Sounds like we deleted some self-promotion and maybe blacklisted a link that was being spammed. We've had this before at the spam blacklist and on OTRS, where people assert that not allowing them to advertise or link on Wikipedia is harming their business. The consensus view is that they can think again, since there is no expressed or implied right to use the resources of the Wikimedia Foundation to promote your business, organisation or other interest. However, there may be some courtesy blanking required if the complainant can identify the places where he feels his organisation is being denigrated.Guy(Help!)12:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
A courtesy blanking would be prudent. What's more disturbing is the readiness to dismiss that comment as trolling. Mr. Lundgren is obviously not aware ofWP:NLT, but it seems rude to simply censor any communication without at least offering an explanation. If anyone from the concerned organization is reading this, please be aware that this is a specialized forum for non-editorial maintenance tasks. Users/admins will not engage in any legal dialog on this page. ˉˉanetode╦╩15:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the case of the now-blocked User who supposedly tried to start a legal case withUser:Durin with the organization (blanked above), which caused Durin to leave Wikipedia. Questions arose as the standing of the above organization to even hear an in-Wikipedia case, and various Users' searches for the organization and its standing came up with nothing concrete. See[1].Corvus cornix16:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Corvus got it almost perfectly, groups that try and take legal action against a contributor are not welcome here, whatever they have to say. If they have issues they can take it up with the foundation, but the minute they start coming here, they get blocked and whatever they've added gets removed.Ryan Postlethwaite23:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Request feedback
Similar to the perennial proposals for standardizing on either American or British English, or for standardizing on AD/BC or CE/BCE, there is now a proposal to mandate "gender-neutral" language in all of Wikipedia. Since debate is getting rather heated ("Howdare people use sexist language" - "Howdare people endorse grammatical errors" etc), it may help if some experienced users give their opinion, either atUser talk:Tony1/Gender-neutral language (draft), orWikipedia talk:Manual of Style.>Radiant<14:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I panicked for a second before realising you meant "all of Wikipedia's articles". I can't believe singular "they" upsets so many people.Neilム15:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Radiant, I know this issue has generated a conflict between you and Tony1, but with respect to the gender-neutrality proposal, it's best to separate that and present the issue as neutrally as possible. Themanual of style is a guideline; it doesn't "mandate". And unlike the issue, for example, of standardizing to British/American English, the practice of not substituting masculine pronouns where gender is indeterminate and another option can easily be used (as in the examples on Tony's draft) is standard in news and many other world organizations, and Wikipedia would only be catching up if we enacted this guideline.SandyGeorgia (Talk)19:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that"...experienced users..." was the focus, all admins having a minimum of5,00010,00015,0...many x lots edits when sysopped.LessHeard vanU20:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This user is making few hundreds of changes in articleJasenovac concentration camp during last 3 days (so that in history of article is possible to see only his versions). First day I have revert his POV changes and on discussion page it has been writen my reasons for revert.
In his answers he has made personal attacks on me with words that I am holocaust denier (4 times), that only "sick-minded or genuine retards" persons do not understand importance of Stepinac words, screaming again that I am "GUARDIAN OF THE HOLOCAUST DENIAL" and playing with my user name (with his playing I am becoming little river). In the end I believe that here is enough information so that this user can be blocked for long time. Sorry for taking so much place on this page. --Rjecina20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if this is the right place to ask. The articleSouth Crofty has been replaced with a notice about a suspected copy-viofor several weeks now since 21 August, and the notice says the article must not be edited until an admin has dealt with it. I have produced a version of the article on a temporary page (as instructed by the copy-vio notice) which I believe does not contain the suspect material, and have noted that on the article's talk page as per the instructions. How do I get an admin to look at the article to approve replacing it? Thanks in advance.DuncanHill20:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Unknown user under the IP 84.194.78.230 tries to promote a port scanner called "NetTools", which is probably his own production and is irrelevant for the WP. Additionally he tries to keep a big list of "Online Port Scanners", who can be found using every search engine like Google, if you type simply "Port scanner". In my opinion WP is not a link portal, therefore I always remove those advertisement links. There is an edit war between me and the IP. I would like to ask the administration for help to keep Wikipedia clean.--Gerold 21:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)—Precedingunsigned comment added byGerold Hennig (talk •contribs)
Wow, for a new user, you certainly hit the ground running!In future, if you don't want people to comment on your contribs, try posting a link to a diff or an article so people have somewhere else to start looking. The history ofPort scanner seems to consist mainly of edit warring overlinkspam external links. Perhaps semi-protection?Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers23:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
On these pages, editors Mikesmash, Landsfarthereast, and a Peruvian editor who hops IPs in the 201.0.0.0 range are harassing each other and attempting to out each other. Mikesmash had posted evidence that Landsfarthereast was Godden's campaign manager, and now the Peruvian and Landsfarthereast are trying to out Mikesmash as her opponent's campaign manager. Add in gems such as this byUser:Landsfarthereast:
because he is a woman beater, mike, and that hits close to home. maybe shattering a place in a woman's face is no big deal to you, but it disgusts me. so much for you being a progressive. i guess you're only a progressive when it's convenient. when it comes to calling out domestic violence, you're nothing but an apologist.
i've known a number of good friends whose lives have been tremendously affected by dv, and it is not something to gloss over. his son, who was 7 at the time of this incident, will live with this for the the rest of his life. shame on you for diminishing its importance. it is also something that TOTALLY DISQUALIFIES anyone from ever holding public office.
It sounds like they may well be the campaign managers, I do not know. I found the Peru IP hyper-aggressively doing blankings on theJoe Szwaja article, and RV'd once, which then led all these people to move their fist fight onto my talk page. There are accusations of libel as well scattered about, so they're into legal threats now. Help. I tried the other day to calm things slightly be rewriting one of the pages in a sourced neutral tone, which worked until they all just started up again today. •Lawrence Cohen22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer others/admins to do this and watchlist the pages. I'd rather detach from this mess completely, that's why I posted here. Thanks. •Lawrence Cohen22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not the Szwaja campaign manager. I provided evidance that Landsfarthereast is Carlo Davis, the Godden campaign manager, through his blog, listing Davis' AIM name as "Landsfarthereast". Too much of a coincidence for me. I called the Szwaja campaign. His campaign manager's name is Young Han. Not me.Mikesmash22:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Crazy moves/redirects
Resolved
Just looked at the contribs forHu1lee (talk·contribs), and there are many, many inappropriate redirects and moves. It is obviously vandalism (moving user pages to the pages of nonexistent users, creatingTurkish wet dream of Europe that redirects toPanturkism, etc). Can somebody please block and undo all of the malicious actions? Thanks,The Behnam00:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Why , why , why , would you allow an idiot like me - to have access to edit ???????????? I'm sorry to all . It will not happen again (by me) .
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
–no administrator action is required here...we ain't changin' the way wiki works.
I haven't been to this site for awhile and I came on today and looked up info , on Dave evans (AC/DC's first lead singer) saw the word "edit" . And like a stupid little kid , kind of shocked - a little excited (I just turned 40 !!!!!!!!!!!!), I started changing stuff and deleting it , all the time thinking something is wrong on the site !!!! Why is it letting me do this ? Then I went back to try to fix it , and I couldn't . Now I don't know what to do . How can I replace the stuff that I deleted ? I feel terrible that someone took the time to put up the info - and I deleted it without knowing , what I was doing !!! Why does Wikipedia allow this ? I don't think it should be this way . Everyone should have to sign up and read the terms - before they can change other peoples hard work . Can you help me fix it ? Or should I let it go ? Thanks for your time , Shannon—Precedingunsigned comment added byKmjdjm (talk •contribs)00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I don't see the point in this type of apologetic trolling if it is indeed meant to disrupt. Even if it is a troll, there is no need to bite the bait and assume it is anything other than a sincere user. (( 2) ? (('') : (''))00:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It is possible the edit was not saved, a different page was edited, the list goes on and on. Best to assume that this is a real request, right? What is the point of leaving that comment otherwise? It is a pretty bad way to troll.Prodegotalk01:00, 6 September 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.
A lot of misinformation
71.254.52.213 is changing a lot of things, he might be running some sort of bot. Either way, he's been at it for almost two hours. This is an example of his work:[3]. Some edits look fine but I think those are just disguised better.Jeffrey.Kleykamp00:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Atulsnishcal had previously been advised about this, yet he persistently pastes same, unrelated content to various article and project talk pages. For example, he is now adding a "How to edit articles and add references" guide to the following:
This is not an isolated incident, the user has consistently done such mass-scale talk page flooding before. --Ragib00:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ragib has been stalking the articles I edit on wikipedia systematically since the past many months since my interaction with him onBengal Monitor page, I request he be given a severe warning against stalkingWP:STALKING, I have made complains before
Atul, please do not make unfounded allegations here. Am I undoing your every edit? Then, it's not stalking by any means. Also, I have virtually been away from Wikipedia in the last month.
But in any case, the diffs above show a clear ignorance of talk page etiquette. Given that the user is not a newbie, such behavior, when repeated, is just plain disruption. Thank you. --Ragib01:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Last week he posted an entire conversation held on his talkpage to several different article talkpages and noticeboards under the heading "Hornplease is censoring Wikipedia". This was after I told him about wp:multitwice. Also, he copied a page going through an AfD to various other article talkpages. He has been around for ayear.Hornplease02:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Another editor and I (who have had had no other interaction/dispute withAtulsnischal (talk·contribs)), politely told him a couple of days back that he should stop spamming multiple talk pages and project notice boards, and instead post his comments on the appropriate forum. However, Atul simplyblanked the message we left and has continued with posting lengthy, irrelevant and misformatted "How-to"s on multiple page. I trust that the user is acting in good faith (and I am not just AGFing), but he really needs to learn to:
Limit his posts to relevant subjects and relevant pages.
Stop posting 50 words long bolded headers that make both the talk page, and particularly the table-of contents unreadable. See exampleshere,here,here andhere
I don't think this is a blockable offense yet, but it would be good if some more editors/admins help get the message across.Abecedare02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, my reporting of this user's flooding behavior here unleashed the latest round of flooding from him. He has pasted the comments from above (including my comments) to his and my talk pages:
I find it really hard to believe in Atul'sgood faith, as he is continuously flooding various talk pages. Here again are some of his latest flood-posts:
I request an uninvolved admin to make Atul stop his flooding. For some reason, he tends to take any advice coming from me as "Against him", and reacts to it. So, advice or admin action from an uninvolved admin would be much appreciated here. He's not a newbie, so ignorance of WP rules is no excuse for him. Thanks. --Ragib04:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hornplease is systematically censoring articles about Hinduism and removing mention of atrocities committed by muslims against hindus
Resolved
–Content dispute. No administrative intervention needed.
He has been systematically deleting mass text from related wikipedia articles
and additionally he has continuously taken to stalking meWP:STALKING, please warn him too for both above and specially censoring wikipedia with his biased and bogus policy arguments for doing so
This is a content dispute. You don't need admins to play nanny for you — and quite frankly, your accusations of "stalking" appear largely unfounded. --Haemo03:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to request advice and perhaps also assistance in a case of a copyright violation.User:Squash Racket copy&pasted a sentence from Britannica into a lead of Wikipedia's article[4], leaving a funny threat in the edit summary ("once more you remove important referenced material, we will talk to an administrator"). After I removed the sentence[5] and explained the reasons on the talk page[6], Squash Racket reinserted the sentence with only a slight change of wording, from "By the terms of the treaty, Hungary was shorn of at least two-thirds of its former territory and two-thirds of its inhabitants" to "By the terms of this treaty, Hungary was shorn of at least two-thirds of its former territory and two-thirds of its inhabitants".[7] I am not sure if this change of one word is substantial enough, so I would appreciate if someone with more experience can evaluate it. Just in case the article is still violating copyright, could you also fix it? Squash Racket has removed all my previous messages from his/her talk page and is not extremely polite towards me, so my further engagement could be arguably perceived as a hostile act by him/her.Tankred02:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I broughtONE SENTENCE from Britannica,it's been already changed in a number of ways not only by me,User:Tankred once again fell short ofassuming good faith while not being shy aboutpersonal attacks himself.
It's important to avoid copyright problems. I would like to point out that even if it was explained toUser:Squash Racket the reasons why this cannot be used there, he/she continued to use it and the conversation withUser:Squash Racket is quite impossible because of his/her continues accusations and a very hostile attitude. I would askSquash Racket to try to have a more positive attitude and to try to collaborate with the other users instead of atacking them. --R O A M A T A A|04:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, then I'll repeat: I broughtONE SENTENCE from Britannica,it's been already changed in a number of ways not only by me, so no more copyright problems.
Please be aware that Wikipedia does not accept copyright material. However, in this case, I am highly doubtful one sentence could cause a massive havoc about copyright regulations.Please calm down, it's not a big issue and can be solved easily. Just alter the text in some way (change wording, structure) and the issue will be resolved. --talk06:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This editor continues to make personal attacks in the course of this discussion. he's been twice reminded about NPA and CIVIL, and has a long history of being blocked for this very thing. His latest[8]. You can see the paypal talk page in the sections previous for several more examples.--Crossmr15:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this user is disruptive, too - although I think it is down to being argumentative. I'm not familiar with this case and it does look confusing - but his block log seemsempty.x42bn6TalkMess14:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
According to the summaries there may have been a previous arbcom case against this individual for this behaviour. While these were awhile ago, he's made very little edits in that time. Which just goes more towards showing a continuation of previous behaviour.--Crossmr14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I should probably address these blocks. There are only 7 if you exclude the block that was removed due to conflict of interst. ePlease try reading what they were blocking me for--basically I was forbidden from criticizing any admin actions. Several of them were clear conflicts of interest. Note how it was basically the same the one admin doing it, who held a grudge against me. One of the blocks was even reversed by another admin because they thought they were deliberately distorting the meaning of what I was saying to be an insult and that it was a clear conflict of interest. Another was for an alleged legal threat by the same admin involved in a conflict of interest. I was blocked for criticizing him for abusing his power by one of his friends (David). One of the admins involved even threatened to block me for creating a straw poll about policy. Notably, one of them, snowspinner/phil sandifer, has had various RFCs against him and several arbcom cases involving abuse of admin powers that had nothing to do with me (although those were rejected because he knows the arbs involved much to the chagrin of users who thought it was clear favortism). -Nathan J. Yoder06:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an abuse of AN/I. Ultimately, this is a content dispute and he's using me accusing him of acting in bad faith and lying (which he most definitely has and you can read it yourself to see where I pointed out it) as an excuse to get support on a content dispute. Remember, this is a guy who violated 3RR on one of the articles, even though he claims to fervently abide by policies (he never even apologized or conceded that it was wrong to do). He's even carried his grudge further--following me into other talk pages just to disagree with me and add nothing to the discussion (including inWP:V andWP:RS) where I made considerable effort to write an essay for other people there and obstinately stated he didn't need to add to the debate and instead it was acceptable to just repeat that he thinks I'm wrong over and over. The arcom case against me was for personal attacks in part, but mostly it was about a content dispute, although arb isn't allow to rule on that so one arbcom member added a bunch of other random charges without providing evidence for them. People generally assume that because it was decided against me that they don't need to check it to see how true the claims are. -Nathan J. Yoder03:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Your current behaviour and unending personal attacks and disruptive editing are all the evidence anyone needs as to whether your behaviour continues. You were reminded on your talk page that forums were unacceptable citations by another editor and yet you continue to edit war by reinserting text on the paypal article which clearly does not have citation. The burden of evidence is on you since you want to restore the material and you're failing to do so. Your arbcom case was very clearly decided against you and you're continuing that behaviour here.--Crossmr04:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
You selectively ignored what I said. You, yourself, are repeatedly accusing me of soapboxing and pov pushing, so don't act so innocent. You are turning this into a content dispute, which is inapproprite for AN/I--it's a bad faith accusation. You just commented on my essay on WP:RS yet again just to repeat how wrong you think I am, without contributing anything new and also bringing in this outside dispute (which has nothing to do with the wp:rs talk page) to accuse me of soapboxing and trying to get support there.If you were being honest, you'd take note that the person who commented on my talk page disagreed with you too that my edits were disruptive and even stated that the forum was notable.
YOU violated 3RR, not me, so who is the one making disruptive edits? "Edits I disagree with" is not "disruptive edits." That makes this . You'repoisoning the well (I expect you to ignore this). My arbcom case was decided against me, and I acknowledged that, and I sp ecifically made the point that people aren't bothering to read through allt he claims to decide how true it is. Good job being honest and addressing what I actuallyy said, though. -Nathan J. Yoder04:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
In fact even after being told again that forums are unacceptable sources[14]. You continue to edit in the face of policy and consensus by reverting material without the proper citation.[15]. If you are trying to draw a conclusion about whether or not a criticism is common you need a reliable source (e.g. a newspaper article) to say "This type of criticism about paypal is common". If you try to support your argument with an unreliable source (like a forum) and draw a conclusion on your own about the commonness of the criticism, you're violatingWP:NOR. Even assembling a bunch of reliable sources which state a given criticism, you're still violatingWP:NOR by drawing a conclusion which a reliable source doesn't draw for you. You don't have to revert more than 3 times in a 24 hour period to violate 3RR, maybe you need to not only read the policy again, but read the comment left on the complaint you made.--Crossmr04:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Why are you ignoring the points that they made stating that you were wrong? You keep ignoring when other people point out when you're wrong, but try to rub it in my face when they agree with you. At best that's hyperbole and at worst that's a lie--I certainly never admitted that. I never admitted to violating policy. Considering WP:RS is a guideline, it would be hard to violate a policy and furthermore, arguing an exception (which is explicitly allowed) would also not be a violation of policy. Again, you're using AN/I to argue content, oh well. You are making astraw man argument, I was using the forums to determine notability of paypalsucks and the criticism therein, for the purpose of including it--I never stated that I'd include a statement saying they were common. WHat is wrong with "the people of paypalsucks.com have said...." or even just including a link to paypalsucks.com. It is absolutely necessary, by your own admission, to determine commonality of viewpoints to determine due weight. That's what I'm doing--assessing it to determine whether or not to include paypalsucks can be included, which doesn't require saying how common those criticisms are. And remember, you've already stated that it's necessary o assess commonality for NPOV--you can't backpedal. BTW, one of the reliable sources actually does say that many people hold a certain criticism, but you rejected that on the basis that the author allegedly doesn't consider it notable, which is irrelevant. Point ot the specific part of 3RR that supports you not violating it, but I think you'll refuse to do so. The comment left on the 3RR was simply that they decided not to block you, not stating that you didn't violate it. -Nathan J. Yoder05:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
they also stated that they felt you were edit warring to in violation of 3RR even though you didn't go over 3 edits, or did you chose to ignore that?--Crossmr05:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Who stated that and where? Are you trying to twist someone's word again? I don't recall anyone accusing me of violating 3RR. In fact, I recall that guy said that I'm not technically violating it. Can't you admit that you violated it? Please be honest. Since you started this ridiculous grudge-fest against me and are violatingWP:NOT (bureaucracy section) by starting this arbcom case, I think I'll stop commenting in this place to you for a while, unless something unexpected comes up, especially considering I have made an extreme attempt to address everything you've said, and you've responded by running in circles instead of giving thoughtful responses. -Nathan J. Yoder05:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The editor who commented agreed you were edit warring, but misinterpretedWP:3RR as he saidbecause the reporter is also edit warring, even if not technically breaking 3RR however 3RR states you don't HAVE to commit 4 reverts in a 24 hour period to be considered breaking 3RR. But its moot since you decided to violate it last night when editing intellitxt.--Crossmr13:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
He also continues to edit war in the face of policy and even though a third editor has stepped in multiple times to attempt to clarify appropriate sources for him[17]. Here he asks for a hard consensus that it be required that the individual be an expert, yetWP:V has be referenced to him multiple times. Though in this case he feels WP:V shouldn't apply to his edits and only WP:RS should for some reason apply to them. All edits to wikipedia have to conform toWP:V. Here a compromise is even suggested by a third editor[18], but instead of taking that compromise and discussing it, he continues to edit war[19],[20].--Crossmr05:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not a moot point if you tried to lie to make me look bad. Yes, in other words he didn't say I volated 3RR, so what you said was a lie. I can't believe you are refusing to concede that he never said it even after quoting him NOT SAYING IT. Go ahead, point to the part of 3RR where you don't need 3 edits to do this, I asked you and you still refused to provide it. Yes, I did violate it last night, but by accident because I miscounted edits and I won't do it again. See? I can acknowledge it, why can't you acknowledge yours? -Nathan J. Yoder05:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing, fromWP:3RRThe rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. The fact that you admit to counting edits to make sure your get your 3 to try and push unacceptable sources in to an article very clearly shows you're violating the spirit of that policy.--Crossmr06:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you ignore CGD saying my edits weren't disruptive? Interesting, however, nothing supports me violating it. You are a part of the edit war too, so then you'd be guilty of the same, if it were true. I count edits so I don't violate it, so does everyone else who does multiple reverts on a page within 24 hours--including you or are you going to lie and say you haven't counted edits? I don't admit to trying to push unacceptable sources in the slightest, but you're free to lie if you wish. It seems that whenever you make statements like this, I question them repeatedly and only after me asking you many times, you SCRAMBLE to find something to support yourself and then state that I "admitted" something, with your evidence being some deep, hidden implication in something I said. You have repeatedly violatedWP:CIVIL. Remember when you claimed I was trying toWP:OWN an article after I issued a polite request to you? The hypocrisy of you even trying to assess the spirit of a rule, when you've already indicated that you're strongly opposed to any descriptive interpretations, is enormous. I can't believe you accuse me of being uncivil when you're here trying to ferociously pursue me me (you've been directly recruiting people to agree with you), you repeatedly accuse me of POV pushing, soap boxing, acting in bad faith (when I've PROVEN that you have), ignoring people after I directly replied and counter-argued, admitting things I never admitted, violating rules I didn't violate (e.g. 3RR accusation, OWN), you've harassed and followed me, etc...
I don't get it. Do you in all honesty believe that you've been acting in a civil manner? Do you honestly believe that these accusations, based on me admitting something when I never did? I guess all I can do is laugh it off, because you're getting so uncivil and out of hand while accusing me of the same...being oblivious to this. -Nathan J. Yoder08:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you miss where he specifically addressed one edit and said he didn't see what was disruptive about that? He didn't address all of your edits. However someone else did, in fact two other people, someone in this very discussion and someone on the 3RR noticeboard, who felt you're edit warring and being disruptive. When a dispute is at an impasse, its quite common to bring in outside opinion,WP:DR. If you notice coolcaeser found the paypal article on his own. So did the two people who responded to your RfC that you dismissed because they didn't stick around and debate it. You very clearly told me that if I didn't debate in the manner you wanted, I shouldn't be involved in the discussion. that's a clear violation ofWP:OWN. Whether you slap please on the front or not. You already admitted you violatedWP:3RR whether it was "by accident" or otherwise, you violated it. In terms of violating it otherwise, it very clearly states you don't have to go over 3 edits in a day to violate, and two people have already held the opinion that you're edit warring and being disruptive, so yes there is plenty to support your violating it.--Crossmr13:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Overstock.com/WordBomb/Judd Bagley
I've just blocked 65.116.112.0/21, which is an IP range (a) owned by Overstock.com (b) widely used by them for spamming, COI editing and attempted intimidation of administrators dealing with them. I strongly suggest against unblocking this range under any circumstances; requested unblocks should probably be run past the ArbCom, who are very aware of Bagley/Overstock's odious work, before acting -David Gerard13:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
David Gerard is a checkuser so if he says that range has been used abusively, he probably knows what he is talking about.Thatcher13116:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You mean likeSuppressive Persons orUnpersons? That seems to be how that guy is regarded by the WikiClique, resulting in actions being taken against anything to do with him without permitting anything resembling discussion or debate... you know, the sort in which there ismore than one side allowed to present their case?*Dan T.*17:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Bagley's case is that he's been stalking people with quite some viciousness for commercial gain. He even got writeups in the NYT and NY Post, so I can state he's an odious stalking arsehole with Reliable Sources! I urge you to start reading up - he's really at a new and exciting level of odiousness -David Gerard18:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
What I've seen is that there's a big pissing contest that's been going on for years between the guy at Overstock and a guy at Wikipedia, with some other people involved too, and the whole thing has generally proceeded with the maturity level of junior high school, and the dignity level of monkeys flinging feces at one another, and has generated much more heat than light. Each side postures about being knights in shining armor saving the world from dastardly evil-doers, and likes to slant the playing field so that only their side gets to be heard. Frankly, Wikipedia would be better off rid of everybody in this dispute, regardless of which side they're on.*Dan T.*23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And I'm supposed to get balanced information on the dispute, in order to be well informed, how? On Wikipedia, where the topic seems to be taboo, and barely mentioned in polite company, and a lot of the relevant stuff has been reverted, deleted, or maybe even oversighted, and pretty much everybody from the POV opposing the clique here is banned? On the infamous "attack sites", where you can seelots of relevant info, but it's probably mostly bullshit? Perhaps in theNew York Post (mentioned above in this thread), which from what I've seen of it (a co-worker of mine is an avid reader of it and brings it to work every day) is a sleazy tabloid not all that much above theNational Enquirer in the area of providing objective journalism?*Dan T.*00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to do your homework for you in this case. And obviously I have no power to stop any admin undoing the block should they seriously consider it unrighteous. However, I do suggest that, in the case of receiving an apparently reasonable unblock request, they forward it to the arbitration committee rather than undoing it themselves -David Gerard15:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't run across Overstock.com's nasty Wikipedia work; I've only read about it in the newspapers and blogs.[21] When it becomes that famous, IP range blocking is a good start. And when the IP range block is noted in a blog,[22] there probably is more work to do. --(Talk)15:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have found that this administrator frequently will revert changes made by an editor even if they had every right to make the change. This has happened to me, but looking over his talk page, I am not the only one. He is abusing his admisistrative privelages by acting as a dictator, and not listening to people's opinions. Often, he will rule against a clear concensus by claiming that Wikipedia is not a democracy. While I agree that Wikipedia is not a democracy, one of the pillars is supposed to be collaboration and consencus. This administrator frequently throws that out the window. I would be happy to respond to any inquiries or questions you have, and hope that you can do something about this. Thank you.--TyGuy9201:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason it is incorrectly linking is because I make the changes which Matt incorrectly reverted back by doing a sloppy job. Also, the "push up" dispute was just my bit, if you look over his discussion page you see other incidents where he has been unfair. Just by skimming over his page you should start to see a pattern. In one occurence that later ended with an agreement by the two partiies, he reverted "humor" to "humour". Also, he has been accused of doctoring comments made by others. Also, in this exchange you will see that he has been abusing his administrative powers seemingly just for the hell of it:here. If you need further information, I would be glad to give it.--TyGuy9201:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
TyGuy, you were performing a cut and paste move, which violates the license under which Wikipedia is copyrighted, because it splits the history. Matt Crypto was reverting your improper move as he should have, and I imagine the reason it seemed sloppy was due to you two editing at the same time. However, I can see no evidence that he bothered to inform you that cut & paste moves are inappropriate, which is somewhat disappointing, as this is a common error.Natalie03:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Given the matter that initiated this entry (Talk:Press up), I think it is worthwhile to duplicate my comment placed on that talk page here, which was prompted by some statements made byTyGuy92 about what he was about to do:
I draw your attention toWP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a democracy. Additionally, the comments about the variety of English used by the first author may well apply here (seeWP:MOS#National varieties of English. Further moves could be viewed by some as being potentially disruptive because they would seem to be part of an edit-war if you persist in re-establishing the page-moves before allowing more information to be gathered to reach a consensus. The correct way forward is not to announce that you will be making the move again, and that you are advising people to discuss it with you via email, but to encourage anyone to discuss iton here in public in order that as many viewpoints can be expressed and to allow any consensus for a move to thereby emerge (a consensus may not emerge, in which case, the original version stays.)WP:CANVAS may also prove informative during this process. I wrote this message is made to help you avoid pitfalls that would help no one in these circumstances.
As far as I can see, Matt Crypto's reversion of the page move (and his earlier intervention in the humour/humor debate) is in accordance withWP:ENGVAR, which states that if an article is written in a certain national variety of English, it should stick with that form. Also, I can't find any use of admin-specific powers by Matt Crypto at all in the page history, never mind abusive ones.Lurker (said·done)16:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That viewpoint is essentially the same as mine—I can see no reason why Matt Crypto is accused of abuse of admin powers. But, I have seen some uncivil comments by TyGuy92, which I removed fromTalk:Press up today as I considered that they were uncivil, irrelevant, and were potentially inflammatory. (diff here.) DDStretch (talk)17:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been discussing some controversial edits byUser:Raasgat with that editor regardingheadings. Upon further investigation into the edits of this user found similar patters with aUser:Paul venter, who was once blocked for copyright violations and personal attacks. I wasn't sure what to do or where to report this, but here are some links:
Thanks for the info.diff sure looks like the editing pattern of all three. Any thoughts on what to do? Should I try to get a checkuser or place this discussion at the appropriate place for suspected sockpuppets? Cheers, --Rkitko(talk)19:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Venter was never indef blocked, he could edit with that account now if he wanted to, as far as I know. Is he actually violatingWP:SOCK? They're really so similar there's no need for a checkuser... but I'm not sure there's anything blockable here? --W.marsh21:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure. I'm not too familiar withWP:SOCK, but in my opinion he was approachingWP:OWN andWP:POINT with some of his edits regarding style issues (and quasi-personal attacks, but nothing too obvious to warrant action beyond a warning). I haven't checked his articles for copyvio, since that seemed to be a problem for the Paul venter user account. He did, however, edit the same articles the Venter user account had to re-establish his preferred style on articles that had since been edited by others to comply with guidelines. The issue is moot, though, as it seems he's backed off on editing. A real shame since the articles he had been creating were of value. He just hated to see infoboxes and what he considered bad style on his articles. I do wonder if he'll create another account, though, to circumvent discussion. --Rkitko(talk)23:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps... "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors"? Those who were tracking the Venter user account missed the almost two months of activity on the Raasgat account. Raasgat had indicated he might not continue editing, but new contributions appeared today that consist of mostly edit warring over grammar (diff) and style issues (diff). Contributions that have substance are good, but all the others are combative attempts to institute style preferences. --Rkitko(talk)15:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'm apparently a "clueless chum" (not the worst thing I've been called...)diff after I placed an image in a taxobox against this user's wishdiff, which he then attempted to change inthis botched edit which only duplicated the image. --Rkitko(talk)15:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a feeling thatthis was also the editor in question, since the IP reverted all the style issues Raasgat has confirmed to abhor. --Rkitko(talk)15:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I did that before I reported it here (me being new to the admin process). It is being ignored there, I guess. Can you do something about it?Weltanschaunng16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem at AIV is that, while the edits may not be great, they are really not strictly "vandalism". It's also not particularly current, with only a single edit today, over 4 hours ago. I've seen the report there for a while, and decided to let some other admin handle it. If other admins are doing the same, that may end up being why it is sitting there unanswered. -TexasAndroid17:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Well after i reverted his edit, he reverted my edit again, stating that 'Encyclopaedia Metallum [www.metal-archives.com] is not a credible source, while he himself provides no credible source to support his claim. Here is a diff of the last edit[26].
As you can see he is persistent in adding 'devildriver' to the list, without providing sources.
Phil Sandifer and Rambutan are engaged in a long-standing dispute about lots of petty things. Phil just blocked Rambutanfor the umpteenth time while at the same time engaged in an editing dispute with him, as evident fromthis,this,this etc. I do not endorse Rambutan's actions, but Phil shouldn't block a user whom he (admittedly) had lots of negative interactions with.Melsaran (talk)19:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't get along with Rambutan, but even I have to speak up. Phil clearly has a grudge against Rambutan, I've seen a lot of baiting (on Phil's side), clearly he wishes to block him [Rambutan]. I'm still trying to figure out the problem this time, it appears to be about some "swatch" that overlays a page?Matthew19:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conf)Amongst other things apparently, yes, and blocks the copyright information, as well as messing up the user buttons on smaller browsers which could make it impossible for other users to get in touch with him. Really though, he's being warned for messing with other people's talk page comments, then he attempts tototally remove and hide his block notice, and thenleaving an unblock notice that seems to want the reviewing admin to think the previous one had given no reason for blocking outside his block summary. Not to mention saying hethought he was working in IRC consensus, I was on the IRC channel at the time he was talking about it, and the opinions wereOVERWHELMINGLY that it was inappropriate for a user page and did nothing to help further the encyclopedia --lucid19:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It was a banner that blocked out the link to the text of the GFDL, and thus violated the GFDL. An honest mistake, I'm sure. But that he repeatedly restored the template even after being told the problem is not and cannot be anything but disruption.Phil Sandifer19:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
As for the accusation of baiting, I object most strenuously to the idea that warning people about policy violations is baiting. This "damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach benefits only trolls and rules-lawyers. This matter is simple - Rambutan has been repeatedly disruptive. Rambutan has been warned. Rambutan continued. Rambutan got blocked. It's a simple, straightforward story.Phil Sandifer19:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I honestly feel the only person being disruptive is you. I've seen nothing to convince me that you aren't intentionally going out of your way to annoy this user. You're bullying him — just not in the usual sense of the word.Matthew19:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
In general, glancing at the contributions of a user with a past pattern of disruption has not been considered bullying or stalking, and warning about disruptive behavior has not generally been treated as bullying or disruption. If I've made frivolous or undue warnings, initiated conflicts with him, or otherwise done anything to elicit a response, by all means point it out. But for the most part, I feel strongly that I have done nothing that is not a routine administrative task.Phil Sandifer19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This is not a useful application of "long-standing dispute." My only dispute with Rambutan has been enforcing 3RR and disruption policies - I have never had an editing conflict with him. It is not (and cannot be) a COI to have previously enforced policy - in fact, the idea that there is some continuity in policy enforcement from first warning to lengthy block requires some consistency in who deals with it. That Rambutan has gone out of his way to try to create a COI by fast-nominating articles for deletion does not create a meaningful COI.
Furthermore, Rambutan is disruptive - he misleadingly edits talk pages, removes warnings from his page, and knowingly restores content that is disruptive. He misidentifies edits as vandalism, he excessively polices pages using automated rollback tools to rollback non-vandalism edits, he does not use the talk page to discuss his removals. He has been warned about all of this, he persists in doing it. That is to say, the block not only does not violate COI, it is a good idea.Phil Sandifer19:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Removing warnings from one's talk page isallowed (but not really nice), and using automated rollback tools (not admin rollback) in content disputes isn't really harmful as long as he provides a reason in the edit summary and doesn't use it to mass-revert; the result is the same as when he had done the edit manually. And you should have left the decision to block or not to another administrator.Melsaran (talk)19:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you show me your rule that prohibits him from removing comments from his user talk page? Could you also show me a rule that prohibits him from using a javascript tool to revert with a reason. Simply it seems he would be using it out of convenience.Matthew19:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Using tools that mimic the administrative rollback tools in ways that violate the rules for those tools is pretty much a no-brainer, I should imagine. And while he is welcome to remove comments from his user talk page, removing warnings is frowned upon. In all cases, though, the relevant policy is "don't disrupt Wikipedia." If you're behaving beligerantly and in a way that makes it difficult for people to communicate appropriately with you about that, you're violating that policy, which is a very flexible one.Phil Sandifer19:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I do not frown upon my warnings been removed from userspace. Such deletions are not permanent and can always be looked up in the histories of the respective pages. Edit-warring over restoration of such notices however, specially on the talk pages of other users can be considered disruptive, and sometimes be considered as baiting. —Nearly Headless Nick{C}17:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I would note that, in addition to hiding my block text before requesting an unblock. Rambutan has simply removedUser:Majorly's declining of the block to ask again. This, needless to say, is also disruptive.Phil Sandifer19:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
For the record, he restored the block text in a visible but default-collapsed box within 6 minutes of deleting it, and only 2 minutes after the unblock request. It wasn't a permanent text deletion.Georgewilliamherbert21:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It said "From Phil Sandifer", subtitled "Take a peep if it interests you". He didn't change what you wrote, inside the collapsed box. I would hope that an admin would look to see what was there before doing an unblock, if you were the listed blocking admin. I'm not disagreeing it was disruptive (nor that his earlier stuff was... PRODingScience ???) but this particular bit wasn't that bad.Georgewilliamherbert21:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I fully support Phil's actions here. When I have even one run-in with a disruptive user, you can bet I put that user on my watchlist and keep an eye on them from then on. That is not stalking, baiting, what have you. If they disrupt again, I'm even more vigilant about their actions. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. --Spike Wilbury♫talk20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Rambutan has been persistently disruptive, combining this with querulous and unreasonable behavior when blocked. Phil acted correctly here. --Tony Sidaway11:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
POV pushing on Tim Lahaye
Itake (talk·contribs) recently popped up onTim LaHaye, a leader of the Christian right in America, and insisted on removing theentire criticism section because "it has no references" and it apparently violated WP:NPOV and WP:NOR (so says his edit summary, anyway). To highlight his cherrypicking of policies, citing BLP, Iremoved everything else in the article that was unreferenced that Itake had conveniently ignored in his eagerness to enforce BLP on the criticism section. Itake has responded by trying to remove theonly cited sentences on the article, ones that I had added about a month previously stating LaHaye's son is gay. I am starting to get rather tired of Itake's blatant POV pushing and mischaracterisation (from his comments on the talkpage he seems to think I'm a left winger who hates Tim Lahaye, when I'm really just unimpressed with his obvious POV removals and the only reason LaHaye was on my watchlist was because I was making sure the sentences I added didn't get taken out by people such as... well, Itake). If someone could warn him or do something, I would be grateful. I'm happy for the article to be restored to its previous state, I just want whatever incarnation it takes to not be skewed to any partisan liking.Dev920 (Have a nice day!)08:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Somehow, I don't think even the most imaginative reading ofWP:POINT can produce "enforcingWP:BLP in its entirety on an article is disruptive and should not be done".Dev920 (Have a nice day!)12:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
IfWP:BLP weren't involved, I don't think the above blanking by Dev920 would need to be considered as aWP:POINT violation. However, BLP quite specifically says that unsourced critical information about living peoplemust be removed from articles.WP:3RR contains an exclusion clause for this type of edit. Removal ofnon-critical information, even if unsourced, does not have the same level of importance.Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers14:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's face it,WP:BLP is fundamentally a lawsuit-avoidance protocol. People aren't going threaten to sue over saying something good about them, whether sourced or not.Raymond Arritt14:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This range has vandalized a number of articles over the past hour -- see[27] as a for-instance. Somehow all this vandalism has gone unnoticed, but I'm cleaning it up currently -- but I think a range block may be in order? This looks very deliberate.Gscshoyru14:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
From the whois, it appears the range could have been made even smaller. 80.231.198.64/28 perhaps. If it continues after an hour, I'd try that smaller range for a longer duration. —Wknight94 (talk)14:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
There's something going on on this article such that this article,Sami Brady, andSamantha Roberts Roberts are in a redirect loop, though the talk page works (I think). I fixed one redirect, but got into the loop somewhere else as a result. I'd guess this is edit-warring, so can an admin clean up the redirects and lock pagemoves so the article is visible and the dispute can be resolved?MSJapan15:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like double redirects. Admins are not needed to fix those. It seems to have been caused by someone recently performing a couple page moves. If you think an edit war (or move war) is actually going on, tryWP:RFPP, but I don't see one now. —Wknight94 (talk)15:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Dishonest behavior during RFC
While reviewingWikipedia:Requests for comment/Italiavivi I noticed that one of the partiescertifying the action (USER:Ryan Postlethwaite)and who had previously been involved in some sort of dispute with the "defendant" had acted as if he were an uninvolved party,posting anOutside View (complete with endorsements). When I made acomment questioning the appropriateness of an "Outside View" from an editor previously involved with the situation, the editorremoved my comment. Irestored my question, andUSER:Ryan Postlethwaite againremoved it. I do not have a position regarding the RFC, I only question how fair of an RFC this will be with such blatantly dishonest conduct coming from one of the persons bringing the case. Disclosure: I have no previous involvement withUSER:Ryan Postlethwaite, and have only seenUSER:Italiavivi (defendant) around a few articles I haunt (no prior relationship). I have no idea whom to tell about my concerns of this conduct -- I'm not going to get involved in an edit war on an RFC (especially one in which I have no comment), but I believe that relegating my questioning of this conduct to the RFC talk page means it will be overlooked by the majority of people reviewing the RFC (and thus the conduct will also be overlooked). /Blaxthos15:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Generally, anyone who feels they have something to say can add a view. Also, we need to be careful of suggesting that having any previous conflicts with another editor forever taints one's status with respect to that editor. If Ryan says he's not an involved party in the RFC, let him say that. There's nothing you've said here that requires admin attention, so you may want to bring this issue up at the RFC, if you think it's relevant.Friday(talk)15:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The RFC page is for comments about the subject of dispute only. Comments about the comments, such as Blaxthos's comment, belong on the Talk page of the RFC. That's what it's for. Ryan endorsed the RFC and added his view. If your only problem is that his view appears below the "Outside Views" heading instead of above it, I'm sure he won't object if you move it. Meanwhile I notice that you didn't see fit to notify Ryan on his talk page that you'd opened a complaint against him here; you don't think he'd want to know? --Zsero15:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I should clarify that the second time I removed your comment, I put it straight on the talk page and answered there, as it had no relevance to the conduct of Italiavivi. Could you please tell me how my conduct has been blatantly dishonest? I put my view down on Italiavivi's conduct, if people don't agree with that, they don't have to endorse it and can add their own view of the users behaviour. It's one of the key things to RfC's - all users should get their views accross to stop conflicts arising in the future. I should also note, that my involvement in the dispute is very minor, I simply gave him a civility warning a few months ago. In future, I would appreciate it if you could alert me if you plan to go to an admin board to discuss my conduct rather than go behind my back.Ryan Postlethwaite15:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Removing tags placed on non free images with no fair use rationale
Resolved
User:Chaosdevil101 has uploaded 3 non free image with no fair use rationales. SeeImage:Pro Evolution Soccer 2008.JPG,Image:FIFA 08 PS3.jpg andImage:Pro Evolution Soccer 2008.JPG, which the user claims that the user made himself and uploaded it under a free licence. I taggedImage:Pro Evo 2008.JPG twice, see[28] and[29]. However both times the user has removed the tag, see[30]. The user seems to have treied to disguise the revert by reverting my edit, then reverting his own and then reverting again, removing the tag. The second time, it is likely that the user used a sockpuppet to remove the tag[31]. The user also made an attack on a user page, see[32]. For the user's overall contributions, please see[33]. Could an admin pelase take a look. Thanks.16:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to report this, but I'm a bit disturbed by the treatment of a newly registered editor,User:aaa intern, by several other editors, including at least one admin. This editor has been blocked from editing (just 7 minutes after a first warning!) for adding links that other editors have acknowledged improve the articles. See discussionshere,here, andhere. The editor may or may not be involved in linkspamming, but it seems that Wikipedia policies ofWikipedia:Assume Good Faith andWikipedia:Please don't bite the newcomers are scarcely in evidence. It seems to me that such aggressive enforcement of anti-spamming policies will ultimately do more harm than good. Moreover,User:Hu12's block of aaa intern has apparently had the unintended side effect of blocking at least one other registered user.MrDarwin00:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Contributions to wikipedia from that account consist soley of adding external links to an organization the account is associated with. The account seems to be aWP:SPA Role account which is a violation ofHelp:Username#Sharing_accounts. "Role accounts for the purposes of conducting public relations or marketing via the encyclopedia arestrongly discouraged and will be blocked for violations of theWikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines." The block does not affectUser:Aaa intern's ability to edit or discuss on his/her own account talk page. No discussion, nor unblock request has come from this account, however the only discussion seems to be from MrDarwin. Account was blocked for 24 hours, I have now indefinatly blocked it as a spam only account and per ubove policy, which now should no longer affect any one sharing IP 160.111.254.11, any subsequent addresses they attempt to edit from or preventing new account creation. It appears there was an Autoblock, ID: 613575 attached to the account, this should no longer be an issue as it has been corrected.--Hu1201:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
If the intern wishes to register a new account, and agrees to follow all policies, I expect they could do something productive. Instead of adding COI links to articles, the intern could leave notes on the relevant talk pages suggesting these references/links and explaining why they'd be appropriate. The Smithsonian's online collection may be worth linking to, but this should be decided by editors independent of the Smithsonian. -JehochmanTalk01:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
From an actual examination of the links that were added by aaa intern, I'm hard-pressed to see that these edits were made for the purpose of "conducting public relations or marketing via the encyclopedia". Moreover, I fail to see how aaa intern violatedHelp:Username#Sharing_accounts; as far as I or anybody else knows, these edits were made by a single person, editing under a single user name.
I'm also bothered by the implication that editors will be prevented from editing articles in which he or she has any particular knowledge or expertise. For the sake of improving Wikipedia and making it the best that it can be, I hope that these policies will be re-examined and leavened with a modicum of common sense.MrDarwin02:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've verified that the user was adding links to Smithsonian Institution archives materials on specific artists to articles on those artists. It seems to me, to say the least, highly questionable that the only possible purpose of adding links to Smithsonian Institution materials to articles on (often very obscure) artists is solely the marketing and public relations of the Smithsonian Institution. Therefore, it seems to me that it is by no means certain thatWP:COIWP:SPAM, which requires such a purpose to justify an indefinite block, has occurred. I believeWP:COI in fact specifically permits interested parties to make an edit that would be clearly appropriate if done by a non-interested party, and this would seem to be such a case. Moreover,WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy, and relevant materials in Smithsonian Institution archives would seem to be sufficiently relevant to the articles involved that discretion in applying the guideline seems appropriate. I have advised the user that a block can be appealed. I would recommend that the user be unblocked, or at least not indef-blocked. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC).Clarified --Shirahadasha03:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the username violatesWP:U and needs to be changed. There's not so much value in adding links to articles. Google works pretty well if somebody wants to find something. I think this sets a bad example for others if we allow it. I'd rather have the intern use the article talk pages. -JehochmanTalk02:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have unblocked the user. If I am further overridden I will not act again on this matter, but believe thatWP:SPAM simply hasn't been met since the material is not promotional in nature, is specific, relevant, and useful to the articles it was added to. I also believe that this material would be accepted by a non-interested editor if added by an ordinary user, henceWP:COI does not require interfering. I will ask the user to voluntarily refrain from adding links to the Smithsonian Institution for the time being and discuss the issue. One can question whether articles should have links at all, but the link policy permits it. Best, --Shirahadasha02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Fundementally, spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love. Even commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites(any) for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote it, are not. my 2 1/2 cents. For now, let see how this pans out. Contributions relating to COI need to made on the article talk pages. We all want the best for the project. Lets hope this doesn't set a bad example ;)--Hu1203:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
For those who are interested, there have been several lengthy debates about spamming behavior by representatives of libraries, archives, what-have-you, but no consensus so far. We really need to develop a policy on this. See the discussionhere and the previous discussion linked from it. There's a thread on how it's possible to be non-profit but still have a vested interest in driving traffic to your site.Katr6703:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it is clear that everyone involved in this situation has acted in good faith according to his or her understanding of the situation and what is best for the project. Nonetheless, the net effect was a very seriousWP:BITE violation against a good-faith new editor with valuable information to offer, and I hope this sort of thing can be handled very differently in the future.Newyorkbrad12:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I also am not sure if the mass reversion byUser:Modernist is a good answer. I hope that we all do understand, that we are trying to write anencyclopedia here,not a linkfarm. You say that the mass linkadditions of good, on topic links is OK (even with aconflict of interest, then what witholds a museum to add en-masse external links to a number of pages. Apparently that is all OK, even without discussion. So all car-musea can add their link to the external links sections of all pages about cars .. and all these pages can be turned into linkfarms (etc. etc.).WP:SPAMHOLE is that way. --Dirk BeetstraTC23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Modernists revisions seem to be independent of consensus and is one that contradicts Wikipedia policy. Perhaps we should demote policies and guidelines in place preventing such behavior to essays? Perhaps We should rethink the entire purpose of wikipedia and allow sites likeOverstock.com/WordBomb/Judd Bagley pursue their own adgenda by allowing mass additions to their various products to each article that isrelated to shoes, shirts and electronics. Surely this would ad value to the reader. "I went to wikipedia and saved 10% on an Ipod"...LOL... seriously. Overstock.com and aaa.si may be fundamentally different, however the behavior we are condoningis the same.Aaa intern has made no attempts to communicate in any of the multitude of discussions that have taken place. Bite or not, theDuck test needs also considered.--Hu1205:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Modernist is an established editor with significant contributions to art-related articles and there is no indication he has aCOI here, so he is entitled to make an editorial decision that these links have added value and should be kept. This is open to challenge as with any editorial decision. A good solution has already been found in an identical situation withUser:VAwebteam (fromV&A Museum), namely to set up a mini-project so that they could work with other editors to assess each proposed EL. This was very successful and they were fully co-operative. See their user and talk pages for more details. Obviously when a major institution participates in wikipedia, we don't want to chew them out. That said, we can't allow mass unsupervised insertion of links either. Careful dialogue is the way forward in such cases. See alsoWikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles, where an editor,Infoart, associated with theSaatchi Gallery had created over 150 articles on artists associated with that gallery. Rather than mass speedy deletes, a team of editors worked with him and attended to each article, with the final result of the addition of much useful content to the project.Tyrenius13:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The Archives of American art is an important source of valuable and valid information for visual arts articles. I actually thought there was a mixed opinion about the links with four or five editors including an administrator or two in favor of restoring the links. I acted with the spirit ofWP:AGF andWP:UCS, if I restored the links too hastily - (it was a lot of work) I apologize if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. I think the links add value and valuable information to the encyclopedia.Modernist13:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If the Archives of American art is so important of a source for visual arts articles, then why not endorse it as such atWikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. Perhaps the proper approach should be incorporating a templateapproved by the project in to articles. Modernist said himself, "there have been several lengthy debates about spamming behavior by representatives of libraries, archives, what-have-you, but no consensus so far. We really need to develop a policy on this", there is a policy, its located @WP:NOT#LINK. TheExternal links policy onAdvertising and conflicts of interest statesYou should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with theconflict of interest guidelines. I fail to understand how actions of an obviousWP:SPA spam account who has not participated in any of these discussions, has no edits outside of spamming links(77 in less than two hours, 116 in total) to his own organization, have support for his behavior by established editors. I can undrstand if there was participation/clarification byAaa intern, however the silence is deffening, telling and quite indicitive in pattern and action of the thousands of spam accounts seeking traffic from wikipedia we see @Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. As it stands should we allowIcewarp ltd(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) (a new user) to freely conduct public relations and marketing via the encyclopedia also?. I appreciate Tyrenius' examples they are very helpful and I know how much work goes into cleanup, Modernist, its work, alot of work.--Hu1216:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was me who mentioned the other discussions. I realize we have a policy, but this comes up so often, that the policy needs to contain a very clear librarian clause.Katr6716:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree withUser:Modernist. The links enrich the articles by connecting them to an unimpeachable, public, institutional, non-commercial, and thoroughly accredited source. Regardless of the fact that the links may have been added by some automatic means, they should remain, as welcome and legitimate sources of information.MdArtLover18:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd endorse Tyrenius's comments above. The V&A approach has worked, as the European Library one earlier really did not, because the COI user there was not prepared to do things the WP way. I'd add that modern, still in copyright, artists present special problems as it is often impossible to get the images needed onto WP because of copyright. So good external links are especially useful.Johnbod19:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I've asked him to not call you "Mutu" anymore. As to use of the "n word", there's nothing inappropriate about this as long as he is not using it as an insult - it seems he's referring to the articlenigger itself, and there's nothing wrong with calling an article by its name. Remember, Wikipedia isn't censored.Picaroon(t)21:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
As I've already explained, I've referred to the article by the name "Nigger" itself every time I've used it. So I don't see the problem at all, unless the article itself gets changed to "N Word". I think this whole thing is extremely silly.
Fourdee was blocked by Jimbo Wales himself? Are you sure about that? Anyway, there is an actualNigger article, I don't see you complaining about that. If that isn't deleted, there's no reason to delete this one, if the justification is that it is almost as bad as having the "Nigger" article. Why use this article as a "proxy for the N word", when that word already has its own page? Your logic is quite flawed, reeks of desperacy.Funkynusayri18:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Please Funkynusayri, try not to turn this page into a shock site, if you do I will have to report you. This is the intent that I was talking about. Yes Fourdee was blocked by Jimbo[35]. So for others interested in continuing being a wikipedians, should take note that wikipedia is not stormfront, a place for xenophobic bashing. It is a resource for education and an encyclopedia.Muntuwandi18:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
As for "Mutu", I called him that when we were still on good terms, and he didn't seem to mind at all back then. So I should stop saying it now just because he has ceased to like me? Also, I should maybe mention that he has manipulated my messages a couple of times, I don't know whether it is an offense or not, but it is highly annoying and inappropriate, far worse than my "offenses", if I may utter my own opinion.
The replacement of your loving nickname for him with his user name is appropriate, the censorship of "nigger" is not. I'll ask him to stop.Picaroon(t)18:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
He himself has referred to me as simply "Funky" on numerous occasions (take a look at that same talk page, for example), I had no problem with that, so I smell hypocrisy. If I get threatened here for referring to him by a nickname, I have an equal right to complain about him doing the same.Funkynusayri18:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's say that then, if he wants to keep calling me Funky, I'll keep calling him Mutu. Or well, let's see if he agrees with me just calling him "Muntu" from now on, he proposed that himself.Funkynusayri19:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Bmedley Sutler(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has recently been blocked for disrupting the project. He, once again, states that one of his goals on Wikipedia is to "out" people he considers right wing.[36][37] In the second link, he invites another editor to try homosexual sex. I really don't have a problem with gays, but that sort of language is in extremely poor taste. A recent ANI discussion showed that the community is running out of options for improving Bmedley's behavior (seehere). I believe that Bmedley should be blocked for a lenghty period of time (perhaps indefinitely). |05:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I came to the noticeboard to post regarding this edit of Bmedley [[38]] - Clearly taunting and he's been blocked for it before. I cant say I'm suprised to see he's been alerted on for other behavior already.Dman72705:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"Try it. You'll like it." That is really grossly inappropriate. Any language of that sort wherever it beheterosexual,homosexual,pansexual, orFurry is unacceptable. In a workplace that would be considered sexual harassment, and considering this user's habit of pushing it to the limit always there should be consequences. Seriously. --MichaelLinnear05:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I found this sentence especially disgusting, he's bringing children into it and promoting pedophilia - "Its okay, (IMO) to have a wife and kids and enjoy some Gay sex now and then!"[[[[39]]]Dman72705:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Michael, your right. I parsed that sentence wrong. At least I think that you are right. Even with the clarification, I really find these kind of posts appalling.Dman72705:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
User:DHeyward is Wikistalkingme He is following me around and (IMO) trying to provoke me. He showed up on an article I am active on for monthsWestern_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation that he hadnever edited, right after my block ednded, made a 'troll edit' and then erased my message to him aasking him not to troll the article.[40] The fact that he wont communicate about this issue which I posted to him in good faith and his troll edit to the article shows that he lacked good faith intentions on this article and is just trying to provoke me (IMO). There are millions of articles on Wiki. Could you ask him to leave me alone and find another article? IMO his only object is to haunt me and get me to bite. I have now decided to avoid certain articles like Larry Craig so I wont be provoked. I am staying away from Crockspots favorite articles as much as I can. And I have since my block! And now I go to an article that I have been editing for months and Dheyward Wikistalks me there and haunts me and provkes me.Please get him to stop and leave me be on that article. Thanks. Update That was a few days ago. Then I ask someone in the LBGT community to mentor me, and [[User:DHeyward]Wikistalks my edits again and teams up with one of his RW friends (who are all showing up now because they're ateam (I won't say Cabal!) to talk about his Wikistalking. After my block Icompletely avoided any article any ofthem work on, and Dheyward followed me tobait me, as many say is their plan. Now they will all pile on. This organized RW harrassment from the same group of approx 6 editors must stop! Please, if they leave me alone, Like I tried to do them there will be no problems!05:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Judging by your asking them to have gay sex, your attempt to leave them alone is unsuccessful. I would like to hear you defendyour actions, instead of trying to change the subject to other editors (as you always do). Also, please quit reducing this to a "left vs. right" thing; it is not about political affiliation. |05:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I've seen this user's name mentioned far to much here on AN/I in recent months. Unfortunately Bmeldey's actions have shown a habitual use of incivility, harassment, personal attacks, edit warring and disruption. I have decided that, considering past discussions on this issue (where the possibility of indef blocking was specifically brought up), it is reasonable to say that the community's patience has been "exhausted". The user has been talked to, by several users on several occasions about this conduct and still actively refuses to stop it. Hence I have decided to indefinitely block the user. I want to remind all of you that indefinitely blocked does not mean infinitely blocked. I specifically left a note on the block log saying that the user should be unblocked if he agrees to cease all such conduct and to abide by established wikipedia policy. Anyone can feel free to discuss my block below.--Jersey Devil05:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
He is angry at this point which explains his most recent edits. I'm going to wait until he cools down a bit to listen to his response. I ask that people be respectful and not try to egg him on below this point.--Jersey Devil06:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Heresponded, and once again has used his two favorite defenses (neither of which are legitimate): accusing his opposition of being "right wing" and changing the subject to other editors. |06:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to endorse Jersey's actions here. I've spoken up for him once or twice in the past, but the edits posted in this thread are unacceptable in pretty much any context. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)20:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
As Bmedley Sutler has (almost certainly falsely) stated that English is not his first language,[42] I asked him what it was.[43] I reproduce his response in full:
"That is private. Don't try and 'out' me by asking these personal questions especially now that I have caught the USMIL and BUSHGOV in 100% proofed lies. Outing of this type is not allowable on Wiki, and Iwill follow up on it. I consider this a harrassment."[44]Proabivouac07:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That response is, of course, ridiculous considering that Bmedley Sutler has tried to out the supposed sexual orientation of several individuals, while maintaining that his first language is private. |07:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
My God, that block log is genormous. After looking at the guy's talk page, I honestly think thisshould an infinite community ban. It's obvious others have had saintlike patience with him--enough is enough. Ban.Blueboy9619:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If he's retired, then we've done with him. Sexual harassment is totally unacceptable, and this user has shown no ability to improve his behavior, or even understand what is inappropriate about it. --19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to agree, but guys with his profile usually have a hamperful of smelly socks ... I was suggesting a ban as a preemptive measure. Judging by the fact that he's apparently a meatpuppet (at the very least) of a banned user, my hunch was right.Blueboy9620:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
He'll be back either way, and, if history is any guide, we'll have to go through the entire process again. Perhaps he'll be able to sink a few more RfA's, maybe start an arbitration case, who knows?Proabivouac20:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Should any action be taken regarding his "sinking" of the RfA (User:Crockspot's, I assume)? It's kind of unfair that the RfA process was sabotaged by a meatpuppet who was finally "sunk" himself for, among other things, the very type of "outing"behavior that sunk the RfA. BmS's ad nauseum quoting of one flip comment from Conservative Underground as "proof" of Crockspot's homophobia really did a lot of damage; BmS even used that remark to accuse me of being gay, which I neither confirm nor deny, then turned around and say, "Well, Crockspot said it!" It doesn't seem right that such sabotage should go uncorrected, but I don't know that there's any way to correct it except to try the RfA again.Calbaer22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well he has now pretty much admitted that he let the banned user FAFFA use his account for edits.By the way, about 50% of my edits were FAFFAs who would log into my user, he thought I might only last 1 week, and we went 2 months! Sinking that racist homophobes RFA is our proudest moment! Toodles[49] which leads me to say that though I was open to unblocking initially (had he made a commitment to change his ways) now the block will stay.--Jersey Devil22:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the need. Bmedley is indef blocked. I believe FAAFA is banned already. If he comes back it will simply be an abusive sockpuppet, and we can just block him indefinitely. There's no real need for CN on Bmedley.Denny Crane.23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the anti-homosexual comment on his user talk, as well as redacted something that appeared to be an outing of an editor's real name (I didn't delete the edit because I wasn't sure).Denny Crane.22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
point of order, the above redaction of the editors real name was actually not. See[50]. As it is, his user talk is blanked and redirected to his user page, so that's a moot point.Denny Crane.01:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
After telling this user to desist soapboxing on the talk page for the9/11 article, I retired to bed. Apparently, in the interim, he was blocked for harassment and sockpuppetry by another admin. Though I had nothing to do with this block, he has taken it upon himself to send me a number of harassing emails, despite my polite responses. Given that he has made no substantive contributions to the project, and he already has multiple blocks for harassment and personal attacks, I have therefore indefinitely blocked his account, and his email privileges, until such time as he decides to comport himself in a reasonable fashion.Since his talk page is protected for the duration of his previous block, I'm inviting external review by other admins. Unblock, or shorten duration, if you feel this was excessive. --Haemo16:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I am somewhat involved - made previous blocks (for harassment, attacks) and the sockpuppetry block for using an IP to repost soapboxery. I would have blocked indef at another incidence of harassment, trolling, POV pushing, etc. The emails are just that.Mr.Z-man17:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I posted a merge proposal forQuadrupel on 25 July. There was a discussionTalk:Brouwerij_de_Koningshoeven with the majority (3-1) in favour of the merge (as the one proposing the merge, I am including myself in the vote). Yesterday, user:goethean, voted against this merge, but instead of giving reasons against the merge, he made a personal attack against me and another user. Even assuming his vote was valid, the vote was still 3-2, so this morning, I completed the merge. This afternoon he reverted it. He has made personal attacks against me a number of times.Mikebe17:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone looks into this incident, I would like to make a few points. User:Mikebe has attempted todelete the article by fiat previously, andI told him to take it to articles for deletion. Apparently, he doesn't want to do so. So he proposed a merge, closed it, and thenmerged one well-referenced article (Quadrupel) into afootnote of another article, deleting most of the well-referenced material. I again suggest that if Mikebe wants to delete the article, he take it to articles for deletion. I would also add that his proposal to merge a beer type article into a brewery article isprima facie absurd. —goetheanॐ19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
In its effort to updatefn/fnb templates, the bot is wreaking havoc on at least a few articles where the standard[51] template is used for source citations andfn/fnb is used for textual amplifications--often, for clarity and utility, within the body of the article, rather than as endnotes. The conversion performed by the bot confuses the numbering and layout. Here are the four examples I am tracking where the bot has repeatedly caused this problem (in order of severity):English plural,major film studio,Hollywood blacklist, andfilm noir.—DCGeist18:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Bot blocked. You are correct in that the bot was causing harm on at least a few pages. Please start a dialog with the bot's owner on getting this straightened out. Any admin is welcome to unblock once the owner has dealt with the problems. -TexasAndroid18:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I too have had problems with this bot, some seemingly different from DCGeist's, and some obviously the same. I've documented them more fullyhere onAlpta's talk page. In brief, the additional problem is that in articles where a single footnote is referenced several times, the numbering goes all awry. (This version is a case in point. It includes a link to a note, [8], despite there being only 7 notes in total: four amplifications and three citations.) I've reverted the affected edits that have crossed my watchlist. —ras5222:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I too had problems with it in theKargil War page and had to revert it because it couldn't distinguish between 2 types of notes and the internal link to the note was removed (reverse linking did work though).Idleguy03:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks like Morton Christopher copied Rutherfordjigsaw's userpage to me. Rutherfordjigsaw has been here almost a year, and surely after a year you'd know the ins and outs of wikipedia well enough to come up with a much less obvious sockpuppet than that. If you think there is problematic behavior, I'd file anrequest for checkuser.AniMate04:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Sikandros has been removing cited, scholarly material from the Hassan ibn Ali page because he doesn't like it. He's now begun to refer to the material itself as vandalism. I've made note of it on his userpage but he's only responded angrily.Elijahmeeks21:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
as i am using wiki for a long time i haven't seen such nude photo in english wiki (photo not a drawing or ...).so will u alow put such photo in english wiki or not?--mardetanha22:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
There are no obscenity laws on Wikipedia. Images uploaded to the Wikimedia servers do not conform to real world or local laws on obscenity. This image is allowed under that bare minimum. However, if you're going to write a new article on Melody Max, that image cannot be used on that article because we do not accept copyrighted images of people to illustrate what they look like in articles if they are still alive.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thank for your quick replys. actully the problems back on artice in fawiki which it goes aroud melody max.so i decide to refer to english wiki. though i could't find any photo like that in english wiki!!—Precedingunsigned comment added byMardetanha (talk •contribs)23:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't censored. Use your editorial judgment when evaluating image usage like this. The Manual of Stylestates:
Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.
In this case, the image is copyrighted and I don't see a valid fair-use argument. So don't use it.
Well, yeah, I figured it was a copyvio, but I thought getting it off the page was the best way to go, and db-ad worked. As did my appeal here. :)Corvus cornix23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Atomic Bombings
This article,Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki, was recently removed from full protection. It is tagged as a controversial article. Several things have happened:
Anonymous IP's have made a couple of poor edits, and one vandalism edit.An established editor created a new page out of a subsection, and deleted the subsection.
Is it possible to block only anonymous IPs and new accounts?The article creation and section deletion was done "unliaterally" (editor's words) without any discussion, so I undid it. (Also, I don't agree with it.) But I don't know how to delete the page the editor created (or if that is proper). So right now, there is duplicate text: the section which I resored and the article the editor created out of the section. I'm not sure what to do about it.Bsharvy23:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
We have something called "semi-protection" which prohibits anonymous editors and newly created accounts from editing pages. SeeWP:PROT for more. If you want to request semi-protection, you need to go through theWP:RPP. As for the article, you can always{{prod}} the article. And if that fails, take it toWP:AFD. I do not believe it qualifies for anyspeedy criteria. If you convince the article's creator that the spinout isn't necessary, then the article meets G7. Hope this helps.-Andrew c[talk]00:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not good. Image deleted, editor blocked. Currently thinking about how best to admonish the uploader, who seems to be a good faith editor.Picaroon(t)00:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, as Neranei points out, the proper place to report vandalism isWP:AIV (and you have to make sure the person has been given a final warning and vandalized past that final warning). Also note, the user in question WAS blocked yesterday for 31 hours, seethe block log. If the user returns after the block and continues with the disruptive editing, then we can consider longer blocks. I'm confused why you say "he's making matters worse" because he hasn't edited since his block yesterday.-Andrew c[talk]00:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: That's the face of countless Wikipedia vandals on a day-to-day basis. No need to fret or get too worried. As far as over and over, 1 days worth of vandalism isn't really considered that. Don't get me wrong, vandals are easily blocked within minutes when they vandalize that blatantly. If he pops up again, just take the advice of others and report to AIV asap.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk)01:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I remember there being a specific noticeboard for this, but I can't seem to track it down. I've reported this guy up to{{uw-npa4}}, yet he persists in throwing insults. —Someguy0830 (T |C)02:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Please someone put back those links[52] as I don't want to break the three revert rule. I stated my case atUser:Tankred's andUser:Dahn's talk page, but I got no answer. I tried to ask questions on the article's talk page too, but it somehow won't display them. Romanianization is a form of discrimination connected to theTreaty of Trianon just like the links that I'd like to provide. I think they should be included there, so the reader gets an idea of the whole concept.Squash Racket03:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC) (copied here from Administrators' Noticeboard, more appropriate here)
Personal complaints on Newsvine article
I am having trouble with an anonymous user who continues to make edits likethis one to theNewsvine article. I've reverted the edits because the user is clearly just using Wikipedia as a soapbox. After numerous reversions, I even opened up adiscussion on the talk page, to no avail. Is there something that can be done to take care of this situation? –Mipadi15:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
People using anonymous IPs are editors, much like me and you. Gettingangry and edit warring with other editors only serves to create a hostile environment which could result in both parties being blocked. While no one will advocate for a submissive attitude to tendentious editing, a little courtesy and communication is not much to ask for. ˉˉanetode╦╩08:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Occupations of Latvia
The articleOccupations of Latvia was placed on article probation byWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia and it could use some outside comments. The major outstanding issues from the arbitration case still have not been resolved. There are actually 3 occupation periods—by the Soviets 1939-1941, Nazi Germany 1941-1944, and the period of Sovietization 1944-1991. The outstanding issues are, (1) should the article be split into three to cover the three periods or kept as one, and (2) is "occupation" an appropriate title to describe the period of 1944-1991 (Latvian SSR).
Right now there is a particularly silly argument being made by two editors that since a number of books they have found deal with all three periods together, it would be original research to divide the 1939-1991 time period into 3 articles. As an admin answering a request atWP:AE I have tried to point out that splitting the article is a matter of editorial judgement and would violate no policies; I have pointed out that the books are probably divided into chapters (they are too obscure for google scholar), and that there is no similar problem in splitting articles related to other historical topics. Since this article is under probation. allowing disruptive users to be banned, I think a little more admin attention and comment would be helpful.Thatcher13121:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the 4 books were cited to refute the main argument for splitting the article: that the 3 periods are unrelated and are tendatiously presented together in order to synthesize something that is not present in the original sources. These books (two available at Amazon Books[53],[54]) advance the position that the three occupations are inter-related and the period can only be properly understood when discussed together. The story of the Baltics is about how they fell prey to two cooperating totalitarian regimes in partnership (later dissolved), and the exploitation by the Nazis of Soviet atrocities for their propaganda and the exploitation by the Soviets of Nazi atrocities for their propaganda; the historical consequences and the continued misrepresentation of those consequences.Martintg05:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Its very simple really. There are event articles and historic articles. Each of the events above are article-worthy. No one questions that really. What is not legitimate is to arbitrary paste separate events under a tendentious title to push one's political agenda.
There is a way to have articles devoted to a series of events that cover a country's history over a significant period of time. Such articles are called "History articles" and should be neutrally called[[History of Country (Year1-Year2)]]. If one, however, does not want a history but wants its POV presentation, one starts from a title with a skewed lead section being a second next important step. This is exactly what we've got here. --Irpen09:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand, you mean a country's sequence of history sub-articles should be named like[[History of Country (Year1-Year2)]], just like it's done inHistory of Russia? :) Seriously, how can someone continue to claim a series of events are unrelated and are tendatiously presented together, when there are published sources that do consider these events are related and presents them together. Seems your issue is with these sources, if so you should consider writing a paper and having it published in a journal. Then your view that this is illegitimate would carry more weight.Martintg10:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It has already been mentioned that the history of latvia 1940 - 1991 is not correct term. The article analyzes Latvia under occupation and events related to that. As it is very important part of Latvian history. For the same reasons why are there articles likeWWII anyway? The world war II consisted of many different events. But they all came together in the concept of WWII. This article brings together the event of Latvia being under occupation and links to subevents through {{main}}.
It might be hard to understand for people who don't know much about Latvian history but in short it is:
Latvia declared independece and became republic.
Latvia was occupied by Soviet Union.
Latvia was takenfrom Soviet Union (not from Latvia) by Nazi Germany.
Latvia was retakenfrom Nazi Germany (not from Latvia) by Soviet Union.
Latvia became free from Soviet Union and redeclared independence.
Latvia was taken in 1940 and didn't have nothing to say about the matters until 1991 when together with collapse of USSR it regained it's independence. So there is clear continuity here.Suva10:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Following the Russian Revolution, every village of the former Russian Empire declared independence and some even succeeded in gaining a measure of international recognition (e.g., Don Cossack Republic). Of a hundred plus post-imperial polities, Latvia did the most to impose Bolshevism on Russia (seeLatvian Riflemen). The official position of the Russian Federation was voiced by Pres. Putin: "Now, on the subject of occupation. As I see it, in 1918, Russia and Germany concluded a deal that was sealed in theBrest-Litovsk Peace Treaty, under which Russia handed over part of its territories to German control. This marked the beginning of Estonian/Latvian statehood. In 1939, Russia and Germany concluded another deal and Germany handed these territories back to Russia. In 1939, they were absorbed into the Soviet Union. Let us not talk now about whether this was good or bad. This is part of history".[55] Amen. --Ghirla-трёп-06:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what your point is... Except maybe you and mr. Putin should familiarize yourself with the terms of "Annexation of region" and "Occupation of Internationally recognized republic".Suva12:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Admin Radiant!
A conflict between adminRadiant! (talk·contribs) and usersTony1 (talk·contribs) andPmanderson (talk·contribs) began overa proposal for a gender neutral guideline. When the conflict first surfaced,at Radiant!'s specific request I provided an example of the past issues to Radiant!, with diffs. Radiant! has taken this conflict to the Community sanction board (subsequently withdrawn), asking for sanction against a long-standing editor with a clean record, here to AN/I (request feedback above on gender neutrality, where it was mischaracterized) and in two different threads toWikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (where Tony1's comments were also mischaracterized). Tony1 was warned (templated no less) and Radiant! was advised to cool off and review his own part in the conflict. Radiant! has mischaracterized other poster's content, for example posting to my talk page that I had labeled Pmanderson "as an evil disruptive nasty person". I removed that from my talk page (I believe that's a first for me) because of the mischaracterization. Because I answered a direct request to explain the conflict, and did so with diffs, Radiant! has now threatened me with a block, although I've committed nothing remotely close to a blockable offense. I suggest that Radiant! needs to remove him/herself from this conflict in which he finds himself personally involved, and not be threatening to use admin tools to further the conflict. Because I removed the mischaracterization from my talk page, and Radiant! removed my posts from his/her talk page, I have summarized the conversation, with all diffs, atUser:SandyGeorgia/RaToPm issue. I am concerned that Radiant! has several times mischaracterized other editors' content, has threatened me with a block because I responded to a request and provided diffs, and appears to be personally invested in this conflict. I'm asking uninvolved admins to step in and oversee the ongoing conflict in the editing of Wiki'smanual of style, includingnumbers andlinks, as well as the issues atthe gender neutrality proposal, and to assure there is no misuse of admin tools to further one version. As an admin, Radiant! has not worked to de-escalate the conflict, which is now spreading, partly because of the unnecessary esclation due to Radiant!'s personal involvement. Thanks,SandyGeorgia (Talk)13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a needlessly exaggerated issue. Simply put, PManderson made someWP:BOLD changes to a guideline page.These changes appear to be minor, and the primary reason that people object is because "it has not been discussed properly" ([56],[57]). What these people need to understand is that it is quite acceptable to edit pages, even guidelines, without requiring lengthy discussions beforehand, and that it is inappropriate to throw around accusations ofdisruption, and terms likeNazi.>Radiant<13:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the original issues were minor in relation to what this has become; the bigger issue now is you threatening to use admin tools inappropriately, in this case, because I responded to your request with only one example of diffs. You are personally vested in this conflict and threatening to use admin tools to further your version; outside admin oversight is needed. You are also nowharassing continuing to post to my talk page, although I've politely asked you to refrain from posting there.SandyGeorgia (Talk)14:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Enough. Sandy, while threatening you with a block was certainly inappropriate, I don't think Radiant's comments at your Talk page constitute harassment. Everyone needs to cool off here. You are both, of course, welcome to remove anything you're not interested in reading or responding to; butthis sort of edit summary isreally, really pushing it, Radiant.Fvasconcellos (t·c)14:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Changed word "harassing" above to "continuing to post to", thanks for pointing that out, Fvasconcellos. Just because I may *feel* harassed doesn't mean I am :-)SandyGeorgia (Talk)14:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? First, standard civility warnings are not "threatening people with blocks". Sandy is construing this as if I said "I will block you if you don't do what I say", which is an outrageous falsehood. Second, Sandy made a long post on my talk page where she accused PMA of disruption. I investigated, and concluded it was biased and misguided, and explained on her talk page that editing a guidelineis not a big deal. She responded with personal attacks and accusations of harassment, and demanded that I stop using her talk page. If, as you claim, you are "in no way an uninvolved party here", you shouldn't take sides as obviously as you're doing here.>Radiant<14:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Mischaracterizations. Personal attacks? Radiant! you are vested in a personal conflict; please cool off on this entire matter and stop escalating it with mischaracterization. Step back and look at your part in this, as advised atWikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Let other admins handle the pages you are involved with.SandyGeorgia (Talk)14:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
(outdent and edit conflict with Sandy) Everyone, please: I'm willing to cool it, and I hope others here are as well. I'm sorry to Radiant for my unmeasured comments yesterday (which I've struck out), and in return I ask that he approach interactions in a calmer manner. This is making WP very unpleasant for everyone, and I want an end to it. We still have to fight through the GNL issue, and frankly, it's all too venomous. Can we all agree to disagree in a less confrontational manner? From a sysop, I'm expecting assistance in calming others, whereas I'm finding the opposite. Please use your skills at conflict resolution rather than inflaming what is already a heated situation at GNL and other places, Radiant.Tony14:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It is interesting that you apologize for unmeasured comments (most of which you have not, in fact, struck out) and in the same breath make more unmeasured comments. For several days I have beentrying to get through to both of you that no, editing a guideline isnot the big deal you make it out to be, and as a result I get shouted at and called names. Consider that, then ask yourself who is escalating what.>Radiant<14:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Tell me where they are, and I'll strike them now. Manderson's edits are often poorly written and controversial; as such, they require discussion (indeed consensus where they're significant changes in policy) on the talk page. That is what the template says at the top of every MOS. It causes tension among the folks at these policy pages (not just me) and makes the page look unstable when reverts are necessary. It's destabilising to a consensus-driven culture. But I really don't want a full-on war right here about this. Can we take the emotion out?Tony14:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do tell how referring to users as "Mandy" and "Radio" can be anything other than remarkably childish. Anyway, the point is that, for guidelines or indeed any page, you should talk aboutcontent rather than process. "This has not been properly discussed" is never an argument,unless you specify what you want to discuss - otherwise, what is there to discuss? Don't say "people might object to this" without specifying what the objections actually are.>Radiant<15:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh heck, man: loosen up. It was light-hearted. And light-hearted is in alarmingly short supply on this page.Tony01:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for an example where Radiant threatened to personally block anyone for anything. Or any other threat to abuse sysop tools in any way. —Wknight94 (talk)14:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
[58] "I must point out that if you persist in attacking PMAnderson, or assisting Tony in his childish antics that amount to the same, you may be blocked from editing." Not only does he threaten a block and mention "attacks" that never happened (I responded to his request with diffs), he warns me not to assist Tony, whatever that means.SandyGeorgia (Talk)15:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That's right. And answering your request for an example, with diffs and my interpretation of them, discussing the edits and how they destabilize MOS, is not a personal attack. You should certainly warn a user and threaten to block themonce they've actually committed an offense. And what does the warning not toassist Tony mean? Am I supposed to no longer edit any page Tony edits or agree with any of his edits? Since we have similar interests, that's going to be interesting. Please clarify.SandyGeorgia (Talk)15:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Radiant did not say thathe would personally block you. If you engage in personal attacks, you will be blocked - but probably not by any admins you are in a dispute with. Very important distinction. —Wknight94 (talk)15:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Wknight, when an editor has about 45,000 edits as I do, and has never been warned or blocked (and Radiant! was the one who approached me and asked for feedback), there's really only one way to take his posting. Radiant! knows that I don't need to have Wiki policy cited to me, that I've been around long enough to know policy, or I doubt he would have approached me to begin with. I don't think I misinterpreted the veiled warning, and I notice that he still hasn't answered my query aboutassisting Tony.SandyGeorgia (Talk)16:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you are forgetting the"childish antics"-part Radiant! used in hisassisting Tony remark a bit too easily here. While on the other hand you’re making sure to use the word "mischaracterization" in combination with Radiant! no less than nine times in three of your posts.Do you think that helps? --Van helsing16:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it's just that this is going around in circles, and we've all got better things to do with our time. No, my apology you can take at face value. But this is getting silly here. Off to bed.Tony15:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, to clear up another mischaracterization, Radiant! said earlier that I was asking for an outside opinion on a conflict.[60] I should clarify that Radiant! initiated the conversation on my talk page,[61] and specifically requested my feedback,[62] after I successfully intervened to stop an edit war he was engaged in (he was at 3 reverts), by suggesting a compromise solution.[63] Adding edit warring to the rest of what's happening here, there are troublesome issues in evidence for an admin in conflict. I've got a plane to catch so I won't be weighing in further, but this situation needs de-escalation. I see Tony's apology has been rejected; not encouraging. Good luck to all!SandyGeorgia (Talk)16:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Calling someone a Nazi is a blockable offence and Tony needs to refrain from such comments. I wouldn't support a block in this situation as Tony is contributing to discussions, and I'm glad to see it struck out.violet/riga(t)16:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It's also worth mentioning that Tony did later change that comment, striking out parts of it. (I'm an uninvolved third party who attempted to help defuse this situation over onWikiquette Alerts.) —KieferSkunk (talk) —21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"Hoary says he feels quite left out, not being a target"? Wow, how strong a fix does Hoary need? Marskell just told himto fuck off for recommending the singularthey, won't that do? I actually have an explanation to propose for what we may termMOS rage. Radiant: you say, rightly, that WP:MOS is only a guideline. But: people who don't frequentWP:FAC probably aren't aware that MOS istreated as policy there. "It complies with the manual of style" is one of the sacredFeatured article criteria, and "complies" is interpreted with extreme strictness. "MOS breach" is a common objection offered to a Featured article candidate. (Example "breach": there are spaces round the emdashes.) I think that's the reason changes to WP:MOS make tempers flare among the FAC aficionados.Bishonen |talk16:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC).
Would there be support forchanging the relation of MOS to FAC? It would probably improve tempers in both places; permitting MOS to deal in good advice, applicable to most articles, and requiring FAC reviewers to justify their complaints by appeals to what English does.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson18:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
When I see a pattern of decptive language, I feel that the public benefit is served by exposing it. I'll repeat the exercise if Radiant continues that strategy. Oh, and just oneminor point: I've seen no rebuttal of the substance of what I said. That's probably because my analysis was hard to buck—quite plain, in fact.Tony01:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I do not regard any of Tony's three ploys as an accurate or useful description of Radiant's post; and the final crack about working for a politician is uncalled-for. It did not seem useful to add this to the discussion of gender-neutral language; but that's why I mentioned it here.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Given how much they interact, I'd guess that Tony's comment re Hoary was meant as friendly ribbing and nothing more. Hoary and I are amicable, as well. Wanted to clear that up.Marskell16:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Confirmed. I'd been dozing off at the keyboard, and being told to fuck off gave a much-needed little fillip. Another editor did seem somewhat upset by its possible upstaging of his earlier present to me ofvomit, but I think I've assuaged him. I sent Marskell a tankard of Young's Special London Ale, and am thrilled to wake up and find that he's sent me just what I'd wanted as both an admin and a high-spirited boulevardier: anaxe. I'm looking forward to meeting up with Marskell soon, preparing ourselves with London Ale, and then going out for some good hacking. Now, what was the question? --Hoary01:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment from a completely uninvolved editor It is frankly quite depressing to see two of the editors I most respect involved in such... fractiousness. I wish the two of them were able to step back and apply the commonsense, decency, and good faith they invariably show when mediating or otherwise dealing with other editors and disputes.LessHeard vanU20:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Which two?Tony
ip addresses can be reported to AIV. Use the {{IPvandal|''ip range here''}} template and a quick explanation, such as mentioning sockpuppetry and name of previous account.LessHeard vanU20:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)resigning my post - typo and all - as it was changed accidently ps. I'm pants at image stuff, can someone else check the violations and take the necessary actions?
According to the block log, the user hasn't been blocked yet, despite there being a block notice on the user's talk page. Thanks.17:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Individual removing WikiProject templates from numerous pages
To whom it may concern,
I would like to bring to your attention that recently, there have been mass removals of the template calledWikiProject Dravidian civilizations from the following users:Sarvagnya,Gnanapiti, andMbrdnbry. NOTE:Mbrdnbry is a new user who has recently joined and edited as of Sept 7, 2007. With all due respect I find this users action to be rather odd by just joining and all of a sudden doing these mass removals of theWikiProject Dravidian civilizations template back to backhere, right after usersGnanapiti andSarvagnya have done the same to other related articles back to backhere andhere.
Furthermore, I would like to explain that there has been an AfD case against the page onDravidian civilizationshere. The outcome of this AfD was a"no consensus to delete". However, the same users who have tried to get this article deleted have condutcted these mass removals of the template for our WikiProject. Strange enough with this new userMbrdnbry, this individual has stated"rm possible hoax until issue is resolved" when in fact this new user account wasn't around at the time of the AfD. How could this user have known about this? This leads me to believe that someone who has been invloved in this case could either be behind this or perhaps be using this acount as a sock. The leads are too convincing. I am a little confused with this user's statement. For one the issue regarding the AfD has been resolved or ended and the closing admin has stated that the article was not a hoax. Another strange thing is calling our template a hoax when in fact it was the article itself that these individuals are calling a hoax. The template that has been removed fromMbrdnbry along with the other two mentioned above is from ourWikiProject Dravidian civilizations.
Lastly, I would like to respectfully resquest for your advice as to what to do. My WikiProject group have had a lot of problems with some of these individuals, not to mention the numerous removals of our WikiProject templates. Your advice and assistance would be very much appreciated. Thank you.Wiki Raja07:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This user is making it their sole purpose to continually insert a dubious claim into theSnake Rattle 'n' Roll article: that the developers ripped off his idea when making this game, and of course, he's the only one who knows "the truth". After he posted a message on my talk page, I explained that such statements can not be included in articles without actual sources to back them up. However, he has continued to re-insert the claim, and left this message[65] on my talk page.WarpstarRider09:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the current edit war happening over the external link to Murphy's site? I'm bringing it here instead ofWP:RFPP because it is a bit more complex than a general edit war over an external link (see talkpage). I'm a bit too close to the situation to feel comfortable handling this one. Also, just as fair warning, this involves a subsection of a linked website that is trying to out the identities of Wikipedia editors, so if you are concerned about your identity being investigated/revealed you may not want to handle this one.--Isotope23talk12:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Lame. Murphy's site itself is fine, the stupidity on the message board is the problem, and nobody's linking to that (although it's on the home page).Guy(Help!)12:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I pointed out toUser:Sesmith with afriendly reminder thatWP:BLP#Categories requires that: "the case for the category must be made clear by the article text"; [t]he article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced"; "[c]ategory tags regarding religious beliefs... should not be used unless two criteria are met:
The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief... in question;
The subject's beliefs... are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."
None (or very few) of his additions to these categories, as far as I could ascertain, satisfiedany of these criteria, let aloneall of them: there was usuallyno mention of the subject's religious affiliation in the article text, which is a requirement. The absence of such information in the body of the article also tends to suggest that "the subject's beliefs" werenot "relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life." As well, of course, the requirement "these facts must be sourced" from "reliable published sources" was completely unmet.
User:Sesmithresponded with a dismissive note inviting me to be more specific. He deleted my notice from his talk page with anedit summary that suggested he was already familiar with the policy. I took his request for greater specificity at face value, andresponded with a selection of the offending inclusions and citations of the relevant portions ofWP:BLP to make it clear what was at issue.
User:Sesmith responded[67][68][69] with a hostile note asserting, essentially, that he was already aware of the policy, and claiming that the violations were negligible and anyway (for some reason) not his responsibility because they were part of a "batch update" and were ancillary to category additions by previous editors -- implicitly conceding that in spite of being aware that they violatedWP:BLP#Categories, he had made such changes to, in his words, "hundreds" of articles.
I responded by saying that he is responsible for his own edits, reiterated that the edits violatedWP:BLP#Categories, and pointed out that he had created a large mess he should now clean up, and that he could consider removing any similar violations he might find in the articles which now required cleaning up.User:Sesmith deleted my message with anabusive and uncivil edit summary.
Not only didUser:Sesmith not revert his improper additions to these categories, he actually restored[70][71][72] specific ones I had mentioned as being violations and had removed -- again, evidently in full knowledge that doing so violatedWP:BLP#Categories.
He then proceeded to the articleList of Latter Day Saints, an article likewise afflicted with large numbers of unsourced claims about religious affiliation, and is the subject of anotice on the BLP noticeboard. I have been in the process of moving through the list removing entries involving living people where no citation from a reliable, published source justifies keeping them on the list and had explained the rationalehere.User:Sesmith, who now appears to be following me around, intervened in the exchange withthis uncivil and abusive response and then promptlyrestored all the violations to the list -- now without any doubt deliberately and in the full knowledge that restoring these entries violatesWP:BLP. (AdminUser:Jossi has since deleted the offending entries, and placed a warning against restoring them on the article talk page).
deliberately andrepeatedly violatingWP:BLP, and in particularWP:BLP#Categories, in spite of having a clear understanding of the policy.
his repeated abusiveness and incivility ("ignoramus," "anal," "on a personal power trip" and so forth).
Should be instructed to cease his incivility in the future or face the possibility of further blocks.
Should be prevented from editing articles in this subject area unless he can commit to observingWP:BLP henceforth, and should face a longer-term block in the event he resumes violating the policy.
He didthis,this, andthisafter I told himhere that doing so violatedthis. Doing itafter being informed of the policy, which he said he already knew anyway, means that he did it deliberately, knowing that the edits were violations.
He claims to have made similar edits to "hundreds" of articles,[73][74][75] and in that last set of diffs implicitly acknowledges he was already aware of the policy, which confirms he was not acting ignorantly, simply ignoring the policy.
If more confirmation were actually needed that he engages indeliberate violations, he restored a whole host ofWP:BLP violations withthis edit, long after he'd been informed of the policy (the edits were later removed asWP:BLP violations by an admin inthis edit) and after reading and participating inthis discussion -- so he is not just violating the policy in question, he's repeatedly violating it actively and deliberately, and presumably plans to go on doing so.
If people making mechanical category changes (category renames/merges, etc) are to be held responsible for the categorizations of every article they touch, nothing will ever get done (except, possibly, deletion) at CFD. Why not go further and say that ANY violation of ANY policy in ANY part of an article is the responsibility of the last editor who touched it, even if they didn't insert it. This is essentially the same as holding someone who edits a template responsible for a pre-existing BLP-violating transclusion of that template. --Random83219:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
A further question - why is it that BLP#Categories applies to ALL categories whereas BLP itself applies only to "contentious" material? This even seems to apply to stub sorting: Picking an article at random,Joe_Allen_Evyagotailak provides no sources for the claim that its subject is canadian, or that he is a politician. Or for that matter that he was born in 1953, that he's Inuit, that he's from Kitikmeot Region, or anything else the categories say. I'm not going to violateWP:POINT by actually removing the categories, but CLEARLY there is something wrong withWP:BLP#Categories as it stands. --Random83219:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is a live issue in this case: this case is these about improper additions of categories to individual articles -- lots of them -- not about changes to the categories themselves. --Rrburke(talk)20:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The letter of BLP#Categories (and this complaint is definitely sticking to the letter in some of those cases) forbid ANY unsourced categories, which severely impacts stub sorting (no, this is not a case of stub sorting, the point is it's a clear example why the rule is messed up). And, the words that he's twisted into "admitting that he's deliberately violating BLP" (those words, incidentally, constitute no such admission) are clearly a case of (regardless of if it's true), him claiming that he's applying something akin to a category naming convention change rather than actively categorizing articles. --Random83222:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "sticking to the letter": this is about as cut-and-dried an example of violating the policy in question as I can imagine: the policy requires that if you're going to add a living person to the categoryReligion X, the article text must also say the person belongs toReligion X. These (and a great many more I didn't include -- "hundreds" according to the editor himself) didn't. The policy requires that a reliable published source be provided to corroborate that the person actually belongs toReligion X. These didn't.
The policy is especially precise about category tags claiming religious affiliation: they "should not be used" unless "the subject publicly self-identifies with the belief"and "[t]he subject's beliefs... are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life," with the requirement of verifiability: "according to reliable published sources." A great many of these category tags were added to articles on sports figures and entertainers, and so didn't satisfyany of the criteria -- andall of them need to be satisfied. Also,no sources were cited. Adding a category tag forReligion X to an article about a baseball player, when the article itself doesn't even mention the player's religion, let alone contain a quote establishing "self-identification" together with an inline cite, failsevery one of the criteria -- and there were lots of examples just like this one:Roy Halladay.
I have to say I take some exception to the claim that I've "twisted" anything into anything else, if that's supposed to imply some intention to mislead. First, I never used the words "admitting that he's deliberately violating BLP" -- those are your words, not mine. If you're going to claim that I'm "twisting" something, please at least quote me accurately. I sent a short note to the editor on theassumption he was violating the policy innocently, asking him to remember to observeWP:BLP#Categories. He replied, "I always do, thx." So I gather from that he's already familiar with the policy, and was familiar with it when he made these "hundreds" of similar edits -- which is a different thing altogether from violating it innocently. If he then continues violating it, it can't be because he's never heard of it. Even if hehad never heard of it, I then, in response to his request for greater specificity, quoted the relevant portion of the policy and gave specific examples of edits of his -- a few among "hundreds" of similar edits -- that violated the policy.
After you've had the policy cited to you and been given specific examples detailing edits that violated it, if you go ahead and do the same thing again, you're violating the policydeliberately,in full knowledge of what you're doing -- even if you hadn't already acknowledged you were familiar with the policy to begin with, which this editor did. And it's not a question of misinterpretation or different people having different understandings of the policy, becauseWP:BLP#Categories is a very straightforward and uncomplicated couple of sentences with a handful of easy-to-understand criteria.
You seem not to likeWP:BLP. Naturally, that's fine and I respect it. I'm sure plenty of people agree with you. But your responses appear to confuse your dislike of the policy with the question of whether it was violated in this instance, matters which don't really have anything to do with each other. --Rrburke(talk)11:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
If there were so many examples where it wasn't mentioned in the article text, why didn't you usethose diffs in this ANI posting instead of the ones where it was? The reason I took exception to this was that you were listing articles where it _was_ present in the text - not sourced, but not contentious either, and seemed to be using a loophole in BLP that inexplicably makes it stricter with categories than with article text. The other thing that it seemed clear that in many cases he was simply adding subcategories to articlesalready in the latter-day saints category, and it's really not reasonable to hold him responsible for that - CFD would never get anything done if people can't make mechanical category changes based on already-present categories without opening themselves up to BLP accusations. Can you point to any examples whereboth of the following apply?
The article text did not already state the subject's religion
The article was not already in an LDS category not added byUser:Sesmith
A couple of things: first, this is not the first time you've tried to insinuate that I'm acting from some ulterior motive. As you have no basis and no evidence for such an insinuation -- it also happens to be wrong -- I'll thank you to stop making it. Absent evidence to the contrary, you canassume I submitted this report for precisely the reasons set out herein, and not for any other.
Second, I chose the examples I did precisely because they were ones I had already specifically raised with the editor -- violations he decided to restoreeven after being made aware of the policy in detail. My purpose was to make it as clear as possible that these were not innocent violations, but ones made deliberately -- after being aware boththat they were violations andhow they were violations. They illustrated the point best, because they were ones about which there couldn't be any confusion. These were not mechanical mass additions of subcategories, but one-at-a-time manual restorations of categories in cases where the editor had already been made aware that the addition of them in the first place had violatedWP:BLP.[split response, this paragraph isRrburke(talk)]
The majority of the diffs you cited inthis ANI post either had a statement already in the article text that the subject was LDS, or had a _category_ that was already on the article, saying the subject was LDS. "when the article itself doesn't even mention" the religion is simply false for most of the diffs you cited. --Random83214:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The addition of these particular category tags has to satisfyallthe criteria: some failed certain ones; others failed other ones; still others failed all. These are the ones he chose to restore even after being made aware of the policy. So? --Rrburke(talk)20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I chose these edits and not others because they and not others are the strongest examples of thedisruptive editing I'm attempting -- with little success, evidently -- to draw attention to. The "hundreds" (the editor's own words) of others are the background to these, but the editoracknowledged early on that he was already aware of the policy and didn't need me to remind him of it, which appears to me to mean that even at the time of adding these categories to hundreds of articles, the editor was familiar withWP:BLP#Categories and so couldn't claim ignorance as an excuse. There's a difference between being ignorant of a policy and ignoring it.[split response, this paragraph isRrburke(talk)]
A single edit where he was actually newly inserting the claim that the subject is LDS would be a MUCH stronger example of a BLP violation than any number of diffs where he is not doing so. --Random83214:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That would only be the case if, to use the example again, the fact that someone previously added President Bush to the category "War criminals" would somehow negate my responsibility for adding him later to the category "American war criminals". Since it wouldn't, and the prior presence of offending categories has no bearing on a later editor's addition of more, neither does it have any bearing on the strength of the examples -- which, moreover, were offered to illustratedisruption, notsimple, evenknowing, violation. --Rrburke(talk)20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If any confirmation of thedeliberate nature of the violations were still required, consider that he later restored a whole host ofWP:BLP violations withthis edit, both long after he'd been informed of the policyand after reading and participating inthis thread where the fact the material he later restored violatedWP:BLP was being discussed. That edit more than any other demonstrates that the editor not only violates the policy but does it for adisruptive purpose, from a "wilful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy," as it's described inWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
Finally, the issue of whether the articles were already in LDS categories not added byUser:Sesmith is irrelevant: if some vandal adds George W. Bush to the category "War criminals," would that somehow excuse me from responsibility if I then come along and add him to the category "American war criminals"? What's my defense? That's it's not my fault because I'm merely compounding somebody else's vandalism, not coming up with it all on my own? That's not just specious but silly, and I should expect to be held accountable for my own edit, whatever the earlier vandal might have done. --Rrburke(talk)09:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't excuse you, but it would make it at least suspicious for someone to choose you alone to go after when the person who added the other category is equally guilty. Why are you going after him and NOT the person who added the other category, or the statement in the article text, in each of those cases. Is there any particular reason you have singled him out? --Random83214:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) The reason is exceedingly simple (and not "suspicious"): when I glanced at the edit histories of the articles in these categories, I saw that this user's name appeared time and again in a large number of them, each time adding one of more of these categories. That is not why I "singled him out" -- because in fact Ididn't single him out: I sent him a veryinnocuous note asking him to remember to observeWP:BLP#Categories when adding religious-affiliation categories to articles. He responded dismissively with an (erroneous) assertion that he always did so. Since that obviously wasn't the case, I cited the policy in question to clarify the matter, which occasioned an increasingly shrill and finally abusive string of responses, together with a restoration of the offending edits with no attempt to provide the required citations -- followed, finally, by adisruptive spite-edit which there can be no question he knew to be a violation. So I didn't "single him out": he escalated a simple matter with an easy remedy to the point where in order to prevent further violations, which he showed no likelihood of stopping on his own, few options were left but to bring it here. --Rrburke(talk)20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
One reason that BLP applies to all categories is that those seeing the category pages cannot see the citation or back-up, so looking atCategory:Criminals if you see Joe Blow there you know that Joe Blow is a criminal and (if all is well in WP) that something in his bio is sourced saying that he was convicted of a crime. For me, I think that religious/ethnic/race labels are inherently contentious anyway: think not? Do you think that Bill Graham would object if you changed his religious category to something else - say Atheist, or Nelson Mandela would care if his race were changed to something else - say Afrikaaner? WP shouldn't be in the business of categorizing by these characteristics for a number of reasons (WP:V,WP:OR,WP:SYNTH,WP:OCAT, arbitrariness, and yes,WP:BLP).Carlossuarez4602:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't seem at all obvious to me, and the issue seems pretty straightforward: "these facts must be sourced" in this instance merely means that in order to add a living person somebody to the categoryReligion X, the person in question has to have said "I belong toReligion X," and a reliable source has to be cited to prove he or she actually said it. This is a simple question ofverifiability, a core policy -- with the added burden to get it right thatWP:BLP places. --Rrburke(talk)11:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
But even BLP doesn't put that much burden on anything other than a category. I brought up stub sorting because stubs are the articles most likely not to have sources cited for anything. What BLP is saying is that even the most uncontroversial statement, that would NEVER be removed if it appeared in article text without a source, is cause for accusing the person who added a category of repeated and deliberate policy violations. The written policy is not the same as what is actually done every day by thousands of users. --Random83223:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The issue here is not any uncontroversial statement, but the claim that someone is affiliated with a particular religion -- a claim that would face the same scrutiny if placed in the text of an article, so there is no extra burden being placed on categories. Surely you're not saying that if I pick a biographical article at random and insert the unsourced claim "X is a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church" that that insertion would go unchallenged? It would be reverted immediately. Moreover,WP:BLP#Categories specifically sets out strict criteria for adding category tags claiming religious affiliation --and the editor was aware of these criteria, becauseI had made him aware of them,and he chose to restore the categories anyway.
So it is completely erroneous to claim that on the basis of an "uncontroversial statement that would NEVER be removed if it appeared in article text without a source" I am "accusing the person who added a category of repeated and deliberate policy violations." Talk about "twisting"! First, the kind of statement in question isnot uncontroversial. Second, itwould be removed --immediately -- if it were inserted unsourced into the text of a biographical article. And finally, that'snot even the "cause" for the accusation anyway: the cause for the accusation is that the editor restored specific categories to particular articles when I had already made him aware that the addition of them in the first place had violatedWP:BLP -- and thatthen, presumably for spite, herestored other unrelated violations after participating in adiscussion which detailed how and why they violated the same policy.
I won't question your motives, although you've questioned mine, but I could be forgiven for ending up with the impression that you'retrying not to understand. --Rrburke(talk)09:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Daniel Rona - not only does the article text say he's LDS, it asserts notability solely on that basis. If the claim were removed from the article, the entire article would be{{db-bio}}. No, it's not sourced, but neither are a lot of stubs. I could probably take an afternoon and clear out most of any given stub sorting category if I felt so inclined. (this is the other part of why I was suspicious - if you have to rely on a policy as fundamentally broken as the currentWP:BLP#Categories to do what you're trying to do, is it really what's best for the encyclopedia?) That you cited an edit to that article as one of your three top pieces of evidence does NOT help your claim. --Random83214:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The articleDaniel Rona is completely unsourced, so none of the claims in the article areverifiable anyway, which means that any addition of a religious-affiliation category tag wouldWP:BLP#Categories. The article also seems fairly spammy and cites no reliable, third-party sources to establishnotability. If it did, which it should or else be deleted, adding the categories in question would've been defensible. So if the editor wished to restore the categories he could have chosen, having been made aware of the policy, to seek out reliable, third-party sources to establish the claim in order to make the category restoration comply -- and he would at the same time have been improving the overall quality of this until-then entirely unsourced article. Instead, he chose areflex-revert to show that he wasn't going to be told what to do, no matter what the policy says.
Let me try to clarifyagain why I chose these edits using a list of three ways to violate a policy. The list is not meant to be exhaustive:
I've never heard of that.
That doesn't seem important so I'll just ignore it.
Screw you, I'm going to ignore what you told me and do it again anyway.
I chose the examples I didnot because they were the strongest examples of violating the policy, but because they were allScrew yous andScrew yous constitutedisruption. It's the fact that they wereScrew yous, otherwise know as a"refusal to 'get the point'", that made the edits disruptive -- and it's the disruption that the primary basis of this complaint. The "That doesn't seem important so I'll just ignore it"s, which are the majority, are ancillary. They're violations, certainly to be distinguished from "I've never heard of that"s; they merit reversion and a caution, but they're not the main thrust of this complaint: "That doesn't seem important so I'll just ignore it" is knowing violation;"Screw you, I'm going to ignore what you told me and do it again anyway" isboth a knowing violation anddisruptive. It's thedisruptive edits I'm trying to highlight, becausedisruption is the basis of the complaint.
I notice, by the way, that you've studiously avoided addressingthis edit in which the user deliberately restored a whole list ofWP:BLP violationseven after participating in adiscussion whose headline was "Large number of unsourced entries violating Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons." That's not just aScrew you, that's a"F--k you: I'm going to go on doing this and worse as long as I like". There no mistaking what's going on in this one. It's calleddisruption, and it merits a strong caution or temporary block. Is there a reason you've chosen not to address this example?
And who, exactly, says the policy is "broken"? It sets out a handful of simple, commonsense and defensible rules: don't put a person in a category unless the basis for doing so can be readily discovered from the article, otherwise it's not an important-enough part of the reason for their notoriety to include. The part of the article that is the basis for the inclusion requires a source --like any claim that might be challenged. In particular, don't add a person to a category that claims they belong to a religion unless they've said they do, and don't add such a category unless their affiliation with this religion is an important part of what they're known for. What's unreasonable about any of that? --Rrburke(talk)20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
""He replied, "I always do, thx." So I gather from that he's already familiar with the policy, and was familiar with it when he made these "hundreds" of similar edits -- which is a different thing altogether from violating it innocently."" You're SEVERELY violatingWP:AGF here by assuming that his claim that he's following the policy means that he is in fact aware of it and deliberately violating it, rather than simply not sharing your interpretation of the policy. Many experienced editors misinterpret policy, or don't keep up with changes to it. It was absolutely unwarranted to take his statement that he was following policy as anything other than that he honestly believed that his edits were in line with policy. --Random83214:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
What's special about religious affiliation tags is they're specifically mentioned inthe policy:
Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:
The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;
The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
The criteria are very simple, exceedingly clear and unequivocal. There is really no "interpretation of the policy" to founder on here. A person would have to bewilfully obtuse to pretend to be confused by it once it's been shown to him.
And taking the editor at his word is not a "severe" violation ofWP:AGF -- or any kind of violation at all.Res ipsa loquitur. Moreover, you still seem to be misunderstanding me: the only instances in which I'm saying the editor is violating the policy in a way that constitutesdisruption is in those instances I've cited. In the others, he appears to be aware of it and is choosing to ignore it -- which, as I've said, merits reversion and a caution but is not by itself disruptive. The disruption begins after you've had the policy, which is not complicated, explained to you in detail and you restore the material anyway -- and then follow the editor who's informed you of your violation of the policy to a wholly different article just so you canviolate the policy again just for spite, and toss inuncivil abuse and infantile name-calling just for good measure. That's disruption, plain and simple, and signals an intention to keep at it.
Finally, you keep using words like "suspicious" and intimating that I have "some other motive" despite the fact that I've asked you to stop doing that unless you can produce some evidence. So here it is in plain English: if you've got an accusation to make, then come out with it already and I'll refute it point-blank. The insinuation and innuendo are getting tiresome. It's time to decide whether to put the matter out there or else drop it altogether. --Rrburke(talk)20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Article: Jasenovac Concetration camp
Kindly asking for the mediation in the case of the above mentioned article, due to the fact that all of my contributed and 'documented info-s and photos' have been deleted by the user Rjecina, who in my opinion tries to block the influx of valuable informations to the article and subject involved(see discussions to relevant article too,pls).
I accept mediation but still demand block of user:Votec because of his personal attacks on me and his 200 or more edits during last 3 days in this article. --Rjecina22:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
...well, 200 or more edits were done because I am just on my third day on Wiki-line, did not know how to apply changes efficiently and as well have done a lot of grammatic corrections of the article...in addressing of member Rjecina 'demand for blocking': first of all be so kind and do not demand anything, but do try to kindly request:)...second of all, it won't help the mediation and third of all, calling you possible 'Holocaust denier' ( due to your activities concerning article 'Jasenovac concentration camp' and involving relevant discussion of the article) is not the insult, but in contrary my argumented claim.
...well, as per calling yourself 'pure profession mathematician', Mathsci, you should not be starting direct and explicit qualifications before doing some basic readings!...what about, just my comment above your one: there it clearly states that I am registered and on line user just for, now it would be four days so, as per following that simple fact you certainly CAN NOT label me with 'single purpose account' label...and for that 4 days I have addressed only 2 articles...so, your claim is per such just intentional fantasy!!!
...and BTW, in the major contrary to your deliberate above claim yours 'two WP editors - namely Rjecina and Ante Perkovic' are the one and the members with 'single purpose account'...that is clearly obvious after just a short look to their activities!!!...with your 'pure profession math brain' you should certainly agree ? :)...right?
...secondly, the article (Jasenovac), I did partially contributed, does have EXTRA verifiable sources, clearly two of them, as per bellow:<<http://www.arhivrs.org/jasenovac.asp>> 'Archives of Republic of Srpska' = for your kind attention Web page being listed on the UNESCO's Archives Portals !!!...and...
<<https://cp13.heritagewebdesign.com/~lituchy/index.php>> 'Jasenovac Research Instite' = which does state in it's first sentence: " The Jasenovac Research Institute is a non-profit human rights organization and research institute committed to establishing the truth about the Holocaust in Yugoslavia and dedicated to the search for justice for its victims. The JRI promotes research and activities designed to enlighten the world to the crimes of genocide committed at Jasenovac and wartime Yugoslavia against Serbs, Jews and Romas and provides assistance to all groups and individuals who likewise seek justice for these victims." >>>goal which sounds very noble to me...humbly hope you certanly agree too !!!
...thirdly, concerning the two WP editors ( members Rjecina and Ante Perkovic, I believe ) being accused by me( as you wrongly claim ) of being Holocaust deniers: It is not an accusation, but argumented claim, due to the deliberate activity of this two members!!!...kindly visit discussion page of the member Ante Perkovic and there you will find member's Rjecina claim that they are practising here on WP 'reversing wars' !!!!...HOPE THIS IS CLEAR ENOUGH..AND ANY TRY TO MINIMISE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE CARNAGED IN THE HOLOCAUST OF WWII...I DO NOT TOLERATE AND CALL HOLOCAUST DENIAL!!!
...can I kindly question your good intention and ask you...are you possibly the friend of above ones and trying to advocate in their behalf ? !!!...team work, maybe ? :)
This page is not a blog and comments here are usually designed to be helpful. Please read the links I provided to avoid any future misunderstandings and kindly refrain from any form ofpersonal attack. --Mathsci22:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
...you certainly haven't done much of reading of above...as I can see I am the only one who is using the argmented talk and not the only direct attacks!
On Wednesday, September 5th I have requested the 'mediation' of the 'English speaking page administrator' due to the repeated vandalism and deliberate deletion of the chapters in this article( not only contributed by me, but in his vandalism, by everything what did not suite his fancy...deleation have happened twice and with his second deletion on September 5th at 23:35 user Rjecina deleted (-3034) contributions by me and other users by not giving the explanation!).
If you kindly look and follow mail exchange of user Rjecina with his fellow user Ante Perkovic( and on the profile of Ante Perkovic), you can simply find that they do claim that they are doing 'reversing wars'!!! In addition following their 'line of interest' ( which can easily be concluded following their discussions) they are 'single purpose members', and if I may use the therm 'sel-made quasi WP historians'!!! Following their malicious work they do not deserve to be the part of this vibrant community.
In addition, following the history of discussions with the article 'Jasenovac Concetration Camp' I am free to conclude that this article has been constantly vandalised ( most horrible example being...(kindly read relevant comment in dicussion)...statement added on the page by irrelevant user: 'Dear Catholic God, make all fucking Serbs die!!!"
This article is not about Serbs, Croats or Jews...it is about HOLCOAST and humans being exterminated in the horror of thier coexistence and as such should be adequately protected.
Once when I started added to the article 4 days ago, I found article to be genuine ruine: written in pour English, with obvious numbers of delations in the chapters by various members with their various 'interests'...which have made article hardly cosequent and readable. As well, due to the primitive involvements of the numbers of users from all sides, the 'most elaborated' chapter was about recounting the victims, but not about, for example, the conditions in the camp, human suffering, history, background. Shameful!!!
My editing on article was focused on conecting 'the bits and peaces' in one readable story. I did have added historical facts about Zagreb's WWII archbishop Stepinac( using the info's from the relevant WP article about him). Also I have added 29 photos and related informations from the two Web pages:
<<https://cp13.heritagewebdesign.com/~lituchy/index.php>> "Jasenovac Researh Instite" which on its first page states: "The Jasenovac Research Institute is a non-profit human rights organization and research institute committed to establishing the truth about the Holocaust in Yugoslavia and dedicated to the search for justice for its victims. The JRI promotes research and activities designed to enlighten the world to the crimes of genocide committed at Jasenovacorganisation and wartime Yugoslavia against Serbs, Jews and Romas and provides assistance to all groups and individuals who likewise seek justice for these victims."... cause I do certanly find noble and justify.
Both Web pages being mentioned, have been attacked by user Rjecina in his malitious manner and informations concerned and relevant( including the pictures of children bing victims in camp DELETED by this vandal!!!).
As well I have deleted with explenation short sentence towards the end of the text, addressing the awards given, finding it inappropriate( reasons and notice for deletaion given at the end of my above comment, in section discussions ).
Following all above mentioned and the history of the article I do consider and kindly ask for this article to be fully protected. Certanly I do not expect, that version which is actuall now ( being last edited by myself and in my opinion still very poorly elaborating the subject) should be the protected one, but I do ask for your mediation in finding indepentent and prominent source ( for example, United States Holcoast Memorial Museums, which is having the info-s, certanly willinness to do so, and computer knowledge to contribute). After their contribution article should be fully protected.
I do respect Wikipedia philospohy of being the open information source, meant to built up the knowledge and share, but in the certain ocassion ( as I have noticed you have implemented it few times with 'difficult subject'...example 'Roma people' ) and this is certanly, in my opinion, the case ( due to the expolosion of primitive emotions accumulated and due to the wars in ex-Yugoslavia), I beleive that this would be the adequate solution.
If no, I am certain and positive that after this, or any other future conflict situation and mediations, this article will be repeaditly and repeditly vandalised and missused.
Holocaust thematic and Jasenovac as World Heritage Site do certainly ask for full protection.
Thanks for you readings and kindly advise with your point,
He seems to have started the old reverting onBronze Soldier of Tallinn andRein Lang again. Together with editmessage chatting. He also accuses everyone of personal attacks while throwing personal attacks himself.
I am not sure wether or not he has brokenWP:3RR yet, he apparently tries to avoid it by claiming that some of his several edits are one revert or something similar.
Every time his block expires he seems to start the same stuff what he has been doing for a month again. Don't know what to do about that, maybe someone else does?Suva21:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
User:130.132.208.28 sockpuppetry
An anonymous user from 130.132.208.28, is now claiming to be more than one person (alter-ego calling themselves Cyrus) to attempt to win their argument on Talk:Guitar. This discussion on NPOV has been going for some time no with no resolution in sight. The user refuses to follow Wikipedia etiquette such as signing their posts, no personal attacks, and use of sockpuppets.MegX02:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
User MegX has abused me and avoided addressing my point of view since I started posting on the page. She has attacked me as a sock puppet and as a nationalist. She has similarly abused a previous editor on the site and was engaged in an edit war with them. She continues to be discourtious and does nothing but attack other editors personally. She insinuated herself into a discussion I was having with Peter Blaise and subsequently tried to intimidate me by playing tricks such as above.CyrusMilani—Precedingunsigned comment added byCyrusMilani (talk •contribs)19:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There was no other editor. You are the person pretending to be anoher user. You are using sockpuppet tactics to disrupt Wikipedia. If you continue making false statements against me I intend taking this matter further with your provider Yale University and to sue you for libel. In fact I intend right now to write a letter of complaint to your IT admin.MegX01:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
No legal threats, and grow up. Don't label anyone anything, and sign your posts. Also, if you can't find a solution then ask someone else for a third opinion but that's probably why you're here. Ok, I'll help. Describe the problem on the bottom ofTalk:Guitar and I'll see what I can do.Jeffrey.Kleykamp02:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this allowed, for her to threaten me with legal action after abusing me? I thought you said I was Australian. Make up your mind. We really need an administrator to sort this out. She is trying to intimidate me from disagreeing with her with legal action. btw how about you come out from behiund your cloak of anonymity so I can take my own action.CyrusMilani—Precedingunsigned comment added byCyrusMilani (talk •contribs)03:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey there Cyrus, I would not waste my time with this rubbish, it does
not
deserve the time and the effort. You could argue about Elam vs Anshan
until
you are blue in the face, and then she'll just revert it. btw it is
I always enjoy accusations of sockpuppetry against the likes of Jayjg, they make it so much easier to work out that the accuser is deluded :-) No, this is not an acceptable use of user space.Guy(Help!)08:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Funny, before other things came up for Jayjg, he was editing so heavily any sockpuppeting would have prohibited a job, eating, and sleeping. --MichaelLinnear23:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Needahotel.com
Please help! I created a factual and non flattering article on a company called Needahotel.com. In it's first draft it appeared to be advertising which I quickly corrected. It is a very similar entry to those of other corporate entries. The admins basically just agreed with each other one after the other and made no atempt to assess the pages content independently. They were very unprofessional in their approach. Only one or two bothered to suggest ways in which the article could be improved or brought up to standard. All arguments centered around the page seeming to be SPAM. How could it be SPAM? Please help in resolving this and having the page reinstated. The page has not been given a chance. If it is not aloud to remain then how are other independent sources meant to be able to contribute to the article?--Darragh.Flynn 10:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Darragh, on wikipedia, we have guidelines which show how a company is notable. Take a look atWP:CORP which is the guidline for companies andWP:WEB which is the guidline for websites. You will have to findreliable sources that show how the company/website is notable for the page not to be deleted. I'm sorry, but I don't believe this website at present is notable enough.Ryan Postlethwaite10:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Ryan Postlethwaite for the advice. I was in the process of locating further references on the site when it got deleted. Now I am unable to recreate it. Bit of a bother.
Nor would I ever consider Wikipedia as a business directory. This is corporate information on a company that is researched and studied by academics around the world as being a prime example of the Irish economy boom times. I am constantly answering the phone to students who are seeking information on the company and details such as the ones I put on the Wiki entry. Also, how dare you suggest that I am wasting your time. I posted here looking for help. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE GUY. --Darragh.Flynn12:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the deleted article and it is excessively promotional in tone. If you want to write a neutral article, that would be fine, but there's no way the article as it stood was appropriate. Regarding your final remarks to Guy (one of our most respected editors and administrators) you may want to look into a Dale Carnegie course.Raymond Arritt13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think what Guy and Raymond are saying is that Wikipedia, by virtue of its prominence on varous search engines, is targeted for quite a lot of promotional material. People who are serious about the encyclopedic mission of the site tend to react strongly, and negatively, to such material. Articles on companies and websites need to be based onindependent,reliable sources that establish the company's notability; the more you avoid promotional material drawn from the company's website, the better. If you feel that needahotel.com can meet the criteria set forth inWP:WEB andWP:ORG, then the best course of action may be to work on a less promotional version of the article in your userspace (e.g. atUser:Darragh.Flynn/Needahotel draft). When you feel it meets the notability criteria, you can propose that the article be re-created, using your draft, atdeletion review. If you want to recreate an article that was deleted viathe "Articles for deletion" process, then it needs to go throughdeletion review. Best of luck.MastCellTalk15:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to those who took the time to explain their position. It is appreciated. If the article in its current form is regarded as advertising then I did a poor job on the second edit. The company in question has an annual turnover of 100 million and it is not seeking to boost search engine rankings. They pay another company thousands for that task. This was purely designed in the hope of publishing some basic stats on the company so they would be easily accessible to students who seem to favour writing papers on the success of the company. To be honest, I am exhausted and disappointed at the poor attitude of some of the admins. I guess you resign supreme in your little kingdoms. I really couldn't be bothered trying anymore. Let someone else contribute if they want.--Darragh.Flynn17:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"I am constantly answering the phone to students who are seeking information on the company and details such as the ones I put on the Wiki entry." - That's not what Wikipedia is for. If you work for the company or act as some sort of PR/representative agent for the company, you should probably not be writing about it here as you have aconflict of interest. Wikipedia is not the place to just post information from personal knowledge about a company. It needs to benotable, it should havereliable sources or at least beverifiable with reliable sources (ideally sources independent from the company), andit needs to beneutral.Mr.Z-man17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone has been vandalizingThe Fairly OddParents and related articles for some time now.The vandal will make a few to several dozen edits every week or so under a different IP starting with 201.9.The edit is subtle, almost always changing a date to be one year earlier, such asthis recent series of edits.This has been happening at least since March 2007, earliest edit I found wasthis one.
Checking the other contributions of the vandal's IPs onthesetwopages shows that many of the edits go unnoticed, and many are still present. I corrected quite a few before discovering the number of edits (may exceed hundreds).
I've rangeblocked 201.9.0.0/16 for 1 week. Its a big IP range of a Brazilian ISP, so I did not block account creation to avoid excess collateral damage. Be on the lookout for possible similar vandalism from new logged in users. If that occurs or vandalism persists from more IPs or after the block expires, contact me.Mr.Z-man22:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I have protected this page, because it is the subject of some vandalism regarding the recent release of a nude photograph of this actress, including the posting of the photograph itself. I don't have time to do this now, but I'd appreciate a few admins looking at the "Photo Controversy" section, determine what, if anything, should remain (it's all well sourced, but may not fit BLP), and possibly looking through the history to see if there's anything that needs to be oversighted.Ral315»21:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey all, This is an issue that's been ongoing since early August, as far as I know. A string of very similar IPs have been vandalizing the above named article, all adding the exact same ridiculous block of text, suggesting that Donkey Kong and Rosie O'Donnell were guest stars in the episode, among other things. I'vesubmitted this to AIV previously, and the IPs in question were banned, and the article was semi-protected. However, it expired three days later and the vandalism was picked up almost immediately by a fresh set of IPs.
The last one listed is the most recent; I've bypassed AIV to come here, as I think this deserves more than a standard vandalism block. I'm not going to suggest another range block, as I am aware that many innocent users would be affected, but perhaps an admin wouldn't mind going through and blocking the couple IPs that have been active thus far, and then keep an eye on the article to block any further disruption? Thanks.GlassCobra(talk •contribs)22:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, theres some disagreement as to whether there is a live-action movie coming out soon and it's getting a little edit-warry over there. Perhaps if an admin had a word?HalfShadow22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I am getting very tired of this user. This user is not following fair use image rules. I have tagged a lot of their images. Can someone else deal with this user?Alpta23:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Resolved
I have had a word with her and offered her assistance in making fair use claims. If she continues to ignore the notices and uploads more imagesen masse then we may have to take further action. I'll try and keep and eye on it, but drop me a note if you see another upload spree occurring before I do.06:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes... on the other hand, if by "spy" he means follow you around to other articles and make trouble there, then that's a problem.MastCellTalk23:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Paulcicero has been spying my edits and has reported my for creatingWikipedia:Croatian Wikipedians' notice board. This is funny because "my" notice board is copy ofWikipedia:Serbian Wikipedians' notice board from word to word but his home notice board is OK for him. !! About spying evidence is his action about notice board and his reaction on my comments on Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board aboutuser:PANONIAN. I have writen comments in 15:23 he has send warning to PANONIAN about this discussion on 16:56. It is possible to see that my moves has happen only like reaction on his moves. About others which I spy they have confirmed before that they are spying on me so there is no problemRjecina23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You are the one with stated POV pushing on their user page and said you have to spy on others. Left warning on your userpage.Rlevse23:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If we will play about "spying" please see list on PANONIAN user page. There is 33 users which he spy or better to say he is looking "contributions of other users that are interesting to me". Is this wordings OK ??Rjecina23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Quit fighting, it's lame and not helpful to Wikipedia. If you really have problems thenboth of you stop editing the articles where you overlap.Jeffrey.Kleykamp23:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been looking onuser:Ante Perkovic discussion page if he has answered to my writing aboutWikipedia:Croatian Wikipedians' notice board . In my surprise I have noticed that somebody has deleted this notice board and then I have started to look how when and where has this been deleted. It is very ease to see how I have been on wiki around 2 hours before I have noticed this. Better question is from where have you heard about this notice board ?? From spying ??Rjecina23:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ja, really. Besides, he says the other users are interesting and should think it a compliment. You all need to learn to get along. Also, it's better to bring specific actions here, they speak louder than words.Rlevse23:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes and I am interested in work of other users like they are interested in my work. Definition on my user page is changed !Rjecina23:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If we want to speak about stalking my only comment is that person which stalk me from August now demand that I be blocked because of stalking. Examples of this statement is possible to find on pages:Independent State of Croatia ,Jasenovac concentration camp,Chetniks... My edits have been very soon reverted from this user. In my thinking I must survive users like him if I want to be on wiki. I do not even demand that he be blocked because I know very good that on 1 user which let me know that he is looking my edits there is minimal 2 - 3 which are staying in shadows.. I will not take anymore place on this noticeboard.Rjecina23:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Resolved
![[28]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dImage%3aPro_Evo_2008.JPG%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d155687852){kind=link}
![[29]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dImage%3aPro_Evo_2008.JPG%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d155888734){kind=link}
![[30]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dImage%3aPro_Evo_2008.JPG%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d155724490){kind=link}
![[31]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dImage%3aPro_Evo_2008.JPG%26amp%3bdiff%3dnext%26amp%3boldid%3d155922278){kind=link}
