on a site for "naive liberal" after finding it to be a very common phrase indeed. WRT Dermocracy -- it was just relisted, hence I missed it. It f soumds like an article on skin, however. I will take your word that I should have thought it was on politics. I have no idea what "Brownism" is in any case, and the others are only marginally related to my interests in AfDs. On reflection, Brownism appears to have no use as a phrase, so I have entered my !vote there now -- it appears to have very little claim to notability indeed. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Can 82.15.39.177 be blocked from Legality of cannabis?
contributions is making daily vandal edits to Legality of cannabis, their only contribution. I've just given them a third warning but I believe that a simple page ban may curb the vandalism without blocking a possibly shared IP. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're looking for WP:RFPP. :-) Tan | 39 15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Cool. Will try there... though being one IP vandalizing one article I think a ban from that article makes more sense, but I guess bans can be ignored where-as page protection cannot. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Edit war over courtesy blanking
All that's left is for someone to record this edit war for WP:LAME Beeblebrox (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
In July 2008, Shalom Yechiel (talk · contribs) ran for adminship. It did not go well, owing in large part to his acknowledged history of abusive sockpuppetry and vandalism. Because of the unpleasantness of the whole thing, it was courtesy blanked at its close. It remained so-blanked until yesterday, when Altenmann (talk · contribs) (previously SemBubenny, previously Mikkalai) unblanked it with the edit summary "no courtesy for abusive accounts". This struck me as vindictive and not a little POINTy, so I reverted him; a brief edit war ensued. I raised the matter with Altenmann on his talk page, and it rapidly became clear that we're not going to come to agreement on this, so I'm reluctantly bringing it to the drama boards. Steve Smith (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- This user is going to one way or another find themselves in trouble with ArbCom again if they don't allow it to remain courtesy blanked. Any suspicions regarding sockpuppetry are dealt with via SSP and confirmed sock tags; RFA content is not part of that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please write clearly, who is "this user"? - Altenmann >t 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- My comment is quite clear if you made the effort to read it in full. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your comment is uncivil. Dodging a question is disrespect. - Altenmann >t 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Accusations of dodging questions when the answer is perfectly obvious to everyone else reading is uncivil. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- If it is obvious, spell it. No, you prefer to have fun of bickering. FUI "Obvious to everyone else" implies that if it is not obvious to me then I am a freaking moron who can be safely beaten on his head without bothering to answer. - Altenmann >t 20:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Accusations of dodging questions when the answer is perfectly obvious to everyone else reading is uncivil. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your comment is uncivil. Dodging a question is disrespect. - Altenmann >t 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- My comment is quite clear if you made the effort to read it in full. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please write clearly, who is "this user"? - Altenmann >t 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- My position was explained in my talk page and edit summaries. Instead of countering my argument in a civil way in a talk page, mr Smith engaged in a revert war and escalated to ANI. I am wondering whether he has ulterior motives here in protecting an abusive account, whose dubious actions do not limit to sockpuppetting. I am repeating it again: activities of an abusive account must be searchable. People who abuse wikipedia go lengths to cover their tracks. This is a discourtesy to wikipedia to help them with courtesies. Sockpuppetry is not a mewbie mistake or a heated political or personql discussions a person can just say "sorry" afterwards. Sockpuppetry is a premeditated disruption, and I cannot believe such a person can be reformed and rehabilitated without solid proof. - Altenmann >t 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I "escalated" to ANI only when it became apparent that, owing to our very differing perspectives on the importance of punishing Enemies of Wikipedia, we were not going to come to agreement ourselves. Your suggestion of "ulterior motives" on my part is bizarre and not worth a response. Steve Smith (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- The comment about "ulterior motives" was a logical consequence of your apparent lack of desire to carry out a civilized discussion between two colleague wikipedians. It seems that you base your actions on reading other's mind, rathren than on an open and honest discussion. I am ready to talk to you about guilt and punishment in wikipedia. However it is irrelevant to my clearly stated reason: it was not punishment, it was accountability. More details of my position are in this section. And I don't see anybody really countering my arguments. - Altenmann >t 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- You talk about Steve Smith's ulterior motives, then accuse him of basing his actions on reading others mind? The only logical conclusion that can be deduced from your responses is that you are making chronic assumptions of bad faith. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am not making assumptions: I am making conclusions: the person refused to engage in an exchange of arguments, of kind what is going on here. Are you saying he did it of good faith? It is "apparent" to him that we cannot come to common conclusions, without a single exchange "argument-counterargument". Call it "reading my mind" or "jumping to conclusions", whatever; you seem to know English way better than me. - Altenmann >t 17:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) courtesy blanked the RFA on 18 July 2009. Over the last 48hrs, you have unilaterally attempted to unblank the RFA without discussing it (or "exchanging arguments") with Bibliomaniac15 or anyone else. In doing so, your edit appeared pointy, and was reverted. Instead of correcting your approach and starting a discussion with Bibliomaniac15, Steve Smith, or a general one on the RFA talk page, you reverted again demanding that Steve Smith ask you what you were attempting to do. Steve Smith once again reverted as it was considered sensitive enough to be blanked when it was. He also formally asked you on your talk page for an explanation. Instead of discussing this with him and coming to a consensus, you provided one reply, and chose to continue reverting - that method of communication is neither appropriate, nor acceptable in Wikipedia, especially for administrators. Steve Smith was left with no alternative but to bring it here when your communication was so exceptionally problematic that no consensus could emerge. It appears that you were making assumptions that Steve Smith would automatically agree with your reply - the fact is he did not, and you exercised poor judgement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your historiography is false. Obviously, you are biased towards Smith and against me, and I see no point to talk to a self-appointed wikilawyer. If Smith wanted to have a logical dispute or a mediation with me, he is welcome. - Altenmann >t 18:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) courtesy blanked the RFA on 18 July 2009. Over the last 48hrs, you have unilaterally attempted to unblank the RFA without discussing it (or "exchanging arguments") with Bibliomaniac15 or anyone else. In doing so, your edit appeared pointy, and was reverted. Instead of correcting your approach and starting a discussion with Bibliomaniac15, Steve Smith, or a general one on the RFA talk page, you reverted again demanding that Steve Smith ask you what you were attempting to do. Steve Smith once again reverted as it was considered sensitive enough to be blanked when it was. He also formally asked you on your talk page for an explanation. Instead of discussing this with him and coming to a consensus, you provided one reply, and chose to continue reverting - that method of communication is neither appropriate, nor acceptable in Wikipedia, especially for administrators. Steve Smith was left with no alternative but to bring it here when your communication was so exceptionally problematic that no consensus could emerge. It appears that you were making assumptions that Steve Smith would automatically agree with your reply - the fact is he did not, and you exercised poor judgement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am not making assumptions: I am making conclusions: the person refused to engage in an exchange of arguments, of kind what is going on here. Are you saying he did it of good faith? It is "apparent" to him that we cannot come to common conclusions, without a single exchange "argument-counterargument". Call it "reading my mind" or "jumping to conclusions", whatever; you seem to know English way better than me. - Altenmann >t 17:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- You talk about Steve Smith's ulterior motives, then accuse him of basing his actions on reading others mind? The only logical conclusion that can be deduced from your responses is that you are making chronic assumptions of bad faith. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- The comment about "ulterior motives" was a logical consequence of your apparent lack of desire to carry out a civilized discussion between two colleague wikipedians. It seems that you base your actions on reading other's mind, rathren than on an open and honest discussion. I am ready to talk to you about guilt and punishment in wikipedia. However it is irrelevant to my clearly stated reason: it was not punishment, it was accountability. More details of my position are in this section. And I don't see anybody really countering my arguments. - Altenmann >t 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I "escalated" to ANI only when it became apparent that, owing to our very differing perspectives on the importance of punishing Enemies of Wikipedia, we were not going to come to agreement ourselves. Your suggestion of "ulterior motives" on my part is bizarre and not worth a response. Steve Smith (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Per policy WP:DP, "Courtesy blanking, history blanking or oversighting should be rare, and it should be performed only after due consideration is given to issues of fairness." I don't think anyone can come up with a very good reason why an acknowledged socker and vandal should have his/her RfA blanked for "fairness". I recommend we just leave it as unblanked, and all walk away from the battle here. Tan | 39 16:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Indeed, they are searchable. The entire history of the RfA is available to anyone who clicks on the "history" tab. TNXMan 16:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Searches in histories are extremely tedious, even in a single page, not to say in many. - Altenmann >t 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- The page in question, in the "oppose" votes gives a clear summary of objections to the behavior of this account from the whole wikipedia community. Did anybody ask any represenative selection of voters whether they want their contributions blanked? - Altenmann >t 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Searches in histories are extremely tedious, even in a single page, not to say in many. - Altenmann >t 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Indeed, they are searchable. The entire history of the RfA is available to anyone who clicks on the "history" tab. TNXMan 16:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If I understand the discussion at User talk:Altenmann correctly; the reason you want to unblank this after so many months is because you believe this user is actively disrupting the encyclopedia right now? Can you give some more details about that? If he is, direct action will probably be more useful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is irrelevant to the issue. - Altenmann >t 17:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Really? I think that the question of whether you're resurrecting the blanked RfA of a long-gone, inactive user who wishes only to disappear, or a currently disruptive user, is kind of important to this issue. Plus, if there is disruption happening now, I think we'd all like to stop it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Really. If I had more to say, I'd have done this in an appropriate place. I stated my reasons several times. - Altenmann >t 17:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Moreover, many important arbitration cases are courtesy blanked, despite some of the most problematic users extreme socking. So the argument that "searches in histories are extremely tedious" really isn't going to justify edit-warring to resurrect a courtesy blanked RFA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- The last known SY citing was as User:Larry Sanger must be heard at 16:57, 8 April 2009. Hipocrite (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- This confirms my suspicions that this "disappeared" user is alive and roaming wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm really not sure why you would've expected a user to be dead merely because they thought they were invoking their right to vanish from Wikipedia. The account Hipocrite refers to has not edited Wikipedia for the last 7 months; FisherQueen's question remains unanswered by you despite being relevant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with expectations. It is about testing a hypothesis, whether the vanished person did it for good or just hiding their tracks. - Altenmann >t 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- The last edit made by the account associated with the RFA candidate was in April. You have repeatedly unblanked the RFA after so many months because you believe this user is actively disrupting the encyclopedia right now. Can you explain why you think so - that is, what other accounts do you think are associated with the RFA candidate? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Irrelevant to the issue. See above. I gave my reasons. In addition to the above, given the amount of wikilawyering, I don't want face accusations of personal attacks if I start venting my suspicions without solid proofs. - Altenmann >t 17:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good faith concerns are unlikely to be passed off as personal attacks unless no reasonable person would find your suspicions justifiable or understandable. WP:SSP explains that "solid proofs" is not what is required. Answers to my (and FisherQueen's) question remains very relevant to the incident you've created here - your refusal to answer it further highlights problems with the community's ability to communicate with you. If you are unable to answer my question, then you need to self-revert this edit that you made to avoid escalating this further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- My ability to communicate with aggressive and biased wikilawyers is limited. Your behavior further convinces me that posting any suspicions about existing accounts will bring me only more grievance. - Altenmann >t 18:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly object to being called an "agressive and biased wikilawyer" for asking what I believe to be a very reasonable question. I object, on a less personal level, to your continuing to refuse to answer the question in any way, or even to give a hint of why you don't want to answer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Care to notice that it was not you who was addressed as wikilawyer. Please also care to notice that the sidetracking activities of this person prevented you from seeing my further answer to your question. - Altenmann >t 20:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I still don't see an answer to the question of which user you think is a sockpuppet of the person in question; the only thing even a little relevant to the question that I see is the information that he was active seven months ago, before the RfA was blanked, but that didn't come from you and doesn't indicate how the person is disrupting now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Care to notice that it was not you who was addressed as wikilawyer. Please also care to notice that the sidetracking activities of this person prevented you from seeing my further answer to your question. - Altenmann >t 20:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly object to being called an "agressive and biased wikilawyer" for asking what I believe to be a very reasonable question. I object, on a less personal level, to your continuing to refuse to answer the question in any way, or even to give a hint of why you don't want to answer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- My ability to communicate with aggressive and biased wikilawyers is limited. Your behavior further convinces me that posting any suspicions about existing accounts will bring me only more grievance. - Altenmann >t 18:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good faith concerns are unlikely to be passed off as personal attacks unless no reasonable person would find your suspicions justifiable or understandable. WP:SSP explains that "solid proofs" is not what is required. Answers to my (and FisherQueen's) question remains very relevant to the incident you've created here - your refusal to answer it further highlights problems with the community's ability to communicate with you. If you are unable to answer my question, then you need to self-revert this edit that you made to avoid escalating this further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Irrelevant to the issue. See above. I gave my reasons. In addition to the above, given the amount of wikilawyering, I don't want face accusations of personal attacks if I start venting my suspicions without solid proofs. - Altenmann >t 17:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- The last edit made by the account associated with the RFA candidate was in April. You have repeatedly unblanked the RFA after so many months because you believe this user is actively disrupting the encyclopedia right now. Can you explain why you think so - that is, what other accounts do you think are associated with the RFA candidate? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with expectations. It is about testing a hypothesis, whether the vanished person did it for good or just hiding their tracks. - Altenmann >t 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm really not sure why you would've expected a user to be dead merely because they thought they were invoking their right to vanish from Wikipedia. The account Hipocrite refers to has not edited Wikipedia for the last 7 months; FisherQueen's question remains unanswered by you despite being relevant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- This confirms my suspicions that this "disappeared" user is alive and roaming wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Really? I think that the question of whether you're resurrecting the blanked RfA of a long-gone, inactive user who wishes only to disappear, or a currently disruptive user, is kind of important to this issue. Plus, if there is disruption happening now, I think we'd all like to stop it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone going to give any arguments as to why this particular RfA deserves to be courtesy blanked? I have no reason to be on Altenmann's side here, but it seems like a silly argument - beating around the periphery on searchable pages or past Arbcom cases - when there's really no good reason for this to have happened in the first place. Tan | 39 17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- The reason is courtesy. It was an acrimonious and unpleasant experience for most involved, and was therefore best blanked. Steve Smith (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps some insight from the admin who courtesy blanked the RFA may be of value, here. Was there discussion at the time? Also, I'm still unclear on the purpose served by un-blanking it - is there evidence of current or recent shenanigans that evidence at an old RFA would support? The evidence remains in the history, if it is necessary for some ongoing project (like filing an RFAR, for example), and blanking or unblanking the page does not change that. The candidate's issues are well-documented indeed, it seems unlikely that someone inclined to research them would not find the RFA. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, you are wrong. History search is not as easy as it seems. It took me quite some time to find this particular blanked page when I was researching this account. (May be it was because I am that stupid...) - Altenmann >t 19:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Question. Does blanking hide the page in some way or does it just mean that one has to click on the history to see the content? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- It does hide the page from web-based search tools, unless one writes a smart bot to search page histories, but this would place a big burden on wikipedia servers. - Altenmann >t 19:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah. I did not know that. In which case I would support unblanking the page (unless there are other undisclosed reasons for blanking) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- RFA pages are not indexed anyway, so blanking/unblanking doesn't make a difference as far as search engines are concerned. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think the same goes for arbitration pages, even though they are routinely courtesy blanked. Perhaps requesting clarification from arbs on why they do so will help clarify the content issue here. In the meantime, there are conduct issues which the user is not acknowledging, and appears unlikely to address them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest ignoring the conduct issue. Altenmann unblanked the page and was reverted with the summary "I have no idea what you're trying to do here." He/she got miffed, reverted, and suggested asking first. Steve Smith asked and immediately reverted. The entire situation was less than optimal but totally understandable since the two editors were approaching the unblanking with entirely different world views. Best to let it pass. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- The conduct issue goes beyond mere edit-warring and it is within this very discussion. It is the admin-corps refusal to consistently enforce civility policy at these noticeboard discussions that has led to the perception that ANI and dispute resolution needs to be restructured, and the other perception that admins are incapable of enforcing much of anything. I guess it would be entirely understandable if someone criticised you for actions you (didn't) take, and you turned around and called them an aggressive and biassed self-appointed wikilawyer - not just once either. And let's just imagine you were admonished by ArbCom "to respond promptly and civilly to questions and comments regarding your actions"; that should be ignored because it doesn't bring the project into disrepute? Nevertheless, I will follow your suggestion - for the record, that means I am washing my hands of this thread completely. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest ignoring the conduct issue. Altenmann unblanked the page and was reverted with the summary "I have no idea what you're trying to do here." He/she got miffed, reverted, and suggested asking first. Steve Smith asked and immediately reverted. The entire situation was less than optimal but totally understandable since the two editors were approaching the unblanking with entirely different world views. Best to let it pass. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think the same goes for arbitration pages, even though they are routinely courtesy blanked. Perhaps requesting clarification from arbs on why they do so will help clarify the content issue here. In the meantime, there are conduct issues which the user is not acknowledging, and appears unlikely to address them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- RFA pages are not indexed anyway, so blanking/unblanking doesn't make a difference as far as search engines are concerned. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah. I did not know that. In which case I would support unblanking the page (unless there are other undisclosed reasons for blanking) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- It does hide the page from web-based search tools, unless one writes a smart bot to search page histories, but this would place a big burden on wikipedia servers. - Altenmann >t 19:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Question. Does blanking hide the page in some way or does it just mean that one has to click on the history to see the content? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)I think the point is that most people are not inclined to do the research so it should be easy for them to see the history of the user. That said, almost anyone who sees a 'courtesy blanked' will know to look at the history (and that blanking ==> messy!). I don't see the big deal in blanking but I can see the point that obviously disruptive editors should not be automatically entitled to 'courtesy'.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, you are wrong. History search is not as easy as it seems. It took me quite some time to find this particular blanked page when I was researching this account. (May be it was because I am that stupid...) - Altenmann >t 19:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps some insight from the admin who courtesy blanked the RFA may be of value, here. Was there discussion at the time? Also, I'm still unclear on the purpose served by un-blanking it - is there evidence of current or recent shenanigans that evidence at an old RFA would support? The evidence remains in the history, if it is necessary for some ongoing project (like filing an RFAR, for example), and blanking or unblanking the page does not change that. The candidate's issues are well-documented indeed, it seems unlikely that someone inclined to research them would not find the RFA. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Is Shalom Yechiel the editors real name ? If so I am all in favor of courtesy blanking. If not, and especially if the user hasn't truly vanished, why are arguing over this ? Abecedare (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- If it were a real name and the concern was privacy, then there are proper procedures for this. Page blanking is not among them. - Altenmann >t 19:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am not arguing for blanking or unblanking; I think debating it to such length (either ways) is WP:LAME especially since there don't seem to be any strong arguments for keeping this page blanked or unblanked. For example the three editor reviews for the account, as well as the user page, are all blanked and no one seems to care. Anyway, I'll follow my own advice and step back from this discussion. Abecedare (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- ...Don't mean to be blunt, but I would much rather not waste time with this quibbling. Quite frankly it's not my concern whether it stays blanked or if it doesn't, it would be Shalom's concern. As he has not edited in seven months, and there is no evidence so far that he has returned, don't see what the fuss is all about. Everything is still in the history, as long as nothing is deleted there really isn't a difference. Do what you will, but leave me out of this. bibliomaniac15 21:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am not arguing for blanking or unblanking; I think debating it to such length (either ways) is WP:LAME especially since there don't seem to be any strong arguments for keeping this page blanked or unblanked. For example the three editor reviews for the account, as well as the user page, are all blanked and no one seems to care. Anyway, I'll follow my own advice and step back from this discussion. Abecedare (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
This is rank lameness. I have blanked and protected the RfA. Comments about the propriety of that action may be made here or on my talk page. I would suggest that participants simply disengage, work on content or at the very lest find something marginally less crazy to argue about. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Block evasion at DRV by CSOWind
- 195.138.71.154 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- 212.178.30.243 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
These IP's have identified itself as the sockmaster CSOWind (talk · contribs), one in a handfull caught Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes for their company, Computer Systems Odessa. Currently, this sockmaster is Block evading and attempting to Game both the system and the deletion process by activly participating, and attempting to undelete companies "ConceptDraw" spam software;
- Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_5#ConceptDraw_PRO
- Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_5#ConceptDraw_Office
- Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_5#ConceptDraw_MINDMAP
--Hu12 (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I closed the DRVs under WP:RBI. If anyone provably not involved with the company wants to create articles then they can, I guess, but I am innately suspicious of the Really Important and Notable Things which remain inexplicably undocumented on Wikipedia until the company's representatives happen along. Guy (Help!) 02:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please have a word with User:Richmondian about this AfD? We have a standard AfD format for a reason. So far, he has;
- edited my nomination statement
- placed "authoritative" notices about how notable the article is right at the top of the AfD - very confusing
- moved his comments above the
{{notaballot}}
infobox so that they look like they are part of the nomination - made his comments bright red and bold - again, giving editors a false idea that they are authoritative
I have "fixed" the problems a number of times (removed 3 times, moved to correct place once), but he reverts every time, and seems to believe he has the right to format the discussion as he likes. Black Kite 19:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have been told that others CAN NOT mess with my comments but it KEEPS happening, even by the editor that told me not to do it in the first place. WTHeck? Am I in my rights to make comments??? And where are the rules on formatting? Just seems like he doesn't like anyone stealing his thunder. I am trying to BE BOLD why can't the I have a rebuttal to this persons claim that the article should be deleted? It is very biased as is, there is one "authoritative" voice at the top then chattering masses below. Richmondian (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but there are rules on how to comment on an AfD. You can find them here. Failure to follow these instructions can be viewed as disruptive editing and can lead to a block. TNXMan 19:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- You have been requested not to disruptively alter the format and other users edits there and also warned not to and yet you have continued in the same disruptive manner. Off2riorob (talk) 7:33 pm, Today (UTC+0)
- I'm sorry, but there are rules on how to comment on an AfD. You can find them here. Failure to follow these instructions can be viewed as disruptive editing and can lead to a block. TNXMan 19:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The guidelines were clearly violated, right at the beginning: "If the article is not already tagged to note a problem, apply a tag, such as notability, hoax, etc. this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it."
No one placed those tags on the page. So maybe the AFD should end, since the policy was violated right at the beginning....
In any case, nothing on there about using colorful language, soooo what's the problem? I edited the nomination to avoid confusion, but after being told that it was inappropriate to edit other's stuff I stopped -- then the exact same person started messing with my edits. And I'd actually request some help getting rid of this "off2rob" character
Richmondian (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- (ECs) User:Richmondian appears to be taking this AfD very personally, and xe is being quite disruptive about it. He has tried several variants of putting his own comment at the top of the page ([20] [21] [22]). Xe has also responded to a number of other users' comments, which isn't necessarily against the rules, but the aggressiveness with which it was done and the repetition of the same (valid) arguments makes it hard to follow AfD. User:Richmondian is clearly acting in good faith, and I'm not sure he's done anything sanctionable, but he needs to understand how to behave in an AfD... MirrorLockup (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- S/he may have been acting in good faith, but they have now been advised of the rules and need to follow them. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. TNXMan 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ummm, I read the rules Tnxman, I don't really see the issue. You more senior wikipedians would do well to point out what you are talking about in more specific terms than just some link like "#NOTNEWS", as today I've read through many policies and usually the linker is mistaken (intentionally or not). Really a big waste of time the amount of time I put into the article and now a half day on saving it from deletion. Richmondian (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK, most specifically: Start your comments or recommendations on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *), and sign them by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple *s). TNXMan 20:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's quite enough, Richmondian. If you cannot remain civil and cordial here (i.e. calling to "get rid of another user" is clearly not), then you will have your editing privileges revoked, plain and simple. MuZemike 21:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ummm, I read the rules Tnxman, I don't really see the issue. You more senior wikipedians would do well to point out what you are talking about in more specific terms than just some link like "#NOTNEWS", as today I've read through many policies and usually the linker is mistaken (intentionally or not). Really a big waste of time the amount of time I put into the article and now a half day on saving it from deletion. Richmondian (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- S/he may have been acting in good faith, but they have now been advised of the rules and need to follow them. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. TNXMan 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
66.90.29.229
The IP user 66.90.29.229Talk Keeps adding what amounts to personal attacks and WP:BLP violations to their talk page as they did here [23]. The current target is our own Jimmy Wales but their have been others. They are currently blocked but keep adding this to their talk page. Additionally, in an edit removed by another editor they promised to continue vandalizing once they are unblocked. I think the page needs at least semi-protection. Thank you DSRH |talk 20:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Tnxman307 blocked him and removed his talk page access. Marking resolved. Thanks for the heads up. --Jayron32 20:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Concern regarding the use of admin powers by Protonk
There is no need for any admin action at this time, if further discussion of Chil of Midnight's actions are needed, an RFC is the place for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverted my edits with insulting edit comment, rather than discussing the issue. Immediately after that he protected the page. This act is an abuse of admin privileges. I request Protonk reprimanded and his actions undone. - Altenmann >t 22:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Protonk, I think it would be best to unprotect so we can all avoid another drama? Or not. Anyway, it doesn't look great that you reverted and then protected. But maybe there is a good explanation? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is clean and simple abuse of admin powers, according to an unambiguous wikipedia policy. Do you want me to cite it or you know where it sits yourself? A "good explanation" in such cases must be imminent threat of disruption of wikipedia, no less. You call it derisively "drama". I call it blatant disregard of a fellow wikipedian. - Altenmann >t 22:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- The explanation should be self evident. It is a stupid thing to edit war and argue over, but evidently that fact hasn't been impressed upon the participants of the discussion. I'm just cutting the gordian knot and allowing people who I assume to be otherwise productive and collegial editors getting back to whatever it is they normally do. If the fact that the page itself is blank/non-blank is so distressing to the particular parties that they have to argue about it even after some option is foreclosed, then that is a separate problem. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are entitled to your opinion what is stupid and what is not, but this gives you no right to violate the rules of admin's actions. Also, in case you failed to notice, the edit war was over for some time, until you contributed to it without adding extra arguments. - Altenmann >t 22:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Protonk, I think it would be best to unprotect so we can all avoid another drama? Or not. Anyway, it doesn't look great that you reverted and then protected. But maybe there is a good explanation? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Protonk was not an involved/intersted party, no admin abuse to be seen here. He performed an administrative action (reverting to status quo ante and protecting the page) to end a silly revert war. Shereth 22:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Reverting is editing. Protecting your own action is abuse. Again, at the moment there was no revert war. There was discussion in this board. Reverting amid a discussion is blatant disrespect to people seriously engaged. It is not my fault that a certaiun person littered the section with digressions from the section topic. The discussion was about a serious issue whether an abusive user has rights to cover their tracks. Several respectable wikipedians have no disagreement with my action. - Altenmann >t 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)Protonk was involved as soon as he reverted someone elses edit wasn't he? If there was edit warring why didn't he just protect the page. I don't understand how he can choose a side and then claim to be uninvolved. And let it be known that I haven't looked at and don't care about the content dispute itself. But Protonk's actions sure don't look good and no explanation has been forthcoming. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- There was no edit warring when protonk jumped in; moreover, talks were started in a section above. - Altenmann >t 23:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- If there was no edit warring why was the page protected? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the pointer to the above thread. This should probably be combined with that one as they are related. It doesn't look like any answer is going to be forthcoming from you or Protonk on why he deemed it appropriate to revert to his preferred version of a dispute page and then to protect it. I think some acknowledgment from Protonk that unilateral reverting and protecting of disputed pages is improper, otherwise he needs to be blocked for the prevention of any further damage or disruptiong of the encyclopedia. I suggested an acknowlegment of the mistake here right off the bat, but unfortunately he's stuck to his guns so far. That's distressing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- There was no edit warring when protonk jumped in; moreover, talks were started in a section above. - Altenmann >t 23:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Shereth here. I don't think Protonk's action here was problematic. He was uninvolved in the dispute. He returned the page to its pre-existing state (status quo ante) and then protected it, presumably to prevent a similar edit war from occurring over the page in the future. If his protection after reversion is that big of a deal (although I don't think it is), it is easily remedied. I have undid his protection and reimposed it. Now I'm the one who has protected the page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what the fuss is about here:
- Bibliomaniac (admin) decides to courtesy-blank it.
- Altenmann decides Bibliomaniac had no right to do so, and rather than discussing it, unilaterally overrides (incredibly disrespectful).
- Steve Smith tries to fix it, returning to how it had rested for over a year, and Altenmann wars.
- Protonk restores it to the previous admin-set status, and protects it against further inappropriate edits.
How is bookkeeping a 'content dispute'? Are you saying I can open up old arbcom cases and try adding more evidence or arguments after they're closed? Point is, this isn't an article, or even a discussion page. It's a closed RfA. Just because someone got it into his head that he can screw around with it a year after the fact doesn't suddenly mean that all admins are somehow barred from correcting its status and protecting. Yeesh, lighten up. :)
(On a side note: the edit summary is not insulting. WP:LAME is a classic wikipedia commentary on when people are squabbling over something of little to no importance. I think the precise mechanism for treating a year-old RfA certainly qualifies. 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- The issue is that when there is a dispute editors are expected to use dispute resolution. Admins are not above the rules. If they want to engage in the discussion great. If they want to mediate, fantastic. But they are expected to refrain from imposing their preference and then using their tools. Doing so is abuse, plain as it comes, whether we agree or disagree with the version they choose to enforce or their logic for doing so. Process needs to be respected otherwise the common editor gets shat on as we've seen repeatedly recently. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- As noted last night, this is CoM's new and self-appointed role; AN/I gadfly, with these insipid calls for blocks of admins who do things he doesn't like. Tarc (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's hardly constructive, Tarc. I still assume CoM is acting entirely in good faith; I'm just not sure I agree with the point here is all.
- CoM: Seriously, if I decide to go to old Arbcom cases and start adding more evidence to old cases, just because I think it's better that way, should I really be allowed to do that? Because I don't personally see this as a content dispute. An admin decided how to leave the RfA. A year later, after there was nothing of value to be gained, altenmann gave a figurative "screw you" to bibliomaniac and unilaterally changed it. All protonk did is enforce the clerical decision of bibliomaniac (at least, in my view).
- So maybe it'd help if you do tell me what should be done if I start editing old (long-closed) arbcom cases? Let me do it until absolutely all possible discussion has been exhausted? 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree; and ChildofMidnight, I suggest that you do make an effort to be a little bit more reasonable in your demands. Protonk did not protect the version "he preferred", he protected the status quo ante version, which is really the fairest thing for an admin to do in the circumstances. Otherwise it rewards the user who was edit warring who performed the last edit and punishes the user who "gave up" on the edit war. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. Since you are giving an admin a choice, it rewards admin's tastes. "WRONG VERSION" rule was introduced for a reason. What is more, nobody "gave up", but rather initiated a discussion with broader participation, which is in fact a commendable act, and by the way, recommended in wikipedia guidelines. Good Ol’factory's reprotection is an instructive example of "admin cabal" buddy-buddy in action. - Altenmann >t 00:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree; and ChildofMidnight, I suggest that you do make an effort to be a little bit more reasonable in your demands. Protonk did not protect the version "he preferred", he protected the status quo ante version, which is really the fairest thing for an admin to do in the circumstances. Otherwise it rewards the user who was edit warring who performed the last edit and punishes the user who "gave up" on the edit war. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I am out of here, disgusted. - Altenmann >t 00:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Altenmann is absolutely correct. We, mere peon editors, have all had the "WRONG VERSION" mantra lectured at us, yet when an admin wants the "status quo ante" version they can just revert and protect. Could someone please point to the policy page that suggests it's okay for admins to revert to "status quo ante" in a dispute? If there isn't one then it's clear abuse. And Admins abusing their tools in this way is not appropriate and neither is making up rules and excuses as you go along to support one another. The fact is that was a dispute over which page of the version should be maintained (see above thread for arguments on both sides) so Protonk had no business imposing his preferred version and then protecting. I'm sorry, but it's indefensible (unless of course there is in fact a "status quo ante" policy, is that latin for Admins get to decide how they want things because they're the ones with tools?). ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I really was asking seriously earlier. (I know I sometimes come across as hostile or 'troll-y', but it's really not intentional) Would you still be having this conversation if I wanted to start adding evidence to an old (long-closed) arbcom case? or a closed poll that had already finished? Or would you concede that there's such a thing as bookeeping, that I don't get to interfere with? 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with your question is that it doesn't have anything to do with propriety of the admin action that took place in this instance. The page was not archived, it was a courtesy blanked RfA. And the dispute was over whether it should be blanked or not. So Protonk acted improperly by deciding that it should be blanked, making it so, and then protecting it. He is welcome to use dispute resolution, to mediate, or to protect the "wrong" version. But it's not okay for him to impose his will because he happens to have tools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- So... you're saying that it's implied that closed RfAs are still open to edits? Even if people don't bother archiving every closed RfA, I think it's still safe to say that people know the matter is closed. (Archiving or protecting them immediately would kinda imply the assumption that someone would come down the line to fiddle with it just for ha-ha's) I still see this as normal bookeeping, but I also won't fault you for disagreeing.
- On a side note, however, I feel I must protest the renaming of this section. Even though I think protonk behaved admirably and correctly, there's no need for the heading to be neutral when an editor feels they've been wronged. They think power was abused, and want input on that, so it's a logical heading. 139.57.101.207 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with your question is that it doesn't have anything to do with propriety of the admin action that took place in this instance. The page was not archived, it was a courtesy blanked RfA. And the dispute was over whether it should be blanked or not. So Protonk acted improperly by deciding that it should be blanked, making it so, and then protecting it. He is welcome to use dispute resolution, to mediate, or to protect the "wrong" version. But it's not okay for him to impose his will because he happens to have tools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I really was asking seriously earlier. (I know I sometimes come across as hostile or 'troll-y', but it's really not intentional) Would you still be having this conversation if I wanted to start adding evidence to an old (long-closed) arbcom case? or a closed poll that had already finished? Or would you concede that there's such a thing as bookeeping, that I don't get to interfere with? 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Altenmann is absolutely correct. We, mere peon editors, have all had the "WRONG VERSION" mantra lectured at us, yet when an admin wants the "status quo ante" version they can just revert and protect. Could someone please point to the policy page that suggests it's okay for admins to revert to "status quo ante" in a dispute? If there isn't one then it's clear abuse. And Admins abusing their tools in this way is not appropriate and neither is making up rules and excuses as you go along to support one another. The fact is that was a dispute over which page of the version should be maintained (see above thread for arguments on both sides) so Protonk had no business imposing his preferred version and then protecting. I'm sorry, but it's indefensible (unless of course there is in fact a "status quo ante" policy, is that latin for Admins get to decide how they want things because they're the ones with tools?). ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression that protection should go to whatever version is up at the time, not to a prior status quo. This seems confirmed by the wording of WP:PROTECT. Protonk's actions were incorrect here. This doesn't seem to be serious but it is clearly against policy and general practice. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Topic Ban proposed
I would like to propose a topic ban on ChildofMidnight; CoM is prohibited from posting to any administrator noticeboards or their talk pages for a period of six months. Input requested. Horologium (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)That's incredibly excessive and far less than practical. Are you really saying that CoM shouldn't have any methods of addressing concerns, even if he/she (sorry, don't actually know your gender) is legitimately wronged? If you don't like what CoM is saying, nobody is forcing you to read it. But to take away a person's speech just because you find it tedious... I don't recall seeing that in any of the policy pages or guidelines... 139.57.101.207 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is precedent for this. Everyking was banned by arbcom from commenting on Phil Sandifer due to continued vexatious and ill-researched commentary. He was also banned from the admin noticeboards for a substantial period of time due to essentially the same thing. It should be noted that admin noticeboards are not by any means the only way of adddressing concerns - just the most confrontational. Moreschi (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I may have slightly overstated the severity (stupid mistake confession: I read "or their talk pages" as referring to the talk pages of all admins, rather than the noticeboards). But I still think this is a very dangerous idea.
- Even though I think CoM has been 'calling out' far too many people lately, I still believe there lies great value in accountability. Even accountability to the somewhat paranoid. Banning anyone who criticizes the 'higher-ups' here sends a very bad message.
- I guess I can sum it up this way: If CoM is being so disruptive and is interfering so much with the ability to get things done, there must be specific actionable... uh... actions. If not, that suggests that you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. :) I just don't see such a drastic action being in the best interests of the project as a whole. 139.57.101.207 (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Um, no. Like CoM, you fail to understand the enormous diversity of opinions even within the admin corps, let alone the wider community. If something is wrong, you can be pretty sure you'll be called out on it rationally, and you should have to justify yourself to that. But right now CoM's commentary is, as you note, extremely paranoid and factually sloppy. His wildly OTT cries of "INAPPROPRIATE DESYSOP OMG" are simply disrupting the smooth functioning of process ,and are actually hindering normal review processes: I know I'd be much less likely to voice an opinion critical of an admin's action if CoM had earlier posted one of his rants, not wanting to be tarred with the same brush as such silliness. Moreschi (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would request that you be a bit more cordial with your replies. You've already referred to Soxwon as "doing a CoM", and now you're lumping me in with him/her as well, in addition to telling me what I 'fail to understand'. I fully sympathize that you are dealing with very different personalities at the moment, and it's hard to keep matching your tone to the particular person you're addressing, but I'm taking great pains to be fair and respectful to all parties (whether I agree with them or not), and I'd ask you to do the same. That includes not painting myself and Soxwon with the same brush as CoM.
- Back on topic, I'm not claiming that CoM is currently making very good assertions, but I feel the ability to do so is very important. So what if CoM cries,"DESYSOP! DESYSOP!"? If the cry is absurd, then it will be recognized as such. That small act is a small price to pay for the knowledge that anyone, however misguided, can always call for accountability, even when everything's pretty much fine.
- Let's use this original thread as an example. Protonk makes a good decision. Two editors find fault with it. The rest applaud it. No harm done.
- New version to consider: Protonk makes the same decision. The moment CoM criticizes it, he/she is banned from ever expressing dissent again. How would that make Protonk's action look? So long as I'm allowed to say that Protonk abused his(her?) power, it's easy for his actions to stand up to the highest scrutiny. But the instant you discourage scrutiny, you surrender credibility.
- Sorry, but when I look at what would be gained, an what would be lost, it seems like an easy decision to me. That said, a RfC may very well be in order. 139.57.101.207 (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I apologise for causing offence. I think it is a good illustration of how memes CoM spreads can easily catch on, like the "admin hivemind" meme: it might seem superficially attractive, but 5 minutes investigated reveals it to be very silly. Nevertheless, I am sorry.
- The problem here is time-wasting. If we endorse a culture whereby all admin actions are automatically suspect until proven otherwise, then we also endorse a culture whereby each admin has to defend their actions at enormous length in the face of even the most implausible allegations, which leads to enormous loss of time and significant brain drain from the encyclopedia. As we can see at a recent thread here, CoM's repeated refusal to understand a very basic point (how nationalist POV-pushers are dealt with, and more basically the fundamental nature of consensus) led to an enormous drain of time from multiple admins who would far rather be doing something else. There comes a point when scrutiny so ill-directed is not scrutiny, but simply time-wasting, and hence disruptive. Moreschi (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I sympathize greatly, I really do. (I'll concede that I didn't even read it all. I got down as far as FPaS making it clear that the comments were unwelcome, and the next couple of responses, and felt pretty confident that I got the gist of it) At the very least, I don't think this is the best venue for deciding what to do about it. I know it's been said before, so I'll say it again: RfC. You really may have a very good argument here, but I'd feel more comfortable with it being handled formally, rather than an admin 'laying the smackdown' on the admin noticeboard in response to criticism of admins. (I don't doubt that you can probably get the result you're looking for, so couldn't you give RfC a try? Or am I still a bit too naive as to how effective RfCs actually are?) 139.57.101.207 (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Um, no. Like CoM, you fail to understand the enormous diversity of opinions even within the admin corps, let alone the wider community. If something is wrong, you can be pretty sure you'll be called out on it rationally, and you should have to justify yourself to that. But right now CoM's commentary is, as you note, extremely paranoid and factually sloppy. His wildly OTT cries of "INAPPROPRIATE DESYSOP OMG" are simply disrupting the smooth functioning of process ,and are actually hindering normal review processes: I know I'd be much less likely to voice an opinion critical of an admin's action if CoM had earlier posted one of his rants, not wanting to be tarred with the same brush as such silliness. Moreschi (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is precedent for this. Everyking was banned by arbcom from commenting on Phil Sandifer due to continued vexatious and ill-researched commentary. He was also banned from the admin noticeboards for a substantial period of time due to essentially the same thing. It should be noted that admin noticeboards are not by any means the only way of adddressing concerns - just the most confrontational. Moreschi (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)That's incredibly excessive and far less than practical. Are you really saying that CoM shouldn't have any methods of addressing concerns, even if he/she (sorry, don't actually know your gender) is legitimately wronged? If you don't like what CoM is saying, nobody is forcing you to read it. But to take away a person's speech just because you find it tedious... I don't recall seeing that in any of the policy pages or guidelines... 139.57.101.207 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- ...Over-reaction much? Soxwon (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. Please take a look at the discussions currently appearing on the AN/I page, and note how many of them CoM has been at the center of. His behavior is disruptive, and topic bans are an appropriate method of dealing with disruption. He is a good content contributor, but his participation on AN/I (in particular) is a huge time-sink. Horologium (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's b/c half of these threads revolve around Ottava, Malleus, and the actions around them. CoM hasn't been warned, been taken to an RFC or had any action directed at him to this point. Just topic-banned for six months out of the blue. That's bullshit no matter who it is. Soxwon (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- CoM has accused Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) of admin abuse (has nothing to do with Malleus), accused Protonk (talk · contribs) of admin abuse (has nothing to do with Malleus), has called for the desysop of Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs) (repeatedly in the same thread, which is only tangentially related to Malleus), and participated in three separate threads about Who then was a gentleman? (talk · contribs); those are just the threads in which he has multiple contributions. (I note now that the FPAS thread has been archived, as it's more than 12 hours since the last post.) Horologium (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, now you are doing a CoM: you are not bothering to do your research. Nobody has been topic-banned here. Horologium has simply proposed one for discussion. Nothing has been implemented. Moreschi (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's b/c half of these threads revolve around Ottava, Malleus, and the actions around them. CoM hasn't been warned, been taken to an RFC or had any action directed at him to this point. Just topic-banned for six months out of the blue. That's bullshit no matter who it is. Soxwon (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. Please take a look at the discussions currently appearing on the AN/I page, and note how many of them CoM has been at the center of. His behavior is disruptive, and topic bans are an appropriate method of dealing with disruption. He is a good content contributor, but his participation on AN/I (in particular) is a huge time-sink. Horologium (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Inadequate: given this, which was only notable for its sheer sloppiness of thought as he accused me of being "involved" when I blocked a SPA who edited economics articles when even a brief review of the relevant contributions would have told him I have never edited a single economics-related article, nor had I interacted even once with the editor I blocked, the ban should cover commenting on RFAR except in cases where he is directly involved. I have no problem with my actions being reviewed but only if the reviewer bothers to do his research and isn't just lazily firing off blanks in my general direction because he has a bee in his bonnet about "abusive admins". Moreschi (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- This kind of behavior is unfortunately par for the course with C of M (at least from where I sit), and there are literally several dozen previous examples. But I don't think an outright topic ban from these boards is the way to go. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight is a redlink and probably it should not be. Many folks (including myself) have expressed frustration with his methods of communication, to put it mildly, while noting that he does good article work, AfD work, etc. Some polling of the community on these matters might be useful. My past encounters with C of M rose to such a level of unpleasantness that I chose to avoid interacting with him altogether, but if one or two other editors are interested in starting a user conduct RfC I would be willing to co-certify (or whatever they call it these days) and dig up some diffs. I have "tried but failed to resolve the problem" with C of M about 37 different times so I think I would qualify as one able to certify an RfC. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- The only reason I have not turned the RFC into a blue link is because I have an extremely limited history with CoM, and am unable to certify an RFC, one of the requirements to file. An RFC is not a prerequisite for a topic ban, although it would be if I was proposing a siteban. Horologium (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- This kind of behavior is unfortunately par for the course with C of M (at least from where I sit), and there are literally several dozen previous examples. But I don't think an outright topic ban from these boards is the way to go. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight is a redlink and probably it should not be. Many folks (including myself) have expressed frustration with his methods of communication, to put it mildly, while noting that he does good article work, AfD work, etc. Some polling of the community on these matters might be useful. My past encounters with C of M rose to such a level of unpleasantness that I chose to avoid interacting with him altogether, but if one or two other editors are interested in starting a user conduct RfC I would be willing to co-certify (or whatever they call it these days) and dig up some diffs. I have "tried but failed to resolve the problem" with C of M about 37 different times so I think I would qualify as one able to certify an RfC. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
One rule for Prof. R. Brews another rule for ChildofMidnight here on Wikipedia. Was RickK right after all? Count Iblis (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously, if you guys want input on CoM (ie, are requesting comment on CoM), then turn the RfC link into a blue link. I don't know the situation, but this has been developing into a massive series of threads on ANI, when RfC would be a much more appropriate venue.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
May I suggest that we read WP:WRONG prior to making sweeping judgments about what is/isn't a content dispute and what does or does not constitute a "preferred revision"? Protonk (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Just as we don't jump straight to arbitration, we also should not jump to a community sanction without attempting dispute resolution first. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight would be a good place to start. If the user gets feedback, perhaps they will agree to improve their style and no sanctions will be needed. Jehochman Talk 02:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think that it's a bit early even for that. The situation is unique in that two of CoM's have been blocked and/or brought under extremely close scrutiny almost simoultaneously. How about letting the situation blow over before starting yet another ill-planned and rather drama-ridden RFC/U.
- Also as a side note, since BaseballBugs has been sanctioned from discussing CoM, I think it a good idea to mention that he strongly opposes this block, or anyone being topic-banned from AN/I. Soxwon (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately this thread is being used by those with vendettas against me. Moreschi is upset because I objected to him calling a good faith editor's work "lunacy" and then blocking them indefinitely when there was an arbitration under way (which they can no longer participate in directly). I am not a party to that dispute, but blocking those we disagree with is not appropriate. Admins need to use dispute resolution just like the rest of us. Bigtimepeace is a long time liberal POV pusher who has repeatedly come after me and other editors whose opinions he disagrees with. He doesn't like that I insist we abide by our core NPOV policy. Bigtimepeace doesn't agree with it and has bragged about being to the left of Obama politically, and attempted to impose his will with intimidation and bullying tactics.
Thanks to everyone who has stood up for the principle that editors need to be allowed to voice opinions and concerns. I'm certainly not perfect. I will try to limit my comments here for a while. But I think my take on Protonk's protecting a page that he just reverted, indefinite blocks and month-long blocks of editors (who haven't engaged in major policy violation policies) and whose work is attacked as lunacy, is inappropriate. These improper actions are being carried out by a small number of highly disruptive admins, and I think it is important and worth bringing these problems to the community's attention. Please let me know if you have any questions, concerns or suggestions. My talk page is always open to courteous and collegial contributor interested in improving the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Considering that CoM is correct as a matter of policy, such a ban seems like a really bad idea. I don't think that CoM's comments above exactly help his case but that's a separate issue... JoshuaZ (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Just pointing out, for the record as it were, that ChildofMidnight's description of my actions is utter and complete fantasy. Literally everything he said is incorrect, but I won't respond in any detail (interested parties with questions can feel free to ask at my talk page) because as always C of M prefers to carelessly fling accusations without providing any evidence (Moreschi's note above that C of M has been "lazily firing off blanks" provides only the latest example in a very long line of vague, unsupported, utterly over the top harangues which ChildofMidnight tosses in the direction of most anyone with whom he disagrees—a fairly large WikiProject could be set up composed solely of editors who have been on the receiving end of this stuff). The behavior has gone well past being merely tiresome and is at the core of the problem here, which has been ongoing for many months and apparently shows no sign of stopping. My offer to sign off on a user conduct RFC still stands (though it's been awhile since I've had direct interaction with C of M, which might be an issue), however I'm not going to initiate anything unless others who have tried and failed to resolve the issues with C of M are also willing to do so. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Who *was* a gentleman?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I haven't followed all the drahmaz here surrounding Malleus's block; can anyone interpret this edit to Malleus's talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- No idea, but he left the same thing on ChildofMidnight's page too. Looks real mature. Tex (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty sure his account's been compromised. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Now I've found the background. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ugh... –Juliancolton | Talk 22:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Should we block him, Chillum, Sarek of Vulcan, and GeorgeWilliamHerbert indefinitely just to be on the safe side until we can sort this issue out? Prevention of harm to the encyclopedia is paramount, and (compromised or not) those accounts have certainly caused enough drama. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't been compromised, just exhausted by being paged all night...
- I can't exclude compromise, but it could equally well be Wtwag being highly inappropriately confrontational. I agree that whatever the cause, it's nowhere near ok behavior. I am reviewing to try and see if it's a compromise or not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's just what a compromised account would say. Strong support indefinite block of Georgewilliamherbert until we can be sure of his identity adn motives. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Are you fucking serious. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- COM and Protonk, do you really need to escalate this? GWH said he's looking into it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I just want to know if he's joking, which I assume is the case. If wtwag keeps this bizarre streak up I'm inclined to block the account as a compromised account, but there is no indication that is the case (yet). COMs participation here is nearly inexplicable unless he has just decided now is the perfect time to yuck it up about something. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Bizarre streak? What bizarre streak? Oh, I get it. Calling out The Protected Ones for inappropriate behavior is not allowed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I smell the smell of sarcasm in the morning. I am not taking COM seriously on that point - and I don't think anyone else should either. Perhaps inappropriate timing given that we have an actual serious issue with someone else here, but that's not a wiki issue, just a sense of humor issue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I just want to know if he's joking, which I assume is the case. If wtwag keeps this bizarre streak up I'm inclined to block the account as a compromised account, but there is no indication that is the case (yet). COMs participation here is nearly inexplicable unless he has just decided now is the perfect time to yuck it up about something. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- COM and Protonk, do you really need to escalate this? GWH said he's looking into it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Are you fucking serious. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's just what a compromised account would say. Strong support indefinite block of Georgewilliamherbert until we can be sure of his identity adn motives. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Now I've found the background. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty sure his account's been compromised. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
ChildofMidnight, you have to assume good faith in issues like this. You can just block an acocunt based on what you think. It has to be based on what you know.--Coldplay Expert 22:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
COM, you're not really helping here. This, however, clearly shows it was retaliation, not comprise. Very gentlemanly. Tex (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
My account is not compromised. As I explained to Juliancolton, the edits I made were in direct response to the ridiculous comments CoM and Malleus left on my Talk page. They were so ridiculous, that only laughter was the correct response. I also note that not a single person has yet notified me of this discussion, as is required at the top of this page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- That would be my fault; I don't frequent this board and am not aware of the protocol. I do know a gentleman when I see one, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Listen, if admins are going to regularly abuse their tools with such brazen disregard for collegiality and an utter lack of respect for their fellow editors, the very least we can do is have a sense of humor about it. I doubt highly the "gentleman" account is compromised and I don't much care. Georgewilliamherbert's block was much more nasty and disruptive than someone acting like a childish jerk. If we would just let the occasional incivility slide now and again we wouldn't have had to deal with this all this nonsense in the first place. If someone wants to call me a name fine. But let's not have these drama mongering admins on the loose with their arbitrary enforcement of "civility" against editors they don't happen to like. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Is an indefinite block of Georgewilliamherbert off the table? Because I still think it's a good idea. Better safe than sorry! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflicT)Well out of order. If you're going to abuse editors, and respond to their appropriate warnings by laughing—especially after one of those editors was blocked after responding to your comments—you should expect some kind of sanction. Parrot of Doom 22:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Parrot are you kidding about "Appropriate warnings"? Malleus got none before the ridiculous block he got yesterday. Georgewilliamherbert only issues warnings to editors he doesn't like to intimidate them. When an editor's comments were repeatedly being refactored by an admin Georgewilliamherbert had nothing to say to the admin, but warned the editor. Another admin engaged in a brazen personal attack on this very noticeboard, and one of these admins (Georgewilliamherbert included) so much as blinked. But then when Malleus (who Georgewilliamherbert and the rest of the abusive, disruptive, and drama mongering wiki-civility police don't happen to care for) responded sarcastically he was instantaneously blocked by the same admin (Georgewilliamherbert) who reopened a closed ANI thread in a pointy disruption that caused all this nonsense. And now that the same abusive editor (an admin I believe?) goes and laughs in the faces of editors he got away abusing (one of them he was able to blocked by an abusive admin) and I'm supposed to expect take these admins and their processes seriously? You're suggesting sanctioning me because all I can do is laugh when one of our admins comes and effectively laughs in my face at what they were able to get away with? It certainly wouldn't be the first time I was blocked for suffering at the hands of admin's abuse and disruption. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Whatdya mean, occasional incivility? I was once told to "fuck off" in plain view of several admins and arbcom members, and no one said a word. I'm beginning to get Malleus's point. Pointy disruption and harassment of a blocked editor is, I hope, a blockable offense, but what do I know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry someone told you to fuck off. Protonk (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep dreaming. It will be a cold day in hell before you see them block one of their own. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, Protonk; I actually like that admin today. But I did take note that nothing was said or done, as if I-- an editor I think in good standing-- was invisible. Needless to say, that event didn't encourage me to join the admin corp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, GWH. Now on to gentlemanly behavior, all? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Probably the least bad option available to stop a climbing in progress. Protonk (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Um... Cool-down block policy, much? This is getting ridiculous...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Ah. That makes sense now.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)- It was not a cool down block. Who was... made two clearly taunting statements and then defended them as completely appropriate behavior and indicated that he felt justified in continuing. The statements violated WP:CIVIL - taunting other editors in that manner is not OK. The block was imposed to communicate that the civility policy is serious and will be applied as evenly and impartially as possible, and that his behavior was not acceptable and can not continue. If he had apologized and it was evident he wouldn't continue there would have been no need - as is, he was indicating a clear interest in continuing to escalate and defending the initial actions. Preventive as ever. I could have run it for 24 hrs but I don't think that's necessary to communicate the issue and prevent further abuse. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ummmm why was Malleus blocked????? Dishonest double-standards from corrupt and sleazy admins much? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- You don't find those edits disruptive? It's OK to harass another editor; that's not disruption? Let's all go home, then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Let's face it, all this achieved is more drama on this thread. The original purpose of this thread was to find out what the heck was up with the "Ha ha ha..." - we found that out. Now we're discussing whether or not two editors should have been blocked as a result of pretty much this thread...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Georgewilliamherbert has blocked for Who then was a Gentleman 12 hours for taunting multiple editors after making personal attacks against them the day before. This is half as long as Malleus's block for responding to that editor's abusive taunts and much shorter than the indefinite block an editor gloating over Ryulong's desysop got as punishment. But it does set an example that editors are treated one way and admins and their buddies another. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- COM, would you be able to let this go? The editor was blocked, the message was delivered, your points will win you no favor and further drama. It's done; archive it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec)::Sandy, did you notice that Who then was the Gentleman? was given every benefit of the doubt? Admins even tried to suggest his account had been "compromised". The issue was discussed with him. He was given opportunities to apologize or acknowlege that it was a mistake. Only after he refused and stood by his behavior making no apology was he then blocked for 12 measly hours. How does this compare to the block of an editor with no warning after they responded to a personal attack (one the admins didn't even blink at) from that same editor with a sarcastic comment? They encouraged this behavior and we're reaping what they've sown. I'm happy to let it go. But don't you think it would be a good idea to learn from it? If we're not going to indefinitely block Georgewilliamherbert let's at least but him on a civility restriction to stop him from issuing abusive civility blocks to good faith editors whose comments he doesn't like. It only escalates disruption, adds to the ill will, and causes drama. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- This thread is closed, COM: resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think the issue is resolved. I think it stinks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- This thread is closed, COM: resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Fort Hood Shootings
Could I get some extra admins to watchlist Fort Hood shooting? Obviously, dramatic and horrific and appalling, and definitely a high traffic page as facts come out. Some extra eyes would help to head off problems (particularly BLP) before they become severe. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 22:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- The page has been semi-protected in response to IP vandalism, but, I agree. *watchlists*--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) is engaging in edit warring at this article, and also is making edits with no edit summaries. Talk page consensus is against the odd and awkward style of reference formatting he is using, and yet he is seemingly ignoring this and instead reverting, edit warring to remove {{reflist}} style formatting, and reverting the addition of a {{cleanup}} tag for this same issue. I'm taking a break for a while, but really this is not the most appropriate way for an editor to conduct oneself, especially one that also protected the same article they are now editing and engaging in disruption on. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
No it's not it is 2-2 at the moment. And you should AGF rather than post to my talk page accusing me of edit warring. And rather than posting here while I am still writing a reply on the article talk page. The solution I am using is manifest good sense for the article at the moment - the {{Reflist}} I put earlier was repeatedly being broken by the pace of editing on the article. See the article talk page and my talk and Cirt's talk for more if you wish. Rich Farmbrough, 23:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC).
- You kept editing and reverting without edit summaries, after I had posted to your talk page multiple times asking you to stop and instead discuss on the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Let's not blow this out of proportion. I've been there the whole time, and it's a simple misunderstanding. Everyone is discussing now, so let it go. Certainly no need for an ANI thread on either the reverts or the (relatively low) level of vandalism. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
May need mass rollback.
An ip user, 68.193.133.203 has been making over an edit a minute, as can be seen here, adding X danced a Y with Z on Dancing with the Stars to many song pages. I took a random sampling and checked, and could find no sources for any of it. They appear good faith, but no sources, and not being able to find a single source for a random half-dozen sample has me worried. IRC admins directed me here. FELYZA TALK CONTRIBS 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- What do ya'll think, it's rather fast. [24]. JoeSmack Talk 23:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like they're adding references to Dancing with the Stars to every song that was used on that show. Maybe unnecessary, but not vandalism. Evil saltine (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Did a quick refactor of this, JoeSmack is one of the IRC ops that told me come here, while I was typing, their conflicting edit made me retype. Appended it to what should have been the original notice. FELYZA TALK CONTRIBS 23:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Rolled back regardless. The rate is disconcerting, among other things. Protonk (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like they're adding references to Dancing with the Stars to every song that was used on that show. Maybe unnecessary, but not vandalism. Evil saltine (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare went ahead and rolled them all back. Tim1357 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- That is a rather interesting way to show outdents/indents isn't it. This place never runs dry on the jaw-droppers.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Review of a September indef block of User: Redking7
Is it possible to get somekina 'review' of this indef-block? GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- What's the problem to be reviewed? Looks like there was a lot of discussion about it back in September, from the editor's talk page... Tony Fox (arf!) 00:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Considering that they've been evading their block within the last week (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redking7/Archive)? Unlikely, I would have thought. Block log is fairly impressive too. Black Kite 00:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I wish the best of luck to you in trying to get this overturned, but I really wouldn't hold my breath. Indeed, the original block was a mistake, as the poll was presented incorrectly (ideally, each side should have prefaced the poll with their own arguments; rather than one side being allowed to set redking up with a strawman argument). However, the moment people resort to sockpuppets, well, that pretty much puts the nail in the coffin more often than not. When a mistake has been made, there are options for remedy; creating another account isn't one of them.
- Simply my opinion, mind you. I just don't want you to get your hopes up, or waste too much of your time on something that isn't likely to happen. 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- If I'd know about the September blocking, my 'first' advice would've been don't evade the block (i.e. socking). GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- The rationale for Redking7's September block is given over at User talk:Redking7#Status as of November 6. I'm aware of his case since I blocked him once due to 3RR violation over the status of consulates in Taiwan. He kept fighting this issue for an entire year, and declined to follow the steps of WP:DR. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if a long length of time has gone by and he still declines to follow the steps of WP:DR as you put it, it would be amazing to see him change his tune now. Unfortunatley, that is how it ususally goes, although one would never know in this crazy world that is Wikipedia...--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- The rationale for Redking7's September block is given over at User talk:Redking7#Status as of November 6. I'm aware of his case since I blocked him once due to 3RR violation over the status of consulates in Taiwan. He kept fighting this issue for an entire year, and declined to follow the steps of WP:DR. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- If I'd know about the September blocking, my 'first' advice would've been don't evade the block (i.e. socking). GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
GetJar
The article GetJar has been recreated when it was deleted by an adiministrator previously - it still contains direct copyrighted information from the bussiness source. Reubzz (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Sarah777 and the British and Irish motorway drama again
Last month there was considerable drama surrounding the naming of articles about motorways and major roads in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. See for example Talk:N11 road (Ireland), Talk:M1 motorway, Talk:M3 motorway, Talk:M18 motorway, Talk:M50 motorway. There was a lot of heat and drama, and accusations of racism and bias, especially from user:Sarah777. Sarah was subject to an arbitration ruling in 2007 (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 restricted) that stated "Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks.".
Today, after several weeks of relative quiet, Sarah posted a new section on talk:N11 road (Ireland) entitled "Anglo bias proven beyond any reasonable doubt" [25]. The aim of this section appears to be to try and get the article moved to the primary topic, despite a requested move discussion closing as "no consensus to move" less than a month ago. The drama first time involved several controversial page moves and requests move discussions.
It might or might not be coincidental that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777 2 was closed earlier today.
Please could a admin who was not involved in the earlier drama take a look and try to prevent another flare up. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sarah777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Thryduulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- You're one of the people who brought that RFC against Sarah777, correct? You didn't notify Sarah777 of this thread, did you? And you're in a content disagreement with her, correct? If there is an arbitration ruling in effect, why did't you request enforcement at WP:AE? Your post raises doubts that should be answered before any action is considered. If the editor is on edge because she was the subject of an RFC, I think we should give her a chance to calm down and think about the feedback, rather than adding more pressure. I think this thread is much more likely to create drama than to avoid it. I recommend you drop the matter, and we'll see if she is willing to drop it as well. Jehochman Talk 04:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Sarah777
I went to the N11 to make a change and saw the tag and wondered why it was still there. Then I saw the "move request" box and scanned through, realised (anew) that the case for N11 primacy was at least as clear-cut as the British roads articles whose move was opposed (by many of the same editors). So this move, like the blocking of British road moves, is simply down to the national perspective of the bigger group of editors. The "quality" of the arguments was obviously completely ignored by the closing editor. He saw a sea of "oppose" and said "no consensus". This episode was a stunningly clear demonstration of British bias imposed on Irish articles on Wiki - and of how it works by simple force of numbers. I pointed that out. In the greater debate about WP:NPOV these examples will one day be necessary evidence. I had (and have) no intention of attempting to move the article again. And could someone please tell me how pointing out British bias, where it clearly exists, is an "anti-British remark"? If I said Jack the Ripper was British is that anti-British remark? As for dropping it; I wasn't intending to move any Irish roads articles to primacy, simply because the attempt will fail. There is a coalition of people who support universal dabbing (such as BHG) and there are the editors who insist on primacy for major English roads. The combined effect is that major Irish roads must be dabbed and major English roads cannot be dabbed. I think it was important that this situation was highlighted. Sarah777 (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed this will put new light into this discussion. And the answer to your question, no, saying that Jack the Ripper was British is not an anti-British remark at all. Heck, I don't even think that saying George W. Bush is an American would be considered an Anti-American remark (let's hope not anyway). Pointing out a possible bias issue on Wikipedia is good. There is WP:NPOV to follow after all. You just need to be careful that it doesn't look like you are pushing bias into the other direction, if you know what I mean. Not that I am saying you are doing so.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Major British roads are dabbed. The A1 is a major road linking London and Edinburgh, It is not at A1 road, but at A1 road (Great Britain). This is quite correct as it is found in two countries, England and Scotland. Mjroots (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Found in Edinburgh, Scotland to be exact, as you said. Two countries. Yes...The link that you provided to A1 Road (Great Britain) does in fact say so.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Wick vandalism - possible Barney Bunch activity
Extended content
|
---|
Someone has severely vandalized the Characters section of The Drew Carey Show. I think it may be yet another Barney Bunch target, because it was only targeted at Mr. Wick and most of it is very vulgar. However, some of it was very random (something about him going to an Avenged Sevenfold concert) or sexual (his "ability to make teenagera splooge with his accent"). This leads me to think there may have been more than one person at work there. I'm putting the article on my Watch List under my username (I'm not logged in, but I will). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.48.210 (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC) |
- Reverted and warned for blatant vandalism.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 03:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Requesting another admin to take ownership of my block
I blocked Fred1296 (talk · contribs) for 3rr on George Carlin (the diffs should be obvious in the page history) and then started tracing his editing history to see about a sockpuppetry claim made in this AFD (sockpuppetry almost certain). In the process of doing so, I checked Lexis for other sources for Chris Rush, the current version of which Fred1296 wrote. I expected to bring the article to AFD. Instead I found enough reliable sources establishing notability, so I added them to the article. Some of them make the article more negative than as originally written. As such, to avoid the appearance of impropriety, I'd like another admin to take ownership of the 3rr block (just edit block settings and stick your name in the log). Alternatively, if for some reason you don't think a block was warranted, please unblock the editor with my blessing. I'm perhaps being overly cautious, but this was a simple 3rr block, so I don't think it'll take you long to review it either way. Thank you.--chaser (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Kudos for being respectful and considerate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have re blocked, a bit shorter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)