Please check outUser:Greenharpoon whose first activity after creating an account was to submit an RFA that was clearly a joke. If this was truly a new user, how in the world did they know how to findWP:RFA immediately? If not really a new user, then WTF? Looks to me like this account should just get blocked indefinitely. If you disagree, perhaps you could leave him/her a warning.
I am reportingUser:Mattewdkaufman and IP user 199.68.81.105 for multiple reversions to a "list of knowntoupee wearers" that clearly violatedWP:BLP as well as removing legitimate trivia warning tags and a general edit warring. I also reverted many times, but the more than 3 reverts wereonly to remove potentially libelous material that clearly violated BLP's "do no harm" admonishment. The list is now not in violation of BLP as they removed all the living people. Now it's justWP:TRIVIA.VanTucky22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOR prevents original research. This seems to be whatShaheenjim (talk·contribs) is doing in edits likethis one. Certainly, the only person pushing for this information to be added is this user, everyone else is against including this, most pointing out that it is a violation ofWP:NOR. Clearly edits made against consensus are inappropriate but could I get some other eyes on this edit specifically to see if it violatesWP:NOR? --Yamla23:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like he's trying to draw a conclusion that favours his viewpoint, so yes looks like OR to me.--Crossmr23:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Are all clearly found from other, copyrighted, sources via a Google Image search for the subjects name. There are more, but I just thought this should be brought to someone's attention. --Haemo02:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
These are blatant copyright violations, thanks for catching it. All of this user's uploads are suspect based on these dishonestly-tagged images, so I'll be deleting them all to be on the safe side.Picaroon(Talk)02:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
See alsoImage:Crossfield scott 3.jpg. TopGUN71691 initially uploaded it to en.wikipedia with no copyright info, and then it was moved to Commons by another User. The image isprobably public domain, but it needs to be proven. And note that the Commons page claims that the en page gives copyright info, but there is no copyright info on the en page.Corvus cornix03:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hate speech
Please take a look atthis comment, titled "Editors a Cock-Swallowing Sinners". 03:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
User OttomanReference adds made up and misinterpreted quotes, and adds original research on articles.[1].He has also engaged in edit warring and continues to remove tags without reaching consensus.[2]. Please block user or protect page, as he does not seem to understand English very well and continues to vandalize pages.
Seems he is intent on only referting me. Just look at grammar of this article[3] and he still removes copyedit and all other tags.Hetoum I04:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Witch5000 (talk·contribs) has multiple warnings about copyright violations of image uploads on his/her Talk page, has yet to reply to a single warning. Is repeatedly adding album covers to the articleReveille (band), even though I have repeatedly explained to them how this is not a good thing, but they won't respond and won't stop. At one point, started using75.153.165.138 (talk·contribs) to do the same thing, but still wouldn't respond to warnings.Corvus cornix06:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I just stumbled acrossthis, and thought it worth bringing to admin attentions. Clearly, this IP is shared, so a block on it isn't worthwhile, but the vandal is, and the image should probably be watched/deleted. The vandal is adding pictures of the Virginia tech shooter wielding a hammer to multiple articles. I've got little doubt the vandal will return, so we should probably be aware.ThuranX20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
IP resolves to a company in Calgary, AB... You'd think someone working for a chemical company would have better things to do with their time, eh? Point being though that I don't think IP blocks would be as problematic as if this were from an ISP pool so dealing with this by blocking should still be on the table (obviously not for the previous stuff, but going forward).--Isotope2320:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I figured a block would be pointless, but maybe someone will notice it. Too bad we can't contact them and be like 'hey, WTFBBQ?'ThuranX21:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
We should contact that Calgary chemical company just saying what happened and giving the evidence, then the people who run the company can do our work for us (and better) in finding the vandal and repremanding him. PS we contact schools why not buisnesses.Hypnosadist08:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes and one of those 3200 people is not doing the job they are paid for (the company's problem) and is vandalising wikipedia (our problem). Lets potentially solve two problems with one email and just email the IT and PR depts at this company and let them sort it out. Maybe they choose to do nothing, maybe they check their logs and find out who did this and repremand them, either way its no skin off our nose to send an email.Hypnosadist09:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
"because it won't achieve anything" Now you don't know if you don't try, do you. "horrible public relations" No its protecting our investment and work like a proper company should do. There is no reason we should take this crap from vandals and the company is not paying them to do it so everyone except the vandal wins.Hypnosadist23:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course. Why rock the boat? If Wikipedia can't rid itself of the people who pushedH out, why would they worry about outside wiki?ThuranX22:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[4] What is the policy for off-wiki collaboration and insults? I was one of the proud creators of the featuredMacedonia (terminology) that thankfully solved the long standing edit wars over Macedonia-related articles. Hell, I am Greek, and I do have my views; but I don't consider myself a partisan. Now I am accused of being a "low life" for reverting an addition toMacedonians (ethnic group) that is based on aproven falsified pseudo-scientific study: TheArnaiz-Villena controversy, which was persistently inserted as "The Ultimate TruthTM" in the said article (among others)! The worst part is that many editors attacked sourced edits in various related articles the last few days in apparent collaboration (which is evident from their chat on the link above -do read it please):
Persistent removals of Albanian language name from virtually all cities of theRepublic of Macedonia, even if they are primarily inhabited by Albanians.
The last thing I ever wished is to start all over again bitching about who's grandpa relates to kingPhilip of Macedon (like it's supposed to make any difference in your IQ)... Please examine.NikoSilver00:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Update: The discussion there continues unobstructed[5], now even with:
posting lists of the said articles for organized reverts
calling more names such as "plague or virus , infecting the place", that me and other users are paid agents of the Greek and Bulgarian governments (!)
discussing promoting "Macedonian academics" to "moderator status" currently occupied by the Greeks (I really know of only one Greek admin -User:Yannismarou)
Legal threats: "a class-action lawsuit (perhaps a Cease and Desist to start with) against the Racism and Bias contained in WikiPedia might get some attention"
Uh, ugly. Nationalist web forums as a place for coordinating POV-pushing campaigns. We've seen it before. Nothing good can ever be expected from editors who come to Wikipedia from such sites. Of course, it's probably happening all the time anyway, be it on open or private forums. Such activities should be nipped in the bud, where possible. Would support good long blocks on the ringleaders at least. -- Can anyone translate those nice plans they were making?"Ajde da napravime tekst koj sto ke si go cuvame lokalno na nasite PC-a i celo vreme za INAT na grckite i blgarskite nazi kopilinja ke im go prepravame .... copy / paste ? Hmm ?? Ili mislite deka ne vredi ?"Fut.Perf.☼16:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Translated: "Let us make a local copy of some text on our PCs and just out of SPITE to the Greek and Bulgarian bastards modify the articles - copy /paste? Hmm? Or you think it is not useful?"Mr. Neutron22:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I just indefinitely blockedUser:Balkan balkan as a sockpuppet ofUser:Alexander the great1, since both accounts had been involved in edit warring. The edit warring seems to have died down on the articles NikoSilver listed, but if it starts again I'd be inclined to treat newly arrived edit warriors as meatpuppets.--Akhilleus (talk)16:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I know wiki is just a joke , but i am also willing to give hell and nightmare to those that steal and corrupt what is ours ! Break their hands !. I think he should get blocked for that.Mr. Neutron17:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Personal Attacks & Incivility
User:ThuranX started making personal attacks on me the other day, and has not relented, despite my efforts to resolve the issue politely and, in the end, somewhat ineffectively. I have had very little in the way of interaction with him, and am very surprised by the rage and vitriol I am seeing in his recent edits to and about me. The conversation began over some placement of citation tags in theCatwoman, wherein ThuranX and another user, Duhman were edit-warring and generally being uncivil to each other. I suggested that they might want to take a step back for a bit, and they both went nuts. I replied to each of them on their talk pages. Duhman proved pretty much a lost cause, but I had enough respect for Thuran to try and help square things away, as evidencedhere andhere (both of the short sections are full of personal attacks). He took my questioning of his edits as a personal attack, and became a lot more uncivil. I wasn't expecting this and responded a bit hotly, though nowhere near as hotly as what continued. I retracted my statements, hoping this would calm matters down. It didn't, and the personal attacks just kept coming: In the Catwoman article:
The damnable thing is that, while I know he is feelingburnt out and is not at all polite with many, many others (as evidenced by a look at just the edit history of his own Talk page). I actuallyrespected the guy - until he decided to target me. I am not sure how to proceed, as he seems to be continuing the uncivil stuff despite my politely trying to defuse matters, or not responding at all. I mean, I am avoiding the guy, but he just keeps making comments. Can someone lend a hand? -Arcayne(cast a spell)18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
He's not assuming good faith on your part, but good faith has its limits and he might have reached his. Here he explains himself:[6]
You're a troll. You're deliberately disrupting pages with citation demands for every line and section to make a point. What that point is, I don't care. but it's tiring, childish, and irritating. If you feel that every single thing needs citation, you go find it. I found more than enough, given that this all started with you being nosey.ThuranX17:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've not reviewed your dispute in detail, but if ThuranX is seeing this correctly, he might be correct regarding the citations (though presumably has mistaken your intentions). You only need to place <ref/> tags on facts that are likely to be questioned. –Gunslinger4719:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that wasn't the issue prompting the complaint. I was addressing the personal attacks and incivility that accompanied the edits, which another editor also addressed with him (to no avail). Maybe he was all upset about the User:H issue, and it spilled over, but I am not the only person he has blown up at or made personal attacks at. When a user acts in this way, they usually get blocke for a period of time, not as punishment, necessarily, but instead to both protect the project as well as giving the person being complained about some perspective. I am not sure I understand the delay in acting here. -Arcayne(cast a spell)18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Uhh, I'll warn him to keep his cool but I pretty much agree with him in that you're being completely zealous with the whole citation thing... that's about all I'm willing to do though. Lay off asking for citation for facts that probably wouldn't challenged per policy.Sasquatcht|c04:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
User:TTN marking every single television episode for notability concerns
TTN(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is using some kind of automated tool to mark every single TV episode ever for notability concerns. For 00:22 I counted 13 edits in a single minute. I looked at his talk page and he has complaints for this and for unilaterally merging masses of episodes to their parents. Heappears to be indirectly canvassing for his Wikiproject[7][8]. I see this as an incredible violation ofWP:CANVAS andWP:POINT. Can anybody else weigh in on this? I'm tempted to start an RfC on this. I was going to, but There's already an incomplete RfC page for him complaining about him unilaterally merging scores of articles. -N00:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Sigh, I'm just using tabs to mark episodes for "review." I was doing it without discussion, but people didn't like that, so now I'm using tags and opening discussions that last a few weeks. People have time to get on it, so there should be no complaints. This is also in accordance with the updatedWP:EPISODE and related projects/task forces.TTN00:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Editing War of the Year: Last year state highways, this year television episodes, what's next? —Kurykh01:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that's related to this discussion, but I believe fair use images must universally follow the rules. -N01:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
TTN's talk page is riddled with complaints about his actionsbefore a group of editors sat down to discuss the TV:EPISODE guideline, andbefore the template tag was created for the pages. That tag is used is an alert of the editors of that page, and a tool for other editors to find all the problem articles quickly. It isn't going to delete the article anymore than a {{plot}} tag will delete a plot section. It's just a more efficient tag for the articles, which helps direct people to the guidelines of what should be on that page, and comprise a list that can be easily accessed by others (as opposed to thumbing through thousands of articles from every single television show on Wikipedia...yes, thousands. When you count how many shows there are, and the average number of eps per series, it isn't that hard to imagine). BIGNOLE (Contact me)02:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, people believe that TTN is violating CANVASS and POINT, which he isn't. First, CANVASS is about contacting lots of editors for their opinions. He hasn't done that. He's alerting the editors of pages of the clean-up duty that is necessary for the article. He hasn't requested anyone's opinion on anything. Every form of mass posting isn't CANVASS; if you are applying clean-up tags to articles that is completely different then going to people's talk page and requesting the come join some petition. As for POINT, I think everyone knows the majority of episode articles are in poor shape. The tag provides links to helpful guidelines that allow editors to learn how to improve their articles, and also provides a link in a category for others to review the progress of all the problem articles, without having to search through list after list of article for every episode name. So, POINT is subjective and I think TTN has had plenty of people actually praise his efforts as well as dismiss them as disruptive. I was simply explaining what the tag he was placing on pages was. It's equivalent to a clean-up tag, except that it has a date stamp that puts link to every article in a category so that they can be reviewed later. There is a severe problem with television episode articles, just like there was a severe problem with non-free image usage on Wikipedia. The tag is a more fair way of saying "please clean this up, it will be reviewed after so many days by a community of editors, who may decide on the best course of action for this page". His actions are based on the consensus reached by others. BIGNOLE (Contact me)04:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see what the problem is. I didn't make it clear that I was saying that the "fair use" war was the war of the year, trumping your television episodes war. :)Corvus cornix18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok let me make my objection known more plainly since people seem to be missing it. We do not mindlessly add cleanup tags to articles without reviewing them. And we do not add cleanup tags forwikiprojects to the article itself. Those go on article talk pages. If it were anything but tv episodes and I were to mindlessly add cleanup tags to hundreds of articles in a short span of time I'd be blocked. -N06:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Who says you'd be blocked? If an article needs clean up, it needs clean up. I highly doubt you would be blocked if you put "plot" tags on every film that had horribly long plots. You are looking at it from the "13 pages in a minute" perspective. You have to judge how many articles for televisions episodes there are (I'd be willing to bet they outnumber film articles). If 90% of the articles need tags, then they do. I can take a sample from one show and detemine what most of the articles are like, just be shear statistics. 97% of theSmallville episode articles are the definition of problem articles. It's actually higher than that, but I rounded the number of articlesdown to 40, and there is only a single article that actually meet the requirements for existence. There are plenty of good articles, don't get me wrong, hell I believe every episode article in Season 8 of The Simpsons is actually GA, but that's like the black sheep of articles, as it's the only season for the show to have accomplished such a feat. BIGNOLE (Contact me)07:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You can acquit TTN of canvassing at the very least. The talk page diffs above are the direct result of using{{TVreview1}}, which I wrote. I added the link to the Wikiproject merely to be helpful...I thought it was a good place for editors to go if they had general questions about TV articles, or needed an experienced editor to help them. If that counts as canvassing, then simply remove the last sentence from the template. No need to beat TTN over the head with it.Gwinva13:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
OK it's not canvassing. But you would agree it's disruptive to mark articles with cleanup tags en masse without even reading them? -N13:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I take a quick look at them, and even if I put a tag on a good one, it can just be removed. The large amount of edits in a minute comes from using thirteen tabs, not rapid editing. You should be able to see the gap between each pass.TTN13:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
N, you are seeing it as disruptive, I see it as a free peer review for thousands of articles. There will be ones that clearly have nothing on them and will be redirect/merged with a parent article, but any that have a lot of good information but just require clean are going to get reviewed. Chances are, the review is going to do nothing but help them, as editors will go "yeah, it can stay...but here is how you need to improve this article to be better". BIGNOLE (Contact me)13:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine. I'm willing to see where this goes. I overreact sometimes. It's something I struggle with. -N14:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You're not an idiot. Seriously, check out the pages where we had the discussion, we're really only trying to do what's best for these articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me)14:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :I would hate to think this review process might ever become an automatic tagging/redirect exercise, since it was established in order to prevent such a thing... ie. create due process, offer help, advice etc. That said, having tagged the articles of a few series myself I've realised just how quickly one can scan an article and get an idea of its notability. Remember, the tagging is merely the first step in a process: identifying articles that need further, (more considered) review. I don't know if TTN is tagging too fast/indiscriminately. That is for s/he to answer. As to the notability tag being for a wikiproject or guideline proposal... No. It relates toWP:EPISODE, a fully accepted guideline. It serves a similar purpose to other clean-up tags, but has the advantage of catergorising pages for review. The 'proposal' is atWP:TV-REVIEW, where are number of us are considering the best way to review articles thrown in the notability category. If you have constructive advice to offer about that process, then drop in there. We are trying to create a review and assessment process which is fair to everyone. The alternative to such a process is the standard 'be bold' approach, where any editor can merge/redirect/AfD at will. As Bignole says, this process offers peer review and support along with the opportunity to weed out the articles which Wikipedia doesn't want (under its own notability guidelines). As an aside, this is not the work of one wikiproject... notices here, at the village pump, other TV wikiprojects etc have drummed up support, advice and contributors. That includes me: I would never have affiliated myself with WikiProject TV until I was drawn into this by a debate on this page.Gwinva14:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, it seems I've come after the party..sorry should have read the above before posting. Still, the comments about coming and contributing still apply... we could use some critical assessment of where we've got so far.Gwinva14:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've blockedIllegal editor (talk·contribs) as a suspected sockpuppet of the ArbCom-banned sockpuppeteerBilly Ego (talk·contribs) (see list of otherconfirmed andsuspected socks). This editor initially raised my suspicion by immediately jumping into a discussion atTalk:Benjamin Tucker, whichBilly's prior sock had been involved in just prior to being nabbed. The target articles and POV are an exact match, as is the tendentious and argumentative editing style.
I filed acheckuser request, which failed to detect an IP relationship. However, it should be noted that Billy uses a dynamic IP and open proxies, which is one reason he's been a persistent problem (seehere for his own description of his methods of evading checkuser). I decided to watch this account. Since then, I've noticed several very distinctive habits (which I'd be happy to discuss via email) which, combined with the above evidence, have convinced me that this is a clear-cut Billy Ego sock.
I'm actually kind of glad to hear that - I was worried I was losing my touch at spotting Billy Ego socks when that initial checkuser came back unrelated.MastCellTalk16:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've lost sight ofHubier(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) after he was blocked for a week for continued image vandalism (replaced sourced images with unsourced, often fanmade ones). I only just noticed he's created a new account,Jb007ltkill (talk·contribs), to continue vandalising images (notice the exact same editing pattern), while he was blocked. Hubier's block has run out by now, but can someone still do something about this? He's clearly just here to play around.--Atlan (talk)10:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to report this but here goes.User:203.70.94.203 kept removing warnings and posting abuse on their talk page. I reverted twice, there were other reverts from other users also.[9] Next thing,User:59.105.17.165 chimes in with this.[10] Observing the intermittent use of the caps lock key and the general style I suspect that they may be the same. Whether this comes under sockpuppet, meatpuppet, abuse or just vanilla vandalism I don't know but I think someone should perhaps keep an eye on this lad.pablomismo|11:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
There are multiple registered and unregistered people (it could be a single user with sock puppets) claiming that the name of the articleKing levitation goes against copyright/trademark laws, and they keep deleting the method because the method is for sale by a companyand/or because of the claim that the title is copyrighted. I'm not sure if this is big enough to be reported but they do talk about copyright laws.Jeffrey.Kleykamp14:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've always suggested they contact the Wikimedia Office orOTRS, if they're serious, but for the most part they seem intent on vigilante enforcement. The claims of infringement have always seemed rather nebulous (and perhaps made up on the spot?), but giving them that information does allow them to escalate if it is appropriate. For the time being, I've semi-protectedKing levitation for 72 hours, it's been getting hit more than usual, recently. Please advise if there's anything else I should do when this crops up, beyond with Finlay McWalter said, as I've handled it a few times previously, too. –Luna Santin (talk)16:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
redirect on "strategic investments"
the page "strategic investments" redirects to "MIT Blackjack Team". As this doesnt make sense, i deleted the redirect, which was immediately reverted by the bot. The same thing happened before when another user deleted the redirect. Please look this up, as i cant see any reason why this page should redirect to MIT... regards, matthias—The precedingunsigned comment was added by217.235.2.156 (talk •contribs)11:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user was making false accusations of DPeterson being a sockpuppet [[11]], which I filed previously. An administrator seemed to support this filing,
":You're definitely correct. I'm not sure he's active enough for a block to have an effect, but a short-term block (24 hours) might send a message to FatherTree that we takeWP:CIVIL seriously.YechielMan 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)"
I know that DPeterson filed a related claim above. Now he is now engaged inWP:CANVAS, which is not ok as I read the statement. See diff: [[12]] in response to an active mediation case at [[13]]This violates the policy because it is biased and partisan.
I don't know the details and background of your interactions and experiences here but your comment, in both content and form, does bear a striking similarity to DPeterson's commentsabove. It could be mere coincidence and I'm not making any accusations or insinuating anything. --ElKevbo16:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
That is because I copied a lot of it here. I filed this after I saw that the person who was polled is now a staunch advocate for the group that recruited him. Now I wonder, should I go ahead and try to Canvas for supporters (not really, just expressing my frustration with that group).RalphLendertalk20:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually all he's really said so far is that AT is pseudoscience, and you agreed with him! Yechiel is not an admin by the way and said so on the ANI you copied.[14]Fainites21:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does look like RalphLender copied most of my report regarding this dimension of it. However, my original filing is gone and this really needs to be addressed. If it considered ok, what FatherTree did, I'd like to know because then I will proceed as he did and search for editors who support my ideas just as he did.DPetersontalk23:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
BothRalphLender andDPeterson are involved in mediation withFatherTree and a group of other editors. There is suspicion of COI, socks and article ownership involved in this case, and this thread is one more case of the pot calling the kettle black in order to remove members of the opposition. I suspect that a detailed analysis of the edit histories ofRalphLender andDPeterson would yield equal justification for blocks.FatherTree may or may not be guilty of WP:CANVAS, but this is a much bigger issue than that.Lsi john01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
There have been ample exploration of the "sockpuppet" issue (see: [[15]] [[16]] )
and it had been unfounded on several occassions. yet this group continues to knowlingly make the same false accusation because they disagree with the veiws of several editors. If I may quote Adhoc:
:*"APOV pusher will always interpret any disagreement to constitute proof the editors in question are members of acabal."-Addhoc
'This fictitious cabal will obviously possess views directly opposed to the accusing editor, who will be remarkably willing to overlook contrary evidence."-Addhoc
'In this manner nearly every good faith editor will be accused of being a member of entirely contradictory cabals."-Addhoc
Nowhere is an interesting response to my post here byDPeterson.
I have always been told that it is appropriate to notify all the parties involved, when you are reporting them to 3RR or AN/I.
It seems thatDPeterson considers itinterference for someone to notify the involved parties that they are being discussed on AN/I.
It also seems thatDPeterson is trying to bring inextra help by contacting admins.
This is an example which illustrates the reason I posted here to begin with.
IfDPeterson's case is as legitimate as he wants us to believe, he should not feel threatened by an outside party contributing to the discussion.Lsi john03:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I have complaind before about DPeterson et al's habit of not notifying people of ANI etc brought against them. Obviously to no effect.Fainites08:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Well perhaps if you told the people that you are filing against that you were filing against them you might get a more informed response. I don't see asking a suitably qualified editor who's not a wiki friend to help edit a page is 'canvassing'. I myself went to the psychology portal to find psychologists to see if any were interested in helping edit attachment pages. I thought that's what portals and things were for! There's no way of knowing who's side these people will be on. They may be ardent attachment therapists for all I know. Besides, DPeterson asked all his fellow editors to from the paedophile pages to help him out on the attachment page.Fainites12:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the primary issue is that FatherTree violated wikipedia Canvas policy because it is a biased and partisan call. I suggest that Fainities read the policy before commenting. This is the issue in this AN/I...all other smoke put out by others is merely a diversion from this primary point that an administrator needs to evaluate.RalphLendertalk17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
As I read theWP:CANVAS solicting is not ok in that this was biased and partisan. I thinkYechielMan suggestion that FatherTree be sanctioned by a block is appropriate. The Canvasing and other wikipedia policy violations are disruptive.MarkWood19:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The suggestions to keep this focused on the primary issues and not be diverted by red herrings as Fainites seems to be doing is a good one. As previously stated, the primary issue is FatherTree's canvasing and FatherTrees making false accusations, which he knows are false, of sockpuppetry.DPetersontalk21:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll repeat myself here, since it seems these charges were made in several places (which in and of itself could be construed as inappropriate). Aboutcanvassing, an arbitrator said:Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. How can calling onone other editor to give his opinion be considered "aggressive propaganda"? It seems crystal clear to me that this falls into the "reasonable amount of communication about issues" category. Also, the purported sockpuppetry accusation was made in reply to a very similar accusation"It looks like the gang...er your group, sorry, is all coming out here now.", and the "accusation" is more to me like a musing:"How does anyone know that you are not Becker?" Nobody accused anybody of anything directly. These are flimsy, I would dare say inappropriate grounds for any block whatsoever. And, specifically toUser:DPeterson: I believe Fainites already showed ample proof that yourself were definitely canvassing. This is starting to look more and more to me like someone isforum shopping in order to get some reprimand dished out on Father Tree.--Ramdrake22:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I filed one ANI. It appeared to be deleted, so I refiled it. another editor filed the third one. I suggest we focus on the primary issue of FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and violatingWP:CANVAS. If an administrator reviews these issues and finds fault and sanctions are put in place or it the administrator finds no basis, so be it.DPetersontalk23:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I stress that the entire interaction, including priors on either side, should be the appropriate primary focus. That means your insinuations of "gang" action and your previous history of canvassing should also enter the equation, lest we get an incomplete picture of the situation.--Ramdrake23:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The focus should be on the ANI issues: FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and violating wikiWP:CANVAS. If an admin finds this baseless, so be it. If other want to raise other issues, they should do so in a separte filing.DPetersontalk23:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I submit that keeping THREE (virtually identical) threads open, rather than asking for two of them to be closed, as duplicates, and updating them all at once with similar posts:here,here andhereIt sure looks likeDPeterson is using these boards, repeatedly, in order to get the system to remove editors with which he is currently engaged in mediation and against editors who opened an RfC on him. Wait, wouldn't keeping multiple threads open across multiple boards be .. sort of like CANVASING? How about if an admin closes at least two of these, thanks!Lsi john23:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I respond to other editors...I'll leave it to an administrator to decide how to handle the two I filed and the one another editor filed, focusing on the two issues: FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and the canvasing issue.DPetersontalk00:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Since each one gets a variety of comments from a variety of editors it may make sense to keep all open.-DPeterson (below) AKA CANVASSING
Now that the other is closed, we can focus on the issue of knowingly making false accusations.
*All other discussions aside, to address the actual topic, didUser:FatherTree offer up anything more than that one comment? I believe the traditional idea behind the canvassing policy was to discourage people from spamming multiple areas and/or talk pages because it was a disruption. Asking one editor's opinion, even in a biased manner, wouldn't appear to qualify. If he continues the sockpuppet accusations I would make sure to remind him about the personal attacks policy; feel free to hit up my talk page if he doesn't stop the attacks.Shellbabelfish 01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
According to the diff link you provided at the start of this report,User:FatherTree never really accused you of being a sockpuppet; rather, he asked for some sign that you were different people indeed (" How does anyone know that you are not Becker?"") . That's totally different. Besides, your previous retort was:"It looks like the gang...er your group, sorry, is all coming out here now." which is basically an accusation of meatpuppeteering (which is the same as sockpuppeteering for WP's purposes). So, I would respectfully suggest you reconsider your complaint, or an admin may indeed deem that your offenses are more serious than FatherTree's. I know that's certainly what it looks like from here.--Ramdrake02:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Might I also point out that neither DPeterson nor RalphLender notified Father Tree of any of these ANI's. He has done this before and I have complained to him about it before. One of the editors he canvassed in his support told me I had to watch the contribs! It is only because LsiJohn happened to notice it that anyone found out and I was able to post the links for FatherTree and other involved editors attention. I note that at the top of this page it says "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting". Is this therefore a breach ofWP:CIVIL or perhaps some other policy?Fainites20:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Fainites, don't stoop to his game. He has shown himself for what he is here, by opening three separate reports, by not informing the user he was reporting, by refusing to close two of them when asked, by ignoring an offer from an admin to help, by updating all three of the reports with similar information. The admins are not stupid, they will remember him next time. Let it go.Lsi john21:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Block the lot of you... for wasting a portion of my life reading this crap. Seriously... Take time out and give it a break. Thanks/wangi21:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
There you all go again trying to divert the discussion from the primary issue: FatherTree knew that there had previosly been investigations into sockpuppetry that were unfounded and he continues to make those accusations despite knowing that these are false. This is clearly a personal attack and he should be sanctioned. I can see now that Fainities and others are trying to divert from the salient issue here and that they are continuing to add material in the hopes of provoking just the sort of frustration expressed by User Wangi.RalphLendertalk21:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
No. This started as both an accusation ofWP:CANVAS andWP:NPA violations. Now that the accusation ofWP:CANVAS has been proven patently false, you're hanging on toWP:NPA. Let's say you're right and he did violateWP:NPA. That warrants a warning, at mostif it were true (which I personnally doubt); however, the exchange provided shows that there was provocation at the very least, so there are at least mitigating circumstances. That qualifies even less for even a simple warning. And nevertheless, there you go, demanding sanctions. I would respectfully suggest the lot of you demanding sanctions just drop the matter before you lose whatever little credibility you might have left still.--Ramdrake22:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think now that at least one (or two?) administrators have weight in and feel that there is not enought here now to pursue or to institute sanctions, that this AN/I be closed. I would suggest that the original filer of this, RalphLender agree to drop or cancel this...whatever the correct action is.DPetersontalk01:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No edits since last final warning. This is a dynamic ip, so action will only be taken if account is active/vandalising.LessHeard vanU22:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, although I've seen the same pattern of edits from this IP, so I think a block would only affect that one Wikipedian. --Gyrofrog(talk)03:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't agree with Miranda's actions on that RfA, but Trey is taking his disapproval too far, methinks. How about you both go to your respective favourite articles and do some work on them, just try and keep out of each other's hair? And agreed with Kurykh... administrators aren't magical problem solvers... try dispute resolution, although I think if you guys just avoid each other for a little while, you should be right...Riana(talk)04:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Miranda is calling everyone she sees a troll. I tried to mediate on IRC withUser:Sean_William, Miranda, refused. And Riana, I am working very hard onErie, PA my favorite article, but I am being constantly distracted by Miranda. She seems to be taking this too far after. IRC has nothing to do with wikipedia, where this started.--trey05:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, see the refactoring of RfA comments,[24] wikipedia is notcensored last time I checked. Calling gracenotes a troll is worse than what I "did" saying I feel sorry for a user to have to endure Miranda's attacks on his RfA.--trey05:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, one of the "personal attacks"[25] was actually apologetic, nothing to do with a personal attack. Someone likes to hold grudges...--trey05:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
First, I have not retired. Second, I would appreciate you not making personalattacks on my userpage, as well as on the RFA. Third, what happens on IRC does not effect the encyclopedia. What you are currently doing isdisrupting the encyclopedia. I would appreciate you not saying my name in any bad context, because that is calledlibel. I would also appreciate if you not leave blatant and uncalled for warnings on my page. I would also appreciate if you would kindly leave me alone, as well as cease doingthis to me. End of conversation.Miranda05:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a pretty broad interpretation of libel, Miranda! I think everyone just needs to switch off their computers for a while...Riana(talk)06:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
While I am glad to see that Miranda has changed her mind[26] on retiring, I fail to see howthis qualifies as a personal attack via the currentWP:NPA criteria. Trey's comment may be questionablecivility, but does not appear to meet the ArbCom "interpreted strictly" citation atWP:NPA#Removal of text. Much like Riana above, I feel both parties would benefit from just letting the issue drop and stop harassing each other. --Kralizec! (talk)13:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to weigh in on this (gotta recuse myself), but Iwill say that I've gotten slapped with a troll comment over this as well (and one of the diffs provided as evidence of that was my apology). That said, Riana's comment about staying away from each other is literally overflowing with wisdom.EVula//talk //☯ //19:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
User Ilya1166 refuses to cooperate
ResolvedDispute resolution is appropriate, no admin action needed
Some russian editors are trying to put category "Russian speaking countries and territories" on baltic states:Estonia,Latvia andLithuania. The master category "Countries by language", clearly states: "To categorize countries per official language. When a country does not have an official language (e.g. the United States), a de facto categorization is used." Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have official language which are respectivelyEstonian_language,Latvian_language andLithuanian_language. Although other editors have calmed down,User:Ilja1166 refuses to cooperate and claims that because there is large amount of russians living in Baltic States the de facto official language is still Russian (which is factually incorrect aswell, cause statistically de jure languages are spoken much more). He also claims that other editors motives are extreme nationality. That is false. Baltic states do not have Russian as official language. Latvia and Estonia have large russian minority, who sometimes talk Russian. Lithuania has smaller russian minority. Although some people DO talk russian here, these countries are not russian speaking.
I am asking administrative advice on that user. He was blocked before for editwarring but obviously this didn't help.Suva10:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a note: you may want to keep a watch on this talk page - two discussions about sourcing an item ongay.com UK have degenerated into IPs attacking homosexuality in general - I've removed both so far, but I think the same IPs will start up again.Will(talk)12:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll have a look, over the next few days. They seem to be active around 12:00-13:00 UTC or so, though, so I may be useful only in retrospect. –Luna Santin (talk)16:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've put it on my watchlist. I'm in the UK so hopefully my sleep and edit patterns will approximate the discussion there.LessHeard vanU20:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Editor with agenda
There's an editor who submitted two articles, both referencing non-existing pages, both with just a few sentences, the bulk of which were attacks on the articles' subject (BLP). I edited the offending and inaccurate material out of both, leaving a single line of text, then submitted for deletion as attack articles under BLP to get the histories removed (one person probably didn't meetWP:BIO, I don't remember about the other). Both articles were immediatley and quickly removed from Wikipedia. However, it appears that the editor at issue has an agenda that is being perpetuated on Wikipedia, an agenda related to attacking a certain author. I was wondering if anything more should be done about this editor, and what? They may have stopped after the deletions, but I don't know if that is sufficient.
Please, if you're an admin, don't access my contributions and find and post the name of the editor I'm discussing, just offer me suggestions on what more, if anything I should do. Thanks.
PS In spite of the reactionary nature of the policy on BLP, being able to just tag articles with attack and get them deleted ASAP is appropriate for an on-line encyclopedia where "anyone can edit." It works, and it works well, and it works how it is supposed to work, at least in these cases.KP Botany19:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The right things to do is document the user's behavior and, if you feel it is necessary, make a full case here on ANI for a block. — Carl(CBM · talk)20:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I blockedHornetman16 for 12 hours after events described bothhere, on hisuser talk page, and onthis IFD he's been disrupting. However, he continues to declare that he will not rest until the image being IFDed (which is somewhat controversial in itself) is deleted. Would it be a good idea to increase the length of his block? --Core19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I say leave it as it is, if he disrupts post block, then he'll get reblocked fairly quickly. Having said that, by his post block comments, an increase in block length would still be protective.....Ryan Postlethwaite19:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I declined his first unblock request. I also cleaned up his userpage (it had personally identifiable information on it, and he's a minor) for him. Honestly, as long as he promises to continue to disrupt our processes and get that image deleted "as God as his witness," I don't see him being a productive member of the community.^demon[omg plz]19:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
*bangs head on desk* He evaded his block to edit his userpage then told me it was ridiculous that he couldn't edit it. --Deskana(talk)20:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the block should be left as is, but if he rsumes after it expires then the next block should be much longer. — Carl(CBM · talk)20:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
When me and Alison admonished him for editing while blocked, he asked someone else to let him. I'm starting to think he's not going to fit in here. He's showing contempt for the rules. I feel somewhat sorry for him but that's being counterbalanced by how much he's driving me insane. --Deskana(talk)20:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
He's driving me insane(r), too. However, I think we need to defuse the situation and back away. I'm going to protect his page for a few hours for unblock abuse. He needs to step away, too, and take a breather here. Besides, you just reset his block to 12 hours from just now! -Alison☺20:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
He's persistent, that's for sure, and does not currently seem interested incommunity consensus. I hope he'll learn, but I am somewhat skeptical.Flyguy649talkcontribs20:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been dealing with him since the beginning of the current IfD. I have served him a formal warning and admonishment. My patience is running extremely thin. —Kurykh21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hornetman16 has since promised to change his behavior; I am ready to unblock him if there are no objections. --Core22:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
BLP again
The subject of the debate I'm trying to have (tricky since the other side doesn't appear to want to take part) is the subject of external links and weather they are sources and what standards should apply for them. This isn’t directly a matter for WP:AN/I
However the problem is the behaviour of some of my fellow editors. Now I admit I’m suffering a bit of an attack of “the good old days” but it used to be that when you reverted someone you would leave at least a token comment on the talk page (heh could be quite funny in some cases with the blatantly token ones). Obviously I accept times have changed butWikipedia:Revert#Explain_reverts still supports this position.
Why is this a problem? Well I like debate. Facts, logic and reasoning this is what I feel policy should be built on. At the moment I’m getting blunt force reverts (and the odd argument by assertion or ah hom) which makes doing these things difficult. I would like the people who take a different position to me discuss on the talk page but obviously I can’t force this. What should I do?Geni21:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
From his or her contributions list, appears to be semi-subtle spamming over a two-week span. All 60+ contribs, most unreverted, are a list of links to the same site, section titled 'The Great Vitoria knows' with each listing giving descriptions as images and tips. At the linked site, however, only a Google map image displays with a lot of surrounding advertising. Since it's in a foreign language, maybe I'm missing something important. --Michael Devore21:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. They left quite a mess (thank goodness for rollback!). I've indefinitely blocked the account assingle purpose / spamming & if they return, we can review the block. -Alison☺22:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
John Scalzi is an award-winning sci-fi author...a while back, he put a prank photoshopped picture of himself (Image:Scalzidevil.jpg) in his own article andnoted the act on his blog. I'm actually a Scalzi fan, but the image, while maybe suitable for his userpage, is not really suitable for his Wikipedia article. I removed the image and nominated the orphaned image for deletion, butit's already been restored. Off-wiki, Scalzi has prompted editing of his articlebefore; it would probably be best to head off an off-wiki campaign before it happens by deleting the image.Videmus Omnia02:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Move it out of the infobox, it'll scare the kiddies. See no reason not to have it otherwise, gives people a bit of insight into the man.Riana(talk)02:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec) It seems somewhat representative of the guy and is properly licensed. It's a bit unencyclopedic, perhaps, but the again what harm? I think it's kinda cool actually -Alison☺02:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I needed an admin to review the status of this article to see if it violates fair use. I noticed that it had a quite a bit of audio samples on it, to be exact, 25 of them. Under our fair use policy, wouldn't that contradict the fact we should have minimal use? —Moeε23:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I acknowledge I am biased (ex WikiProjectThe Beatles) but are you aware how much influence the Beatles have on Western 20th Century culture? 25 samples? Which ones did they have to leave out?LessHeard vanU00:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
For an article that lost its FA status for, amongst other things, being too large? Another aspect of attempting to square the circle that is being castigated for being both too complex and too concise..? Oh, don't pay attention to me - I'm just an editor who opted for the more tranquil waters of NPA than attempt to satisfy the contrary demands of third parties on one of the most popular hits for WP (oh, and vandalism... what the individual FA gets in its day in the sun is what The Beatles gets every other day!) Look at it this way, wouldEinstien be questioned over the over-reliance of mathematical equations in the article? What Einstien was to physics then the Beatles were to Western popular culture...thus ends the rant! Anyhow, I've mentioned this atTalk:The Beatles - which might have been a good venue to commence this discussion.LessHeard vanU01:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
An IP troll has appeared on wikipedia and they are continually blanking user pages of random editors then switching IP when blocked starting the whole thing again? What do we do about this?Francisco Tevez10:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The range is a bit too broad for a range block. I am handing out userspace protections in return for lollies, please contact me.Riana(talk)10:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocking his IP address for 20 minutes should be enough to make him need to switch his IP address - no need to give him more than that.OdMishehu11:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Volatility to Volatility (finance) move was done via copy/edit
Can someone with admin rights please take a look atVolatility (finance)? It was created fromVolatility by a copy/edit rather than a proper page move. I've tried to correct this type of problem in the past myself only to be blocked by an admin with an itchy trigger finger. Thanks.Ronnotel13:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
im not sure if this is the right place to post this or not but this user keeps trying to say im a troll and a sock puppet. He is also telling others that I refuse to listen to him and hes giving me grief about my archive. He refuses to listen to reason and I was hoping a admin could talk to him. Thanks.TheManWhoLaughs 15:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm having a problem with an editor who has repeatedly tried to place hisoriginal research in a range of articles, and has now turned to content forking to achieve his goals.
True, sandbox 50 is the articleEidon, which I worked out in a sandbox first before making it an article. However did not first try to put these ideas into other articles. I make edits to these other articles, but not on this particular subject.
true I do have an array of sandboxes to work out the articles first in a soadbox, however note most are deleted. Only the remaining are being now worked on.
You can go through my Contributions and see how I work and edit in the sandboxes. I make as many improvements as I canbefore I enter and make it a new article. You can see through the history how this went, then shortly therafter the new article was actually made. This sometimes actually makes an article so good in initial quality that ultimately there are few or no further improvements - examplePetrarch's library andPalazzo Molina andFrancesco Nelli andPetrarch's testamentum.
Sandbox 47 is the articleNous pretty much the way I worked it out in the sandbox. The points that I improved upon must not have been objectionable to other editors, since most of it is still there. The original article before I did a major overhaul was last edited on April 9. I did the overhaul (worked out in a sandbox first) on April23 - which most of that is still there to this day (so apparently other editors didn't object to most of it). Of course some edits have been done since then for additional improvements.
Sandbox 63 is theNoesis article worked out in this sandbox first. Yes, this part was later deleted.
Sandbox 65 is the articleNoema which I did a major upgrade to on June 17 - no editor has objected or even made any edits to it since I did this major improvement.
Sandbox 67 is only dictionary definitions I made to this "new" sandbox of as June 16. I haven't even worked with this material yet since I just obtained it.
Birthday of alpinism is a completely different subject thatFrancesco Dionigi which is explained in Talk of the prior. They happen to have common denominators that couldn't be avoided in the new article. If different references are desired, I can certainly furnish that. The article so far has received nothing butKeep from other editors.
Its interesting since theseKeep votes have come in--Akhilleus has made several improvement edits to this article he nominated to be deleted.
I agreed with merging Divine Nous with Nous to go along with the other editors to expide the process. If I would have objected, then there would of course been an objection to this. So to make matters simplier and to expide this I figured this was the best procedure. It really doesn't matter with me ifDivine Nous is merged, not merged, or deleted. Whichever they feel they want to do with the article is fine by me because it looks likeNous pretty well covers all the points anyway. I was just trrying to help matters by going along with everyone else. Whereever they want my vote on this is fine by me, since it doesn't matter to me. I haven't put in a vote one way or the other on the article or edited it.
Other articles I have started (many of which are few or no edits) are on my User page - mostly concerned withPetrarch.--Doug19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes I did make major improvements to the articleIdea starting on May 15 - most of which are still there to this day (so apparently other editors are not objecting).
Here are some example parts I added for improvements that are still there and were not there before I added them and are not being objected to:
History of the term "Idea"
Where ideas come from
Francesco Petrarch
René Descartes
John Locke additions
David Hume additions
Immanuel Kant additions
picture of "Walk of Ideas"
Wilhelm Wundt additions
Validity of ideas
Many additional references and sources added with inline citations and footnotes - including new Bibliography. Basically all the References now on the article are what I contributed. The article previously did not have a Reference section - I provided all the references - a major improvement.--Doug20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Forgot about the parts where I expanded the "See Also" section and added the links to
Whether you've improvedIdea is discussed atTalk:Idea. As you know, because you were part of the discussion, not everyone thinks you've improved the article. However, the reason I started the discussion here is not because of your edits toIdea in and of themselves; it's because you're creating articles likeBirthday of alpinism andeidon as content forks.--Akhilleus (talk)21:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Look at it this way - its obvious that I am trying to make major improvements to Wikipedia as is shown by my work. Perhaps I don't get every little rule correct, howeverassume good faith. If I broke a rule somewhere, it wasn't intentional. I am not trying to put in any particular "ideas" that others are objecting to. If they object to something I put in, I just let them take it out and leave it be. Its just not that important to me rather it is there or not. Most however is not objected to and is still there, so it must be alright. If you don't like something I added to an article, just take it out - I really don't care. There are so many articles to work on that I am too busy anyway to be concerned with nit-pick items. I didn't see you objecting to these points I added to the articleIdea. As I already explained in the Talk section ofBirthday of alpinism, this is entirely a different article with "different" viewpoints. If you want different references (being the only content items similar to the two articles), then just let me know and I will obtain them for the same material, since there are many references on this material.Eidon is also a differnt article (or anyway I thought it was when I initially wrote it), however you feel they are close - so my suggestion is then why not merge them to make one good article sinceEidos is now a stub. It obvious by the quality of my articles that my intentions are to write excellent articles - which apparently I have since most are not edited much. There are some however that do get a fair amount of activity and become an outstanding article from what I started - example beingAemilia Tertia. So my friend whatever you want to do withDivine Nous,Nous,Eidon, orEidos, it really doesn't matter to me. I have bigger and better things to do. My next major improvement will be onGiovanni Boccaccio and the articleOn Famous Women - so I thought I would give you a heads start on this one. FYI: I am the one that found the ISBN number for it.--Doug21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the second article I have seen by Doug Coldwell in two days. They are both empty pieces of nonsense, formed about a small fact, and bolstered by irrelevant references. This editor is seriously disruptive.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you are referring to on edits however here are a few in the last couple of days
Petrarch - Added that Cicero, Virgil, and Seneca were his literary models.)[33]
These are not exactly "disruptive" edits, however are constructive. In addition, you can see the quality of my articles I have started and work on.--Doug23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary:this edit, small though it is, is destructive and incompetent guesswork. "Philip of Macedon, the same who waged war against the Romans" is an (uncredited) quote from Petrarch; leaving out the quotation marks was already irresponsible. But that Philip isnotPhilip II of Macedon, as actually reading Wikipedia's article on him would have told Coldwell; Macaulay's schoolboy would have known it.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson00:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is true I did a major upgrade and major improvements to the articleNous on April 23. If you compare what I added, it turns out most of that also is still there to this day (so apparently has not been objected to by other editors). These are the Sections that were not there before that I added for improvements that are still there as major improvements:
Anaxagoras
Plato
Aristotle
Alexander of Aphrodisias
Neoplatonism
Plotinus
Augustinian Neoplatonism
The Section originally called "History" with identically the same wording has been relabeled "Overview of usage by ancient Greeks" and moved to the top. These are all major improvements which are still there to this day which no editors are objecting to. Of course there has been some additional edits to improvement my major improvements, which is to be expected (since there is always room for improvement). My major improvements have been then a springboard for other editors to work from, which they have. The previous edit before my major improvements was on April 9, which then was basically a stub with no references. It is now a full good quality article with the major improvements I made (which have been improved upon even more). The part of certain IP addresses of Divine Nous "probably belonging to Doug" is just that, a guess. There has been 5 different IP addresses that have worked onDivine Nous. I noticed thatNous, the article I made all these major improvements to, was flagged that perhaps Divine Nous should be merged with it. My first choice would be to delete Divine Nous, however had I said that there would of course been an objection. So since there only 4 choices here (merge, no merge, delete, keep) I chose to merge since this apparently was what the other editors wanted, so I went along with them. Whichever vote they want from me on that article I will be glad to give, if I knew what they wanted without an objection.
If you go through the last 2000 edits I did in my Contributions you can see the parttern is that I work out an article first in a sandbox. Then when all the bugs have been worked out and all the improvements added, I then make it a new article (or a major section improvement to an existing article). This then produces quality and there are few (if any) further edits needed for some time for these major improvements made. Also you can see the many other improvements I have made to many other articles (from ice cream to botanical gardens to science to history) as well as much vandelism reverted. There are times these improvements are then even improved further, which is the way it should be.--Doug11:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
In other words, you don't edit cooperatively. This is a wiki; the product of several minds is usually better than one. And when your "improvement" is justly criticized, as atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi, youi createanother article with the same information and the same sources, andlie about it. The temptation to do so must be strong; that is a lot of work to waste; but it would be better to edit cooperatively from the beginning.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd say I edit in a very cooperative manner and try to please as many other Wikipedians as I can. Ultimately I won't be able to please all, however most times I can please most others. I have noticed that certain areas are however more sensitive than others, in particular religion and philosophy. One example, in these other fields, where recently an editor felt I wrote up an article that looked like an advertisement for a historical society. That was not intentional when I wrote up the article, since I have no connections to the society (therefore no motive). Anyway I rewrote the article (in cooperation with other editor requests) so that it didn't look like an advertisement, which completely satisfied all the other editors. That article isMason County Historical Society. Other articles that I have started that have been expanded and improved much, that I contributed again to in cooperation with other Wikipedians, that ultimately produced a quality article are:
There are several more articles I work on in full cooperation with several other Wikipedians, however the list would get too long if put here.--Doug17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
In this case, you may get a more productive result out of arequest for comment than out of the Admin noticeboard, as there does not seem to be a clear-cut policy violation. I would recommend listing it there and seeing what sort of comments come out of the woodwork.Pastordavid16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
How about copying right out of theEncyclopedia Britannica? Compare the earliest revision ofGenealogia deorum gentilium (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genealogia_deorum_gentilium&oldid=106348439)--"Boccaccio'son the genealogy of the gods of the gentiles is a scholarly interpretive compendium of classical myth... It was the first ever in a very long line of Renaissance mythographies." and theEncyclopedia Britannica article on Humanism: "HisDe genealogia deorum gentilium (“On the Genealogy of the Gods of the Gentiles”), a scholarly interpretive compendium of classical myth, was the first in a long line of Renaissance mythographies;..." That's a direct quote, copied into Wikipedia without attribution; given Doug's seeming unfamiliarity with research standards I believe he was unaware that was he was doing was incorrect, but it is plagiarism and copyright violation nonetheless. I have to wonder if the same problem is present in other articles he's written.--Akhilleus (talk)17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, it was unintentional. I often work from the 1911 Edition of theEncyclopedia Britannica, which text I understand is public domain. If you found certain text fromEncyclopedia Britannica that you think is copyright, could you please remove it as perhaps I placed it there by mistake thinking it was public domain text -or- make the correct reference to what it should be. Normally if I know some text is copyright I make the appropriate reference and give credit where it should be. Example on the articleStreet Light Interference I quote Hilary Evans on page 16 as toWhat seems most likely to be happening in this phenomenon and placed it in quoteblocks - which to the other editors I am working with on this article seem to think is the correct procedure. So if you find where I accidently placed some text that is copyright someplace, please make the correct references or let me know so I can correct.--Doug19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Public Domain status doesn't mean it's not plagarism. You still must attribute the words ofThomas Paine orShakespeare to their authors. I suggest, quite seriously, you research plagarism as it applies ot the writing of papers and such. You've probably got an old high school/college copy of Strunk & White's somewhere, might be worth keeping it at hand as you continue to edit Wikipedia.ThuranX22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
"Britannica", in this case, did not mean the 1911 Britannica; the text was copied fromthis page, which is copyright 2007. There's little doubt that the text was copied from that page, because it was one of the external links in the original version ofGenealogia deorum gentilium.--Akhilleus (talk)00:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
As you can see in my other articles I do give credit if it is copyright material - two such examples are inFrancescuolo da Brossano in addition to the examples inStreet Light Interference described above. The material for the major section additions I added above toNous andIdea were public domain text. I referenced this as such at the bottom. Article ofIdea has a very extensive Reference section now that I added, where there was nothing before I made the major improvements to the article. The article on May 14 was tagged as not having any references - so I provided many. I do 1000's of edits and apparently at that monent thought it was the 1911 public domain text of Britannica. I realize it was a short sentence, however should have been credited accordingly anyway. Thanks for noticing this and removing the text. I'll watch it closer in the future.--Doug20:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I can only agree that Doug's edits have been disruptive and damaging to the quality of the encyclopedia. WhenI nominated some of Doug's work on Jerome's De viris illustribus for deletion, I provided some documentation of his original research agenda (for example, to prove that the New Testament was written only several hundred years ago). More recently, atTalk:Divine_Nous (diff), Doug has denied any connection to anonymous IP edits from his area of Michigan that are very obviously him. I think this should be investigated, and that his lies to make himself look better/different should be weighed in any evaluation of how he participates in the Wikipedia community. I warmly embrace the amateur nature of the Wikipedia project, but Doug is a crackpot, not an amateur. He edits and creates many articles about ancient Greek philosophical ideas, not because he is interested in them or knows anything about them, but because they fit into his original-research project. Most recently, afterI called successfully for the deletion of "Good sense" Doug has put the same dubious, half-understood, error-riddled, and often nonsensical material at several other articles (Idea,Nous,Divine Nous,Eidos (philosophy), etc.). These contributions have been thrown together by a method totally contrary to any integrity; they are full of footnotes, but in fact the citations (I've looked some up in my library!) often do not justify Doug's original-research statements, and Doug culls indiscriminately from any bad source (he treats ref-desk answers as fact; he has recently been treatingJohn Opsopaus as an actual source for ancient Greek ideas, as in a recent attempt to get yet another fork going atNoesis!), so that it's much worse than nothing. The few expert editors out there (I don't claim to be an expert in Neoplatonism, but like Akhilleus I know ancient Greek) struggle to keep up with and contain these messes. In the history of my involvement with Wikipedia, I have generally been content to see quality material build up; Doug's projects stand out as the only counter-argument that seems to say, "Wikipedia doesn't work; a small team of expert classicists is not enough to keep several articles from reflecting garbage ideas from one problem user, which the community has no effective way to keep up with." I'd love to be proven wrong and see the system do something here, & send the message that if the scholars on Wikipedia express unanimous dismay about bad material, it can count for something, & that the system will work and keep the bad material from spreading and lingering.Wareh02:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
For those not up on the problems here: This is not even aplausible crankery. The New Testament is the best attested Ancient Greek work of literature; it has a dozen manuscripts of pre-Byzantine date, (and hundreds of papyrus fragments) all in genuine third to sixth-century writing, found all over the Eastern Mediteranean, and many of them with Koine variants not in the standard text. The Church fathers quoted all of it, one place or another. Petrarch didn't have enough Greek to read Homer.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems a bit suspicious for a newbie, and a possible username violation even. Goes around adding{{fact}} to articles, even dating the additions (I don't even remember to do that, and I've been on WP two years!). Then theyoppose my RfA. Sounds an awful lot like a sockpuppet of a banned editor, though I don't know exactly who matches Republic's MO. Can an experienced admin check up on the situation? —Crazytales(talk)(alt)13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, they are even dating the fact tag! That is obviously aWP:SPA, but I don't think they are disruptive by themselves (yet?). I'd suggest keeping an eye on him to see if an agenda appears. --lucasbfrtalk13:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Gotta be someone who's been here before, and obviously hitting "Random article" and added the fact tags. The only sock I can recall with a similar M.O. wasUser:MsHyde (a sock of the bannedUser:Cindery), who added unreferenced tags to a few hundred random articles to build up her first 300 edits or so. But I think we'll have to wait and see.MastCellTalk15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I declined the unblock due to the suspicious behaviour, but I may have been wrong. The user showed me where they first found the obscure tag I mention in my unblock decline that so raised my warning bells.[35] The tag was added a long while ago by another user.[36] A couple of usershave expressed concern about the block. I myself am a bit suspicious and wary of the user. However, in the absence of solid evidence that this user is the sockpuppet of another specific user, or that the user's intention is to disrupt Wikipedia or harass its users, our principles encourage us to assume good faith. An indefinite block seems a bit out of place without a demonstrated need for it. Indef blocks are generally meant for users who have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to work productively in this environment, not first warnings. Just some thoughts.Vassyana12:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I made the following comment to the user on IRC - "Well, I don't know if you're telling the truth or trolling. But Wikipedia policies as well as common sense would seem to indicate that in the absence of clear evidence for the latter, the former should be assumed". I think this sums up my views, it's possible that the user is trolling, however I think he should be unblocked in the interests of Assuming Good Faith. It's trivial to block the user again if he is a troll, yet we could lose a potentially valuable contributer to wikipedia if he remains blocked. --Darksun13:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
This is obviously a sockpuppet. Ask them to get over it and get another account; if they feel like editing constructively. —{C}13:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a fair bit of nonsense. Being asockpuppet is not a reason in and of itself for a block, especially an indefinite one. Also, it's more than a bit ridiculous to say we should tell them "to get over it and get another account" when their indef block includes (account creation blocked).Vassyana16:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
While I agree he's a sockpuppet/new account of an other user (he know the procedures much more than most users), I don't really see the harassment. In my views his behavior is not really againstWP:SOCK, since he did not disrupt a process or seem to have /voted somewhere. Personally I'd assume good faith, unblock and keep an eye on him; but for now blocking him is more a preemptive strike than anything else. As a principle I never revert an admin decision without consensus to do so, so it's your call. --lucasbfrtalk16:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that there was nothing wrong with voting as long as the user votes once; i.e. not with both accounts.hbdragon8818:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I blocked because I saw the !vote. There should very likely be a checkuser in this situation to see if the individual was vote stacking.— ()20:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The above is a good example ofpoisoning the well. If you want to request the checkuser, go ahead, but would you agree to unblock if nothing turns up? Given what the user appears to have learned, I'm not sure what this block ispreventing.GracenotesT §02:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Due to the lack of evidence connecting the user to a banned/blocked account and no proof that this user is a puppet of an abusive sock, I cannot support an indefinite ban. Additionally, it seems as though consensus indicates that the user should be unblocked under good faith. I have notified Crazytaleshere and Ryulonghere that I am willing to unblock under these circumstances. Barring any serious objections and/or further evidence, I will unblock the user after 24 hours to allow time for responses.Vassyana07:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I support the unblock. In fact, I'd support an unblock right now. The user quoted from RFA:"Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose and Neutral sections" Considering this block, the user is correct in saying that this is obviously not true in practice. Apparently, we have some intangible suffrage level of "real" looking edits before a user can vote without being banned. I can't believe thatthis is being considered harrassment. It's a complete misapplication ofblocking policy and disregard ofassuming good faith. --Renesis (talk)21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
User page as possible attack page
What is the policy or usual method of acting when one encounters a user page that may be genuine, but looks to me more like an attackpage? I mean something likeUser:Robthenerd1990, which is possibly not written by this Rob Boot but by e.g. a school "friend" (I can't imagine someone saying about himself "Hi I'm a Christian nerd and a nazi). Warn? Blank? Block? Leave alone?Fram16:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Robthenerd199019:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Its not an 'attackpage' and the fact that you consider it such makes you appear to be intolerant of the far-right, i was also 'robthegate' but i lost the password a few days after creating the account (i didn't give an email address for it so i couldn't get my password emailed) Why would i cover up my political or religious beliefs? I am openly a National Socialist and have been for a couple of years, i don't go shouting it but most people guess and if they ask ill tell them. Most Neo-Nazis are unlikely to cover up what they think unless they are trying to sabotage a red or anti site. I started the 'littlemoss' site as 'robthegate' and i rarely see the need to update a page and if i do it usually gets stopped even if i provide factual evidence.— Precedingunsigned comment added byRobthenerd1990 (talk •contribs)
Ahh, an accusation of intolerance from a devotee of Adolf Hitler whose avocation is making "morality based complaints involving male and female relationships amongst his peers." Mind if I go ahead and tag the two accounts as related?MastCellTalk20:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Help, please Could someone reviewthis post; these issues have not been resolved or even addressed. I have refrained from editing these pages, pending someone's intervention, and I don't want another edit war to start. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M03:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The post looks like a content dispute. Have you considered using the dispute resolution process? — Carl(CBM · talk)03:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Carl, to be honest, I was not sure where to put this, as there are a large variety of disputes across more than one namespace, even. If you think it is wisest to post there, I will. Does anyone else have any suggestions? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M19:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Pl. blockUser:Zaindy87 who has uploaded several images (which he himself admits to be fair use for copyrighted images) under the additional license tags of Creative Commons or GDFL. The upload page clearly mentions "Do not upload content with false license declarations. You will be blocked." He has exactly uploaded with false licenses, therefore pl. block him and delete the images. --Idleguy04:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I see no need to block at this time (not that I could if I wanted to...). He seems to have stopped for the while, and probably understands the warning. If he does it again, you would be within reason to take it directly toWP:AIV (an unusual step, but it works).YechielMan22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Problem Editor/Possible Vandal
Stefers08 (talk·contribs) made several uploads and edits to three of the four mainFantastic Four Heroes by using promotional images from the FF movies. Upon further review of his contribution history, either this guy is an obvious vandal that has slipped under the radar, or a seriously misguided editor. Activity suggests and leans towards Vandal. I checked most of his uploaded images, and the ones I saw had the {{Non-free currency}} tags on images that depict ficticious characters. Most of his activity has been "contained" in a 12 day period. --293.xx.xxx.xx11:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This is almost certainly a good-faithWP:NOOB who simply doesn't understand the image policy. Come on, everyone, raise your hand if you really had a solid understanding of image policy during your first month or 50 edits on the project. That's what I thought. So some of the images are already tagged, and the others could be listed at IFD. No harm, no foul.YechielMan22:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Tagged for speedy deletion under the brand-new CSD U4 ("polemic"). Anyone want to take this one? I'm seriously tempted to remove the tag and say take it to MfD, but...Fvasconcellos (t·c)14:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I feel I have no choice but to forward this to MFD, for one very simple reason. Userboxes of this nature have survived MFD in the past, and I can only support a speedy criterion if I believe that a formal debate would result in a near-unanimous deletion. I will make it a procedural nomination, and I will give full context. I hope that works for everyone.YechielMan14:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I've tagged this andUser:UBX/Capitalist on the grounds their opposites, Palestinian return and communism were recently speedied. Fully understand about your reasons for prefering a MfD.Addhoc14:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Works for me, although I can't really say I'd have agreed with the above two being speedied either. Thanks for understanding.Fvasconcellos (t·c)14:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
There's are active discussions on this & related deletions in several places simultaneously , (at least) WP:DRV, WP:CSD, WP:MfD .DGG21:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope I've found the right place to post this; sorry if I haven't.User: Darkcurrent recently made a small, unsourced edit to a page I watch, but then summarized it in a completely inappropriate way:diff. I am personally deeply offended by his language, and originally I was just going to ask him to stop on his talk page -- but then I noticed that he's been blocked for very similar behavior before:[38] (links to user's contributions page). I'm not sure what needs to be done, but I'd suggest that the user be blocked again, as that seemed to teach him a lesson, at least for a little while before. Thanks.Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway.17:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(Non admin comment) I see you left him a polite warning, that was definitely a step in the right direction. I'll keep an eye out and if he continues then you cna either follow up here or take it straight toAIV. All the best.17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that whatever point Darkcurrent was attempting to make was more than slightly compromised by his spelling "whole" without thew... Considering the epithet s/he used regarding editors, perhaps they had something else on their mind?LessHeard vanU18:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(Non admin comment) Also, the point is false. It's I'm in insurance, per[39]. You'd have to go to the last page, if memory serves, because it's the final scene, but clearly, it's "I'm in insurance.".--Ispy198121:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
That was my first thought, as Light current was banned in February and this account started full-time editing in March (only one edit before that) and Light current had a history of abusive edit summaries. But it seems to be two different people based on editing patterns and their comments. —Moeε22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The articleSteve Brookstein has been edited by an anon claiming to be that person (seeTalk:Steve Brookstein). This needs investigating given "how can Wikipedia be taken seriuosly when it allows vandalism and untruths be spread about people and presented as facts", but nobody has taken this through the official channels as far as I am aware.violet/riga(t)17:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
He was legitamately complaining about a BLP violation on the talk page that would violate NPA as well. Could someone oversite it please now i've edited it off the talk page?)17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The editor who added the section in question is 80.6.89.61 and here is the diff[40], that should help.)17:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to block the IP address68.173.209.19 (talk·contribs), because he continues to change the colors on baseball players infoboxes, mostly Yankees players and changes them to lesser known teams they played for. I believe he changes them because he doesnt like the Yankees, and that is not a good reason to change the colors, I also believe it is the Ip address ofPascack (talk·contribs), considering they make nearly all the same edits, and I think he uses a couple of other IP address also. I have told him numerous times to stop but he doesnt listen--Yankees1018:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10
He offers the fact that the said player is in the hall of fame with those colors (i.e. Dave Winfield was with the Padres the most). What is your compelling reason for retaining the original colors?hbdragon8818:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(non admin) Those are all debatable, especially Fisk, who is most closely associated in the popular imagination with the Red Sox and wears a Red Sox cap on his Hall plaque. I'd say that, in many cases, you're right, but there are others -- Jeff Nelson comes to mind -- in which he's done the right thing.Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway.20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Possible contender for the Screaming WGAS award here. No administrative action is called for here; work it out somewhere else. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Jeff Nelson actually played three separate stints for the Seattle Mariners and played more years in Seattle. However, I agree that he is likely better known as a Yankee. However, Reggie Jackson played many more years in Oakland and won more titles in Oakland. Since his photo is already shown as a Yankee, I think it would be most fair to show Oakland colors, so that both teams are represented. However, I have never used profanity or foul language in the descriptions when making edits, a practice thatYankees10 has done consistently. I think this is much worse than showing Jeff Nelson as a Mariner, or Reggie Jackson as an Oakland A - both representations that are not beyond reality. I will give him Nelson as a Yankee but Reggie should be shown with Oakland colors since he played many more years there. Regarding Carlton Fisk, he actually is in the Hall with Boston colors, not White Sox, but I think he is most remembered as a Red Sox due to the famous World Series HR in 1975, and I believe the general consensus would agree. Gary Carter is wearing an Expos in the Hall but it was his request to wear a Mets cap and he was overruled because the Hall wanted an Expos hat represented before the organization moved to Washington. He is most remembered for his high-profile championship years with the Mets in the 1980's and he has also spent the better part of the past 15 years working in the Mets organization as an instructor and minor league manager. Carter clearly identifies himself most as a Met.Pascack21:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
UseYankees10 (talk·contribs) has persistently used profanity in the discussion section in editing history. Argument in question is the team colors on Reggie Jackson's infobox - Oakland vs. Yankees. This argument can go in either way, but he should not be using such language on a public forum.— Precedingunsigned comment added byPascack (talk •contribs)21:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I admit I am over using profanity but you are changing everything because you clearly dont like the Yankees--Yankees1022:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10
Personal Attacks & Incivility
User:ThuranX started making personal attacks on me the other day, and has not relented, despite my efforts to resolve the issue politely and, in the end, somewhat ineffectively. I have had very little in the way of interaction with him, and am very surprised by the rage and vitriol I am seeing in his recent edits to and about me. The conversation began over some placement of citation tags in theCatwoman, wherein ThuranX and another user, Duhman were edit-warring and generally being uncivil to each other. I suggested that they might want to take a step back for a bit, and they both went nuts. I replied to each of them on their talk pages. Duhman proved pretty much a lost cause, but I had enough respect for Thuran to try and help square things away, as evidencedhere andhere (both of the short sections are full of personal attacks). He took my questioning of his edits as a personal attack, and became a lot more uncivil. I wasn't expecting this and responded a bit hotly, though nowhere near as hotly as what continued. I retracted my statements, hoping this would calm matters down. It didn't, and the personal attacks just kept coming: In the Catwoman article:
The damnable thing is that, while I know he is feelingburnt out and is not at all polite with many, many others (as evidenced by a look at just the edit history of his own Talk page). I actuallyrespected the guy - until he decided to target me. I am not sure how to proceed, as he seems to be continuing the uncivil stuff despite my politely trying to defuse matters, or not responding at all. I mean, I am avoiding the guy, but he just keeps making comments. Can someone lend a hand? -Arcayne(cast a spell)18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
He's not assuming good faith on your part, but good faith has its limits and he might have reached his. Here he explains himself:[41]
You're a troll. You're deliberately disrupting pages with citation demands for every line and section to make a point. What that point is, I don't care. but it's tiring, childish, and irritating. If you feel that every single thing needs citation, you go find it. I found more than enough, given that this all started with you being nosey.ThuranX17:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've not reviewed your dispute in detail, but if ThuranX is seeing this correctly, he might be correct regarding the citations (though presumably has mistaken your intentions). You only need to place <ref/> tags on facts that are likely to be questioned. –Gunslinger4719:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that wasn't the issue prompting the complaint. I was addressing the personal attacks and incivility that accompanied the edits, which another editor also addressed with him (to no avail). Maybe he was all upset about the User:H issue, and it spilled over, but I am not the only person he has blown up at or made personal attacks at. When a user acts in this way, they usually get blocke for a period of time, not as punishment, necessarily, but instead to both protect the project as well as giving the person being complained about some perspective. I am not sure I understand the delay in acting here. -Arcayne(cast a spell)18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Uhh, I'll warn him to keep his cool but I pretty much agree with him in that you're being completely zealous with the whole citation thing... that's about all I'm willing to do though. Lay off asking for citation for facts that probably wouldn't challenged per policy.Sasquatcht|c04:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
On theTalk:Matt Sanchez page,User:pwok, now editing under his IP address ofUser:71.231.140.80, has continually (one might even say continuously) attacked editors who do not agree with his interpretation of how to edit the (contentious) article onMatt Sanchez. Pwok/71.231 is an SPA, as his user logs show. He has been blocked three times already for incivility (3 hours, 10 days, and 7 days), and during his blocks he has used his talk page (which he blanked yesterday) to rain invective upon Sanchez, other editors, the admins who have blocked him, and Wikipedia itself. Then, of course, there isthis attack on Wikipedia, at a site he has created,which is solely dedicated to smearing Sanchez. (Suggests more than a bit of a Conflict of Interest.) He apparently has some sort of vendetta against Sanchez, and there have been allegations of off-wiki drama between the two of them, but his activity here (and his personal attacks againstUser:Elonka andUser:WjBscribe are simply out of line. During his last involuntary wikibreak, the hostility level on that talk page dropped considerably. I would suggest some sort of intervention, and am willing to take this to the next level if necessary to block a tendentious and abusive editor from Wikipedia.Horologiumt-c21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The IP address has been blocked byJayjg for a month (link) and its talkpage has been protected following the subsequent posting of attacks and abuse. Given this and the receipt of abusive emails fromPwok, I have now blocked that account indefinitely (and disabled the "E-mail this user" feature from that account in order to prevent further attacks on editors he has been in conflict with).WjBscribe02:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
24.203.217.170, IP of an indefinitely blocked user
The following discussion is preserved as anarchive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Ok, now that is an example of a very bad faith posting.
I have clearly stated that I do not want this to be discussed in a public settinghere.
It is my understanding that a dispute with another editor cannot be resolved until that editor is made aware of the problem. Therefore, I posted to Durova's page to make her aware of the problem.
Per Jehochman's requesthere, I rephrased my posting to Durova and removed the wording that Jehochman objected to. And yet, rather than post my 'good faith version', he posted the diff to the original version here.
It took several edits to completely catch them all, but the final edit washere. PRIOR to Jehochman's post on AN/I.
Notice that Jehochman even Thanked me for making the changeshere.
"::::You're welcome. You've still got the word "defamatory" in there. That's a lightning rod. Please refactor that comment one more time"-Jehochman
By bringing this to a public forum for discussion, you are forcing me to discuss my personal life and you are causing people's attention to be focused on lies that have been said about me. I consider that to be harassment.
I have not been uncivil to Durova. She has lied about me and falsely accused me. I asked her to stop.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After an editorexposed my real identity in anANI through an error I made in a sandbox, I have been harassed number of times with that information ever since. I have not dealt with incident of exposure of my real identity when I had made all efforts to conceal it including blanking the Sanbox number of times yet. That decision I am still grapling with but the harrasement is interfering in my ability to contribute to wikipedia.
However, Iwazaki's action of stocking and harassing a wikipedian is wrong. Especially when he puts on the "totally disputed" tags on articles that has been edited byUser:Taprobanus without a proper reason. How can we expect Taprobanus to contribute to wikipedia if his work is going to be torn apart because of his real identity. Proper steps needs to be taken to help fellow wikipedian to make him edit comfortablyWatchdogb14:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment on the stalking issue right now but this identity reveling issue is totally false allegation as I see. I too like to recommend to have an Oversight regarding this but I strongly object for the scolding on others for the totally unwanted self identity declaring done by him self. It's true that Blnguyen went through theSpecial:Prefixindex on User:Taprobanus and found that on his Sandbox. But once that essay was on his userpage. So if Taprobanus reveled his identity then he should learn to live with it. Sorry to say that. --18:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This complaint is not on the fact that he revealed his identity. Its rather about Iwazaki breachingWP:NPA,WP:Civil,WP:AGF and so on. It's about judging the editor and then assuming he is here to vandalize. Wikipedia clearly does not allow this. Some measures should be taken to stop said user from such offence. We all want to contribute to wikipedia without being stocked and abused for our real identity.Watchdogb21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I feel users should not raise the background,race,religion,sex etc while raising issues here on any account in particular in Talk or Discussion pages and discussion should be confined to the topic ,I feel that is getting to personal and if he is stalking that is totally unacceptable and I feel no user should stalk others.One can watch pages no issues with that but stalking is totally unacceptable and violation ofWP:NPA,WP:Civil,WP:AGF.Harlowraman21:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought this wasAdministrators Notice Board of Incidents (ANI), :((( looks like no one wants to touch a hot potato. That’s all right, any way I have my two cents, based on the adamant protection ofUser:Blnguyen reveals to me that the poor chap was set up, i.e he was given the information by those who had interacted with me in the past. But this notice is not about Blnguyen’s actions. This is about the harassment. ThanksTaprobanus12:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
TheWikiProject Hello! Project covers articles about Japanese pop celebrities, and as such, is a magnet for replaceable non-free images of living people. Besides keeping an eye on its articles, I haveadded minor instructions to the project's page to help with the problem.
It's a good thing to notice that the project also promotes the tagging of all images used in its articles. But its incentive to the upĺoad of images that are going to be deleted is not something desirable. --Abu badali(talk)22:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I've left a nice essay on the main user's talk page and the talk page of the project.— ()22:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
And they're not getting it. They're claiming that there are no free alternatives because their management company does not allow fans to bring cameras to the concerts.— ()00:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The same user,User:Cjmarsicano, continues with his highly uncivil language[53][54] andownish behaviour[55][56][57][58] (where he states that only members of that Wikiproject should edit the Wikiproject's page, otherwise it's vandalism) even after Ryulong and hbdragon88 tried to communicate with him. Would someone especially tactful be willing to step in and help? Thanks. --Abu badali(talk)16:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Racist Personal Attacks
Resolved
Please be aware that on the talk page forJoseph Smith Jr. the editorUser:Storm Rider has taken to personally insulting another editor, myself, by using racial slurs damning all Indians. I will not contribute in an environment that is hostile or that insults my race and he has done both. I asked a question involving the possible racism of Joseph Smith as it might be something to make the article more accurate. It is true that most people of Smith's time were racist and if Smith was as well then as an importand leader that began a religous movement it should be noted, especially since books penned by Smith do contain racist material. I recieved some initial responses but I still felt the issue had not come to a proper decision. I was very conserned about some of the information provided in a link and I specifically asked if the information in the link was factually accurate. At that point Storm Rider, instead of answering the question, called me a hypocrite for even asking. Not only did he call me a hypocrite for even asking but he then proceeded to insult my race by using phrases like "blood thirsty Savages" to decribe all Indians and he insist on inserting information that had nothing to do with the topic at had, the possible racism of Joseph Smith Jr., by saying over and over again that all Indians are liers because they weren't the first people in America so they are all liers for saying it. I do not feel conforable continueing to edit in this type of atmosphere. I ask that this user be centured for these racist comments and not allowed to edit anymore. Should this not be something that Wikipedia is able to do even to someone that has launched this horrid type of personal attack at me then I feel it prudent to not edit Wikipedia anymore. Please let me know which one of us should go.--Billiot22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, a quick look says you're misrepresenting the situation. Storm Rider did notphrases like "blood thirsty Savages" to decribe all Indians; rather, he said,The various cultures of Native Americans ran from blood thirsty to peaceful...just like every other culture upon the earth. Slow down and read more carefully, and perhaps you'll have a better time here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆22:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I find this kind of talk fromUser:Storm Rider to be totally uncalled for:
The noble savage is a farce and to begin to attempt to say that Native Americans were the "first" residents of these lands is the stuff of fairy tales we tell to ensure that the injustice of "the man" is condemned. That first group or people has yet to be identified or known by history. However, current archeology would say that Native Americans may simply be transplants from Asia. Given that perspective the concept of "original" inhabitants loses its primacy and legitimacy.
Not only is it uncalled for, because it is incendiary, but it is probably incorrect. Current understanding is that Native Americans are likely the descendants of basically the first human beings to inhabit North and South America. SeeRecent single origin hypothesis.Bus stop22:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, "probably incorrect". There are also hints of human activity before the current residents and of catastrophe. But "simply transplants from Asia" only makes sense if there is an alternative of humans appearing spontaneously in many places. They're most likely to have appeared where primates live. (SEWilco04:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC))
Jossi, I agree with your assessment and appreciate the notice. However, it should be udnerstood that the words being the biggest issue were copied from a personal attack on my talk page. After I responded Billiot copied just my exchange without his/her attack on the Joseph Smith, Jr talk page. To put everything in context I then added Billot's attack so that my response would be taken in context, butDuke53 reverted that addtion from the talk page. This is basically silliness in which I should not have engaged. I recognize that Billot was just trolling and I fed the troll. --Storm Rider(talk)17:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Can an administrator check the deleted page history to see whether Coredesat deleted the article by mistake?
If the article was deleted by mistake, can an administrator please delete Bosniak's version and restore the original?
If the article was not deleted by mistake, can an administrator please speedy-delete Bosniak's version, warn him against reposting deleted content, and direct him toWP:DRV?
There was never any full article there, far as I can see. Just a redirect. Note there was a bit of moving and shuffling of articles going on around then (and since) but what Coredesat deleted was just a redir -Alison☺23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Never mind; I see what the problem is. The page was moved elsewhere andthen AfD'd. So in this case Bosniak is reposting deleted content. This is at least the second time he's done so; he was previously warned for this. This incident is particularly egregious because he's attacking an administrator who wasn't even involved in the deletion,User:Duja, claiming that Duja is responsible and has a conflict of interest. I suspect a block is in order (and it wouldn't be the first time). —Psychonaut00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This incident was marked as resolved, but so far no one has addressed the behaviour of the user in question, who has
reposted a deleted articlefor the second time,after being warned the first time that this could lead to a block;[59]
refused to avail himself ofWP:DRV despite suggestions by two editors;[60][61]
used numerous pages to accuse a completely uninvolved administrator (Duja) of engineering the deletion, accused Duja of having some unspecified conflict of interest, and forum-shopped to seek a remedy;[62][63][64][65] and
continued to proclaim that Serbs and Croats own particular articles on Wikipedia and that due to institutional racism here Bosniaks are prevented from having "their" own articles, thereby implying that it's proper for Wikipedia articles to exist for polemic purposes.[66][67][68][69]
Unfortunately this recent behaviour is simply the latest in a long string of personal attacks and willful disregard for consensus and policy. —Psychonaut09:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, his behavior has been a problem that seriously needs to be addressed. For instance, I had to block him back in March due to personal attacks he made.[70] Hisblock log shows that his incivility has been consistent throughout his time here. Perhaps you might want to open up an RFC on his conduct.--Jersey Devil10:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think an RFC is necessary or would be helpful. This isn't a content dispute; this is a user persistently attacking others as "racists" and flouting policy and consensus as if it doesn't apply to him. The behaviour has been going on for nearly a year, and has affected dozens of editors, many of whom have patiently tried to educate Bosniak about the rules. IMHO all that needs be done is enforce the existing rules to curb this behaviour; an RFC would only give Bosniak's irrational persecution complex yet another platform to spout its outrageous claims of Serbian infiltration. —Psychonaut11:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I've left him another message explaining exactly why the article was deleted, what recourse he has if he disagrees, what policies the article violated, and that his talk of conspiracy theories and allegations of racism will not be tolerated. If he continues, I'm happy to block him for a short time for incivility; if it persists after that, I'm ready to propose a community ban. His consistent NPOV violations compounded with his victim mentality and conspiracy theories do not a good contributor make. --Merope13:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I explained my rationale for moving to the "allegations" title at the current AFD. I don't feel that strongly about it, but please folks, let's not have an edit war.ShalomHello14:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to step into that article, but I'll point out that if you're going to use the "allegations" wording, shouldn't it be "Allegations ...against the United States", notby the United States? The other wording makes it sound like it's an article covering allegations that the United States has made. (In fact, that's what I thought when I saw this section header.) --Aquillion17:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This user has been adding a foreign GTA fansite to the external links section tomany Grand Theft Auto related articles that certain has no reason to belong there and takes you to a page that simply contains a date and does nothing. -.:Alex:.16:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
–Avoid nourishing the trolls; new sockpuppet blocked.
There's a bit of an argument going on atMrClaxson's talkpage, related to thesock report for which he was indef-blocked. Could someone intervene, particularly since the accounts of whom he is a sock were both notorious post-blocking trolls, who had their talkpages protected? Thanks, --Rambutan (talk)16:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
He's been indef-blocked and his appeal denied, so I'd suggest just ignoring him. If he keeps posting abusively on his talk page just to hear himself talk, then I'll be happy to protect it. But right now, I think the best approach isto let him go hungry - stop responding to his talk-page posts, and he'll probably stop. If not, let me know or come back here. If you have problems with him flooding your email inbox, we can reblock him with email disabled.MastCellTalk17:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing andLeonig Mig had paragraphs on their respective userpages, attacking the other user.User:Vox Humana 8' talked to them, but then asked me to take a look when Pigsonthewing insisted there was no problem. I subsequently talked to them both, and Leonig was entirely reasonable. However, Pigsonthewing was not, claiming that he wasperfectly justified in having the message,removing my messages completely unreasonably, and revertingat least seven times. Also relevent is hisarbitration case, in which he was told he would be blocked if he excessively reverted. Could an uninvolved admin please take a look, and decide what needs to be done?J Milburn23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I have made no such personal attacks. The personal attack you cite was one of several made by Leonig Me, about me, not vice versa. My name remainsAndy Mabbett23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Now you've seen, at least in part, why the note is on my user page; and why its justified. That's not the worst he's called me; and he's always been allowed to get away with it, with no community sanction or admin response. My name remains,Andy Mabbett23:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Then rise above it. There is no need to respond to abuse with abuse. Your case suddenly becomes somewhat weakened when you yourself have behaved in an unreasonable manner.J Milburn23:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
We have more than a million articles and four million users. Would all the litigants please go off and do something else for a while and stop complaining, stop insulting each other and stop posting notes here, there or anywhere. That's a very simple solution that will end this dispute. You're fighting about nothing!JehochmanTalk00:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, I don't see how multipleWP:NPA and3RR violations as well as a probable violation ofArb Comm rulings can be reasonably described as "nothing". Unfortunately, this is yet another example of Pigsonthewing's stubbornness and refusal to compromise and the frustration his behaviour engenders in other editors - several of whom feel that he is, if not "stalking" them, then certainly monitoring and reverting their edits more closely than is normal (hence the reason I'm not logged in to post these comments). --86.144.101.21507:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask why nothing has been done about this? This is a blatant violation ofno personal attacks andthe three revert rule, not to mention going against an ArbCom ruling. Why then, do I post this here, leave it overnight, and only get someone suggesting that posting here was an immature action? This is actually rather ridiculous. Why do we have this board, if not for situations like this?J Milburn09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hm I notice that the reverts were in his own user space where the three revert rule is restricted and that at least one administrator was making the same reverts as he was. Whilst I am one of several people irritated by Andy's posts in projects where I belong and I sarted watching this thread as I initially hoped he might be made to shut up at last, I now have come to believe that your posts here are on a similar level to his posts on his page re Leonard Mig that you tried to remove. Can further posts here be restricted to uninterested parties (sock puppets need not apply) or to responses to specific accusations by the person accused. --Peter cohen11:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I actually find that rather offensive. I was originally asked to look into this matter as an uninvolved administrator, and now I am being shufted to one side as if I am 'trying to get one over' on an 'enemy' of mine. I got involved, find myself to be somewhat in over my head due to the excessive amount of reverting done, and obviously I have no interest in breaching thethree revert rule myself. I am honestly not sure whyRyulong made that revert- I can only assume it was a mistake, or he was reverting the actions of an obvious sock puppet. I am not quite sure why 'uninterested parties' would ever post; perhaps you mean 'uninvolved parties'? That's what I was originally. And, in completely good faith, no offense meant- who in hell are you to say who is and who isn't allowed to post here? The only reason I have continued to post is because no one has responded here. This is a CLEAR case of disruption, why is everyone so unwilling to do anything about it?J Milburn12:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The message is now back on Pigsonthewing's userpage. Could an uninvolved admin please do something about this? As Peter cohen so politely told me, my opinion no longer seems to be valid, and it is not like Pigsonthewing has any respect for the removal, simply reverting without explanation. This is disruptive, and is causing considerable friction.J Milburn12:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
My point was that if you lookhere various uninvolved editors are attempting to get the information off both userpages, yet Pigs persists in reinstating the information on his page while removing it from Leonig Mig's page.One Night In Hackney30313:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It does appear hypocritical, although justifiable when using a particular logic and interpretation. I strongly suggest that the sections be removed from both user pages, but I would also suggest that arguing about it (and blocks) will cause more trouble than the original problem.JPD (talk)13:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The evidence presented here isstrongly compelling that PoTW should be blocked for the behavior he has shown. In particular I first point out that conducting 7 reverts in a single day on his own userpage while not violating the letter of the law with regards toWP:3RR, when taken in the context of removing personal attacks and his parole for reverts isstill in effect is very convincing by itself. Second, that PoTW twice attempted to remove similar personal attacks from the userpage of the person with whom he is in disagreement is an unequivocal violation of the same parole. That PoTW insists on behaving in this manner despite multiple people requesting him to stop, despite the prior ArbCom ruling against him for this behavior shows his inability to function appropriately within the confines of a community based project. This user is severely trying the patience of Wikipedia in general. Taking into account hisblock log, I am hard pressed to understand why this abusive user is being treated with kitten paws. I am further troubled that when uninvolved parties try to intervene, they are quickly embroiled in the debate and assaulted for taking action because they are so embroiled. This effectively undermines the ability of administrators to take action in this case. This has gone on far too long. A block, and a long one at that, is entirely appropriate and should be placed immediately. --Durin13:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I for one find Andy's entire attitude to discussions on Wikipedia unhelpful and wrong. This is not the only incident where he has wasted hours of editors' time trying to push his point. Even if he's the only one who believes as such, he will still claim lack of consensus (ie. I don't agree = no consensus). He will remove comments for no reason (sometimes the token WP:NPA, which in his eyes is anything remotely critical of him) and refuses ever to compromise. For all the helpful edits he makes, he makes far more unhelpful edits and his stubbornness on many issues means that arguments such as this can drag on for weeks wasting everybody else's time. If he is blocked for breaking revert parole, I support the block. He needs time off to learn humility. –reply•contribs –13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Your disingenuous reference is to the debate about infoboxes on the Composer and Opera project's talk pages, where I have demonstrated that there are around a dozen or more editors speaking against the supposed consensus. Your "I don't agree" statement is therefore dishonest.Andy Mabbett13:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I haven't noticed a dozen or more editors putting the boxes back. I haven't even noticed that number commenting. Oh, and off-topic trollfests get archived.MoreschiTalk13:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so archiving a discussion that drifted completely off-topic into outright trolling is censorship, with productive discussion finished long ago?MoreschiTalk13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've no idea, but archiving relevant, on-topic discussion, just because you disagree with the point being made,two minutes aftrr it was made, as you did in the case in question, is censorship.Andy Mabbett19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This really is an unusual case: a Pigsonthewing ANI which doesn't involvemicroformats. Mabbett's campaign to push through microformats in the face of any opposition has caused untold friction around Wikipedia and has been the origin of many incidents appearing on this page, including the classical music infobox debates. This editor is clearly a disruptive influence on Wikipedia and something should be done about him. --Folantin14:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to further point out the rapid accumulation of evidence in support of what I said above, where I said "I am further troubled that when uninvolved parties try to intervene, they are quickly embroiled in the debate and assaulted". Since my above posting, three other editors have commented in regards to PoTW's behavior. Results:User:CenturionZ accused of being dishonest,User:Moreschi accused of censoring him, andUser:Folantin accused of ad hominen attacks. It seems blatantly evident that PoTW refuses to learn lessons from prior sanctions against him and remains a highly disruptive presence on the project. --Durin14:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I recognize and fully expected you to disagree with me. I'm not interested in whether you disagree or not. It's a given that you would. I have no interest in discussing this matter with you because your past and current behavior has shown you incapable of working within a community. I've been providing the above commentary to show to others why you should be blocked, not for your edification. --Durin14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
In other news this week, Pigsonthewings has againput back the offending material after Newyorkbrad took it out. He's also made a right royal nuisance of himself by disruptingWikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera: after his off-topic ranting gets archived, he immediately shouts that he's being censored. I cannot take action myself, due to personal involvment, but I would suggest that someone does.MoreschiTalk19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
LikePeter cohen, I'm findingJ Milburn's campaign here a little shrill. Andy's message does not appear to me to be an attack, but merely a statement drawing attention to the dispute. (Although I question the word "abusive" in the first sentence - Leonig'sadmission that he is stalking does not appear to be abusive, although stalking might be abusive. Ah, I see Andy's point on abusive. My bad.) Attempts to shape Andy to your conceptions of wikiquette, J Milburn, are bound to fail, border on pointless, and are as likely as not to make matters worse. --Tagishsimon(talk)
Yes, because it isonlymewhothinksthisisdisruptive. (And they aren't the only people...) He is inappropriate comments in an uncivil manner, which serve only to incite anger and bad feelings. He refuses to remove these, continues to revert several established editors and administrators without discussion, breaching the 3RR massively, despite previous ArbCom rulings. I see no doubt that he should be blocked, and the only people speaking in support of him appear to be people such as yourself who see the matter, think it is minor, and disregard it. It was minor, until he insisted that there was nothing wrong with him having those comments, continually reverting, and continuing to attack everyone involved, mocking typing errors, picking up on minor mistakes and even edit warring over the userpage of the person he claimed to be his stalker. It isn't like I have seen this and come running straight here- I and another editor worked with him for a short while, and I only came here when I realised that he was intent on being unreasonable.J Milburn21:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
My comments are in no way uncivil; they are a factual report of the circumstances. I have attacked no editors. I have mocked no typing errors.Andy Mabbett21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I really don't want to get dragged into this debacle, seeing how it's affected everyone else so far; butthis seems somewhat incongruous with the claim that"I have mocked no typing errors". --Codeine22:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
He is inappropriate comments in an uncivil manner, which serve only to incite anger and bad feelings. We'll be putting WP:AGF to one side for this discussion, will we? Go and take the beam out of your eye, JM. You've made your point at very great length. Now let's see if other more experienced admins pick up on it or, as I suspect, let sleeping dogs lie. --Tagishsimon(talk)
Mabbett's block log speaks for itself.Disruptive obnoxiousness andThis user appears to be here to make nuclear war with contributers; not to write an encyclopedia being the most apt descriptions of his behaviour in my experience. I have no idea why this editor has not been banned. --Folantin22:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea why this editor has not been banned. He has been. Currently he is not. What do you want him blocked for, JM? Disagreeing with your view of wikiquette and having the temerity to be the master of his own userpage? Being a curmudgeon? Annoying the fsck out of us all by his style of argument? Not being what you would want him to be? You are - by analogy - poking someone with a stick, and then whining "oh, won't someone ban him" when he bites back. I just cannot fathom why you've mounted this campaign, beyond the dislike that you have of Andy. And that's just not a good enough reason for a ban. Don't you have anything better to do? --Tagishsimon(talk)
There is far more of a personal attack in each of those quotes, and in Folantin's use of them, than in the disputed text from my user page, which contains no PA. Yet he is allowed to continue unabated...Andy Mabbett19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
We are not going to put up with much more of this. I have again removed the offensive paragraph from Pigsonthewing's talkpage and warned him that if he reinserts it I will block him. However, Leonig Mig's comments that provoked Pigsonthewing were highly unacceptable and I have left a warning for him as well (I note that a number of other users have also asked him to improve his civility in this matter). Hopefully the matter can end here.Newyorkbrad22:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
He's just reverted his user page yet again after you gave him his last warning. This is typical Mabbett behaviour: he just ploughs on like a bulldozer until he gets his way or gets banned.Hopefully the matter can end here - sadly I don't think this is ever likely to be the case. --Folantin22:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
We are not going to put up with much more of this. Much more of what? Of Andy not agreeing with your world view? Perish the thought. --Tagishsimon(talk)
Of disruptive conduct that interferes with the editing environment. But since there is apparently some dissent, instead of act unilaterally I request input on the proposed block.Newyorkbrad22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Fully support, as I have done from the start. The fact he continued to act after a blatant final warning just strengthens the case.J Milburn22:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Support the block, I would say 24 hours, and protecting his user page in the meantime, so he cannot continue to edit war when he comes back.SirFozzie22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Just block him for as long as possible. Some of us have had to put up with over two months of this kind of behaviour. There's no point offering him any more chances, he never takes them. --Folantin22:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I feel a block is justified because Andy continues to be disruptive (I'm thinking more of his behavior toward the opera project members, though his activity on his userpage is not appropriate, either).Heimstern Läufer(talk)22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend locking his user page for a month and not blocking him. Were he to move the content to his talk page then would be a good reason to block him,SqueakBox22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Of disruptive conduct that interferes with the editing environment. What does that mean. Is it the disputed message that is causing disruption? If so, what is it disrupting? If not, what exactly is the complaint, other than that we don't much like Andy and his style of argumentation? Is that a sufficient reason for a ban? The whole storm appears a nonsense to me; the ban threat little better than concerted bullying. --Tagishsimon(talk)
(outdent) I have blockedUser:Pigsonthewing for 24 hours, per 3RR violations mentioned above. I did so as an admin action to prevent this discussion over-heating. Please would the above participants attempt some sort of consensus in this period. Also, if anyone unblocks or reduces the period then fine, there will be no wheel war as I am off to bed!LessHeard vanU22:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I note that no attempt at such consensus was made in my absence, and that another editor who supported me by reverting my user page was blocked for doing so.Andy Mabbett19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I note that I gave a reason of "harrasment" in my block edit, but I had intended to cite 3RR... I was tired, I guess.LessHeard vanU12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I support a lengthy cool off period. Tagishsimon, you must realise we are not bullying Andy because we just want to pick on him. He brings it onto himself by dragging any of his critics down to his level and then forcing them to engage in a horrible sledging match. If you carefully read through the history of this debate you will see that this is just one and many similar arugments he has caused. In this particular argument both J Milburn and Newyorkbrad assumed good faith and approached Andy with civility. He then responds with his usual stubbornness which includes censoring comments that are in any way critical of himself. It's highly ironic and hypocritical then when he accused Moreschi of censorship when he merelyarchived rather thanremoved a discussion. See Durin's post about the examples of how he brings any editors critical of him down to his level. The fact is any 3rd party who tries to resolve this either has to be pro-Mabbett or be cajouled into a heated discussion with him where you are then accused of bullying the guy. It appears that his new tactic of argument is to call any attack on his behaviour and ad hominem attack on him.
It is this unhelpful attitude that I think should warrant a lengthy ban. He was after all banned for exactly this behaviour in the past for 1 year. He hasn't changed one bit. –reply•contribs –23:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
All that may well be so. But this - WP:ANI - is not the place, and the above discussion is not the process by which such a sanction is determined. At best this is a kangaroo court, at worst a lynch mob. If findings of stubbornness and hypocrisy and whatever else can be proven in the appropriate place (dunno - Arbcom? RfC?) then so be it. Take it to that appropriate place and run with it. --Tagishsimon(talk)
Mabbett's never had any hesitation about hauling other users in front of ANI when they've done something to offend him. And I'll always remember how, when one of his ANIs wasn't going quite the way he wanted, he went on aWP:POINT spree against Project:Opera by suddenly insisting that all operatic terminology be rendered into English forthwith (that was on May 1 of this year). He also has a habit of branding any comments he doesn't like in discussions as personal attacks and deleting them, so this user page controversy is the height of hypocrisy. Forgive me if I find all this "Andy is the victim here" talk quite unconvincing. --Folantin07:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Is a complaint about a 6 or 7 week-old opera dispute really pertinent to the current problem? And I don't think it canall be chalked up to Pigs interpreting comments he simply doesn't like as being personal attacks. For example, one of the inclusions in the 'Stalker' section was when hisentire user page was replaced with a link tothis. That's a personal attack, and vandalism. No room for dispute on that one. And calling someone acunt certainly qualifies as well. Whether or not this stalker section is agood idea is a separate issue. I don't find it terribly helpful, and find the declaration that he no longer feels it necessary to explain edits very troubling. But outright blocking when there clearly wasn't even consensus on whether or not he should be allowed to include the box was premature. And rehashing old opera arguments is entirely unhelpful.Bladestorm12:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Those aren't "old" opera arguments, they're part of the same campaign of disruption which continued until yesterday. They are proof Mabbett knows nothing of the subject at hand. I have no idea why he is editing in this area beyond a desire to push through his beloved microformats. He was disrupting the Opera Project page right up to yesterday morning in an attempt to restart a dispute that has been dragging on since mid-April. We had just agreed a moratorium on the issue when Mabbett burst in trying to re-ignite the whole argument. Those who have had to deal with the user page issue have experienced his behaviour for just one day; some of us have had to endure this kind of thing for weeks. That's why I want tougher sanctions against him. --Folantin12:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
(indent) The user has now reposted the comments that were the source of this incidenton his talk page. Yet another user has restored itto his user page. Judging by the length and intesnity of this debate, (and speaking purely as an uninvolved party), this appears to me to be a case forWP:RFC.Codeine10:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Even though I find Andy annoying, being a pain in the neck, in itself, is not a reason for a block. This current issue was stirred up by the entry on his user page where third parties to that particular argument seem to be split, some restoring, some removing the entry. An RFC would be an appropriate way to deal with that. If he continues to argue the different point on the opera or classical music pages, that two can be dealt with as a separate issue. --Peter cohen13:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I will confirm Andy's long history of being involved in ugly disputes, and that this is not simply about the stalking entry. Often his behaviour is not the ugliest in the dispute, but it would be too much of a coincedence without the explanation that his behaviour in some way leads to this state of affairs, dragging others down to his level and further by focussing on criticisms of behaviour rather than the topic at hand. Unless Andy decides that this is a problem worth fixing, there seem to be two choices: blocking Andy for a long time, or avoiding the trap of discussing behaviour and ignoring any comments along those lines as much as possible. It might be clear which option I consider preferable, but either would be more productive than stopping to argue about whether the paragraph on the user page is ok or not, blowing that particular problem out of all proportion.JPD (talk)13:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Since he's continued with hisWP:DE, and thumbed his nose at the various parties who were trying to work with him, I have changed the block duration to 72 hours and protected his talk page for the block's duration to keep him from readding the information.SirFozzie15:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
My comments about the Opera & Composer projects are to - legitimately - point out that the claimed consensus for the wholescale removal of infoboxes does not exist; I've provided evidence to that effect. It is irrelevant to this discussion.Andy Mabbett19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
My editing was not disruptive, and your block on my talk page, after reverting it to yoru preferred version, was an unaccpatbale act of censorship.Andy Mabbett19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
After you had broken 3RR on your user page (and been blocked for it), to just move it to your talk page wasWP:DE in a nutshell, and considering folks above were calling for a longer block, I'd say you got off quite lightly. As long as the paragraph in question does not reappear on your pages (with or without your ok), I consider the matter closed.SirFozzie19:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
"article"-ban proposal
Proposal - I wouldjust do this, but the conversation here involves many... this user is under revert-parol from his arbcom case in 2006. I recommend a simultaneous "article" ban and deletion of his userpage enforceable with lengthening blocks per the remedy demanded by the arbcom rulling. "Determination of when this has been violated may be done by any uninvolved administrator." - I am uninvolved and I am determining that he has violated his revert limitation. I am requesting support for this remedy. ---J.S(T/C/WRE)14:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Supported. Entirely appropriate. Regardless of justifications, PoTW has been engaging in highly disruptive editing. --Durin15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
As an involved non-admin, I support this. People should be on the lookout for sockpuppets, as Pigsonthewing has basicallyadmitted circumventing his previous 1-year ban.Fireplace15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I have admitted no such thing! Good grief, your user page says you're a legal student. God help your clients, if that's what you consider a confession of guilt!Andy Mabbett22:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Only ifLeonig Mig (talk·contribs) faces heavy sanctions for continually baiting PoTW. I looked at PoTW's unblock request this morning and Leonig Mig's block log and my response was "Why the fuck is Leonig not banned". I think someone has taken their eye off the ball here, so I would be looking for Leonig Mig to be banned from interacting with PoTW (and vice-versa) with a further ban on either party reverting each other (using their own accounts or by proxy) anywhere in the article namespace with blocks of increasing length for both parties.Nick16:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you just clarify here please, Nick? I've looked at Leonig Mig's block log and as far as I can see there isn't a single item in it[74]. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? NB: I have no doubt it's a good idea to keep that statement off Leonig Mig's user page as well. It's currently removed anyway. --Folantin16:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
That's precisely the problem, if action had been taken against Leonig Mig, we wouldn't have PoTW in the state he's in.Nick16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've left Leonig Mig a note: if he makes one more PoTW-related edit, I will not be best pleased. He should realise he's not helping here. What ban exactly are we proposing here, BTW?MoreschiTalk17:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
we wouldn't have PoTW in the state he's in. I sincerely doubt that. Mig hasn't exactly been a model of civility but the two serious PAs on Mabbett date back to 2005. Mig has hardly edited Wikipedia at all in 2006 and 2007. More importantly, it's worth noting that Mabbett was found guilty of harrassing Leonig Mig by ArbCom (vote 8-0)[75]. But, yeah, we should use sanctions against both users if need be to put an end to this two-year old dispute. --Folantin17:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Leonig Mig,, by his own account, edits using another account. For all I know, he could be posting here; he could even be you. I have harassed no-one.Andy Mabbett20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I proposed banning PoTW and Leonig Mig from each others talk and user pages, plus banning either party from reverting (either directly, or by proxy (as far as is possible)). I'm not convinced allowing either party to interact at all is a good idea but I'm fine with permitting civil conversation between both parties on article talk pages only. Any breaches of these parole conditions would be met with blocking of extending durations.Nick17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the "article ban" in question means not adding that section any more. I'm hesitant to delete the user page, because of that one section,that's like 5% of the user page. Basically, he knows that that if he continues to insert that paragraph anywhere (user page, talk page or any subpages), he's going to get a lengthy block anyway (because of the tendentious nature of his editwar). (and yes, Leonig will have to remove anything similar from his user/talk page as well)SirFozzie17:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I object(ed) to you ignoring all requests to voluntarily deleting the paragraph after you were asked repeatedly to remove it, reinserting it after it was removed FOR you (breaking 3RR), and then immediately upon being blocked, inserting it onto the only page that you COULD edit. As I said above. Since you have not added the paragraph since the temporary protect has expired, as I said above, the matter is closed.SirFozzie19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The matter isnot closed; you have yet to answer my question - what, in that paragraph, did you object to? And those were hardly requests for voluntary action, given the subsequent heavy-handed enforcement, with no supporting consensus. 3RR does not apply to such material, on a user's user-page.Andy Mabbett19:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
(outdenting) Actually,, as was explained to you when your request for an unblock was declined (please note, I was not the one who placed the original block, nor the one who declined the unblock request), 3RR did and still does apply.SirFozzie19:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I've already explained what I objected to, and you continue to argue. "Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose", apparently.SirFozzie20:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I note your continued failure - which I shall now take as a refusal - to answer my question, Answering a different question does not change that.Andy Mabbett22:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, this user is a minor revealing a great deal of personal information about himself on his User page.Corvus cornix06:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think any of those restrictions on minors revealing personal information ever became policy.--Chaser -T06:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec) It's totally MySpace-y & is userbox hell. Dunno if the personal info aspect warrants it, though. I'dlove to delete it on the grounds of aesthetic offence, however ... -Alison☺07:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy saysReasonable efforts to discourage children from disclosing identifying personal information are appropriate andUsers who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information..Corvus cornix07:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
"... in appropriate cases ..." - define "appropriate". In this case, the fact that the guy reveals his full name concerns me here, but everything else seems reasonable at a glance -Alison☺07:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it is blockable, technically, although a block probably isn't really necessary given the implausibility involved. He appears to be threatening to have his mom sue wikipedia for not removing that image. Thatwould be a legal threat, albeit a very lame one... we could ask him to clarify, though, if it isn't clear. --Aquillion07:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I have cooled down that dispute before this thread started. And the "legal threats" were just grasping at straws, so just dismiss them as empty talk, at least for now. —Kurykh07:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
And I thought recruiting an admin into my discussion withUser:Hornetman16 would defuse things... seems that his objections to the photo is not founded in anything other than an intense desire to have it removed.Flyguy649talkcontribs18:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Which I would imagine wont do him much good at all, I left a link to his talk page so if Jimbo really wants to he can get an explanantion there,SqueakBox18:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The only method of getting him into constructive conversation was to appeal to his religious beliefs, which was laid out quite blatantly on his user page. Unorthodox, yes, but if it works, hey, what the heck. —Kurykh18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Image removed under the biographies of living persons policy
Without expressing an opinion either way as to the existence of this image on Wikipedia per se, I have removed it from one of the articles in which it was being used, under ourWikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Its use in that article was an entirely gratuitous publicization, that added no information to the article, of a living person who is not a public figure and who can neither defend xyr own rights or grant consent, and thus unacceptable. SeeTalk:Nackt Radtour#Image removed. Please note that any attempt to edit war or to re-include this image without making astrong and compelling case beforehand that these specific children need to be personally identified in an encyclopaedia articleabout a bicycle race will lead to loss of editing privileges.Uncle G13:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The owner of the website on which it was displayed claims copyright and has granted GFDL rights. The child in the photograph has not consented and probably could not. --Tony Sidaway13:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
There's no "probably" about it, Tony. That kid can't be more than three years old--that's too young to give consent in ANY country. I do have to wonder, though ... thename of the child wasn't included. If it was, then that would be totally inappropriate. But is merely including a picture of a child the same as identifying her (and it definitely looks like a girl)? Just wondering for future reference ...Blueboy9616:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
In most countries, the legal guardian (presumably one of the parents, possibly the very person holding up the child in the picture) could have given consent which would make the matter perfectly legal. However, whether this particular picture enhances the article in any way (given the other pictures), especially given that our society has issues with displaying images of nude children, is a totally legitimate and relevant question.--Ramdrake16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I can understand that perspective--especially since no race action was portrayed, or it wasn't clear that the guy holding her was the winner of the race. On those grounds, the picture should have been removed. But it's still not clear (to me, anyway) whether the girl was identified. I'm a journalist by training, and I agree it is totally inappropriate to identify a minor without the parent's permission. Seems a bit too broad to suggest that merely including a picture on a high-traffic Web site would be considered identification. I just want to make sure we're not setting a bad future precedent.Blueboy9616:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, that's a distinct possibility. That's why I'd drop theWP:BLP pretense (which to me doesn't apply too well), and just say that the merits of adding this particular picture to the articles are doubtful, considering the possible controversial nature of the contents (depicting a nude chld). Purely subjective, but if there's consensus behind it, I'd say it becomes fully justified. Otherwise, if we accept thatWP:BLP applies because the child itself couldn't be old enough to consent, we'd need to remove all pictures of children belowe the age of, say 7 years old from Wikpedia, which would be counter-productive.--Ramdrake16:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. I may be a pentecostal/charismatic Christian (though somewhat more liberal than the guy leading the charge for that picture to be spiked from WP entirely), but I'm no prude. I realize that per Jimbo, we seem to have adopted a very broad interpretation of BLP, but this is carrying it too far. That said, the picture should stay out of that article--it's not clear whether the guy holding her won the race, and portraying nude children in a nongermane manner is unencyclopedic.Blueboy9617:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the image to Commons. And I'd like to point out the three IfDs[78] this image has gone through. There is plenty of consensus to keep the image. Acting unilaterally otherwise goes against the community will. I believe that counts as the strong and compelling evidence Uncle G asked for. -N17:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, then it shouldn't be deleted (nor was I suggesting that it be). The only thing I was suggesting was that the image's place in the article should be judged independently from theWP:BLP standard, which I don't feel applies here. It might be useful in an article on family nudism or somesuch. But putting in a picture of a nude child to point out that their presence in this particular event is rare - is it just me, or is it counter-illustrative?--Ramdrake18:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I pointed out on the article's talk page, most of the keep consensus was based on the image being in that article. It's a nude bike race, those are pictures from the race. Europe is incredibly lax on public nudity, even of children. If pictures from a nude bike race don't belong in the article on the nude bike race then something's wrong. Of course it could also be well-placed in other articles. -N19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would have considered it be kept in the article, but for two reasons: 1)the article (which isn't that long) already has several pictures of the racers and 2)the caption of the image said children are rarely seen at that event, which means the image is atypical rather than really illustrative of the event. Under these circumstances, I would question its inclusion.--Ramdrake20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've moved it to Commons. I'm perfectly content with that as a solution in the meantime, and waiting for the uploader to return to Wikipedia and see what they want to do. -N20:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
It is nothing of the sort, as already explained. As yet,no strong and compelling evidence has been presented that this image need be used anywhere in the entire encyclopaedia.
TheWikipedia:Biography of living persons policy most definitelydoes apply here. I find it dismaying that editors, including especially those who profess to be journalists, are not thinking of the consequences of their actions, including the fact that they will result in a living person, who had no choice in once being photographed naked as a child, being labelled in the future as they grow up by friends, schoolchildren, employers, and complete strangers who recognize xem from xyr picture as "that naked little child in the encyclopaedia".
This is why journalists have editors. I suggest thatBlueboy96 run the idea past xyr editor of choosing between two pictures to illustrate a published print article about a bicycling event: one that contains solely consenting adults capable of giving consent, making their own choices, and defending themselves, and one that contains a child in a pose that can cause that child embarrassment and distress in the future as xe grows up. I expect thatBlueboy96's editor, if xe is competent, will have strong words to say on the subject, and explain toBlueboy96 that conventional journalism ethics is to do no harm in such cases. If xyr editor is not competent, there are plenty of discussions of journalism ethics around, as well as plenty of explicit codes of journalistic conduct, that will explain what one has to think about with regard to pictures of identifiable children.
As an alternative, consider how you would each react to embarrassing and distressing photographs of yourselves as children being used in an encyclopaedia as you grow up. We are not constructing private photo albums of baby photos here. We are constructing a public encyclopaedia for the whole world's use.Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.Uncle G22:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're wrong on all counts: three IfD against this image have all resulted in the image being kept, as per Wikipedia consensus. This is as strong and as compelling as evidence can get on WP, barring direct intervention from Jimbo Wales. YourWP:BLP argument would hold water if the child was identified and/or readily identifiable. Neither applies: the child isn't identified, and the picture of the face is taken in such a way as to make formal recognition very difficult, if not almost impossible. It's just a casual image of a naked child, about as anonymous and unprovocative as can be. The argument about the child not being able to make its own choice is also moot: if a legal guardian has consented to the picture, that counts just as if the child him or herself had accepted being photographed. None of these arguments are appropriate to remove this picture from the article.--Ramdrake22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it also, I fail to see how this would be any more traumatic than say, your mother showing pictures of you as child, naked in the bathtub, the first time you bring a girlfriend over to dinner to meet your parents. Sure, it's embarrassing, but it's far from being the life-long trauma you seem to depict.--Ramdrake00:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
And something else. That picture was taken in 2001, and has presumably been on the original site since then. Germany has stricter privacy laws than the States ... seems if there was a concern, it would have been raised by now. In either case, I stand by my argument that keeping it off on BLP grounds sets a bad precedent for Wikipedia.Blueboy9621:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Folken de Fanel and Sandpiper
I was't quite sure what to do about this so i thought i'd better put it on here. These two users,User:Folken de Fanel, andUser:Sandpiper, are engaged in edit warring over a number of harry potter related articles such asHarry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,Horcrux,R.A.B.,Kreacher etc, and neither seems to be able to resolve an issue over article content, instead, the same arguments keep being repeated over and over, if another user becomes involved, like i did, still no consensus or compromise is reached, the user just gets sucked in too. Judging from their contributions, it seems that all they do is revert the other ones edits. Can anything be done about this, or will we just have to wait for the book to come out and settle all the debates.--Jac1688820:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
and i forgot to say that they don't appear to actually be breaking the 3RR, which is why i haven't reported it there.--Jac1688820:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is this image? I am blind so I have no idea what it is. The reason I ask is that68.122.0.3 and67.188.45.126 have added the image without explanation toCumhal,Sad Sack andWooper, with some other nonsensical edits. The image was uploaded without a copyright tag. I'm wondering what it is and what should be done with it.Graham8708:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Jerdon13 keeps formatting articles according to his personal aesthetics. This is his summary for one of his edits on theCurtis (50 Cent album): "Easier to read (LEAVE IT THIS WAY)".See here,here,here,here,and here. There is probably much more, but I only named the articles that are on my watchlist. That is incorrect formatting, and I have seen many other Wikipedians format articles the way I am trying to format them, even admins, so it must be right. Speaking of admins, Jerdon13 didn't even listen toMel Etitis when hewarned him to stop formatting that way. He thinks that articles are "easier to read", but the rules are obviously there for a reason, so his preferences on formatting are irrelevant. Oh yeah, and Igave him a warning too. Then he did it again. I think a warning is not enough for this user. ---Efil4tselaer: Resurrected13:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Please explain exactly what the problem is. I reviewed a number of these edits, and I had a lot of difficulty seeing any difference between the two versions. I would not recommend a block over aWP:LAME edit war.
At the same time, if you can clarify why this is a problem, it's clear that the user has been warned enough times, and a 24h block would be appropriate to make it clear that formatting articles against consensus is not acceptable.ShalomHello18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
OK sorry, I am a bit new at this. The thing is you are not allowed to use <br>s in InfoBoxes like he is doing, you are supposed to use commas. This is actually important, as some users have been blocked by some admins because they were doing this. That is the problem, it is anti-WikiProject formatting rules (for albums). He was told not to do it. He did not listen to me, or the admin, something must be done. ---Efil4tselaer: Resurrected20:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Removing a copyright violation
There are a very large number of links in a small number of articles to the "official" Tate LaBianca murders blog. All link to content which is copyright and identified as such, the site makes no claim to any right to publish this material. Rather the opposite, actually. I have removed them fromHelter Skelter (Manson scenario) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) and will remove them from other articles when I get time. I am aware that last time these links were removed it stirred up a shitstorm. Hopefully the explanation on the talk page will prevent that happening again.Guy(Help!)16:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Fresh off his latest block[79],HeadMouse (talk·contribs) is calling the editors he is in a dispute with "uptight power hungry ass holes."[80]. Histalk archive (which was re-archived just 50-odd minutes ago) shows at least four warnings for personal attacks so far this month. Can an admin do something about this? Thanks,Kralizec! (talk)17:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Where? The diff you provided dates back several days, and his edits today don't seem overly problematic (although his edit summaries suggest he's turning beet red and steam is coming out of his ears--appropriate, given the articles he's editing).Exploding Boy17:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, well I've left him a message on his talk page and I've refactored some of the posts on the article talk page in question. He hasn't made any new edits for some time now, so for the moment there's not much else that can be done. If he continues to be incivil or if he begins to edit war, then he can be warned or blocked again.Exploding Boy17:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It was said above thatHeadMouse (talk·contribs) is not currently disrupting the article. I would argue that is not the case, as a careful screening of the edit history shows thatHeadMouse has reverted every edit made to the article today by other editors ([81],[82],both a revert ofMaelwys and some text changes, andboth a revert ofTREYWiki and an image addition). The disputes over the article have been so mild today because those of us who care are being inextricably ground down. I mean, what is the point whenHeadMouse has made it abundantly clear that he has no interest in reading (let alone following)WP:MOS andWP:NOT, and that he will revert any edit he sees fit in order to make the article "have CLEAN, ACCURATE, READABLE, information." (Seethis,this, andthis for his un-compromising, obstinate dispossession on full display.)
I've removed the coloured fonts in the description of the trains. I thought that was weird when I looked at the article in the first place. He hasn't made any edits for 2 hours now, and I have to say I really see very little problem with his edits, unless I'm really missing something, which is certainly possible. He's insisting that the "R" in "relations" in the subheading "Customer relations" should be capitalized, which I think is debatable, but otherwise the diffs you're providing don't show me much... Just edit the page per talk page consensus, and keep an eye on things. If he's really being a problem editor he'll be blocked one way or another.Exploding Boy18:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
User continued abusive behaviour and was subsequently blocked by me for one week. He continued altering another person's signed comments on his discussion page and so the page was protected for 24 hours. This will hopefully give this user a chance to cool down. One unblock review has already been performed and of course, unblock-en-l is open if he desires another one. Hard to imagine any admin being willing to unblock this user, though. --Yamla20:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Neither of them look very proxyish to me from RBL checks of the IP. You may want to change your password to keep it secure.SirFozzie18:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Umm, what? There is nothing wrong with Mike's password. Any idiot can send password reset messages and they do nothing unless acted on. If you log in with the new password it will become your new password, but it was only mailed to you so the idiot never sees it. If you ignore the messages, your old password remains active and the idiot never sees it. Just ignore the emails.Thatcher13118:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like the best way to go. Although if you do have a weak password you may want to strengthen it, on the off-chance that Mr. Idiot presses any further. --Masamage♫18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay; and I presume that even if he had made 50 password reminders - which is no longer possible, I presume - his chance of guessing it would be remote (and repeated attempts to log in to my account would first require entering a "captcha" code, and eventually be blocked altogether). I remember having received many new passwords in a row from146.145.148.209(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) the other day, but it probably wasn't a hijack attempt, either - just an attempt to annoy me. So there's no need to worry; I was just being paranoid after multiple accounts were taken over by vandals. -Mike Rosoft18:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I get these 2 or 3 times a week. If you use a strong password, it doesn't matter. And it doesn't matter anyway because only you can see the e-mail. However, when I do get them, I check the IP's contributions to see if there are any. --(Review Me)RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!)22:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Small Problem
we have a small problem on Timeline of CGI in film and television where a editor and myself have different opinions on what is notable the editor will not go to dicussions explain his choices just say it in his edits. I have a large amount of knowledge and would like to make this page the page the best it can be. I do change the information when I am in fact wrong But there are somethings I think are notable that he erases when he reverts it. I would like to know how to deal with this wikipedian in a civilized matter.Marioman1218:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I have been removing album cover images from discographies in the bands' articles, and have encountered quite a bit of opposition. Where is the discussion on this specific subject that I can point the objectors to?Corvus cornix19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing the same thing--it's a surprisingly prevalent problem. In my edit summary, I write "remove excessive Fair Use Images; seeWikipedia:Non-free content criteria items #3(a) and #8" and then I put a note on the associated talk page. Let me know if you're still having problems. --Merope19:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Done - I blocked both earlier on AIV -Alison☺06:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
ResolvedDispute resolution is appropriate, no admin action needed
User(s)blocked. - self-confessed sockery / personal attacks / revert-warring, etc, etc -Alison☺23:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
![[76]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dImage_talk%3aNRT6_2001.jpg%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d140038876){kind=link}
![[78]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.wikimedia.org%2fwiki%2fImage_talk%3aNRT6_2001.jpg){kind=link}
