As I said on your talk page, the self report at AN/Ew combined with[1] makes it seem like you're just fooling around. I suggest you stop it now if you don't want to be blocked.Nil Einne (talk)14:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I did as the user themself asked - and they have a block for a whole range of improper behaviours; the length according to the level of disruption overall. (talk→BWilkins←track)21:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Shii has been an editor here since 2002. Has this strange behavior ever been a problem before in the past 9 years? Because I find it odd for that to start after such a long time of productive editing.--Atlan (talk)21:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
<-- Shii has now requested to be unblocked, characterizing the request atWP:AN/EW as a request for help with the dispute, and his "turning myself in" as humor (rather than trolling). This is where I'd post one of those "Not sure if serious..." image macros...UltraExactZZSaid~Did13:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Shii is an admin. Such behavior is entirely inappropriate for any editor - especially an admin. Perhaps. While no admin privs appear to have been used, I think a review of administrator status is in order whenever an admin is blocked.Toddst1(talk)00:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't overstate this guys. Maybe he was inebriated or something like that. A bit of trolling is not proof of serious mental health problems. Talking to himself[2] did sound a little weird, but maybe he did it for the theatrical effect.Have mörser, will travel (talk)05:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as someone intimately familiar with the mentally ill, and the capabilities of an admin: don't worry about it. Unless you havespecific reason (examples not included because ofWP:BEANS) to suspectimmanent harm, contact ArbCom and/or a steward. Otherwise, please avoid speculating on the mental health of others based on sparse information and exaggerating the danger of it. Administrators are not cops. We don't carry guns. --Tznkai (talk)06:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
As a non-admin observation, I have interacted with Shii for a long time in editingReligion, and I've long noticed periodic incidents of Shii being needlessly battleground-inclined when other editors question some very esoteric academic theories about the subject. It's made me wonder about them being an administrator, I have to admit, so I'm sympathetic to the thinking behind Toddst1's opening post. --Tryptofish (talk)15:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Block not in line with current policy and normal practice
As someone who has been watching this thing unfold from the outside, the current 72 hour block appears to be much more punitive than preventative and goes directly against thePurpose and goals of ourblocking policy. Shii hadn't even edited in nearly 7 hours before the block was placed so there is simply no way to claim the block to be preventative. His last edit prior to the block was at 14:33, 17 October 2011[3] and the block was placed at 21:12, 17 October 2011.[4] Further,this bit of poking (and elsewhere) byUser:Me-123567-Me would eventually begin to irritate even the most veteran of editors.
Shii has been an active community member since 27 April 2002[5] and an administrator since 6 February 2006[6] (RFA). Those of us who have interacted with Shii in the past can certainly speak to his unusual sense of humor (which actually tends to be an asset while dealing with troublesome individuals), but that was also no reason to block him. Considering that Shii had an otherwise clean block log, and has been an active community memberand administrator for avery long time, a 72 hour block as a very first block seems highly unusual. --Tothwolf (talk)12:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Tothwolf, thank you for the spirited defense. However, I do think I have "done wrong". Most of the communities I participate in on the Internet encourage creative and sometimes unusual repartee between members-- for example, Reddit. Wikipedia is different, I already know it is different and I expect different behavior from the community at large, so I'm afraid I have not been living up to those common standards. If I was disruptive to anyone, I apologize. It was absolutely not my intention to disturb the encyclopedia (and see my talk page for a much longer and detailed apology). I will go back to editing now with a humbled spirit, and I will look at disputes differently in the future. Finally, this block was really weird, and was a jumble of acronyms likeWP:OR andWP:TROLL, which do not appear to be policy. Like Tothwolf, I don't really understand the point of it. I'm always ready to talk with people, and I've never proven unreasonable!Shii(tock)12:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Quite right! I meant that it's not usually used as a block reason ("Somebody stop me before I original research again!")Shii(tock)12:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
My main point was the block did not seem to be preventative and hence not justifiable under current policy or standard practice. I too found out the hard way that not everyone understandssarcasm andless obvious forms of humor. Last year I found myself indef blocked (ultimately lasting 18 days) when I made some ill-advised sarcastic remarks off-wiki via email while frustrated with a long term problem I had been dealing with since 26 May 2009. --Tothwolf (talk)13:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
As the blocking admin, here's what I saw: 3RR, significant NPA's, sarcastic responses when the "victim" asked him to stop, and the muddling around creating self-reporting EW entries showed me someone fucking around, and not caring when asked to stop. I combined the individual issues to a slightly longer block - yes, based on these, the block was preventative.
To be honest, I did not check that he was an admin before blocking - it wasn't until afterwards that the concerns around the behaviour unbefitting an admin came forward. I have no issues with the unblock, based on the apparent sincerity of the apology. I continue - based on a chain of e-mails between Shii and I this morning - to be concerned about the skillset of an admin. (talk→BWilkins←track)13:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. Even though I've not seen any of the private communications between you and Shii, given the public back and forth, there is little doubt some of it has been heated. Based on my own email situation with the admin who blocked me that I briefly described above, the advice I'd offer here given my own experience is for both of you to simplyback away from it and let it go. Nothing beneficial is going to come from more heated discussion at this point. --Tothwolf (talk)13:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
No need to mention sticks to me ... I've made recommendations to the editor. It's up to them if they follow. Calling it an unjustifiable block without even reading any of the background seemed ... bizarre to say the least. Hopefully you have a better understanding (although seeing as your original subheading title remains, I doubt it) (talk→BWilkins←track)16:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I notice that popups tells me that Nikster115 has 85 edits but his contributions log contains only five. I guess that means the other 80 involved edits to now-deleted pages. His only two edits to article space are acts of vandalism. Two more are to add to and delete from his own talk page personal information about Nikhal Maharaj. The fifth was a personal message to himself atUser talk:NIKHIL MAHARAJ. I think an admin should try to determine whether he's here to edit an encyclopedia and act accordingly. --Steven J. Anderson (talk)08:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I just saw the notice about this on anon's talk page. In addition to being promotional, the information is untrue in most (if not all) cases; I've removed it. -Jason A. Quest (talk)20:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
There are currently315 pending Articles for Creation submissions waiting to be reviewed. Over the past week, the backlog has increased by about 20 submissions a day. The number of submissions submitted per day has gone up from about 83 to about 170. There are still a number of reviewers reviewing the submissions, but even then, we can't keep up with the numbers. Yes, I know this doesn't require administrative assistance. However, this is one of the most watched noticeboards, and thisis an incident.Articles for Creationneeds more reviewers to get the backlog back to the normal levels (45 submissions at most). Please help us sort the issue out. For those new to Articles for Creation, I would be happy to explain the process Thanks,Alpha_Quadrant(talk)19:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Any help would be appreciated. If you have any questions, ask AQ or myself on our talkpages, or in#wikipedia-en-afcconnect. Thanks!!!19:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikistalking/Wikihounding
Inspite of my repeated warnings,User:DBigXray is continuously wiki-stalking & wiki-hounding me just because he couldn't resolve the matter on the talk pages as early as he wanted.[15][16][17][18][19].
On the relevant articles, commenting is one thing (yes he might be right on some occasions, but trivially that's why a discussion on talk page is taking place), but starting sections like "edits by 'so n so user'" and then posting a copy paste of that everywhere has pushed my patience over. Yet Ihave not madeany inflamatory remarks on any talk page against him.
You can see him continuouslycampaigning on the talkpage (and editing) each and every article I have edited (regardless of the fact that his comments have no relation to pages) like[20]. The 'non-reliable' sources he's mentioning aren't even being used here and in so many other pages of which I have now lost count.
Edited my talk page[21][22][23] to put up with theharassment campaign and spammed it with the same issue about pakdef.info's reliablilty which I wasreadily discussing on the articles to which it was cited. Infact I even let them be making no more edits since at least two days. Yet there's no way that I can stop him of pursuingwp:canvassing.
And then after I got tired of his repeated comments, I told him politely not to edit my talk page again soon after which he posted the same spam on my page[24]. He also disrupted the article in question[25] and added unattributed content even though a clear consensus wasjust established with other editors on the talk page[26].
Also, I'll like to add hishostile attitude in his initial interaction with me[27] assumingvandalism instead ofgood faith. At another point in the same initial interaction he warned me about removing content from my own talk page, when it is trivial that diffs are always there and I'm not hiding something[28].
The issue is not of the current sources and their reliability he has mentioned because I'm open to discussion and have even stopped reverting (without violating 3rr) on the pages in question. I've exhausted all ways of explanations and warnings, and I'm sure he will continue to keep this campaign going since he goes for an edit war as soon as I revert & talk on page (see the references provided). I'm sure he simply stalks my contributions.
His canvassing campaign is still full on and he's recruiting another one[29][30] (new edits). He has also called in another user who's already being investigated for sock-puppetryand has been reported for wp:3rr[31].
Saw an allegation of sock-puppetry from him[32]. Even though I don't have huge edit counts, but I've been registered since 5 years and I'm open to all verifications. --lTopGunl (talk)12:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
My preference would be to see a response by DBigXRay first. My intial thoughts, after reading the diffs and your arguments above is that neither of you really have much standing here. DBigXRay has been takingWP:CIVIL to a bit past its limits with all the caps usage, you've been threatening him with sanctions (so has he). I'd like to see his argument in this situation. It seems like the best course of action would be to just stay away from each other at the moment.13:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I haven't read through all this yet, but after looking at a little bit I can make a helpful suggestion straight away – a lot of this would be much easier to clear up if you included edit summaries, particularly when making edits which could be seen as contentious. It would give him less of a leg to stand on if he starts reverting.Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The main problem is that he's pasting the same content (about a given source and my 'vandalism') all over, even to the pages that are not related to those links. I haven't threatened him anything above warnings to be reported on edit warring and warnings in response to him blaming me with vandalism and repeatedly editing my talk page with spam. Its the canvassing that's the problem.
I do put in edit summaries (mostly) to which he simply reverts with vandalism tags. I've seen him doing stuff like masking his edits and removing previously established reliable and neutral sources under the cover of wiki-linking some text in another paragraph (and mentioning only that in edit summary).[34] --lTopGunl (talk)15:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I have repeated it on a number of occasions on talk pages that i dont have any personal grudge against any user. If the edits on a page i see are not in accordance with the reliable sources, i raise the issue on the talk pages. Aboutwiki-stalking & wiki-hounding The admins can see that i have a number pages in my watch list (about military history(my interest)) that have been edited. I dont need to stalk any user to see if new Changes have been done in these pages, i get the notification on my watchlist page itself. after this while verifying the edit on the page in my watchlist ,often i need to see (related/main article of that incident) if i come across a related page that has also been edited by the (same or different) user. i raise the topic on the talk page and/or revert the change if it is in clear violation of the entry as cited. I always give enough discussion on the talkpages of the articles i edit. WhereaslTopGunl (talk) Seldom disusses the issue on the talk pages. recently he has done a number of edits with the title removing POV on Edit Summary, he does not even care to explain what led to his conclusion that he is removing POV (while in fact he is inserting one).2.i have raised the issue of non reliable source pakdef.info on talk pages, as i felt it is necessary to point out this mistake. 3 an EDIT WAR always occurs when both users keep reverting without discussing.Whats more surprising is userlTopGunl reverts the edits and warns other user of EDIT WAR (without considering that the very last revert that he has done (while warning other guy) also falls in the Category of EDIT WAR and he is equally responsible for EDIT WAR by reverting (without even discussing on talk page about reverts)) The Time stamps of talk pages and reverts can be observed. This disagreement of opinions would have never arised if userlTopGunl had spent time in voicing his opinion on respective talk pages of articles that he edits, like me rather than Warning others and FRAMING CASES & false REPORTING. About the allegation of Canvassing i would like to clarify that i have told about the edits on articles to an experienced wikipedians and on Noticeboard of India related Pages to verify the change since i am a newbie, is it bad to get opinion of other editors who are interested in these articles on the recent edits to for the the sake of neutrality ? --dBigXray (talk)20:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
also it can be checked thatlTopGunl (talk)( in his edits) neither bothers to give an edit summary nor a comment on the talk pages of the Controversial modifications that he makes by inserting POV. (or removing POV acc to him), what shall the other editors make out from this behaviour ?--dBigXray (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC). For example [| his recent edits] and [[35]] without any explanation as of now. the citations are not in coherence with his edits and probably thats why the user is adamant on removing them so that his wrong edits cannot be verified--dBigXray (talk)09:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Still editing my talk page with allegations!! When he fails on one page he starts on another. And I expected him not to edit my talk after so many warnings, but here we go again. He just disregarded Mitchazenia's suggestion. --lTopGunl (talk)18:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Adding:[36] &[37]. I have given sufficient explanations but he seems to haveno regard ofWP:BURDEN orWP:HEAR. In context to the given scenario doesn't this seem to be wikihounding when I'm being followed, challenged on every talk and not beingheard even when I give satisfactory replies? --lTopGunl (talk)11:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I would again repeat that i dont have any interest in a particular user but i am interested in sanctity of wiki articles. The admins can please check that the articleSinking of PNS Ghazi is also in my watchlist and if a disruptive editing takes place on that article, i have the rights to raise question. i have noticed and [raised a number of issues on the talk page of] articleSinking of PNS Ghazi.the above user had done [| multiple edits] , without any explanation on the talk page until i raised questions. the time stamps can be checked if the admins wanna have a look at this it is upto the admins to decide if the explanations are sufficient or not. The explanations present as of now is not sufficient for me at least. --dBigXray (talk)14:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Achem. First off, XRay, we don't need the constant capitals to get your point across. Second, Hassanhn, you clearly misinterpreted what I meant. When I mean both of you should stay away from each other, I don't think coming back here and complaining is really helpful. It is just going to inflame the situation. XRay, I thank you for posting your opinion and it seems like right now that the easiest solution is to stay away from each other. Take each other off your watchlists/searches/whatever. If it continues I highly suggest Mediation or other forms ofWP:Dispute resolution. Until then, solving this easiest is to ignore each other and focus your heads somewhere else.01:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) First, I don't see any indication that you notifiedMaladoope of this discussion, as is required. Once I complete my comments, I'll take that liberty myself. Second, reviewing that user's Contribution history and the article's edit history, the changes toPhilip Zlotorynski are what I'd call "plausible but unsourced", and since Zlotorynski is undoubtedly a living person,WP:BLP applies, so IMO reverting those edits is the correct action, although I also don't see any indication that the user was warned regarding their actions. Third, what I'm seeing from the editor in question, especially on their User and User Talk pages, isn't what I'd expect to see from an editor who intends to be constructive...but that's a very subjective opinion. Finally, and as a sidenote, I'd suggest such reports in future be made atWP:AIV, which is specifically geared to responding to vandalism. Regards, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk)14:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Whoa, easy there. You never said anything about anyWP:SOCKPUPPETry until now. Even if you had,WP:AGF still applies, even in the case of aWP:BLP. I already pointed out that since it IS a BLP issue, you were correct in reverting the edits. Now, let's take a look and see if there's already aWP:SPI that includesMaladoope, or if that name needs to be added to an existing one so the admins can tell how big the sock drawer really is. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk)18:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
ETA: I do not see any SPI cases involving any of the usernames you've mentioned. Since you've been doing the digging regarding this, I'd suggest your next step to be opening the SPI yourself. No sense in too many middlemen getting involved, and for once I'm too far separated from the incident to produce a meaningful report on the matter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk)18:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
A significant portion of the above is off topic here. Unfortunately, a quick look does not show an edit that is clearly vandalism. PerWP:BLP it is entirely appropriate to remove strong claims ("person X is person Y") that have no strong source. If no easily digestible statement of the problem can be made, this should be raised atWP:BLPN. Meanwhile, watchingPhilip Zlotorynski andChris Gore would be helpful.Johnuniq (talk)22:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Ring Cinema
Ring Cinema - talk page revocation - done; thanks.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
02:13, 20 October 2011 Swarm changed block settings for Ring Cinema with an expiry time of Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:00:06 GMT (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page)
Assistance needed in off-and-ongoing revert/edit war
This hasn't garnered hardly any uninvolved discussion and really has spiraled into bickering among the folks already involved. The discussion is too broken up to follow sequentially. It's just pointless to keep this thread open in it's current form. I will get involved on the article's talk page.--v/r -TP13:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello all, I would like to ask for assistance in dealing with an on-and-off-and-on again edit war taking place here.[40]The participants are:
I have been trying to mediate some form of collaborative editing once Penom requested my assistance on my talk page.[41] What I found was an edit/revert war, which I managed to temporarily stop.
One of the first things I did on entering the fray was ask both editors to stop and come discuss things before continuing the edit war. I made the request more than once[42][43][44][45] and indicated it should be considered a polite warning. When the edit/revert war did not stop[46], I templated both editors for both infractions.[47][48][49][50]
Last night till a few minutes ago, I've been busy with work and not been able to try to mediate and moderate things there. During that short time, another edit/revert war has taken place.[51] - I've got two more pretty busy days ahead...
At this time, I suspect I (the three of us) definitely need some outside assistance. In an effort to try to get and keep things on track, I've let slide (without a 3rr noticeboard posting) two edit wars/3rr violations. Thus, I'm hoping either someone more convincing on how important it is not to engage in constant edit and revert wars can step in, or perhaps (as I suggested on the article's talk page[52]), the two of them need a 2-3 day break? Looking forward to whatever assistance any of you can provide or deem necessary.
Additional Note 01: Wiqi55 was reported for edit warring here[55] on the 16th, but it does not seem the report was reviewed or acted upon. Additionally, by the time I got involved both Wiqi55 and Penom had exceeded 3RR.
Additional Note 02: WP:SYNTH complaints, POV complaints, OWN complaints and similar have been flying around on the article's talkpage discussion (part of what I have been trying to mediate, with, in my opinion, some legitimacy to the complaints on both sides, more largely Wiqi55, as [User:Wayiran](notified[56]) noted in his 3RR report.
ِ Dear admins, I am really embarrassed for my yesterday edit warring But I want to have some explanations for incident--Penom (talk)00:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I have tried all ways that I knew to stop the editor from edit warring. Trying to discuss the issue[57],[58],[59]
, reporting 2 times for 3rr, asking a third person to comment. I really apologize for yesterday. I have been editing wikipedia in other projects and languages for 2 years. Yesterday was my worst day and the most frustrating nigh of editingPenom (talk)00:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Let me explain the incident:
On October 11th he reverted 5 times on the article.(1) I reported him for 3rr but no serious action from admins
Again he broke 3rr and reported by user:Wauiran ([60]) But again no answer by admins
These incident make me really disappointed. I asked Robert to mediate and help me to resolve the issue. Both agreed not to start edit warring and making major changes on article without discussion and before asking Robert's opinion.
Yesterday, again he started edit warring. Without any discussion, without asking Robert's opinion. He reverts in a very disruptive way. To mislead admins he put amessage and in a second he reverts.
If my edits were inappropriate is because of my frustration. When 2times he broke 3rr and noboday cared, I did not find anyother way to stop the user from making the article Islamic POV.
I really feels lonely and frustrated on that article. Two times report of 3rr for that user, without any serious reactions of admins. Several cases that I tried to open discussion without any participation from the user[61],[62],[63] really frustrated me. He insisted to push his Islamic POV on article. He did not let me and others to edit on that article.Penom (talk)00:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of action or lack thereof by an administrator, this,[64] which I posted on 03:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC) should have been heeded. By both of you. That wasn't an opinion on my part. It was an explanation of Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines. Also, as I noted multiple times (starting with my very first post on this matter) other alternatives to resolving things were available -including both of you simply waiting a half day or day for me to have the time to jump back in to things, or getting someone else to help out while I was busy. If I hadn't explained all of this multiple times... Best,ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN00:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I have had this page on my watch-list for a while. In my humble opinion, the main source of friction isUser:Wiqi55's sense of entitlement and ownership when it comes to this topic and other similar topics dealing with Islamic history.Kurdo777 (talk)00:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe there were other such instances on other articles as well. Sadly, it doesn't absolve either of them of violating 3RR and WAR. What made it worse was that it was explained multiple times, and I'd decided not to request preventative action to stop it - and it began again anyway.ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN00:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
@Robert. As I said, I am embarrassed about what happen, I really felt helpless. Regardless of my case, Islamic articles in English Wikipedia need serious attention of admins. They are systematically biased. Majority of editors are apologist Muslims. There is no problem in that. But, these majority systematically make Islamic articles biased. They try to push traditional Islamic view, They are cherry picking from sources to push their POV, undermine secular views, several cases of pushing anti-Judaism views are the result of this majority apologist editors. No admin intervene in Islamic articles and users like me who tries to add academic and historical views to articles. People like me get frustrated and feel helpless when every day has to deal with these majority editors who usually feel ownership to Islamic articles. --Penom (talk)01:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Bias and POV in an article get dealt with byeditors (admin or otherwise). Repeated bias insertions by aneditor gets dealt with by administrators - usually through raising the issue at AN/I.ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN02:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Wiqi55 statement
I have only watched this article recently while cleaning another article (ghulat). I have decided to clean and improve the content of this article (mostly introducing a less POVish lead, a "Further reading" section, verifying sources, etc). I've been doing this for many articles on Islamic history figures. I noticed thatpenom (talk·contribs), who appears to be a single purpose account, has been making edits to the article. I noticed also that he was deleting whole paragraphs using misleading edit summaries, for example.[65] I consider blanking complete paragraphs using misleading edit summaries to be one form of vandalism. Thus I reverted user Penom until the page was protected. I later asked him to slow down a bit, not delete well-cited paragraphs, and use descriptive edit summaries. He accused me of WP:OWN and threatened that "one more edit I bring the attention of admins to article". RobertMfromLI then showed up. I had honestly thought user RobertMfromLI was an admin (only now I have checked and he doesn't seem to be one). Thus I have explained the situation to him as soon as he showed up.[66] I would have definitely reported user Penom to admins had I known that RobertMfromLI wasn't one. User Penom continued to remove and to make significant number of changes to the article using misleading edit summaries (mostly claiming that nothing has changed, "I did not remove any claims etc"). He does not participate in a discussion unless he was reverted. Penom also introduced a set of headers that misrepresented the content of sections of the article. My understanding is that a single-purpose account using misleading edit summaries, blanking whole paragraphs, refusing to come to talk, etc, should have been sanctioned and reverted immediately. I wish that RobertMfromLI would have explained that he was not an admin. I have reverted user Penom edits (the ones that used misleading edit summaries or misrepresented the content of sources). I did not revert any of his other changes.Wiqi(55)01:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Quick tip 1: Mouse over a name. You'll see that person's user rights.
Quick tip 2:Any editor can mediate in almost any dispute - especially content disputes.
Quick tip 3: Admins donot contribute and mediate content disputesas administrators - they mediate as contributors/editors. And once doing so, they are forbidden from acting as an admin except in the case of the most egregious rule and policy violations (and even then, most will seek an uninvolved admin to assist instead of them acting). Or, unless such mediation is a part of an AN/I "verdict" or ArbCom sanction. Otherwise an admin is forbidden from acting as an admin once involved in an issue. So,even if I was an admin, as I have edited the article to help you two along, and I have helped with content contribution on the article's talk page, Istill could not do anything administrative.
To summarize, one does not seek an admin to help with content issues. One seeks an editor (regardless of whether they are an admin or not). Perhaps I am wrong in this part, but I think you both lucked out that Penom chose me to be that person. I suspect many an admin would have stopped the ongoing edit war I walked into by giving both of you a vacation.
Now, to the point at hand. You have not explained why edit warring and revert wars is ok - and I already have explained (admin or not) why none of your previous justifications is valid.ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN01:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Quick Tip 1 didn't work for me (Firefox 7 on Gnu/Linux). Didn't know about 2 and 3. Thanks. As I have explained to you, my knowledge in dispute resolution is very limited since I have hardly been in one. However, I did not consider most of my reverts to be part of a content dispute for two reasons. First, deleting/changing well-cited paragraphs using misleading edit summaries is inline withWikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking.2C_illegitimate. Second, I had thought you were an admin (this is indeed my fault and I'm terribly sorry for that), and during my reverts I was in a discussion with you and you did not object to my reverts. I thought that there was nothing wrong with what I did (policy-wise). I even wondered in the talk page many times why you didn't interfere while Penom was blanking/changing content using misleading edit summaries.Wiqi(55)02:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
On Tip #1, it might be a setting, but it's a long time since I set up my profile.
As for me not interfering when either of you did such, you might remember, I actually made quite a few comments about such. I could have requested admin action then, but wanted to give you two a chance to work it out. As for the times I didn't jump in, it's probably because I was offline. ;-)ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN02:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's be honest about the blanking. Both of you have removed each other's content (ie: "blanking"). BOTH of you have discussed and argued the reasons on the talk page, even if BOTH of you weren't using the bst of edit summaries in your edits. Thus, BOTH of your actions fit the criteria forcontent disputes - but NOT vandalism. Read the whole page on vandalism to understand it better. Because of that, the nine revert (ooops,THREE revert) rule cannot be broken. Best,ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN03:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
That's hardly a fair comparison. I didn't blank whole paragraphs usingmisleading edit summaries. I didn't sneakily re-word sentences while claiming that nothing has changed, just moving stuff etc. I merely reverted such edits. The issue here is the use of misleading edit summaries. My only fault is that I didn't bring this to the attention of admins earlier because I thought you were the admin. I also refrained from edit warring on his non-suspicious edits, despite that I find their content objectionable (like the Lewis quote, for instance). In any case, I happen to not have any strong views about the subject, so if using misleading edit summaries is now becoming OK on Wikipedia, I'd be willing to un-watch this article, and get back to my largely gnomic activities.Wiqi(55)04:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
You have as well, but that does not matter. His actions were not vandalism. 3RR applies. Also, silly threats of "fine, I'll stop working on articles" doesn't work here either. If he uses incorrect edit summaries,deal with it properly, which does not include violating 3RR. You've been blocked for edit warring before. None of this is new to you. Do not play the injured party here.ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN14:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Not entirely true. I was blockedonce before by a heavily involved admin. You were also involved in that incident so your assessment here is not objective. Now considering that you seem eager to bring past incidents into this, I'd suggest that your assessment of this situation should be disregarded. And I'm not threatening to not edit articles. I have no strong views on the subject of this specific article, and if my presence was deemed disruptive, I'd be willing to un-watch. However, I can't help but think that users who constantly use misleading edit summaries arenot here to build an encyclopedia. I will also find better ways to identify admins instead of reading, or rather misreading, their user boxes.Wiqi(55)16:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
By "involved in that incident", do you mean, as a previouslyuninvolved editor, I offered my opinion? That aside, youstill have not addressed a single issue withyour actions. Nor have you addressedyour failings in understanding policies and guidelines and how you violated them. Additionally, you have, above, disparaged Penom and his actions with no basis. I would strongly suggest that you stick to addressingyour mistakes.
Blocks arepreventative and not punitive. You are repeatedly indicating (IMO) an unwillingness to follow or learn the policies and guidelines you've been ignoring. In my opinion, until you do so, that is creating a situation requiring preventative actions. You have beenrepeatedly told you had other options to deal with what you falsely (IMO) perceived as vandalism by Penom - including reporting him here at AN/I. You didnot - you chose to start TWO more edit/revert wars since. There is no excuse.ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN16:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually Robert from Li, removing entire paragraphs of sourced content with misleading edit summaries is normally vandalism, and if the editor doing it does not start communicating, then the usual course is for them to be blocked. In this case, the other editor has now started talking and appears to understand the problem he was causing, and did intend his edits to be productive, so I do not believe there is any need for administrator action. --Elen of the Roads (talk)16:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Elen, except, as I indicated above, that was not the case. The edit summaries were not misleading and were followed with and preceded bylengthy discussion on the talk page, as well as Penom involving me to try to mediate such.ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN16:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, as you know, when the content is sourced, when those sources are used incorrectly (does not say what the content does, and instead pushes a POV), removal of such is also not vandalism. If anything, that supports Penom's actions.ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN16:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
@robert: I have already accepted and understood that next time I will bring the issue of using misleading edit summaries to an admin. Even in this case, I did bring the issue to you when you first showed up thinking you were an admin. I have already admitted this mistake 3 times or so, and I will definitely try to identify admins more carefully in the future. So I'm definitely hearing your concerns. I have also asked user Penom to not remove any cited information unless he actually examined the sources. He ignored my direct questions about this and gave no indication that he actually did check the sources.Wiqi(55)16:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
To Both Penom and Wiqi55
Can both of you truly decide to stop the revert wars then?
Can you (Wiqi55) come to the conclusion that Penom's edit summaries,in conjunction with the lengthy talk page discussions and explanation is not simply content removal, but instead, adipsute over the content which should be resolved on the article's talk page before continually (both of you) inserting and reverting the content?
Can youboth (a) be a bit more accurate in your edit summaries and (b) accept the fact that an immediate follow up comment on the talk page to more thoroughly explain edits absolves issues with short edit summaries that may not be as detailed as either of you would like?
Can you both agree to utilizeWP:DR and/or accept my opinion on each and/or involve other editors to help review,without once again reverting to edit/revert wars?
I have no objection to the above. Note that I have already stopped editing the article (even before you started this incident). But I have no real interest in the subject to sustain further involvement, at least not while biased editors keep blanking paragraphs using misleading edit summaries and modifying content while claiming nothing has changed, etc. I also saw attempts to censor certain facts or important claims by citing random policies (a typical case oftrying to game the system). I'd really appreciate if your efforts and perhaps more admin involvement would help assure that this wouldn't happen in the future.Wiqi(55)19:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Penom has indicated both remorse and understanding above about why edit warring and violating 3RR is not appropriate.
Penom is a less experienced editor
Penom did seek outside assistance in this matter
While Penom55 is the one who seeked outside assistance, and agreed to follow such steps, Penom55 still jumped into another edit war even after it was made clear that if the article wasn't perfect for a day or two, the world wouldn't blow up
Wiqi55 has previously been blocked for edit warring - and thus should know better.
Wigi55 is demonstrating (still) an attitude of IDHT
Wiqi55 is (in my opinion) mischaracterizing the reasons for his reverts. This is indicated by the massive talk page discussions where it has been indicated that Penom has perceived biases and POV in Wiqi55's postings/changes. Wiqi55 has been involved in those discussions, and is thus aware that there were legitimate reasons for Penom's reverts, regardless of how Wiqi55 wishes to perceive Penom's edit summaries.
Wiqi55 has shown, currently and in the past, some level of assumingWP:OWN on such articles. This seems to coincide with actions indicated on the point directly above this.
Wiqi55 seems to be using IDHT as continued justification for his actions, even though reviewing the situation further indicates that his rationale doesnt even apply
Wiqi55 already has experience with edit warring and the consequences involved in stopping such
Wiqi55 has in no way indicated any willingness to stop reverting and edit warring over what essentially are content disputes
I'dsuggest Penom be advised on the next instance of engaging in or participating in an edit/revert war, that Penom will be given 2-3 days to further acquiant himself with the appropriate policies and guidelines - especially in light of Penom, above, indicating an understanding of why his 0actions were not correct.
I'dsuggest that Wiqi55 be given 2-3 days, either on this article or on all of Wikipedia, to re-acquiant himself with policies and guidelines concerning such that he should have properly learned the first time he was blocked for edit warring.
I was asked to comment here in my talk-page. I think Penom is right, because what I saw in that article was desruptive editing from Waqi55 by constant POV pushing. In fact if admins had paid attention to two recent 3rr reports, Penom wouldn't get frustrated like this. --Wayiran (talk)18:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Proposals
How to deal with it.
AN/I is not usually the place to hold a RfC/User in the above fashion. I've (perhaps rashly) made some comments on the article talk p. DGG ( talk)21:18, 19 October 2011 (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.
Help with numerous new pages being created by copy/paste from another
Hello all,User:TZ_master is creating numerous "pages" by copying and pasting the section info fromDaylight_saving_time_around_the_world (one for each country). Not just is that an obvious copy/paste violation, but it's A10. I've started tagging, but perhaps assistance in stopping TZ_Master before things get even worse would be helpful. Thanks,ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN00:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Any admin can see that the content atTime in Portugal was not a duplication of content fromTime zones as RobertMfromLI claimed. Please revoke TW access for this user. And there is no "copy/paste violation". This user lacks proper judgement.TZ master (talk)00:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Correct, it was duplicate material and deleted as such, but that isn't why I am here... see my later comment below on the articles I CSD tagged since.ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course some content was duplicate, that is the nature of all articles, e.g. it contain the string "Portugal." But it contained several information that is not intime zones as you claimed. You lack proper judgement and it would be nice if you would have not TW access anymore.
And I quote from your user history:
"2011-10-19T20:28:59 (diff | hist) N Daylight saving time in Russia (copy from Daylight_saving_time_around_the_world)"
There are a number of others that are copy/paste. Bulgaria (exact, word for word other than DST to "Daylight Savings Time"), Denmark (same), Slovenia (changed start of first sentence, copy/paste the rest), and so on. Should I continue? Regardless, it's duplication of existing content, CSD A10. Best,ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN00:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes copy/paste can be starting point for creating new articles. In fact most articles are created by copy/pasting information around and rewording it, WP is not fiction! All information in WP did exist somewhere already, but in WP it is re-arranged.TZ master (talk)01:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
And duplicates at a rate of 95-100%, the content already existing on the DST article. That makes them all CSD A10 tagging eligible, meaning speedy deletion for material that virtually exactly duplicates existing content. Thus, my third attempt at requesting you to stop and learn what it is you are doing and why it is not correct.ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN01:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
And are you copying and pasting the original attributions too, ie the editor's names who wrote those original words in the first place? --The Pink Oboe (talk)01:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
No. That would require requesting the page to be properly split (but that would also require discussing such massive splits with the community first as well).ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN01:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
And thanks for the alternate attribution method explanation - if TZM will slow down enough, I can help clean it up in such a fashion, but I don't see any real expansion work, which just leaves 1-3 sentence dupes as articles.ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN01:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, but sadly, only half done on one (the example above). All the original content still remains, hence the A10 tagging as the "new" content is copy/pasteduplication - not just mis-attributed. Anyway, does that mean the others (sans the one example above) coulda (or shoulda) been db-mult with G12 added to the mix? Best,ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN01:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I was cleaning up all the time. @Bushranger / attribution - that's what I did, and if anyone (Pink Oboe?) likes to do per user attribution for each character sourced from a 40+kB page he is free to do so.TZ master (talk)02:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for not noticing that (the cleanup). It might have to do with about a dozen dupes you hadn't gotten to. May I suggest you use the underconstruction tag or expansion tag on such - as well as doing less at a time? Perhaps one... or even two or three? Otherwise, what happens is it looks like you've created a dozen word-for-word duplicates with maybe a few word change to the first sentence. I'll even help you underconstruction tag the recent ones if you like.ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN02:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been keeping an eye on it ... it was contentious from the start. I'm the one who advised Epeefleche to comment there. Yeah, this kind of discussion should have taken placebefore an EW report (talk→BWilkins←track)12:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I suspect this may well be an attack name and quite possibly a sock puppet of a banned editor. Mincer being a Scottish pejorative for homosexual, I rather suspect I'm the target.Wee Curry Monstertalk13:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted the page. I'm reluctant to block the editor, though - while they've canvassed and those socks are quacking pretty loudly, the two accounts haven't been used together. This isn't a star pupil, but I'm willing to put out a little good faith and see if there's a peaceful solution.m.o.p17:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see m.o.p. had declined to block, but I think the user has tried to use the account to subvert a community decision and that qualifies for a block in my opinion. I left theUser:Caiyad account alone for the reasons m.o.p. pointed out above.--v/r -TP18:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Marinapeaches (talk·contribs) is asingle-purpose account seeking to smear the BLP ofGavin Newsom. This is not a content dispute, as Newsom's affair is covered appropriately on the page. This editor is seeking to add undue weight to the affair by creating a separate section for it, while not bothering to remove the existing mention. AtWP:AIV, I was told to go to dispute resolution, but this is not a content dispute as the affair is covered appropriately now, as I've said. This user needs to be prevented from editing Newsom's page at a minimum. – Muboshgu (talk)15:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You seem to have a rather limited view of what a "content dispute" is. If editors disagree as to whether or not particular content should be included in an article, then that is a content dispute, irrespectively of whether one party to the dispute thinks the content is redundant because the issue is adequately covered elsewhere in the article. I have warned both of you about edit warring.JamesBWatson (talk)16:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
My view of a "content dispute" is that it is a dispute on content. I am not disputing content. The Tourk affair is notable content, which is already in the article. The other unsourced info regarding WiFi might be relevant, but it's not sourced. Hence, this is not a content dispute. This is an SPA trying to give undue weight to information in a BLP. I'm here trying to keep the GA from becoming an attack page. – Muboshgu (talk)16:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be quite a few different topics under a controversy section, the affair only being one. There are others also that can be added. I would be willing to streamline the other sections, eliminating the redundacies. But to not say there isn't a need to have a controversy section is no argument, and I dont think this is a Point of View issue as these incidents are well referenced. Seems like only one editor repeatedly has issue with this, to the point to complain to the incident page.— Precedingunsigned comment added byMarinapeaches (talk •contribs)17:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we do have a content dispute here, and while (in my opinion) Muboshgu could validly complain of undue weight in a BLP, that's not really for this noticeboard. Asking Marinapeaches to be blocked or topic-banned is pushing the point, as is accusing Muboshgu of plugging the subject. Muboshgu, why didn't you post this atWikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? Marinapeaches, how is it that you have not discoveredTalk:Gavin Newsom? (Gavin Newsom, why are you so damn good-looking?) Again, Muboshgu, if you're trying to get your opponent blocked or topic-banned, you're not going to be successful.Drmies (talk)17:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
This is well above my pay grade, but I see thatUser:Materialscientist droppped a comment in that discussion (without, as far as I can tell, actually voting one way or another). They're a material scientist, besides an admin adhering to pretty high standards--perhaps one of you can drop them a line.Drmies (talk)17:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikihounding by user Baxter9
User:Baxter9 usually edit once in the month and all his edits aim to undone or change of the my edits. This situation is longterm and Iam despairing. He doeasnt assume a good faith, he just undone my edits, writes reports and warning and usually doesnt discuss it at talkpage. I think his behavior broken rules in this cases:[69] - he removed publication as unreliable without discussion, but in this publication are cited historians so its reliable scholar secondary source
[70] - nationalistic edit and source was changed - Hungarian nationality is the question of 19th century, he was from 17-18th century. proper citation was Hungarus - citizen of hungary of slavic origin and german erudition.
[71] my edit was undone without discussion, it was from a cited reliable source written by neutral experts. After that I was warned[72] - but the text was a little changed and there was a cited source:http://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/publish/no15_ses/09_nakazawa.pdf. But I will cite from the rules: "Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to CC-BY-SA or open-source content." Its just a harassment.
[73] - he rewrited ethnic term Magyar to term related with citizenship - Hungarian, but in the source was term Magyar. Its also nationalistic edit and harassment.
[74] - he removed encyclopedia as unreliable. But: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." This encyclopedia is one from the largest on the world:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Soviet_Encyclopedia Its again the case of harassment.
[75] - he often oppose but without arguments, or he ironically comment my edits.
This situation started a long time ago, but last two months Iam disgusted from editing of Wikipedia because of this user. He behave like a owner of articles. He thinks he makes a good thing probably but its clear example of "ownership behaviour":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles . Its much more cases of such harassment, here:[76]. If he would assume a good faith and discuss his edits at talkpages it would be okay, but this is clear harassment. Wikipedia is not a sopabox so I hope this user will comment only his editing. --Samofi (talk)20:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Your statements and accusations are fictitious. I ahve edited these articles before, and they are in my watchlist. Please prove, show me your evidences which prove that"all his edits aim to undone or change of the my edits" and"He doeasnt assume a good faith, he just undone my edits". I only corrected informations, and as i remember I explained you why.
1) Please assume good faith. What is "nationalistic" in this edit?[77] The fact that I translated the latin text to English? "Slavus to Slav", "Hungarus to Hungarian", and "Germanus to German"? Even the source says Hungarian not "Hungarus" [sic!].I already explained this in the edit summary.
Slavus (in the connection with Hungary) is also translated like a Slovak, but you change it to Slav. Hungarus is citizenship it has nothing to do with Hungarian people. Ethnic Hungarians (Magyars) were called "nativus Hungarus" in latin sources. PleaseNOTE that user:baxter9 tries to deny the existence of Slovaks in Hungary and he is adding a Hungarian ethnicity to multiethnic or Slovak people. --Samofi (talk)06:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
2) Nothing to explain here. You de facto copy pasted the hole section from that source, which is copy violation. Even the defective charactersfrom the .pdf are apparent...
No I did not broke a rule. You should familiarize withcopyrighted and not to take only smart part and argument with this. Section was a little changed and it was a sourced. Almost all Wikipedia based on sources with copyright and its linked to this sources. Its clear harras from your side. --Samofi (talk)06:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
3) Again: a "nationalistic edit", according touser:Samofi... I do not understand this "theory" ofuser: Samofi's:"ethnic term Magyar to term related with citizenship - Hungarian, but in the source was term Magyar" Just check articleHungarian people:"Hungarians, also known as Magyars (pronounced mad-jar or mad-yar, from Hungarian: magyarok), are a nation and an ethnic group native to and primarily associated with Hungary. " So Magyars=Hungarians in English. Ethnic Magyar=Ethnic Hungarian. Your source says: "Magyar roots, which means he was ethnic Hungarian, he had Hungarian ancestors, hence I linked the word "Magyar" to articleHungarian people. BTWas I told you at the edit summary: we do not link to disambiguation pages. ReadWP:INTDABLINK.
User:Baxter9 not only changed redirection (its OKAY), but he changed ethnic term to national term. Its nationalism. He agains try to manipulate with my contribution. My statement was supported by dictionary. Hungarian:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hungarian and Magyar:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Magyar Its two different groups of people Hungarians and Magyars. Magyar is ethnic term and Hungarian is political name. Same like in Netherlands - Netherlander is citizen (Dutch, Frisian, Saxon) and dominant group in Netherlands are Dutchs. In Hungary - Hungarian is citizen (Magyar, Slovak, Serb) and dominat group is Hungary are Magyars. Hard to understand? --Samofi (talk)06:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
4)The Great Soviet Encyclopedia is outdated and not an expert publication, that is why I removed it.As I told this to you before, and i did not remove the information nor the other references added by you.
Its not outdated. Say me a rule wich says that publication from the 80-ties and reedited in 2002 is outdated. Its only harass.. --Samofi (talk)06:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
5) Where did I oppose??? I did not even vote! And yes, my comment is a fact. That is all.
you were irronical. and you just changed my adding to relation with Slovaks, but page is about Hungarians and Magyars. In slovak constitution is written: "we are a slovak nation" and not we are a slovak citizens. Hungarian means citizenschip and Magyar ethnicity. --Samofi (talk)06:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I first met this userwhen I removed his "reliable source" (a nationalist Slovak site,according to Human Rights Report an extreme right group) per WP policies... since then he accused me and other Hungarian users being "nationalist" many times. Please note thatuser:Samofi was indef blocked months ago for 3RR and battleground mentality, and anti-Hungarian sentiment which continues. I do not behave like "I own articles", this is only user Samofi's imagination. My last edit on the English wikipedia was months ago (user:Samofi admited this, so i do not know "how can i block him from editing".... I do not have to request permission fromuser:Samofi to edit BE BOLD! I only corrected the inproper informations atJoseph Petzval (requested page number,removed unreferenced OR tagged since March andadded dubious tag, since even Petzval confirmed that he was ethnic German and not Slovak... See:Eder, Josef Maria; Epstean, Edward; Cramer, Hinricus Lüppo (1945).History of photography.Columbia University Press. p. 761....Petzval himself who, emphasizing the fact that he was the son of German parents...{{cite book}}:Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors= (help))--B@xter921:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal attack
Wikipedia is not a soap box. Please talk about your edits and not about User:Samofi. User:Baxter9 speaks about things 1,5 year ago and I was blocked because of this (I accepted a punishment), after that I never used a vulgarism. I was a new I was harrased by him and currently blocked User:Namate - he wrote a planty of reports about my sockpuppets and it was unjustified because it was a user Iaaasi. Its clear personal attack, content is your harassment but you comment User:Samofi, you should know this: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." What can be considered as personal attack? "Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor" my vulgarisms as a newcomer 1,5 year ago are irrelevant and external in this case. I need to time to familirize with the rules and to calm my temperament. At talkpage of User:Baxter9 is also vilification of Slovak wikipedian and with slovakia, its written in Magyar language:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Baxter9 This conversation had also a marks of canvassing and creation of ideological group of 6-7 people editing Slovak and Hungarian related articles only from the one point of view. After reading this text the next users contacted User:Baxter9 and asking him for a help. He has a mail there and other users can contact him. Its coordinated nationalist related edits of variouse users, older report was here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=454209623 --Samofi (talk)06:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Topic ban
I've imposed a topic ban on the original poster,Samofi (talk·contribs). I'm not entirely certain on how to deal with other users mentioned in this thread. The overall editing atmosphere on Slovak-Hungarian nationality issues (including naming questions, ethnic attributes etc.) has been generally poisonous for a while, to an extent that it's unlikely to be all one party's fault; yet, wherever I look, it seems to me that Samofi's role has been persistently among the most unconstructive. So I'm tending towards the view that before we proceed to more sanctions all round, other users in the area might deserve a chance to demonstrate they can work more constructively when he is away.Fut.Perf.☼08:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Topic ban endorsed. It seems like every time the words "slav" or "Hungarian" appear on AN/I, so does Samofi. I've been paying attention to the case for the last few months and I think your reasoning is spot on.NoformationTalk19:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose of topic ban
1) It will no different opinion - only Hungarian nationalistic view. Users will not works more constructive, because they are all from the same ideological group connected with canvassing - try to check the similary of their edits and topics (it looks like a meatpuppetry). If it would be 40 Slovak users as one ideological group and 10 Hungarian users with different opinion than 40 Slovak users could work more constructively without Hungarian users? Its against the NEUTRALITY of Wikipedia. --Samofi (talk)12:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
2) "He seems to have a major POV to push" wroteUser:Basalisk. Which POV he means? I used term "Magyar" reffering to ethnicity and it was linked with Hungarians connected to nationality? And my edit is POV? Or is it POV that I cited matherial from experts and this matherial was in .pdf format? Which major POV I have used? Iam significant minority view, one from the last active Slovak wikipedians - I represent the opinion of 5 mil of Slovaks. Please note that only Magyar wikipedians had problems with my edits and all of them are of the same opinion - one ideological group. --Samofi (talk)12:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Its classic. Some users can make a nationalistic edits, they can edit warring, thay can call other users nationalists and neofascist and nothing happen (I mean users in my older report). It was not a single admin who warned them or told them about WP:DIGWUREN.. They continued with wikistalking, all my edits were changed or deleten, even I used a exact citation. Whats the difference between my edits and edits for example ofUser:Fakirbakir? I was 3 times blocked and now again bumerang. Iam one from the last Slovak users who has a different opinion than "Magyar ideological group". A lot of Romanian, Slovakian or Serb users had editwars with these users. How is it possible that a horde of editors from one ideological block can make a liquidation of other editors. Last month were almost all my edits at talkpages, i tried to edit more pages about slovak history and I was harassed. 5-6 users monitor all my edits and they destroy all my work. For example here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovak_lands&action=history was it assumed a good faith from users CoolKoon and user Fakirbakir? How is it possible that somebody can create an article based on 2 unscholar encyclopedies and book from 1905 ("Principality of Hungary") and article supported by 1000 english sources is called "nonsense" ("Slovak lands")? Its double measure, maybe my language is more raw and my behaviour can be considered as abrasive but which my edits are more nationalistic than edits of these 5-6 users? What about canvassing and ethnical abuse at talkpage of User:Baxter written in hungarian? They make a fun from Slovakia and Slovaks. Ban me and all Slovak wikipedians and you will have 6 "good" editors from one ideological block, they can canvass, change their emails at talkpages, bite a newcomers (as me a long time ago) and they will wait for their mistakes and than write a reports. After 3 years of problemtic editing was user:nmate banned for a month, wow.. What about users which says that Slovakia and Slovaks are product of the break of Czechoslovakia in 1993, or calling Slovakia and Slovak people a neofascist state? They will edit, because they are in one ideological group, they supports all edits together, if is any problem they can write a mail.. This is precedens, I knew that mi history in Wikipedia was not clean and I knew that it can be a boomerang but I wanted to point what is the problem of Slovak-Hungarian relations. I created a cooperation board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Slovak_and_Hungarian_wikipedians_cooperation_board/Participants), but no one from Magyar users did not start to participate. They has not interest to cooperate, they are numerouse and their aim is a liquidation of opponents. Next problems is, that no neutral editors are involved in this topics and if somebody tries to edit these topics, soon will be disgusted. A lot of my edits seems to be a nationalistic, for example the change an nationality from Hungarian to Slovak or from Hungarian to Magyar. But its not a same, Hungarians are a political nation (also a Slovaks, Magyars, Croats) and Magyars are a ethnic group. Terminologicaly are "Hungarians (Hungarian people)" and "Magyars" are not a same. I started terminological discussion between terms Magar(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/magyar) and Hungarian(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hungarian). Is it nationalistic? Is this an open encyclopedia? All nationalistic problems are that ethnic Magyar editors wants to connect political history of Hungarians (Slovaks, Magyars, Ruthenians..) exclusively with Magyar history. Its like Netherlander - political concept (Dutch, Frisians, saxons) and Dutch people are dominant group. But I understand admins, Iam disruptive coz I have a lot of conflicts with a lot of users (from one ideological block - but admins dont care about it). Slovakia is small country and its only a few Slovak wikipedians (espetialy about history), so its better to let Magyars to edit Hungarian and Slovak related articles. Bravo Wiki, open NEUTRAL encyclopedia. I know Iam not innocent and I never presented myself as "good" I admited all my mistakes and always changed. It was also aUser:Dbachmann who tried to edit a Hungarian related topics and he noticed a "hungarian nationalistic crankery". Its hard to show a different opinion at wikipedia if exists a big ideological group here which specialized to Slovak-Hungarian related articles. --Samofi (talk)11:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Proposed Ban onUser:Ryulong from making ban nominations and using any XFD process
This is not administrator actionable, as no specific violations are asserted. The complaining party can (with appropriate evidence) file a user conduct RFC if they wish to pursue this.Georgewilliamherbert (talk)22:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose thatUser:Ryulong be banned from making ban nominations until he/she can demonstrate an understanding of the value of the community's time and resources. Bans should not be used for no other reason than to make aWP:POINT like hey look you are losing aWP:XFD. Whenone makes a ban nomination as he did earlier this month and it is clear that the person being nominated has not done anything other than create content that you have wrongfully nominated at an XFD, you should not be allowed to waste the communities resources. Bans should be used as more of a last resort than a first impulse. Although he tried to feign being confused on whether I had repeatedly done something wrong, he did not fool anyone with his nomination. It was quite clear he used a ban nomination without any history of repeated offensive behavior and no warnings of bad conduct.
By the end of the XFD, he admitted that he was just nominatingthings tainted by my touch and throughout the nomination could not make sense of what things should have been included in the nomination and what should have been excluded. During the XFD, he repeatedly pointed out that he could not really figure out what should be included in the nomination and felt tricked into nominating certain certain. Before all was said and done, he added several things to the nomination and then removed from the nomination claiming that he could not even determine what things belonged in the nomination. We should also consider banning him from wasting the community's resources at all XFD processes until he learns how to use the process and determine valuable content.--TonyTheTiger(T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)20:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me? Just because I had one batch TFD from the too many templates you created that were determined by previous precedent to not be suitable for this project that, it means that I have to be banned from proposing bans and the deletion process? What have you been smoking, and may I have some of it? This is unnecessarily retaliatory. I have done nothing wrong and wasted nobody's time by proposing one (well two with the Noxiousnews request above) person be banned and done one TFD that was perfectly fine until you unnecessarily pointed out the other templates.— ()20:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Bans are supposed to be preventative and not punitive. You have not established a pattern of frivolous block requests, so banning him from making them seems less like preventing him from making these blocks and more like punishing him for making one(or two?) bad ones. Since there is really nothing actionable here it seems you have inconsequentially created a block request which wastes the communities time as well(don't worry, we won't ban you from them though ;)).AerobicFox (talk)21:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Ryulong, consider my arguments. You should not be making ban nominations regarding XFDs that are not close calls (this one in fact ended as no consensus and was at no consensus when you nominated it). This is not retaliation. Clearly, you wasted the community's time with your XFD and once it became clear that you were just nominating things because they were "Tainted by my touch", the responses came back accordingly. Then you nominated me for a ban without cause or prior offense. This was again a waste of the community's time.--TonyTheTiger(T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)21:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I did not waste anyone's time by creatingone batch TFD that ended as no consensus (however you have reminded me that it is probably time to seek a new consensus). And you have several topic bans. I would say that that qualifies as a prior offense. And that ban request wasted no one's time. If you are so focused on not wanting to waste the community's time, why did you make this ban proposal for two sets of processes that have nothing to do with each other, other than the fact that you and I both were involved in them regarding your edits?— ()21:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Apologies from myself - I am grateful to Floquenbeam for reinstating the above comment / correcting my accidental revert - finger trouble is my only excuse. Sorry again,Ian Cairns (talk)21:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that Tony is possibly being accused of improperly templating stuff, while Ryulong is being accused of reacting poorly in his responses/actions at XfD. That being the case, if accusations against Tony are correct, though Ryu's initial actions may have been overboard, some sort of review of Tony's templating is in order - perhaps the discussion that has started?ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN21:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Forgetting to notify the three other people who made the templates is not "refusing to follow proper nomination procedure". The previous TFD closed as no consensus because of the confusion set forth. And now I am seeking a renewed consensus.— ()21:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Strong support on XFD - After looking at several XFD nominations done by Ryulong, it's clear that he is indeed misusing the time and patience of the community. I amneutral on the other matter involving ban nominations.!xmcuvg2MH21:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The time and patience of the community is volunteered. So tell me, what *actual* disruption is caused by someone making an XFD nomination?--Tznkai (talk)22:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
And by "several" I assume mean these three TFDs that I've been involved in and the brony cruft that I helped get rid of? Oh, and that bhangra article which needed more than just ANI's attention.— ()22:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of "brony cruft", I find it funny how you voted on the second nomination shortly AFTER I spoke my mind. Really cute.!xmcuvg2MH22:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
You reminded me about the article which last I checked was at DRV and found that a new discussion had been made. I am freely allowed to !vote on an AFD last I checked, considering that this whole discussion is retaliatory for something I had not particularly been doing for a week.— ()22:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that some of Ryulong's XfDs and ban proposals both have been overly aggressive. (See the bhangra bands section above). But I don't think the disruption raises to the level where he needs to be banned. Not yet anyway.Have mörser, will travel (talk)23:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we should bear in mind that deletion nominations and their discussions are often contentious. Even Tony would acknowledge that he is a prolific creator of templates. I have nominated many of his templates for deletion, and theyhave been deleted. In other discussions of Tony's templates that I have seen, the templates have not been deleted (can't remember whether through a keep or a no consensus). Ryulong has been active in nominating for deletion and supporting deletion nominations of Tony's templates. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with that. The community can decide as they have. Just as Ryulong has noted that some of this discussion has reminded him that he needs to nominate more templates for deletion, so has it reminded me of the same thing. Fortunately, Tony is an obsessive documentor of what he does, so it's fairly easy to see what templates he's created. I have a note on my desk to review which onesI think should be nominated for deletion. Tony's request for a ban should be rejected.--Bbb23 (talk)01:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Considering TonyTheTiger's history, (he is topic banned from Featured Sounds and from uploading images about himself), I find the line "demonstrate an understanding of the value of the community's time and resources" coming from him to be utterly laughable. This is not the first time that TTT has launched a less than merited ban proposal in the middle of an ongoing dispute of which he is a party. He tried to have me topic banned from something or other after I proposed that he be banned from FS, so this seems indicative of a pattern by TTT. If anything, TTT should be banned from making ban proposals, as he so clearly does not know when they are appropriate.SvenManguardWha?08:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You have your facts wrong. There was no ongoing dispute when I proposed this ban. He raised the dispute in retaliation to this nomination. As for the other bans, I believe I am banned from responding or else I would set you straight on those too.--TonyTheTiger(T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)17:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Given that it seems like most of the people commenting here have interacted with Ryulong in the past, I'd like to offer my neutral view here; unless somebody can offer verifiable, objective proof that Ryulong is purposely trolling editors he's disagreed with and nominating articles in bad faith, Ryulong's actions seem perfectly within operating limits. XfD is not an obligation, as Tznkai said, and I don't see anything wrong with seeking consensus where there's a perceived lack. Now, if anyone strongly believes there's disruption, please offer a list of divs/examples of bad faith on Ryulong's part.m.o.p19:59, 20 October 2011 (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.
Possible compromised account.
User:Sitush became concerned thatUser: Ikonoblast's editsTalk:Yadav seemed to indicate that Ikonoblast's account may be compromised. I concur with that assessment--Ikonoblast is a POV pusher, but is usually uses fairly good English and makes coherent points (even though I disagree with them). That alone would not be enough to block, but Sitush raised the issue on Ikonoblast's talk page, and inIkonoblast's response, xesays, "I have never created an account on this wikipedia, even this one was created by someone else, but all edits made through this account are my own. If this is hijacking, I hijacked it before the first edit itself." If the account was not created by Ikonoblast, that seems to indicate a compromised account. Perhaps xe had some other meaning, but the danger seemed real enough to me that I blocked indefinitely as soon as I saw that comment. However, I am a little bit involved with Ikonoblast, mainly throughTalk:Yadav, so I think this should be reviewed by more eyes. My access to WP may be spotty for the next few hours, so feel free to unblock without consulting me if there's a clear consensus that I overreacted.Qwyrxian (talk)05:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
As far is CheckUser is concerned, there is nothing irregular. It would appear they themselves made the edits in question.Tiptoetytalk05:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that might make sense. I do see that Ikonoblast used to be called Holywarrior, and had a name change a while back. I did ask for xyr to clarify the meaning...again, I'm more than willing to unblock so long as we're confident the person is using the account in good stead.Qwyrxian (talk)13:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
No, but the opening statement in this thread has probably been taken literally (as I would do also), ie: Qwyrxian has no issues with an unblock going ahead if a reviewing admin is happy. It would be quicker. Look, if I am honest here, I have a few issues with Ikonoblast & I am "doing the right thing" by raising this, given that as soon as/if the block is lifted then it is likely that I have will have yet another load of repetitive talk page nonsense to deal with again. It would be in my interests just to ignore their pleas etc & get a little peace & quiet, but it would also be morally wrong. -Sitush (talk)16:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I've unblocked. I'm still a little concerned that two or more actual people may have used the account (given the history back in 2006), but I've at least clarified that that isn't allowed.Qwyrxian (talk)22:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Long-term range block requested
For the past two years, I have been encountering an IP editor in Mumbai who has been vandalizing various articles that I watch/are under the watchful eye of the WikiProject I founded. This has ranged from inserting blatantly false information while removing valid information (such as in his first incarnation) to whateverthesecan be called.
He has most recently appeared this morning under the IP59.184.42.154(talk·contribs·WHOIS) where hecompletely rewrote series summaries to things that make no sense. I have narrowed down his range to 59.184.0.0/20. This needs to be blocked for at least a year or at least until we can contact the Indian ISP to get this guy taken care of (even though I rarely find abuse reports to have any result).— ()19:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Er, I guess 59.184.0.0/18 is supposed to cover it, because this is on 59.184.32.0/20, and other IPs have been on 59.184.48.0/20. So can the /18 be blocked then?— ()20:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
This pageAlain Rolland has been fully edit protected after three hours of no activity and only three or four vandal edits in direct contravention ofWP:NO-PREEMPT, there has been no vandalism that is not excessive in comparison to article involved in the world cup such asBryce Lawrence or a number of other articles throughout Wikipedia though the admin involved has presumed that this article will become so. Until the article becomes a hotbed, standards say it should be left open and as of yet serious contentious editing has not been seen and full protection is not warranted.178.250.210.5 (talk)19:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a good call to me (non-admin) byUser:Stifle after persistent vandalism and "the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles". Also, the lock is of limited duration (3 days).--Bbb23 (talk)20:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's just one of those things where it's 99% possible that the page will be hit by vandalism by people claiming he cheated the Welsh or wanted revenge for Ireland's exit or something silly along those lines. Back to the issue, I think its up to the admin in question's discresion. I'd suggest maybe leave a message on his talk page saying why you think it shouldn't have a long block to start with.The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk)20:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I would think as I stated at the beginning it goes againstWP:NO-PREEMPT, and that as such little vandalism had been seen discretion/discresion would be that the article wasn't a serious target, and as I had left a message on the talk page I was wondering what would be the next recourse? Also I'm interested in what Bbb23 considers is persitent vandalism.178.250.210.5 (talk)20:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The edit history is fairly clear. First, there was persistent vandalism, mainly from IPs, andUser:Materialscientist semi-protected it. Then, the disruptive edits continued, even by autoconfirmed users, hence the lock. There's no magic number or amount that has to be satisfied to fully protect the article, and, as the policy says, it can be based on a reasonable assumption about the future, not just the history.--Bbb23 (talk)20:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The C, it's not a "long" block. To the IP's credit, xe raised the issue on the talk page, and Stifle referred the IP toWP:RFPU, but the IP chose to come here instead and said so, although I'm not sure why.--Bbb23 (talk)20:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Not a lot to add; controversial refereeing decision, several inappropriate edits made to the article, three-day protection while people calm down. Similar has happened at least twice before over atWayne Barnes.Stifle (talk)20:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) That's not exactly how WP works. Admins have no more discretion than any other user, they just have extra tools that allow them to enforce policy as written. However, there is no hierarchy here, we're all equal - at least in theory.NoformationTalk20:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Utter tosh, the tools are there, the block is in place against guidelines, and the hierarchical control is in place. In response to the admin, becauseWP:RFPU is usually used when I have a specific edit I wish to make instead of questioning the block in it's entirety. Though it should be noted the admin addressed the IP without taking into account the standards that were referenced.178.250.210.5 (talk)20:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Putting aside the fact that I find the phrase "utter tosh" quite amusing (American's don't talk like that :-) ), I'm not sure where you get the idea thatWP:RFPU is "usually used" for specific edits (there are templates for that). The board makes it clear it's for requesting unprotection of an article period.--Bbb23 (talk)20:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Just imagine for a minute Imight know what I'm talking about with respect to Wikipedia. An admin full-pp's an article that has seen no activity for three hours and has seen less than a handful of malicious edits. Please tell me me how doesn't that fall foul ofWP:NO-PREEMPT.178.250.210.5 (talk)20:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
It's three days protection. I can't really see that anythingneeds to be added to the article now that can't wait that long (WP:NOTNEWS), and by that time tempers will have cooled (see the note about abusive usernames above). You can always use the{{editprotected}} template for anything that you believe desperately needs to be added.Black Kite (t)(c)21:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Whether you see it needs to be added or not is not the matter of debate, this is an encycolpedia that anyone can edit. We have PP in place that is stopping new editors from editing the article with a rationale that it was heavily vandalised and that it warranted full PP in direct contravention ofWP:NO-PREEMPT. Now Black ask yourself the question why is Wikipedia driving away editors when they are confronted with this. PS I am an admin andmight know what I am talking about, call it an experiment apply the guidelines if you wish.178.250.210.5 (talk)21:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you're an admin you can edit through the protection anyway, can't you? Seriously though, this is a protection with little collateral damage.Black Kite (t)(c)22:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Call it a point of principle if you will, testing the the prevalent wiki lawyering so to speak. You neatly sidestepped the question of the PP in spite of question, so how does any article that has seen no activity for three hours get a full PP in spite ofWP:NO-PREEMPT?— Precedingunsigned comment added by178.250.210.5 (talk)22:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Now try to imagine how a new editor feels when they come against the admin brick wall. Me personally I can go against the system and can change this one poxy article, but the average editor can't. I have Wikipedia's guidelines on my side but as an IP I'm impotent. Think about it Black, or ask the WMF what they think about the loss off editors?178.250.210.5 (talk)22:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)—The preceding comment signed as by178.250.210.5 (talk •contribs) was actually added byAtomises (talk •contribs)
I'm not an admin, but it's hard to believe that you're an admin and would create this thread without being logged in. I'm not sure precisely what policy applies here (but seeWP:ADMINSOCK), but I can't believe what you're doing is permissible. Therefore, I'm assuming you're not an admin but just saying you are. I also wonder what the policy is on a user posing as an admin.--Bbb23 (talk)22:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
A rogue admin (admittedly hasn't misused the tools) goesAWOL and there's silence. Yes let's face it boys n girls there's a problem. We abuse new editors out of the system and at the same time wonder why no-one wants to play with us. I've spent a few months and after a recent message from the WMF, started to look into why we alienate editors. To be honest I realise the account that was Khukri isWP:TOAST, do I care not really. I did my bit for the project and Iwas proud of it but at the end of day everywhere is abattleground or abikeshed we play around pretending that which is unimportant isimportant and all the time with our bureaucracy and guidelines we refuse access to the very editors we need to survive. Call it someone losing the plot, a breakdown, burnout what ever make you feel happy; let's face it at the end of the day my edit count is insignificant, I'm not a Newyorkbrad or an Essjay but I've been around. I created an article on a new account and within seconds it was posted as being not notable etc. We drive editors away, not being rude but I couldn't give a fuck if you look at this as a bleeding heart story, but if you think of one new editor and try to guide him without smashing him/her with templated messages the project could survive. I've had enough, burn my accounts do what ever, at least I know if I want to change anything I can come back as an IP but I'll know the rules I need to make my edits stick, unlike all those other poor bastards. Ciao, A+, sayonara178.250.210.5 (talk)23:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what just happened here, but I'd say there's a strong case, given how long it took to say "oh, BTW, I'm _____" (and only after it was noticed...) that the "Editing logged out in order to mislead" part ofWP:ILLEGIT was violated here. -The BushrangerOne ping only04:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Where has Khukri made any "assurance that he will not repeat [his behavior] in the future, even to express good-faith concerns or frustrations regarding aspects of the project"?--Bbb23 (talk)17:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I read that decision as saying action will be taken if necessary. but in that particular case it was not thought necessary. In this particular case, whether a precautionary desysop is required is up to arb com. Whether a block might be required is up to us, and confirmed socking usually does result in blocks. As for it being a preventative block, as required, I would not necessarily take the word of a confirmed sockmaster that they are leaving Wikipedia for good as a final statement in good faith. There are too many counter-examples. DGG ( talk)22:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. It's difficult to navigate in this quagmire, at least for me. I opened aWP:SPI report on the issue of Khukri, Atomises, and the IP, who are supposedly all Khukri.User:Risker closed it with no action but with an explanation that didn't make complete sense. Seehere. I've left a message for Risker asking for clarification. I've never taken a case to arb com, so if that's the only way an admin can lose his privileges, I'm not sure if I'm ready forthat experience. I resent Khukri's deception and don't think it should be sloughed off as harmless, but I also know that some of these processes can be tiring.--Bbb23 (talk)22:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, the sockmaster wouldn't be Atomises, it'd be Khukri, with Atomises and the IP as socks. That said, Atomises is aself-admitted sockpuppet account, that was used by an admin without disclosing it was being used by said admin until it popped up here. I've blocked it accordingly. As far as actions against Khukri, anything beyond the application of a {{whale}} is up to others more experienced at Arbcomming. -The BushrangerOne ping only22:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Heh. When I first opened the report, I thought Khukri wasn't involved and the IP was posing as an admin. Then, later when I was disabused of that notion (smoke and mirrors), I added a comment to the report about Khukri. I agree Khukri is the master.--Bbb23 (talk)22:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I have a hard time believing that anyone as ill behaved as 178.250.210.5 has been in this thread can be a user that at one time received the mop, but I don't know anything about the incident other than what I've seen here, and the admittedly strange message from Risker. I've never seen her step in on a case like this before, and while Risker is, in my opinion, one of the better Arbs, I've really lost any semblance of trust I have for the committee. I say decline the unblock and block the IP for abuse of multiple accounts. If 178.250.210.5 really is Khukri, he can log in. If he scrambled his password, then this situation is a direct result of said rash action. Considering how abrasive 178.250.210.5 has been, AGF isn't forthcoming right now.SvenManguardWha?07:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll let another admin handle the unblock request, seeing as I was the blocker. I will say though that the claim of it beingWP:SOCK#LEGIT is rather spurious in my eyes: first, there was no talk-page message claiming that untilpost-facto. Having anadmin having a fully undisclosed alternate account that, had he not "slipped" at AN/I, is pretty obvious wouldnever have been disclosed, is simply unacceptable, IMHO. And the fact that he clearly used the IP here in an deliberate attempt to obsfucate who he actually was is blatant "editing logged out in order to mislead" - the fact heedited out his signature as Atomises, replacing it with the IP, simply makes it more blatant misleading, and his behavior here - as Sven mentions - was simply atrocious. -The BushrangerOne ping only08:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I have declined the unblock request. It is perfectly clear that the 178.250.210.5/Atomises combination was used in attempts to deceive. The claims of legitimate reason are not, as far as I can see, backed up by any clear explanation of what the legitimate reason is. I am making no judgement as to whether or not Khukri is also the same person, as claimed by 178.250.210.5/Atomises.JamesBWatson (talk)09:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Anexplanation was provided, and according toWP:SOCK#LEGIT, "long-term users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users". Logging out is not mentioned, but the purpose may be the same. Also the block seems to be punitive, and is against an account that isn't being used disruptively. The change of signature doesn't look like an attempt to mislead - it would be more misleading for the comments to remain signed with different names.Peter E. James (talk)16:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, something was given that could be regarded as explaining the creation of a second account ("So I decided to create an account to write about what I do know about, particle accelerators, where very few editors can stick their nose in and minimise as I mentioned above the bikeshed issue"). However, I have yet to see any explanation of the combination of that second account with logged out edits that contradicts the impression that it was the intention to give the impression of being two different users. Moreover, the editor referred to editing this page using the account name rather than anonymously as a "screw up", which strongly suggests to me that the intention was to hide the fact that it was the same user. I don't see any gross abuse, but I do see what looks very much like a concerted attempt to deceive.JamesBWatson (talk)18:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that some action has been taken against the participants in this deception, but I still don't understand whyUser:Khukri has not been blocked. I left a message onUser:Risker's Talk page ([78]) about her closure of the SPI report, but, thus far, there's been no response.--Bbb23 (talk)00:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I did consider whether Khukri should be blocked. However, I cannot really see any serious abuse, apart from, as I said above, the clear attempt to make the 178.250.210.5/Atomises combination look like two different people. Preventing the user from using multiple accounts/IPs to give such a misleading impression seems to me legitimate, but as long as only one account is used that is not a problem, and I don't see any serious abuse that would justify trying to prevent the user from editing at all. That being so, I see no justification for blocking the user's original account. Another point worth mentioning is that, so far as I know, the only evidence that Khukri is in fact the same person as 178.250.210.5/Atomises is anonymous posts by 178.250.210.5 saying so. IS that reliable enough evidence to block Khukri?JamesBWatson (talk)18:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I have a few points. First, wouldn't a checkuser indicate whether Khukri is related to the IP or Atomises. I confess I don't understand how checkuser works, so I don't know the answer. Second, given that Khukri is an admin, can't he be asked directly if he is the IP? Third, assuming Khukriis the master of the IP, why is his failure to disclose who he is on this board not sufficiently severe to warrant a block?--Bbb23 (talk)00:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I saw this in passing, and had to comment. I was a reasonably frequent contributor to content and images but retired (some time back) due in large part to the templating, wikilawyering and "boys club" atmosphere which, to my mind, makes wikipedia annoying to established users who want to contribute content, and downright intimidating to new users. I made a mess of scrambling my password when retiring, so I can still log in... When I retired I made a few edits as an IP to see what happened, and edits which would have been fine as Begoon were instantly reverted as an IP. Seems to me that was the point to this "experiment" unless I'm reading it wrongly. Also seems to me that there is a whole wall of text above discussing blocks, socks, deception etc, and not one word related to the result of the "experiment". I realise this is the Admin Incident board - so maybe not the best place to discuss such an experiment - and maybe even not the best way to have performed it - I won't judge that. But itdoes speak volumes to me that in the haste to wikilawyer some "remedy" for the incident, one is left with thereal elephant in the room - that WP is unwelcoming for IP/new users, and that goes almost without comment once again. Maybe discussing blocks, deception and bans is easier or more fun than contemplating the need for culture change if it is desired to encourage new contributors? Or maybe it's easier not to encourage them at all, because they are "hard work" to embrace? Yes, I know, this is where admins do adminny stuff - but I do recommend a sense of perspective...(now /me shuffles off back to obscurity again...)•06:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
If there is an elephant in the room, which end of the elephant are we looking at. "edits which would have been fine as [registered user] were instantly reverted as an IP" - is it that we're too tough on IPs/newbies (as you state)...or are we too lenient on experienced editors' edits? -The BushrangerOne ping only23:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
That's an interesting question. I think there may be a little of what you suggest sometimes, in that the recent changes people will tend to AGF more with experienced editors than with new/IP editors. However, although it's a neat way to look at the question from another angle, the net result is the same: ie, there is more of a chance for a new/IP editor to have edits reverted or articles tagged for deletion soon after creation. Now, because the new editor probably has no idea what is going on, he just sees some templates or warnings he doesn't understand, his content vanishes - and then, in an unknown number of cases, the editor may decide that if that is his reception he may vanish too. If he looks around and sees that established people don't seem to be treated like that, he may well assume that it's either all too hard, or that he's an "outsider" and possibly unwanted. I think it's important to remember this difference. In the same situation an experienced user would know how to react to his content being removed - the new user probably won't. Some will care enough to learn "the ropes" - but some won't. It's an unknown how often the ones that don't would have become good contributors given better initial treatment, and more help - but while it's unknown, it's almost certainly not zero - so it's a concern. These are theories - but I think I'm probably not alone in feeling this way - and when, it seems, maintaining and increasing editor contributions is a concern, maybe this aspect of the incident deserves more attention, rather than being drowned in the blizzard of block, sock, investigate and legislate that I see above. As a side note - I have a quote onmy User Page about our image practices which is somewhat related, and I'd recommend as many people who care to read that, too. It just seems to me that far too often these considerations are too far from mind when action is taken. •23:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I recently participated as an IP for a few days, trying to send talk page messages, which were blanked by third parties. I can help y'all on this: IP editors are treated like shit around here and the quicker we move to Sign In To Edit, the better off the project will be.Carrite (talk)04:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't speak for every IP, but if I don't use an edit summary I can almost count on my edit being reverted. I learned that years ago, so I know that I must be sure to include anaccurate andintelligent edit summary and my edit usually is left alone. On more contentious articles, as an IP, I find I also have to include a ref on practically every edit or I find it reverted. Meh, NBD, that's the price of using a dynamic IP. When I used to use an account and did RC patrol, an editor's or IP's contribution history sometimes played a part in reverting, so if it is an iffy edit and there is very little contribution history -- revert (is that profiling? or just doing due diligence?). Whenever established editors bring their results as an IP to light, it usually includes them beingdicks, soto hell with them. --64.85.214.75 (talk)13:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - that's valuable, and kind of confirms what we're talking about, in a way. I'm pretty much at the point where this is a "deal breaker" for me, and I feel so strongly that culture change is needed before the WP environment is something I want to be a part of any more. Problem is - given that, I should be willing to contribute to building the change I desire. But where? Give me a couple of dozen respected editors/admins who agree that this is a critical thing to do, and some light at the end of the tunnel that change *can* happen, and a "place" to help work it all out, and I'll be back instantly, throwing my all in with that group to help that come true. It's not the kind of sweeping change one simple soul like me can contemplate having any influence on alone, though, unfortunately :-( Other than that - sorry to bore you all - but still glad to have shared these thoughts. •17:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I confess not to being a big fan of IP editing. However, I havenever reverted an IP's edit just because it didn't have an edit summary. God knows there are enough registered editors who don't include edit summaries, which ticks me off even more because, theoretically, they should know better. Withvery limited exceptions (a pattern of destructive edits, for example, by the same editor), I always look at the merits of an edit before deciding whether to revert.--Bbb23 (talk)00:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Cossde and Nalanda College Colombo
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Your behaviour and attitude towards Nalanda College Colombo is appauling. I know that you are a highly decorated and awarded wikipedian. This time you even put "Nalanda Central College Colombo". What's next name on the list ? (Masu7 (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC))
I think their issue seems to stem from the vast amount of images that they upload and which then gets deleted for not having the correct fair use rationale. Masu7 has done some extensive editing on the article, but it's pretty hard to follow from the history since there are no edit summaries. Presumably they are talking about this edit[79]--Blackmane (talk)23:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I am reporting about User: CossdeHe is deliberately attacking this web page and this time gone too far (Nalanda Central College Colombo). He seems to think that he only knows English and every thing he writes only is correct. I have gone through the pages that he had edited most and he is mostly inclined towards slinging mud towards a good looking and well written page likeNalanda College Colombo. Can a single user just because he is got highly decorated awards by wikipedia keep doing like this ? Nalanda College Colombo has got a high rate given by the viewers too. May be this guy is jealous of this. Will keep writing useful translations to SINHALA as well. In reality this school has it's own web pages nicely done on internet too.(Masu7 (talk)01:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)).
You are supposed to notify users when you report them here, I have done this for you. On the topic, you haven't provided any evidence of wrong doing.NoformationTalk01:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Thanking you so much. Well my question is "Why is this user Cossde is not allowing me to name this article as Nalanda College, Colombo. He is always reverting it back to either Nalanda Vidyalaya or Nalanda Maha Vidyalaya and this time have been so smart and added (Nalanda Central College Colombo) within brackets. This shows what his attitude even though he is won so many awards from wikipedia. In that case I myself (I am talented and fluent in English too although my native language is not English) too have immensly contributed so many pages both in Sinhala and English even though I have no user page created for myself. Cossde may think that he is the only person who knows correct English and he is the only person who is honest and reporting extremely accurately. I strongly suggest that a senior administrator should keep an eye on his editing and attitude as well.(Masu7 (talk)02:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)).
You need to post the ANI message to a user's talk page, not here - we can obviously see you've started the thread, but it doesn't notify the person you're complaining about by posting the template here. Anyway, his edit summary says "move to name registered under government." I haven't checked that this is true, but if that is what the source says then why would we use anything else? A name officially recognized by a government is probably the best bet. Also, this is a content dispute, which is not dealt with on this board.WP:ANI is for administrator attention, meaning that someone is breaking policy is a serious way. Content disputes are handled on article talk pages, and if that doesn't work out you can tryWP:3O andWP:DR. On top of that, it would be better if you didn't attempt to confer bad motives or even try to ascribe motives to Cossde - you don't know what s/he thinks about other user's English skills and I would advise that you read a very important WP policy calledassuming good faith.NoformationTalk03:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Thislink was posted toCossde's talk page where an IP user has logged a page of disgruntled posts detailing their naming dispute. It's basically an attack page on how Cossde has been changing the references of Old Royalists to Alumni of various colleges in Sri Lanka back in Nov 2010. (I might nominate this for MfD) Basically this is boiling down to a content dispute which hasn't actually been discussed on any talk page. Masu7 has posted the same text they posted here on Cossde's talk page, which reeks ofbad faith andownership of the article.Having a look at Masu7's contribs, they're obviously aWP:SPA, not in a bad way, devoted to editing anything related to the Nalanda college. The problem is that this user has been here since 2007 and has a few thousand edits of which I can count on barely two hands the number of times they've used an edit summary.I suggest that Masu7 actually talk to Cossde and discuss the edits before hurling accusations at them. --Blackmane (talk)08:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, since I was named here, just wanted to say that my recent edits have been to rectify a naming anomaly on the articles since the name used in theSri Lankan GovernemntGazette[80]. The name stated Nalanda Maha Vidyalaya, translated to English it means Nalanda Big College, however Maha Vidyalaya is the name given to a form of government run schools known as central colleges hence the Nalanda Maha Vidyalaya would mean Nalanda Central College. Since it appeared so on the Sri Lankan Governemnt Gazette I renamed the articles accordingly as its a government school.Cossde (talk)13:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Yes you are named here (a complaint about user Cossde) no doubt. This user seem to make words according to his/her own wish and still dominate and specifically target Nalanda College Colombo. It is extremely interesting to read user Cossde history pages [It's basically an attack page on how Cossde has been changing the references of Old Royalists to Alumni of various colleges in Sri Lanka back in Nov 2010. (I might nominate this for MfD) - please do so if Wikipedia has got a proper administration, I request as any one who understands English and read this page can understand what Cossde's motive is]. This is a classic clear cut of this user's [Cossde] ATTITUDE (specially towards other schools other than Highly Esteemed Royal College Colombo). I am amazed as to how this user got so many awards from Wikipedia. I am [user Masu7] not a super speaker of English or have no super understanding of millions of rules that are on Wikipedia web site (I think majority of users are in same boat as me). (Masu7 (talk)01:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)).
First of all, do not keep putting up the ANI notice template at the start of each of your posts. I've just done some map searching on Google Maps. The two names refer to different locations. A search for Nalanda College Colombo locates to central Colombo (next to Ananda as the article says) while a search for Nalanda Maha Vidyalaya locates to separate girls and boys schools in Minuwangoda. To make things even mroe confusing, there is another Nalanda Maha Vidyalaya article for an obscure school in Elpitiya which Google maps locates to another Ananda College. I think the editors need to hash out which schools they're talking about before going back to the article. Masu7 please refrain from attacking editors when you have not attempted to discuss the article content at all. Also, Cossde's "awards" are not from Wikipedia, they are signs of appreciation of their work by other editors here. Any editor can place an "award" on any other editor's user page. Please readthis policy. --Blackmane (talk)11:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
You are right about the Google Maps search. Wiki Article in question is the one that locates to central Colombo (next to Ananda as the article says). I am talking about Nalanda College in Colombo and below are the related sites both in English and Sinhala:
If for example Royal College is searched you get a Royal College Panadura[81], Royal College Polonnaruwa[82] etc. If some one wants to carry on the debate it will be never ending. It is not confusing. This is not a personal attack on any editor at all. It is just a fact that I am presenting to Wiki Administrators regarding none other than editor Cossde. If the administrators go through this users actions it is not hard to understand at all. I too appreciate the good work done by editor Cossde but not his attitude specially focussed to the site that I am concerned.(Masu7 (talk)00:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)).
This should be closed now. It's not admin actionable and has gone on longer than it needed to have. Masu7, you need to go back to the article talk page, which you should have used in the first place without attacking Cossde, to discuss the issue you havecivilly. --Blackmane (talk)22:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I looked into it and blocked a couple of proxies. Their actual IP seems to be on a very busy range, so a rangeblock may not be a good option. Have you considered semi-protection?TNXMan15:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
For background on this, seeWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:SqueakBox and paid editing (again). Basically Squeak was editing for money and acting like that was not the case and/or not communicating at all. After that last discussion in January he has posted a few times on his talk page but there is no evidence of socking or any other disruption in the last 10 months. He has beencontributing at the Spanish language WP without any trouble. It appears he has met, and exceeded the terms of thestandard offer. And, most importantly, he has finally provided the "clear explanation and acknowledgement of what has happened" that has been repeatedly request of him, which I am copying over from his talk page
Yes. I was wrong to take on work using elance/odesk style online work web sites for clients who were looking, for whatever reason, to have a wikipedia article page either enhanced or created, and wronmg as well to not openly declare my COI in these cases. I was getting these jobs by searching "wikipedia" on these websites and thus finding the clients. This of course immediately created COI issues for me while editing, and I was not forthcoming about these COI issues even after I had already been warned once about this. I continued to seek these jobs and even though I had agreed to in future admit any possible COI issues I then completely failed to do so, which is why I was blocked. If unblocked I would certainly agree to admitting any COI issues on articles I edited, whether that COI involved payment or not, but I would also absolutely not work for payment in the future, and indeed my intention would be to avoid editing articles where I could be considered to have a COI. I have actually read a policy proposal here that says that a site-widfe block should be imposed for accepting payment in this way so I understand wikipedia is taking this issue very seriosuly and that what I did was harming the project, both in the accepting of payment and the COI issues and will certainly ensure that I do not repeat if you are kind enough to unblock me. Thanks, ♫SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 19:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
As his block was basically instituted and upheld by discussion here I am bringing his unblock request here for discussion. Thoughts?Beeblebrox (talk)19:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm for unblocking. Obviously, this is a pretty serious offense to come back from, but everybody deserves a second chance. Under a watchful eye, of course.m.o.p19:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Unblock - Never saw any point in blocking paid editors. Regardless, he's done what was expected under the standard offer, so unban and unblock without restriction. -Burpelson AFB✈20:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Support unblock- seems like the user has an understanding of the issues that caused the block and is making a statement that he is going to avoid those actions - no evidence of socking during block - not sure in what way they intend to contribute but If repeat issues arise then reblocking is easy - He seems like a decent writer , if this request is successful, perhaps as a starting point he would attempt to assist at theWP:GA review backlog. -Off2riorob (talk)20:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Support unblock; behavior last year was a bit silly but a long time ago now and all appearances are that lessons have been learned. --John (talk)20:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Support unblock--The long and positive history vastly outweighs the restricted negative. I doubt it will happen again, which would be the only reason for continuing the block.Bielle (talk)20:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose unblock as it is unfair that one "editor" gets paid for his/her "contributions", while the rest who devote their spare time are given nothing. It's like being paid to brush your teeth, you shouldn't be rewarded for every single task.!xmcuvg2MH01:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Unblocked
I'veboldly unblocked this user per the above and my understanding of theprevious discussion seems to be that the denial of unblock was largely based on the user's refusal to admit and describe what happened. As the user has done that now and there seems to be strong support so far, I've unblocked the user.--v/r -TP20:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Support. Both the original block and this unblock were appropriate given SqueakBox's past and current statements. Glad to have him back and reformed. Will Bebacktalk22:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I was highly involved in the incidents that led to SqueakBox being blocked, having confronted him about several of the COI articles that he wrote. Despite this, I was of the opinion (and still am) that the initial block was a little harsh due to his previous work. This unblock request appears genuine and I'm glad that he's being given a second chance. It goes without saying that reneging on his unblock statement would be grounds for a reblock.ThemFromSpace02:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is not the first timeHullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk·contribs) is being reported on this board (a first quick glance shows such reports asthis one,this one,this one andthis one, among others, which have similar complaints). For the last few months, I've often noticed this user massively blanking properly sourced information from different articles. Not even once has he (or she, but I'll refer to him as he to ease the discussion) bothered to discuss his drastic changes on a talk page. He blanks entire paragraphs or even sections, and very often leaves orphaned references which he does not even bother to fix. His edit summaries are often short, little-detailed sentences which include such (sorry for saying this) excuses as "BLP", "tabloid". But what exactly is violated he never really says, and he does not seem to care whether someone disagrees with him on that. I'd warned him once (and so did many other editors in regard to this behaviour, from what I see) but it didn't help. He keeps doing the same, and if he is reverted, he just keeps edit warring until the other party gives up.
Today it was the last straw when he didthis on theShilpa Shetty article. This section, which is properly sourced, well-written, and which has been on the article for several years now and never objected, is just blanked completely, without any notice or attempt at discussion on the talk page. I've warned him, reverted him and asked him to discuss it first on the talk page. He reverted me and sent me back two hostile warnings. His last edit summary says (in response to my request to discuss the changes), "That's not how Wikipedia handles such BLP problems." So, is this now a problem? And is this really the way such problems are handled on Wikipedia, just removed completely without any prior notice? It certainly is not. Only after reverting me again, did he start a discussion on WP:BLPN.
I think it's high-time some action is taken against this user. I really don't feel like wanting to contribute (and I'm not the one who had added this info back in time) to the project when such destructive editing is done. I may even agree in parts withthe removal of some stuff, but not in this way.Shahid •Talk2me23:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I support the HW's removal and the content shouldn't be replaced without a rewrite of the content - it was undue and needed removing. I was surprised that User:Shshshsh chose to twice revert the disputed content back into the article after its good faith removal. User;HW opened a report at the BLPN about the removal and about the content -Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Shilpa Shetty - Theres nothing to report here, the content was undue and needs rewriting and trimming and it can and imo should stay out while we discuss it.Off2riorob (talk)00:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a lot to report here. You may agree with his massive blanks, but there may be others who don't. This info, which is perfectly sourced, has been here for years. It cannot be removed out of the blue without discussion. He started a BLPN discussion, as I said, only after reverting the article back. The info must be back and then edited after a discussion. If you think it's undue, then fine, discuss it on the talk page, where no one else has ever been against it.Shahid •Talk2me00:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no intention of discussing content with you here. I support HW's removal followed by discussion which can be done at the report he opened and a rewrite with consensus that its balanced and a replacement - Also - there is a bot that turns up and rescues the refs - its already been to visit the Shetty article and repaired them.Off2riorob (talk)00:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The mafia stuff has to go. Part of it is completely unsourced and the rest is a ridiculously huge andWP:UNDUE section which isn't actually about her, however well it is sourced. And perWP:BLP, where there are BLP issues the material should be removed andthen discussed at the talkpage or elsewhere. Anyway, no admin action is going to be taken here, so I'll archive this for the discussion to continue at BLPN.Black Kite (t)(c)00:33, 21 October 2011 (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.
I can't imagine anyone who pays attention around here not having the exact same thought run through their minds at least once. Quite frankly, I consider the simple editing of an Eastern European article to be grounds for at least a short term block. Anyone that does so is obviously up to no good...VanIsaacWScontribs04:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Since sometimes I talk with Hobartimus I have left his page on my watchlist - and noticed this. I can`t say anything pro or against this report (although I don`tthink(my personal opinion) Hobartimus is "guilty" here except for some bad reverts ) but consideringevery editor from Eastern Europe (or editing this kind of articles) for a "quick" ban is ridiculous. Generalizations are alwaysbad. Certainly there aremuch more constructive editors than otherwise. Should we all pay the price? I guess other regions of the world don`t have any vandalism and etc... Everything is just "peachy" there :).. I guess this is the price for the encyclopedia thateveryone can edit. If Administrators would just react on reports and really took them into consideration like it was here1;2 things would get along (not leaving the majority of them "unsolved"). I myself have noticed how Eastern Europe articles have been "quiet" since some users got banned, that doens`t mean there should be a special rule for all editors. It would also be great if some administrator would live in Eastern Europe and that he would supervise this region`s reports.Adrian (talk)06:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Multiple accounts, all pretty muchWP:SPA, using these articles as promotional vehicles, continually removing maintenance and AFD templates. I've surely reverted the deletion of templates too many times, but I suspect this is one account gaming the system with sockpuppets, intent on promoting himself and his book. Help please.99.12.242.170 (talk)01:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I apologize if this is not the correct place to post this, but I think we have some sockpuppetry onMatt Fullerty, according to the history of it. Specifically, I'mj talking about the three most recent "redlink" accounts to have edited it:Elmyrdehory (talk·contribs),Jameshogue (talk·contribs), andPaulmorphy900 (talk·contribs). Not only have they seemed to edit in tandem, (it always seems to be a straight amount of edits, then switching to another account and doing it again) they have also been removing the{{pressrelease}},{{refimprove}}, and{{notability}} tags repeatedly. An IP editor seems to have taken notice and seems to be helping, re-adding the templates when one of them removes it. They too think it is one person abusing multiple accounts. Can I get an admin on this?LikeLakers2 (talk |Sign my guestbook!)01:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
That's some pretty strong sockpuppetry. I'll check these out and see what's to be done - in the meantime, LikeLakers, you're welcome to submit asockpuppet investigation report for a CheckUser to investigate. Thanks,m.o.p02:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
All of the listed accounts (Jameshogue, Henrygeorge900, Elmyrdehory, and Paulmorphy900) areConfirmed matches to each other. No other accounts present.Elockid(Talk)02:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and indefinitely blocked each involved account. I've also disallowed talk page access to all but Paulmorphy900, seeing how that account was created first. Tagging as we speak.m.o.p02:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
He hasn't been warned of any problems with his editsand hasn't been notified of this thread (as there is no talk page).WP:AIV would be the place to take this if the warnings fail and the editor still won't communicate after those warnings.Doctalk07:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Some time ago, I noticed thatMen's rights seemed to be doing an exceptionally poor job at following content policies - especiallyWP:RS/WP:NPOV/WP:NOR. The article in the state before (diff) I started editing it had amazing problems. As a brief examples, from the lede: "The term men's rights refers to freedoms and rights of boys and men. This term is specifically related to focusing on rights which are protected for girls and women of all ages, yet inadequately protected for boys and men of all ages" - an unsourced ridiculously POV statement. There was tons of other silliness further in the article. I started cleaning it up, and discussed the majority of things that I removed on the talk page. I also put up alist of the criteria that I was using to remove sections just to try to be absolutely clear about why I thought the removals were necessary. My initial edits did end up removing most of the content in the article, because most of the content in the article completely failed to follow even our most basic sourcing policies. I didn't add much content after this set of removals because I didn't have enough time to rewrite the article from scratch - acceptable quality sources are remarkably hard to find.
Most of the positions initially espoused in the article were from 'men's rights activists.' I'm not going to try to sum up their world view, but a quick google is informative. A few days ago, a large number of MRA websites noticed thatmen's rights had been changed, and have started a bunch of external threads about the issue, and about me and other contributors.User:SarahStierch posted a list of some of these external posts atUser_talk:Steven_Zhang - instead of trying to recompile them, I'm just going to directly steal her list.
Wiki Reeks a major figure in the men's rights movement canvases his supporters and followers to take on Wikipedia.
Boycott Wikipedia features references to a variety of users including a number of users who are innocent in this "conflict" between men's rights.
Here's an example of the tone of offsite discussions about this:
"Let’s show hippy boy what the real world is like. Perhaps we should tell everyone at UC Berkeley what a rotten person Kevin Gorman is. How he raped men’s rights. How about a few “castrate Kevin Gorman” signs posted all over the place. Maybe we can get some of the faculty to denounce Kevin Gorman and hound him until he has no space to escape from what he has done. Let’s go for blood."
The external threads have attacked many editors in ridiculous ways, and have brought a huge number of meatpuppets to the article. (They've also branched in to off-wiki harassment, spamming the hell out of a couple email addresses they could find of people they thought were connected to me.) The flood of meatpuppets have not been familiar with our policies, and have generally proven unwilling to follow our policies when made aware of them. Jayhammers (currently blocked for two weeks) was blocked for violating NPA forthis and a couple other things. A huge number of other meatpuppets atTalk:Men's rights have failed to respect AGF, to the point of being unwilling to discuss content issues and continually trying to hijack discussions of content issues with allegations of my motives, even after being asked to stop repeatedly (including being asked to stop by uninvolved administrators.)
There have also been reoccurring complaints from the meatflood about a lot of ENWP's most basic policies, especiallyWP:RS andWP:NOR. The new editors drawn to this issue have generally not understood (or been willing to understand) that Wikipedia articles are based on reliable, published sources, and that we should try to represent views in a way that is roughly proportionate to the proportion of people who hold those views in reliable sources. Most of the flood of new editors don't understand whymen's rights cannot simply reflect the views of men's rights activists, and have not been willing to engage in civil discussions or in discussions based on our content policies and guidelines. A lot of them have explicitly said that any sources that are not pro-MRA (by which they mean any academic sources at all) are not acceptable in their eyes. (I haven't tried to keep the article in the trimmed state, and I do know that the state of the article when the offsite canvassing started was pretty bad - I am/would be happy to see it improved, I just don't thinkWP:RS/WP:NOR are negotiable policies.)
There have been some previous discussions about this on several administrative places so far - there was aRequest for mediation opened by now blockedUser:Jayhammers that was denied for fairly obvious reasons. There was a thread onDRN opened byUser:Hermiod earlier, which has since been closed as an inappropriate venue. After the DRN thread was closed, Hermiod opened aWikiquette alert, which is currently open.
Given the level of meatpuppetry and offsite harassment this has generated, it needs more outside eyes - it's gotten to a point where it's pretty clearly no longer resolvable by the participants currently involved. I have not tried to include a complete summary of the behavioral issues involved in this post, just because it would take me eons to compile. Most of the problems are fairly obvious from the talk page of the article and from the other links and diffs I have already included, but I'd be happy to provide specific diffs for any issues.
I will start notifying involved editors as soon as I submit this. Since there are so many involved editors, I am not confident that I shall notify everyone required - please feel free to notify anyone that I miss. (Also, there were a couple editors (likeUser:TickTock2) who showed up earlier on who made an active effort to discuss things civilly - I don't at all mean to include them in my complaints about the behavior of new editors in general.)Kevin (talk)17:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I have nothing to do with the above men's rights groups or Reddit and I do not appreciate the connection. If the above threats against you are true then I can only offer my sympathy, but I did not and do not engage in such disgusting behaviour. Whatever dispute you and I may have, the things that have been said about you there are unacceptable. I have tried and continue to try to improve Men's Rights as an article and have seen your behaviour as obstructive to that. I tried to engage with you in a friendly manner and was met with more stick waving.Hermiod (talk)17:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I can generally support kgorman's summary of this situation; I've been putting out small fires in this topic area with my admin hat on all week, and it's simply beyond one admin's ability to control at this point, with too many people involved and too many accusations being flung. Offsite harassment is occurring, both on the reddit threads kgorman notes above and in real life, with the place of employment of at least one "anti-men's rights"-labelled article editor having been contacted. It's clear that the men's rights advocates genuinely believe they're being victimised and shunted aside, but it's also clear, at least to me, that there is adistinct lack among them of willingness to read or understand Wikipedia policies. Editors who object to followingWP:RS and similarare going to find themselves running into a brick wall very quickly, and without the ability to back up and understand the policies, they'll never quite understand why that wall suddenly appeared "out of nowhere".A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)17:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, I do not appreciate this continuing link between a relatively minor dispute between myself and kgorman and the threats made against him. I have read all of the relevant policies and I understand them. There are parts I disagree with but that is not the discussion here.Hermiod (talk)18:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hermiod, you're assuming that you're the only one involved here besides Kgorman. There's a number of editors on both sides of the issue here, not just you.Alexandria(talk)18:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Having been involved with the article in question and the discussion of it for the past several days, whatever edit warring that has taken place that has caused the article to be locked has stopped. I have been trying to contribute to the article in a positive manner, as have several others. Locking it was completely unnecessary and will only serve to drive good users away. I raised a specific, but relatively minor issue between myself and Kgorman as a request for informal moderation earlier today. It was not an attempt to cause this article to be locked.Hermiod (talk)18:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad it was locked, though I doubt it will change the tense situation on the talk page. If it drives away good editors that are causing problems, so be it. Or perhaps they will move on to edit other articles about subjects they are interested in. The issues between you and Kgorman have moved beyond just the two of you, it's Wikipedia, there is a community involved. And to say that WP policies are irrelevant is not very helpful to the situation at all. They are being reiterated by Kgorman, Fluffer, Kaldari, myself, and others because people aren't listening. That is a problem.SarahStierch (talk)18:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I did not say ALL WP policies are irrelevant or that I disagreed with the policies quoted, only that the specific policies quoted were not relevant to the edits being made.Hermiod (talk)18:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I've upped protection on the article to full for one week. Hopefully that'll stop a lot of the disruption and give everyone time to go over the sources to be had on this topic and find a way to deal with them.Gwen Gale (talk)18:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I've added a note on the talk page[90] but I'll just add here that the approach which is being taken to editing that article is exactly backwards, and cannot possibly result in an article which meets our standards and policies.KillerChihuahua?!?18:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I've replied to both of you separately. As I've said, the list I posted was a list of suggestions, not an outline, which I explicitly asked people to contribute to with the intention of discussion what does and does not need to go in to the articlebefore people go in and start adding it. As you've both pointed out, I didn't make enough of a point about requiring sources so I've corrected that and your points about writing a list of opinions and then citing sources that support those opinions is well taken.Hermiod (talk)18:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
On a topic like this, one will tend to find lots of more or less reliable sources which don't agree. Echoing this is a pith of writing a neutral article. There's a mossy old saying here, that if a reader can't tell one's outlook on a topic by how they've written and sourced it, encyclopedic neutrality isn't far off.Gwen Gale (talk)18:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I surely hope the article doesn't get unlocked - I feel it's a lost cause to hope contributors on this article will hash out their issues. Like KC said, there is a really bizarre method of editing going on here and things were rather peaceful until recently - it takes time to develop a quality article, regardless of what side you lie on, and this frantic madness that has happened with meatpuppets and old editors coming out of the woodwork who didn't seem to care until now is just strange, and overwhelms the original goals of editors involved over the past two months.SarahStierch (talk)18:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'd agree also with Kevin's summary. I am utterly appalled by the external (and internal) attacks on him. Though not altogether surprised given past experience with men's rights activists on WP such asRich Zubaty and friends, andUser:Davidrusher. I really am sorry, Kevin. It's as clear reason as they come for why many of us hide behind pseudonyms, and why even then, many are reluctant to try and edit these articles. I think the full protection will help, as it will allow editors to discuss issues like appropriate sourcing and avoiding original research. --Slp1 (talk)18:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully, some positive contributions will be madehere in the meantime, then, but please do not tar everyone with an interest with the same brush.Hermiod (talk)18:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to sound off here, even though my view point may not be completely necessary; I've worked with some of the editors (such asKevin andLikaTika) for the past month (or two), I admit keeping this article NPOV has been challenging, as some of the additions (and removals) are very POV sensitive. I criticized some of the approach (such as UNDUE on women's issues), and was working to expand and move it towards the right direction, and I believe that we were working towards a good goal. This rash of new editors however has not been positive (in as afar as advancing the article) and some of them have not appears to be working in good faith, I hope my mind will be changed in that matter, but right now it's decisively so. If what Kevin is saying is true, then I find this even more so unsettling and corrective action is necessary (what that is I'm unsure of). My thoughts are with him to hope it doesn't impact his life anymore.TickTock2 (talk)19:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
<ec>Looking over the talk page, I've got to say thatKevin has made some statements and edits that I find very disappointing. The article is certainly a mess and could really use a lot of help. But removing a section because the source didn't specifically mention men's rights[91] is takingWP:SYNTH too far. If a source claims there is a disparity without claiming the disparity is related to "men's rights" that doesn't mean we can't address the disparity an article on "men's rights".
On the other side I agree there is very (very) little academically on this topic that doesn't come from a "negative" viewpoint. But that's the way it goes. Those arguing to create an article on the basis of blog posts need to really understand WP:RS and "verifiable not truth" (yes, I know that might be going away, here's a good case for why it's important!). But reliable sources shouldn't be tossed out just because one editor believes them to be a synth problem, even if (especially if?) that editor is an intern at Wikipedia...Hobit (talk)19:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It isn't so muchWP:Synth asWP:OR. The meatpuppets have been trying to frame all kinds of disparitiesDisparities in life expectancy, disparities in conviction rates, disparities in parental leave, disparities in college graduation rates etc. as discrimination against men without support from sources. If a source doesn't say that A is caused by B and an editor claims a -> B based on the source then he is engaging in WP:OR and misrepresenting the source. Kevin was justified to delete that section. I admire him for staying so polite and calm when Hermiod has been speculating about his motives. --Sonicyouth86 (talk)19:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
My reasoning here was pretty much the same as Sonic's. Although the sources confirmed that a difference did exist, and did speculate on its origins a little bit, none of them made anything approaching a definitive statement w/r/t what they thought the cause was. Absolutely none of the sources in that article at the time suggested that the disparities were a civil rights issue. Using sources to advance a POV that is not present in those sources is OR/synthesis, even if the sources are reliable. If this article was about 'differences between men and women that have been documented in reliable sources' then it wouldn't have been original research, but including such a thing in an article on "men's rights" implies strongly that the disparity is a rights issue - and none of the sources contained that POV.Kevin (talk)20:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Whereas I am expected to keep quiet when people like you accuse me of all sorts. You've linked me without any hint of proof to those making threats against people I'd never even heard of before yesterday. I've had an account here for years and made a considerable number of small but positive edits. The behaviour of some experienced Wikipedia users here has been nothing short of shameful. At not one point has anything I or several others have tried to contribute been treated with the same assumption of good faith that we are expected to show. Let there be no doubt about this, if there is an edit war here it is one manufactured by a few users who have not acted in good faith in any way.Hermiod (talk)20:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not really on topic for here, but I'd agree with Kevin that original research and synth is a major problem, and one that needs to be nipped in the bud. One way of narrowing the problem is to insist that sources identify this as a men's rights issue to provide some context. Example at hand:this edit whose sources don't mention men's rights but cherry picks one statistic from a long list in the "opposite" direction in order to make an obvious point. Adding random points from different articles, not one of which mentions men's rights, just not the way to create an article and is clearly synthesizing to make a point. --Slp1 (talk)19:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
At this point, if you are questioning the validity of a BBC News - possibly the most trusted news agency in the world - article about the exact subject at hand then I cannot see any point in discussing this with you further. I suggest deleting all mention of men's rights from Wikipedia entirely if that is the standard for sources because no source will ever be good enough.Hermiod (talk)19:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I am one of the editors who has editedmen's rights a couple of times. I got involved because I noticed that claims were being made that were not supported by the sources[92].Biggest problem in my opinion: Sources are added in the hopes that editors won't check them and see that they don't support the claims. Despite the fact that I haven't really been involved, I was mentioned on one of those men's rights blogs (they think that I am a wicked Marxist or something). I am at a point where I refuse to edit articles that have anything to do with men's rights because I don't want one of those dudes showing up on my doorstep. Harassing editors until they quit is exactly what they want so unfortunately, in my case, mission accomplished. This is thesecond big canvassing incident from men's rights activists that I witnessed since I returned in March/April this year. The first incident was a post on antimisandry.com which urged "masculinist soldiers" to "improve" the articlefeminism. The incident resulted inUser:Zimbazumba's ban. He also continued to swear up and down that he had nothing to do with that "disgusting" site. Judging by the comments, those men's rights guys plan to take down Wikipedia by destroying its credibility or something... I am convinced that the problems could be avoided if the community were not so apathetic when it comes to gender related articles. --Sonicyouth86 (talk)19:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm reading through this article for the first time and I'm concerned that the scope and focus of the article is just too vague to be viable on wikipedia. There's stuff here about ancient greece and Pakistan and divorce in the US and its very unclear what the common theme is beyond "Disparities in the treatment of men and women by law and institutions across history and cultures". Are there sources which connect, say, church policies to only ordain men with the percentage of men who file for divorce in the US with the military obligations of men in Ancient Greece under the framework of men's rights? If not, than I think throwing all that stuff into the same "men's rights" article is original research. My recommendation here would be focus on the platform of this men's rights movement (whatever it is) and to provide as much context for each specific issue as possible. If there isn't a source connecting an issue to the topic of "men's rights" than get it out of the article.GabrielF (talk)20:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is a horrible mish-mash of vaguely related and often badly sourced items, which might as well just be calledList of perceived inequalities between men and women that favour women. Even just glancing through it, some things stood out - the "Cancer" section points out that funding for breast cancer research is higher than that for prostate cancer, yet doesn't point out one major reason for that which is actually noted in the source used - that breast cancer mortality rates are significantly higher. And the "prison rape" section is ... well, words fail me on that bit. Most of the parts thatare relevant - i.e. parental access - have their own articles anyway. This needs a serious pruning and a consensus on what it is trying to be (i.e. scope). At the moment it's a mess of POV and OR, with a dash of synthesis.Black Kite (t)(c)21:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know ArbCom were already informed of all this on Sunday night (UTC) but I would suggest Kevin to forward this and anything else to ArbCom it's their area of expertise and competence--22:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for the length (Kratch)...I would like to start by saying; I do not condone the articles attacking Kevin, and find that kind of activity appalling. I have used the monicers Kratch[93] and mneilgri[94] for quite some time, and I am very confident you will find activity of nether on any of reddit, AVfM or spearhead page, for precisely this reason (I even earned a "f### off" and "get the f### off my website" from Paul Elam himself, for deploring this very kind of behaviour (on his old site)). Additionally, while I have no compunction of calling your behaviour for what I see it as, biased, I do not believe I have made any belligerent attacks, nor engaged in any actual threats (If I have, I apologize).I say all this in hopes that you will understand I had no part to play in any of that. That said, I don't appreciate being called a meatpuppet.
I have serious concerns about the degree of application of policy expressed on the article, using it as a bludgeon, as hobit, above, pointed out, but also on the selectiveness. That particular example is of particular concern for a number of reasons. In particular, I posted content to the discussion page prior to posting it to the article, and the content that was "specifically" given feedback on was removed from what I posted to the article. Several editors (including myself) then proceeded to edit it, discussing and compromising to try to improve the content (thank you SarahStierach, by the way, for your help with grammar). But that content was then deleted, entirely, out of hand, without any prior discussion on why there was a belief it should be deleted, other than the incredibly vague notion that everything was a violation of some sort. Worst was his deleting of all the content, and then, in the discussion, stating he "accidentally" deleted one of the paragraphs but will "find" a reason it should stay deleted. This unwillingness to work collaboratively, and outright deletion on content based solely on a single persons interpretation of policy, leads one to concerns of ownership of articles[95]. This over application of policy is further concerning when given the utter lack of application of the same policy to alternative views (such as Pakastan[96], where it must be asked, if the content I added failed to meet criteria because it didn't specifically refer to men's rights, how can "Prior to the passage of the Women's Protection Bill in 2006, men could not be accused of the rape of a woman unless she had four male witnesses." then pass that same criteria?). This has resulted in the article putting undue weight on men as beneficiaries of rights, particularly over women (as was brought up in the article, and is thereby, an issue of NPOV), so the repeated deletion of content showing an opposing viewpoint (IE, men not benefiting or losing rights), can be considered information suppression[97].
As to the page move, I have to disagree with Hermiod, I think a page move is the correct response, or more appropriately, “was” the correct response to the article a couple months ago. It is my belief that the page as it was, was based on an interpretation of Men’s Rights (Civil Movement), but was held to NPOV standards based on the definition Men’s rights (Civil Liberties). A reading of the article as it was a couple months ago, would see the intention was an article of the Men’s Rights (Civil Movement), and a simple renaming would likely have resulted in many of the NPOV complaints becoming minor or non-existence, and not delete-worthy. So deletion of that article based on an unflinching dedication to an alternate definition, without significant or open-minded discussion, to me, raises concerns of an attempt to skirt Article for Deletion policy[98]
All this is exasperated by the fact Kevin has prominently displayed his internship on his talk page. Whether he intends it or not, this grants him some degree of authority, as it is unlikely that another Wiki Employee will openly condemn his behaviour (even if reprimanding him behind the scenes), and granting weight to those who support his actions (if he can do it without consequences (that we see), then others think the behaviour is acceptable, including those he’s violating against). Furthermore, as an employee (paid or unpaid, an intern is still an employee), his actions reflect poorly on, if not representative of, the Wikimedia Foundation. This reflection tends to carry through attitudes towards and expectations of other employees (deserved or otherwise), and often results in unhelpful escalation of hostilities as people feel more and more wiki employees are working against them. --Kratch (talk)00:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I do not think that engaging with you further in this thread is potentially constructive, so this will be my last post responding to you on ANI. (I will be happy to engage with you on content issues on the talk page for men's rights, assuming you are willing to do so in a more productive fashion than you have so far been.)
Although you accuse me of using policy as a hammer, it is informative that you have never attempted to explain why anything you have posted has not violated the policies that I have pointed towards. You suggest that a simple renaming of the page would have eliminated NPOV concerns, but even though the concerns with the original version were extensively discussed on the talk page of the article, you did not join those discussions even after you arrived, and have never attempted to explain why a move would alleviate all of the concerns that were explicitly discussed by me and a handful of other editors on the talk page. Instead you have continually resorted to questioning the motives of editors even after being asked to cease by me as well as uninvolved administrators. In one recent section where I explained to you why I thought your edits were not appropriate for Wikipedia, your reply included this set of sentences: "And you honestly expect to be taken seriously as an editor, particularly a "neutral" one? You are an intern. I would be interested in knowing who you report to, in order to get their opinion on your conduct with regards to this article" and absolutely no explanation of why I was wrong. (And although you talk about a 'single person's interpretation of policy,' multiple other editors on the talk page agreed with me, and no one who disagreed was able to frame an argument as to why I was wrong that actually dealt with policy.)
I did not call you a meatpuppet - my initial post did not in fact mention you. Take a look atWP:Meatpuppet: "High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage." A large number of new users have started to edit this set of articles in order to advocate for a specific POV in response to offsite canvassing: saying that this article has attracted an influx of meatpuppets is descriptive and accurate.Kevin (talk)02:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I haven't responded because I have been reading policy, trying to understand it as best I can. It's difficult to debate policy with someone who uses it adeptly as both shield and weapon when you are unfamiliar with it. I find it a little disturbing that you would try an hide behind "you're not using policy well enough to defend against my clear understand of it's intricacies" against someone, you refer to by a name that clearly defines them as new, sounds like bullying to me. As to meatpuppet, I apologize, I did not realize it was a wiki term. That said, I might suggest wiki change that name, as referring to someone who is, by definition, new (and thus, not familiar with the term) a "puppet", you are not helping resolve the situation any better.--Kratch (talk)02:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Kratch (talk·contribs), a single-purpose account just over a week old, is making statements about Kgorman-ucb being a WMF intern. Why would a newly arrived editor mention that or think it has any significance? From what I understand from the comments above, similar statements have been made on external activist websites. On wikipedia statements of that kind are unusual and uncommon, especially from newly arrived editors. Perhaps Kratch could give some kind of explanation why he decided this point has any relevance; in his last paragraph above ("All this is exasperated by the fact ..."), he has constructed a conspiracy theory around it that is not very different to what has been posted on external activist websites.Mathsci (talk)02:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Read the last paragraph of my larger comment, I've already largely answered your question. My stressing his intern status, rather than full employment, was an attempt to point out his authority as a wiki employee was limited at best. It should also be noted, the users talk page has the fact he works for Wikimedia as an intern prominently displayed as the entirety of his third paragraph. It's not exactly a difficult attribute to miss. As to my "conspiracy theory", I just described human nature. After all, aren't you doing the same by attempting to link me to one of the external articles? --Kratch (talk)03:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The template {{edit conflict}} and the quote make it clear that I was commenting on the extraordinarybad faith last paragraph in your first post. You do seem to be repeating opinions expressed on external activist websites. What is on Kgorman-ucb's user page is not unusual and it is not in any way prominent. Here, just to avoid further confusion, is the bizarre conspiracy theory of your third paragraph:
All this is exasperated by the fact Kevin has prominently displayed his internship on his talk page. Whether he intends it or not, this grants him some degree of authority, as it is unlikely that another Wiki Employee will openly condemn his behaviour (even if reprimanding him behind the scenes), and granting weight to those who support his actions (if he can do it without consequences (that we see), then others think the behaviour is acceptable, including those he’s violating against). Furthermore, as an employee (paid or unpaid, an intern is still an employee), his actions reflect poorly on, if not representative of, the Wikimedia Foundation. This reflection tends to carry through attitudes towards and expectations of other employees (deserved or otherwise), and often results in unhelpful escalation of hostilities as people feel more and more wiki employees are working against them.
An arbitrator (Elen of the Roads) has already commented on current editing. I would not be surprised if this ends up as an ArbCom case. You haven't yet given a plausible explanation for your third paragraph within wikipedia policy. Perhaps you should readWP:DUCK,WP:NPA andWP:AGF.Mathsci (talk)03:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Although I would also, unfortunately, not be surprised if this ends up at arbcom, I do hope that can be avoided still. I think/hope that the additional eyes this thread has brought to the situation will be helpful in creating a better situation moving forward. If nothing else, the eyes of more uninvolved administrators on behavioral issues means that certain issues may be able to be minimized using normal disciplinary action. (Although Cailil attracted some incredible offsite vitriol for suggesting the possibility of administrative action, so I would advise people to stay clear if they are in a situation where that kind of thing would be a significant problem.)Kevin (talk)05:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
@Kratch: regarding the prominent notice of his affiliation, we are required to give prominent notice of affiliation for transparency. There is a big orange box at the top of my volunteer account (User:Moonriddengirl). I was actually given the specific text to use and the placement of it. (The choice of orange is all me. :)) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)14:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a comment: I'm familiar with the general area of this material, and I'll see if I can do anything productive with what's there, but as a point of fact most of this article (as given) is pure OR. The only valid material I know of on Men's Rights are (a) some feminist authors who tried to craft gender-balanced theories, (2) some writers from the 'fire-in-the-belly' men's movements of the late 80's and 90's and (3) few legal tangles in various locales, mostly with respect to men's reproductive rights (vs. abortion, alimony, child custody, and etc.) The bulk of the material on that page looks to be random social/cultural happenings that have been labeled after-the-fact as men's rights issues, and in fact many of the points are clearlywomen's rights issues that have been presented in an oddly inverted manner (e.g. the rape law and military service sections). once that chaff is sifted out, I don't think there's going to be enough grain there to make a loaf of bread, if you follow me. It might just be easiest to mark it for deletion and dole out the few useful points to other articles where they make more sense. --Ludwigs203:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs's comment is an example of exactly why this dispute has come about. Anyone who feels that the only men's rights issues such as conscription and unjust rape laws are in fact "clearly women's rights issues" is not fit to be editing a page on men's rights. Perhaps the people here don't understand - the reason there is such a backlash is because people believe, with good reason, that the article is under attack by those who are opposed to it. My god man, you sit there and say with a straight face that men's rights material is limited to "a few feminist authors" while ignoring the fact that whole BOOKS have been written about men's rights issues? Just to name two: Myth of Male Power (Warren Farrell), "War Against Boys" (Christina Hoff Sommers).Celdaz (talk)06:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)—Celdaz (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.
You last edited in April, yet magically turned up here today. Did you enjoy your summer away from editing? As regards "men's rights", you could maybe take some solace in the fact that men still hold a near-monopoly on declaring wars against other nations. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→09:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Such statements are uncivil and in fact bigoted against males. You'll see similar statements by Kevin and Ludwigs2 in this conversation, where they claim that the idea that men might be discriminated against is absurd, clearly demonstrating their bias. No wonder the men and women who have worked on the "men's rights" articles, among other, for YEARS are upset when they are demeaned and attacked by editors. Anyway, as to your comment: According to the New York Times, it was a clique of female advisors, including Hillary Clinton, Samantha Powers and Susan Rice, who instigated the involvement of the US in Lybia:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?_r=2&ref=global-home70.114.203.30 (talk)23:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I can only speak from a general academic perspective, and in the academy 'men's rights' is currently a non-issue. Theonly time it comes up is in discussions about backlashes against minority entitlements (in that peculiar antidisestablimentarian sense) and that's more commonly a race issue than a gender issue. There are vocal groups in the population who are advocating for this, and undoubtably they write books, but there's nothing that I can think of - as of yet - in the way of scholarly secondary sources. Of course, primary sources have their place, and social movements do need to be covered…
However, that's neither here nor there. Even if there were scholarly texts on this subject, they would only cover modern social movements and activities. The hodgepodge of material on that page is clearly elements of identity-ideology. I mean seriously: paternalism in ancient societies is utterly unrelated to men's rights (with a few exceptions, men were the only people whohad rights up until the Enlightenment), and cultural differences in sex roles are a wide, wide tangent to the topic. If you can source them they could be presented as part of the belief structure of the men's rights movement - that would be fine - but presenting them as they are asexamples of men's rights is neither sensible nor sourceable. How could the ancient Greeks have had a concept of men's rights when anyone who wasn't a man had no public rights whatsoever? Men must have a sense of being a disempowered group before it becomes meaningful to talk about them demanding their rights.
But this is not the place to discuss content; I'll bring this up on the talk page if it seems useful and pertinent. I just wanted it said that there's not a lot of meat to the topic that I can see, but I'm willing to keep an open mind until I've looked more closely. --Ludwigs207:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I've worked with/against editors concerned with men's rights before (parental alienation,parental alienation syndrome,fathers' rights movement,Canadian Children's Rights Council) and they tend to be among the more maddening and aggressive ones to work with. None of the responses from the "pro-MRM" side in this thread suprise me. Acommon sense solution to the meatpuppeting, aggressive attacks and sourcing/OR issues is necessary. Experienced editors who need to trim out the syntheses need support. The fact that there is minimal scholarly research and support means thatjudicious use of asmall number of less respectable sources could be attributed and used, but there's no excuse for the mash of original research that currently exists.WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex16:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Men's rights, misandry, and male studies are all related topics. There is an academic curriculum called "male studies" which has held two conferences with input from established scholars who have clearly demonstrated many of the issues men and boys face. Their site:http://www.malestudies.org/ Their videos:http://vimeo.com/11113885 And of course, Christina Hoff Sommers The War Against Boys and Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power are popular books that clearly show the issues that men and boys face. Feminists have a well-known bias against men's issues (after all, feminism is built on the idea that men oppress women), and so it is rather silly to suggest that feminists have anything to offer men and boys - in fact, many of the issues men and boys face today are a direct result of feminist activism. For example, feminists fought for education to be more female friendly, claiming bias against girls when more men graduated from college than women; however, now that more women graduate from college than men, feminists claim it is because boys are inherently inferior. It is sad to see that so many editors here clearly show a feminist, anti-male bias yet insist that it is the "silly" people who dare claim that men and boys might face unique challenges who are demonstrating a lack of NPOV. That Ludwigs2 could actually claim with a straight face that issues that affect men and boys more often and more seriously than women and girls are "women's rights issues" shows clearly what kind of bias is ubiquitous here. It reminds me of when Hillary Clinton claimed that women have always been the primary victims of war, losing their husbands, sons, etc. Funny, seeing as it was men who were the true victims, losing their lives.70.114.203.30 (talk)23:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Community topic probation
Strong consensus to enact community topic probation as proposed by Cailil; I am enacting so we can unprotect the article and allow editing to move forward. We have 17 supports and two opposes; both of the opposes argue that the problems are from experienced editors not recruited new editors, but do not argue that the level of problematic editing is not currently severe.KillerChihuahua?!?13:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given the seriousness of the behavioural problems in this area on-site, the long standing calls for meat-puppetry (as illustarted above by SLP1), the offsite campaign (with its rash of newsingle purpose accounts being used to push content as well as to harass editors), and the possibility of spill over into other related articles, would the community consider imposing a'community topic probation' on the Men's rights area? I would suggest imposing this especially in regard toWP:NOR,WP:SPA,WP:CIVIL andWP:EDITWAR (&WP:TAGTEAM). The Arbcom will have to deal with the offsite stuff but if the community imposes this kind of measureuninvolved sysops could handle theproblematic behaviour on-site--14:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Support It does appear necessary. The off-site and on-site harassment in this topic area is just appalling. Putting sanctions on the topic should, hopefully, stop the rash of editors from adding random nonsense to it (or, at least, make it easier to identify sockpuppets that are re-adding material in).SilverserenC15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment(Non-administrator comment) The "Community Topic Probation" section on that link refers to "various administrative sanctions, depending on the terms of probation". I'd suggest some form of words describing exactly what the terms of probation are, and what "various" means with regard to sanctions before any !voting takes place.Absconded Northerner (talk)15:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed that's quite a reasonable wording but I'd suggest the addition of something to specifically deal with a) with harassment and b) meatpuppetry, tag-teaming and single purpose accounts--18:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment(Non-administrator comment) Can I get a few clarifications? Is this only for administrators to vote on? How long does this probation last?TickTock2 (talk)20:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Non-admins are welcome to !vote. The probation would be, as I'm reading the proposal, indefinite. This topic area has been troublesome in the past and continues to be, so a time-limited probation is less useful.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)21:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Strong support For obvious reasons. That talk page has become a messy, hostile environment. Me and others were chastised for the crime of daring to inform a new user that WP has policies (OMGWTFBBQ!). Serious ownership, POV, and SPA problems have left us with no choice. I was planning on introducing a different proposal, namely that new accounts be banned from editing the article until the mess is all sorted out, but probation will get the job done just as well.NoformationTalk21:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I chastised you for linking to policies that were already linked at the top of the page. Every time someone tries to suggest a way to improve the article, the next response is automatically someone quoting policies they are already aware of at them. Then that discussion moves to the policies and the original suggestion is forgotten and so no progress is made.Hermiod (talk)06:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Support IF time limit is instated, I'm not a fan of indefinite (almost anything), things will calm down and sane minds will prevail.TickTock2 (talk)22:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Just an FYI TickTock, we don't do definite duration topic sanctions of this sort - we lift them when its obvious that they're no longer needed. If you look at all the other sanction imposed by the community[99] they are all indefinite--22:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Sarah Palin just came off article probation yesterday or the day before; the editors there are hopeful of getting it to Good Article status soon.KillerChihuahua?!?22:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
SUPPORT My support goes to shutting down the whole article until someone can come up with a definition of "Men's Rights" that is not taken from some online opinion pusher.Carptrash (talk)02:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose regulars are usually not POV pushers but when they are, this is what it looks like. The disputes only started six days ago and in the last three daysthere have been only two reverts by people whose names are not represented above in the supports, four if you count them, yet we need sanctions to keep things control? That was poor justification for the week long full protection that was just instituted, let alone topic probation. The canvassing is last weeks news. The page is now dominated four or five to one by the people whose names you will see above. As far as I can tell not a single block has been handed out over conduct on this page yet we are already jumping for the easy banhammers?extransit (talk)03:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I see, yes, your right I missed that in my review. So, one block in the first two days of this dispute that was clear and obvious and processed without drama. Expanding my comment above, I find it strange how people are citing the Sarah Palin sanctions. It took four months since her nomination for vice-president (August) before community probation was put on the article (January) and that event had ridiculous media exposure, whereas the calls for sanctions on this article come in the aftermath of a single canvassing event.extransit (talk)04:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Extransit's analysis seems flawed. WhenWP:IAR is being pushed as a policy overridingWP:RS by a clique of editors, something is badly wrong. When an ex-arbitrator warns on the talk page that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are highly likely, alarm bells should be ringing. There is at presentanarchy on that article and its talk page which has most probably been orchestrated off-wiki.Mathsci (talk)04:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
There are currently at most three editors, only two right now I think, on that page editing with a standpoint other than 'this article sucks lets delete it or neuter it in some way' who are being shouted down by at least ten, many of whom were canvassed ([100][101]). Its clear they have the situation under control, to say the least.extransit (talk)06:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You are joking, right? A post from someone by the talk page of an (at the time) uninvolved administrator to express concern that someone was calling me a bigot with no grounding and who was shortly thereafter blocked for making fun of my appearance is canvassing? A post of a news story that was already on ANI is canvassing? Please strike this comment.Kevin (talk)07:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Poor behaviour from some very experienced Wikipedia users has led to this, not the new users. At this point this has gone beyond the simple matter of the Men's Rights article and is a more fundamental matter of way users, especially new users, are treated on Wikipedia when trying to contribute positively.Hermiod (talk)05:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, that is a bit somewhat debatable... but the poor behavior (excepting a few vandals days ago that were not persistent enough even to get blocked and a single editor) is hardly block worthy, least of all sanction worthy.extransit (talk)06:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it wasn't. All this reporting and administrator involvement has done is make the situation worse. It would have calmed down days ago if that had not drawn such attention to the article.Hermiod (talk)06:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence at all that things were "calming down". What has happened is: (a) outside editors participating in the RfC on the page have been attacked ; (b) Kgorman-ucb has been subjected to even worse attacks here and elsewhere which are completely unjustifiable; and (c) newly arrived editors have been encouraged toignore all rules when reminded of core wikipedia editing policies. Whatever title is chosen for the article, topic probation would not prevent normal editing.Mathsci (talk)07:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I did not say it had calmed down. I said itwould have calmed down had if repeated administrative requests such as this very action had not drawn negative attention to the article and its talk page. Those core editing policies that you mention were listed at the top of the talk page. The assumption that users were oblivious to or purposefully ignoring those rules is not an assumption of good faith and as such repeatedly quoting them at anyone who attempted on the talk page to initiate discussion of how to improve the article has hampered that effort. I have not asked that users ignore the rules, only that discussion of improvements to the article not be blocked by constant discussion of them. The result? Instead of a better article, we have a locked article, a request to move it to a different place and now this completely unnecessary action. I invite anyone to explain how this has made Wikipedia better. If anything, Wikipedia is a worse place for the unnecessarily behaviour of some of experienced users towards newer users and ironically, this is the exact kind of behaviour that is often mentioned when the subject of Wikipedia's lack of female participation is discussed.Hermiod (talk)07:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Hermiod is misreporting events. He has ignored the comments of an arbitrator (Elen of the Roads) and an ex-arbitrator (Fred Bauder). Newly arrived users on the talk page have been explicitly citingWP:IAR andWP:NOTBURO. Hermiod should listen more carefully to what other editors, administrators and (ex-)arbitrators are saying, even if he disagrees with them. The problem was not created by them or by editors like Kgorman-ucb and SarahStierch.Mathsci (talk)08:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I have listened to what others have had to say, especially Elen of the Roads who I communicated with directly. This was a short conversation because I didn't disagree with what he had to say after his initial response. I considered that a positive discussion. Once again and for the final time,I do not believe this discussion is all about me. Please do not suggest this again.Hermiod (talk)08:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Please use "she" and "her" for Elen of the Roads, who is a woman. Since I did not make the comment you are placed in bold letters, please could you redact what you have just written? Elen of the Roads might have said it onWP:RPP (see below), but not me. Thanks,Mathsci (talk)08:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I apologise for my mistake regarding Elen of the Roads' gender. I don't know why I used gender specific terminology there as that's not something I normally do in anonymous discussions. You have, however, repeatedly stated that I believe this discussion is all about me and since this is a belief held by more than just her I will not be removing anything.Hermiod (talk)08:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
No, Hermiod, I have not "repeatedly stated that I believe this discussion is all about [you]". Please stop writing things like this. Thanks,Mathsci (talk)08:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I apologise only for the 'repeatedly' part. You have done soonce. That does not, however, invalidate the overall statement I made above. I should also mention that my attempt to speak to you more privately was edited off your talk page by a third party.Hermiod (talk)09:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I cited Elen of the Roads in that diff which was a copy-paste, in quotation marks and italics. Hermiod should stop misrepresenting other users. His conduct at the moment seems highly disruptive. He posted a complaint on my user talk page about my use of the neutral phrase "move on" and ignored my request that he not post further. In addition two days ago he requested that his own user talk page be deleted.[102] What's up with him?Mathsci (talk)09:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
This is something like the fifth time you have misrepresented something I have said or done in order to make your points. You asked me to not 'repost'not to not communicate with you. If you did not wish to me to communicate with you at all then you should have made this more clear. Please STOP misrepresenting everything I say and discuss ONLY the subject at hand. I am seriously considering taking action for harassment at this point, this is the last time I will tolerate any communication from you.Hermiod (talk)09:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Talk page etiquette permits users to request others not to repost on their user talk page. Many of the comments you have made above seem ill-advised, just like the request to have your user talk page deleted. Please calm down. Thanks,Mathsci (talk)10:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course it does, I am not disputing your right to use your talk page as you see fit, as I do with my own - including my mistaken attempt to have it deleted. I am merely stating that I did not 'repost' anything. I only answered you, an answer that was subsequently removed by a third party. If you did not or do not wish me to communicate with you via your talk page then you may ask to do so and I will be happy to comply, but make it clear that's what you're asking.Hermiod (talk)10:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Support This should be obvious to anyone who reads the article, which is frankly a disgrace. Whilst IAR is there for a reason, it isn't for certain editors to ignore such basic tenets as RS, POV and OR. There are enough neutral editors aware of it now to be fixed quite quickly when the protection comes off, but only if they are not hampered by a co-ordinated effort to stop them.Black Kite (t)(c)06:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
That might be because somebody locked the page in the middle of an ongoing attempt to improve it. Nobody is arguing that the page was perfect. I already stated my desire to bring the article up to high enough quality to be front page material one day and several other users, if you look through the talk page, had joined in that effort.Hermiod (talk)06:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
MoreWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? What Elen wrote atWP:RPP seems to apply as much now as then:"WhileHermiod remains convinced that this is all about him, there have actually been a number of editors who are not him, who are making dubious edits, and who do appear in some cases to be meatpuppets, who are being directed offwiki - see[104]. Given this, the continued protection of the article seems only reasonable. Content can be developed on the talkpage in the meantime." Now please move on. Thanks,Mathsci (talk)08:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I added a bullet to the "How to avoid being subject to remedies" section, stressing apologizing as an option. It always should be an option. If consensus is against the change, please feel free to revert it.SvenManguardWha?10:07, 20 October 2011 (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.
Occupy?
This discussion has fizzled out into almost record-breaking meaninglessness, and this venue was inappropriate from the start for this type of discussion. AfD's have already been started on a number of the articles in question, so continuing this parallel discussion is anything but constructive. If you believe an article should be redirected, send it to AfD or start a discussion/RfC on the talk page of the article. ANI is for "reporting and discussing incidents ... that require the intervention of administrators". This discussion clearly does not fall into this category.—SW—verbalize14:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This may not be the right forum, but, as you know, it gets lots of visitors, including you, and I value your opinion. If it's totally wrong, someone please move it to the right place (with a redirect, haha).
I made a couple of edits toOccupy Philadelphia, and noticed later on that the article had beenredirected to the generalOccupy Wall Street article. Mind you, I agree with the redirect--that's not why I'm here. My question is rather what to do with the rest of the articles: there's at least a dozen more for US cities.Drmies (talk)23:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Occupy Ashland:Redirect, no arrests and not that many participants, little media coverage
Occupy Atlanta:Redirect, other than that speech by Congressman John Lewis, not much
Occupy Austin:Redirect, 4 arrests, really nothing to see here
Occupy Boston:Redirect, over 100 arrests, 10,000+ participants
Occupy Buffalo:Redirect, no source for "hundreds" of arrests
Occupy Canada:Keep, widespread media coverage, thousands of participants
Occupy Chicago:Keep and expand, over 175 arrests but few sources/article content
Occupy Dallas:Redirect, many unsourced statements, no arrests
Occupy Eugene:Redirect, no establishment of notability as a major protests: no numbers on arrests/participants NOTE:Another Believer plans to expand this article; in the meantime, please do not redirect it
Strongly recommend against redirecting. Many of each city's "Occupy" movements cover issues that are unique to the areas, yet notable in their own right, and as perWP:NTEMP, historically significant. Not indiscriminate publicity as perWP:SPIP, as many individual movements have been mentioned in national media such as newspapers and television stations. Comparison to historically significant battles are in order here. Also comparison to local govermental bodies. Number of arrests is not dispositive as lack of arrests could convey historical significance. Do recommend removal of many of the links at the bottom of pages. Each page appears to be becoming a mini-version of the 'List of "Occupy" Protests, which is redundant. Redirection of each page listed below would be deleterious to the historical record, and the attempt to bring these redirections to this page appears to be a means to go around overwhelming consensus on pages where comments have been made about the subject matter of each of these pages. Strongly recommend dropping these attempts. This is not a matter of zealousness of editors, it is a matter of retaining a historical record; if nothing significant comes out of this, edits can be made at that point.Sngourd (talk)12:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(@Sngourd) The point is, not to keep a historical record, and we arenot a newspaper. The problem here is that some of these simply don't have an establishment of notability. Protests, no arrests, not much useful content.HurricaneFan2512:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, that would make sense to you and me and a bunch of others--but there are some very zealous editors creating all these articles and beefing them up with paraphernalia (extensive see also sections, further reading, etc) to make them look good and substantial. In my opinion, none of these articles do any more than report the local news, even if a bunch of people get arrested. They properly belong in a big fat article, and much of the verified detail is encyclopedically redundant.Drmies (talk)04:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
That does appear to be the case, as I discovered when I tried to keepZuccotti Park from becoming an annex of theOccupy Wall Street article. In the end, I gave up against the zealousness of the editor who grabbed control of that article, and figure I will fix its imbalances and remove its irrelevancies when the protest is over and the editor moves on to other passions.Beyond My Ken (talk)05:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree completely with cleaning up the see also sections and further reading. However, irreparable harm to historical record will be done by removing these individual entries. Discussion here is an attempt to use knowledge of technicalities in Wikipedia to go around consensus, violatingWP:NOTCENSOR,WP:NOTBATTLE, possibly evenWP:DE. Many people trust Wikipedia to present historically significant events. I implore preservation of that trust.Sngourd (talk)12:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Although each "occupation" is theoretically independent, they spawn from each other. Giving them separate articles givesWP:UNDUE weight to the supposed cause. I would hazard a guess that a number of editors to the articles are related to the protest/cause and propping them up. Wikipedia is not a place for that kind of activity, as it theoretically becomesOccupy Wikipedia. (talk→BWilkins←track)11:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
No undue weight as perWP:UNDUE. Each incident stands on its own and may have different demands, requests and repercussions. I would counter-guess that some editors are opposed to the protest/cause and censoring the historical record, as occurs with many controversial topics. Urge letting the discussion on each page stand on its own.Sngourd (talk)13:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It's pretty depressing that some editors above are happy to make strident comments on this without even knowing/bothering to check that there already is an"Occupy" protests article. Each of these articles should be taken on its own merits and if editors wish to try and delete/redirect them the articles should each go through the proper process. This is clearly not the right or proper place for such process and I am puzzled as to why a discussion on this is taking place here.Rangoon11 (talk)12:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Sngourd, you might not be familiar, but Drmies, Fetchcomms and BWilkinsare admins. Rangoon11, this discussion is here because it was raised by an admin for discussion amongst other admins as well as editors whoe frequent this page.
As for the articles, redirect the ones with the least notability and keep the major ones. These protests are more comparable to the Arab Spring than they are to historically significant battles. The Arab spring spawned several major changes in government, a civil war and unrest in other nations. Itinspired other protests not all of which have separate articles. It makes things easier to work with when the smaller protests are kept under one article until such time, they become notable in their own right. --Blackmane (talk)13:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
OK...which is it? Drmies has been making the claim that he is NOT using his position as Admin to gain support for his actions. Then this post actually uses his positions AS the reason he originally posted here. Suddenly the member who was raising an issue becomes silent (below). Hmmmmm. I see something really bad occurring here. Really, really bad. I am requesting that Admin on this notice board clarify once and for all if this is an action of an Admin or an individual coming to admin? It certainly can't hurt the situation to let contributing editors know if this is an officially sanctioned act of an Administrator or the act of an individual who just happens to hold the title of Admin.--Amadscientist (talk)04:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Finally some voices of reason. I fully support Drmies and HurricanFan. There are also articles popping up about non-US cities, many as trivial as those. WP is not a newspaper and is not the place for protesters to advocate their cause/coordinate their protests. --Crusio (talk)14:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I would just like to add: When creating redirects, make sure not to delete any content; copy-paste what's relevant to whatever article seems appropriate. We can't have an article for each protest, since there are over 800 of them, but we can certainly briefly talk about each one. Cheers,MattieRenard (talk)14:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I do not believe it can be done that way. That will lose the contribution history. Either (a) a move needs to occur, or (b) a merge needs to occur - those methods will preserve contribution history, while a copy/paste will not. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) copy/paste "moves"/"merges" are thusly against policy. Best,ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN17:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Please do not re-direct the Eugene or Salem (Oregon) articles. I intend to expand both articles in the near future and have started collecting references for both (see talk page). --Another Believer(Talk)14:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I created the Boston article with the expectation that it would be expanded. This is not the case, although I can prod at least one other editor who I know has attended and I'm sure that they would be willing to work on it.Kevin Rutherford (talk)17:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Excuse meUser:Bwilkins, but that is not what Original Research is. You are an Admin so, I would expect you to understand that Original Research is when one writes prose synthesized from personal experience or from research they put together themselves without published, verifiable and reliable references and sources. You may be speaking ofWikipedia:Conflict of interest but if you read that page Wikipedia makes it VERY clear that:"...an expert on a given subject is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject." and "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material, and to respect the good faith actions of others who edit content to ensure it complies with these policies.Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to."--Amadscientist (talk)05:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, but that isexactly what Original Research is. It has nothing to do with who wrote it. However, it has everything to do with one simple question: has it been published outside of Wikipedia? If so, then it isnot OR. If the 'expert' directly inputs his knowledge to Wikipedia, though, it isunverifiable and thereforeis OR. -The BushrangerOne ping only07:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Not even close. The attempt to tell editors that they may not edit the subjects that they have a direct and close association with has no merit whatsoever and should you disagree with the assessment I have provided than please...by all means layout the policy or bright line rule that supports your claim. As it stands you are using OR right now. You are just arguing around the points I made and even arguing the same points. Original Research has nothing to do with being a participant in a protest you are writing about. It only pertains to the use of information with no published references, period.--Amadscientist (talk)08:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: your edit: Theoriginal comment said nothing about published sources - but rather about having an "editor who has attended" work on the article, which any reasonable person would take as meaning "using their own experiences". -The BushrangerOne ping only08:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
No. Reasonable people do not make assumptions and leaps as you did. You specifically addressed the original post as if he could not edit the page without it being OR. That is false and no amount of back peddling will change that.--Amadscientist (talk)08:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
One other commentUser:The Bushranger. Bright-line rules on wiki are very few and far between but it does mean what I think it means... and perhaps you can keep your comments to the appropriate section of the talk page instead of burying them in your edit summary so you and your buddies can use it as fodder for further bad faith discussions and derision of others on your talk page.--Amadscientist (talk)09:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Drmies
Drmies is attempting to impose the redirect of a number of articles based on a supposed consensus for such action above ([105],[106],[107]). The discussion above is not, so far as I am aware, valid for the puposes of establishing consensus for the redirect or deletion of a particular page. I also see no clear consensus here or anywhere else for thesespecific actions. This is very concerning behaviour and appears to be a circumvention of appropriate process which will result in the effective deletion of large amounts of cited content which has not been through an AfD.
Were a redirect to take place, in any case it shoud in my view be to the"Occupy" protests article, although that in itself needs proper discussion (which, of course, has not happened either).Rangoon11 (talk)17:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
If you really think that an AfD is necessary for a redirect, then you're completely wrong. And this is a very appropriate place to discuss this kind of things. --Crusio (talk)17:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with Crusio about most of it. ANI isn't the best place to discuss it, but it's not altogether improper.--v/r -TP17:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say that an AfD is essential, I said that proper process appears to be being circumvented, but these attempted edits are effective deletions of articles, since content is not being copied elsewhere. I for one might be willing to support the redirection of some of these occupy articles if content was being kept and the redirects were to a more logical place.Rangoon11 (talk)17:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
If they arn't deleted, which would require a deletion discussion, then the content is kept in the revision history. You arewelcome tomerge content you feel fits elsewhere and is important.--v/r -TP18:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Redirection is being done too quickly, the wrong target is being chosen, and articles could be merged first. These shouldn't redirect to the article specifically about the protests in New York City, where the content wouldn't be relevant. They could be merged to the general Occupy protest article, or the articles about the less notable protests could be combined by location (for most of these, the United States).Peter E. James (talk)18:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I have just copied the cited content fromOccupy Dallas to"Occupy" protests and switched the r/d as I see this as better than readers being denied access to the content altogther. The idea of an "Occupy" article for the United States is an interesting one (if that is what you are suggesting, apologies if I have misunderstood). I think most people here are willing to be pragmatic and flexible but there does seem to be an unnecessary haste and lack of proper discussion here.Rangoon11 (talk)18:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(ec) "Process" is a bitad hoc here for the most part; there isn't really a lot of formal process with things like merges, redirects etc. That said, if there is content not being merged which you feel would be important to include in the target article , you may wish to speak to Drmies as the one doing the redirs, or bring it up on the talk page of the target article. I suggest you keep a calm, measured approach and not get too worried if things don't get sorted quickly - this is a moving target and a current event, and such articles are usually a bit of chaos until the event is past and then things calm down and the articles get cleaned up, appropriately trimmed and/or expanded, and we end up with much better articles. But while its ongoing, it can be a bit of a mess.KillerChihuahua?!?18:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Eh, Rangoon, I'm here because HurricaneFan notified me. If you give me a sub-heading, you can give me a (small) notification as well. There are few directives on what to do in the case of redirect. The claim that the content is deleted is, of course, false; you are welcome (as is suggested above) to merge the content into the target article. My concern, if that wasn't clear, is that these many, many articles (and now templates) are aiding in turning Wikipedia into a bulletin board. The protests in general are notable, of course--but to split them all up into events in individual places renders those individual articles unencyclopedic in that they're nothing more than a rehashing of newspaper reports. Adding, as one editor did, a book from 1998 in hopes of making the articlelook like an encyclopedic article is nothing more than window dressing.
Peter E. James, you sayOccupy Wall Street is the wrong article--well, find me a better one."Occupy" protests is new and its title is disputed; O Wall Street is, IMO, the most general article (and I think the lead should be expanded--"Wall Street" obviously stands for more than just that location). But this is probably best discussed elsewhere.
In case you're wondering why I posted this on ANI--I foresaw disruption and edit-warring and a possible abuse of Wikipedia, the use of Wikipedia as another one of the social media that are so important in organizing these protests (seethis version of a new article). This had the potential, and I think we see it happening already, of requiring more eyes and possibly admin involvement.Drmies (talk)19:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
You do not take action against your own fears. You do not label editors as nearly subversive for your own agenda. This is the most blatant bad faith editing I have ever seen a Wiki admin carry out. A one man war to save Wiki from what he has foreseen. Thank Nostradamus. Got any lotto numbers.--Amadscientist (talk)10:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you need to stop and think about your own accusations sir. There was no personal attack, it was a sever criticism, which is within my rights as an editor who has been accused of these things in my opinion. I do not take kindly to threats of Administrative action from anyone but admin. If they choose to step in and make a warning I will respect that, But you are putting words in my mouth and should stop using the ANI page for a debate. This isn't about his having any view it's about his actions as an Admin and his agenda redirects and deletion nominations in mass.--Amadscientist (talk)00:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I made a user subpage on the matter, which is displayed below:
Note: This page was created as a result of several AfD's and an ANI thread involving the notability of individual Occupy protests, and is only retained for historical reference for the user.
Arrests — I considerBoston notable as it had 141 arrests, and I also considerPhoenix, with 46 arrests (which has yet to get an article), notable. A good number arrests, more than 30, in my opinion makes an "Occupy" protest require an article.
Violence — If there is any moderate (shooting, rock-throwing, etc.) violence in the protest, and has a considerable number of arrests or a police reaction, the protest deserves an article.
Participants — If the protest has enough combined media coverage and participants, the protest is worthy of an article. However, if there are no arrests, little media coverage, while there are many participants, the protest does not deserve an article.
Media coverage — Ample media coverage should be required for an article for any of the protests; however, I wouldn't see this as a requirement, rather as a preferred option. A lot of media coverage most likely means a major protest.
Article content — if the article has a considerable amount ofindividual content, as in anattempted speech by a Congressman — not just the usual "...protest against corporate greed and ____ in ___".
Verifiability — All "Occupy" articles should containverifiable information. All. No exceptions.
Social networking sites do not count — At theAfD for Occupy San Jose, a "keep" vote was posted, on several basis, including the number of participants and the number of Facebook group members and likes/fans on a Facebook community page. Facebook doesn't necessarily indicate the participation or support — during the2010 Congressional elections, several candidates had tons of "likes" but compared to their opponent, with only a few "likes," was far behind in the election.
Your use of a box (User:Amadscientist/Occupy defend) in AfD discussions is spurious and, in my old-fashioned way of thinking, disruptive. I just saw you apparently took your cue from HurricaneFan, and I've asked them also to NOT stick that kind of stuff in AfD discussions.Drmies (talk)16:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the two of you are tag teaming and have disrupted the encyclopedia, while accusing others of the very things you are doing. You can claim it was disruptive to do the same thing another editor got away with by you as an admin. The simple fact is it creates the precedence and opens the door. You didn't request the editor remove that box until someone else created one and used it the same way. I very much question your neutrality and ability to function as an Administrator on Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk)00:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just saying your box is irritating, and so is that of HurricaneFan. I didn't see theirs until after I saw yours, and actually yours is stupider since it claims in its first line to be stupid--that is the essence of pointiness. Note, in clear contradiction of your insinuations, I have not acted as an admin in any edit related to this Occupy stuff. Finally, I don't care whatyou have to say about my neutrality, though I'll gladly take advice in this matter from anyone qualified to give it.Drmies (talk)01:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah....well, I don't believe you. I see your actions and the posts of others here defending you AS AN ADMINISTRATOR and I feel you know EXACTLY what you are doing and how it looks.--Amadscientist (talk)04:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I amnot defending Drmies just becausehe's anadmin. I am defending him becauseI agree with him.Wikipedia:Tag team specifically says that it is a "controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." First of all, I didn't join Wikipedia to support Drmies, nor did he ask me to support him. I agree with him, and that's why I am defending him.HurricaneFan2511:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Question
Since when did ANI turn into AfD? If an article is in question, send it to AfD and see what happens. This venue is entirely inappropriate for this discussion.—SW—babble19:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
but now it has become a dispute about the notability of the various articles. Really, SW has made the best suggestion. Let's try to deal with the actual article problems. DGG ( talk)21:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that hammering out content on ANI may appear cliquish, especially coming up with criteria for such articles and then imposing them on the rest of the editros. Please find some WikiProject like WikiProject Politics or WikiProject Sociology to create a task force for this and invite active participants on the various articles to comment on the criteria.Have mörser, will travel (talk)00:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
At the top of this page, it says, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." What exactly about this content dispute requires the intervention of administrators? This is not the place to make a decision about whether to redirect or keep an article. Either start a proper RfC on the talk page of the relevant article, or if you think the article should be redirected then send it to AfD (since redirection is a form of deletion and would be the likely outcome even if everyone voted to delete). ANI is not the place to discuss everyday content issues. Suggest this entire thread be archived.—SW—spout19:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Buffalo, Salem, and San Jose are already at AfD. Continuing this parallel discussion here only complicates things.—SW—chat19:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
That's what this looks like to me. I didn't realize that articles were such a burden and problem for admin here. If you have this much time why not try actually improving them instead of this witch hunt, which is EXACTLY what I perceive this as.--Amadscientist (talk)03:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)as.
If there is any agenda at all, it is the "Occupy" adherents appearing to use the Wikipedia as a means of advertisement and grater visibility for their cause. Every single one of these Occupy...articles should be redirected to an article on the overall topic.Tarc (talk)05:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Tarc here. In fact, the mass creation of all these articles can be seen as a form ofadvocacy. Rather than having a mass of stubs, it makes sense to redirect to an overall summary article. Many of these Occupy protests aren't notable in any sense and are more like copycat/support for the larger protests. --Blackmane (talk)10:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Actions unsuitable for a Wikipedia Administrator
It appears that a single admin has taken a stance that may or may not be in his official capacity as an administrator on Wikipedia. There seems to be much discussion on the very fact that it has landed here at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page and the originator of the ANI himself has actually changed his story from having "noticed later on that the article had been redirected" to "I'm here because HurricaneFan notified me". I am very concerned that these two have actually been engaging in tag team editing and mass redirects and deletion nominations aimed at a single subject. Therefore it is my belief that this, in itself, qualifies as an ANI discussion as disruptive behavior unsuitable for a Wikipedia Administrator. While the debate has become heated and accusations of tag teaming have been leveled against myself, I have pointed out to Drmies that he should have checked the diffs from the talk page he was making the accusation on and could well have saved himself the embarrasment. While I was notified about the ANI above (Occupy?) on my own talk page, I declined to become involved here until Drmies himself notified me of his AFD nomination ofOccupy Sacramento. I perceiveUser:Drmies actions as that of an editor with an obvious agenda to do battle against his own perceived ghosts, against the very spirit and policy of Wikipedia and may well require the intervention of Wikipedia Administrators.--Amadscientist (talk)06:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I've moved this up higher because it is directly related to the "Occupy" thread. I have no opinion on the matter.— ()06:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
To Amadscientist — I notified Drmies, well, because the new subheader said "Drmies", so I read it and linked it for Drmies. Drmies has been very clear about why he put it here — his reasoning is a few sections above this one. I am supporting Drmies' actions simply because I agree with him. "Tag teaming" on Wikipedia is using meatpuppets to support your own side, and I only agree with Drmies. I made my own decision to redirect the Occupy Philly article — he didn't ask me to. Seven redirects isn't a lot. That's only seven out of three-million-and-something. This discussion isn't disruptive; Drmies, as I already said, gave his own reasoning. He passed his RfA withover 200 supports, and only 2 opposes out of them. AfD is for deleting articles. ANI is for discussing disputes and problems that require intervention of an admin, or might in the future. Period.HurricaneFan2512:06, 21 October 2011 (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.
Hello, I would like to bring to the attention the editing ofUser talk:Arinjatt, who has been making mass changes to articles without seeking consensus. He also seems heavily motivated by an Anti-Islamic, Pro-Hindu POV, constantly using non-reliable sources in articles to criticism Islam with one-sided views. Please check his edit history yourselves for evidence, but as a sample[108] (Unreliable sourcing, not discussing on talk page)[109] "Both Quran and Hadiths advocate death punishment to those who leave Islam." - a one dimensional POV statement and using a site known for its anti-Islamic views, which is not a reliable source for academic subjects which are supposed to be balanced as it's lop-sided also-,[110] more POV against Islam/Muslims, and also[111] as Pro-Hindu POV. The main problems here are, this user has received so many warnings now but has not listened to a single one. Refusal to communicate or perhaps a lack of ability to, is severely disruptive to the encyclopedia and not in line with its goals. --Nutthida (talk)21:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
He has shown he knows how to use edit summaries, and since he knows how to edit articles, I can only believe that he knows how to edit talk pages (if he does not, then ). He has had numerous important guidelines explained to him over and over, and yet he:
In fact, looking over the article history for Hinduism, I'm starting to believe Arinjatt is a sockpuppet ofIamtrhino, who made similar POV and disruptive edits while refusing discussion.
For TL;DR: I'm quite familiar with Arinjatt's work and I can no longer assume good faith with him, because he has shown he knows what he is doing. I believe Arinjatt is only one of many socks for some pro-Hindu, anti-Islamic crusader who does not see the need to reform. I recommend a Checkuser and indef blocks of all socks. I'd file the report myself, but I've got to get ready for a date.Ian.thomson (talk)12:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I started anMfD regarding this editor's user page, but the subject of this ANI post not the MfD. The concern is about theirfew non-user page edits, specifically the ones toSafia Farkash. It appears that they think they are communicating with Safia Farkash and have received a large donation of some sort.[113][114] These edits combined with the content of the user page makes me think that they are not here to be constructive, but instead are using Wikipedia as a blog and suspect communications. I have issued a warning to the user about their non-user page edits, but I have this feeling that the edits will continue. Since I started the MfD on the user page, I would prefer another admin to intervene on the non-user page edits to avoid any perception of bias. Thanks. --Gogo Dodo (talk)23:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I am about one step from an indef block based on competence / appropriate use of Wikipedia ... Giving them some time to respond to the queries seems reasonable, but failure to do so...Georgewilliamherbert (talk)23:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the entire user page was a copyright violation, just a portion of it. However, I agree that the MfD was a snowball delete. I really didn't read the entire user page. Far too much to read and it was giving me a headache. I defer to another admin regarding a block. --Gogo Dodo (talk)00:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
No, you're correct, the entire page wasn't. But an acceptably large amount was (about 4 paragraphs worth before I stopped), though they were placed inbetween other content, and taken from two sources. Oh, and I cheated. I copy/paste (in quotes) sections into Google, and if I find exact matches, then I do a word for word direct compare of source to article. So... I really didn't read it either (well, didn't absorb it, anyway). ;-)ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN00:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Trust me, you're better off for not having subjected yourself to the whole thing.Now please excuse me while I go try and get my brain out of the bucket of bleach and back into my head. -The BushrangerOne ping only00:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
LoL, I made the mistake of going back and looking at the site it was copyvio'd from. Editing on Wikipedia is gonna be a lot harder now that I've shoved a pencil in each eye. Didn't help, btw. I might have to try your method.ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN00:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced a block is needed or appropriate here. Until I left a message a minute ago, I don't see any indication that anyone actually tried to explain what Wikipedia is or why the edits were wrong--the only thing on the talk page are templated messages. I've left a detailed personal explanation of the problems with their editing, including a clear indication that further problematic behavior will lead to blocks. Hopefully a dialogue is possible; if not, the block button is still ready and available.Qwyrxian (talk)04:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
That was a very good message that you left them (I might have to borrow that for future use). Hopefully they will respond. --Gogo Dodo (talk)05:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Feel free to rinse and recycle as you like. To me, the key is that sometimes, people come here for entirely the wrong reasons and rehabilitating them is impossible, because they simple want WP to be something it isn't. Other people come here not understanding WP, but are able to become great contributors once they start to understand. The problem is that even though a very large portion of people who end up on a board like this, or who exhibit problems liks Pendulum Dowsing are likely to fall into the first category, the only way to know is to try. I expect either silence or continued problems, but I figure that we owe xyr at least once chance to "get it", just in case.Qwyrxian (talk)13:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked the user indefinitely. To be honest, I think we can speedily delete the userpage (it's alreadysnowing), but I'll leave that to another admin. On the other hand, if people just want it to run out 7 days, that's not a terrible thing.Qwyrxian (talk)21:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
And they are back, again. Might be time to revoke talk page access, as they have now added it all there since their userpage is no longer available to them. Might want to stop new acct creation as well, that will prolly be their next step.Heiro03:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
From their now deleted question, you might want to put the block notice back in and leave a note explaining that Wikipedia is not a web host. It seems pretty clear that they thought Wikipedia was a web page publishing site. He probably won't understand why we are not, but one could always hope. --Gogo Dodo (talk)03:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It might be worth rev-deleting his edits to theSafia Farkash article as it gives his full name, which a search on Google directs to his FB page and quite a few personal details. --Blackmane (talk)17:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome to submit a case tosockpuppet investigations if you'd like to - however, you need other suspected sockpuppets to reference. If there's only one user, I'm not sure checkuser will turn up anything useful.m.o.p18:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
There is an IP122.160.126.4(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) that is repeatedly making changes to the page forSarvepalli Radhakrishnan(edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs), a deceased former president of India. The IP wants his name to be spelled as "Radhakrishna" (no final n), contrary to the name of the page itself, and contrary to Radhakrishnan's own usage in his byline in all of his English language books. I have made a posting on the talk page (DIFF) to this effect. However, the IP has simply reverted my edits without responding on the talk page. I warned the IP through a couple of vandalism templates -- perhaps edit warring warning would have been more appropriate?), but this also has not produced any effect. (The only discussion the IP has ever offered is an edit log claiming that because he once signed his name w/o the final n, that form must be correct). Possibly these changes may be related to some sort of inter-ethnic identity conflict (Tamil vs Telugu?), but I am not an expert on this. Diffs of the IP's changes are:
Earlier on same issue:DIFFDIFF (Also seeking name-change, although slightly different alt spelling:DIFF,DIFF)
User has been notified. Please suggest next steps. Could an administrator simply implement a block of the IP? (my warnings mentioned the possibility of blocking) --Presearch (talk)16:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Warning left at Timbouctou's talk page; Both editors need to move forward and end this feud. Direktor has shown a desire to do so; it is up to Timbouctou to end this.KillerChihuahua?!?21:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
...when a guy just plain hates your guts? Now I mentioned this a few times before[116], so I won't waste anyone's time repeating myself, but this is really getting out of hand - every single time he talks to me the user tries to start aWP:BATTLE. Whether he's stalking me around the place or we come into contact in any way,User:Timbouctou tries to pick a fight -completely without provocation of any kind. This user's posts are brimming over with hostility towards me personally, while wisely staying away from more overt insults (most of the time). Have a look at this most recentthread. I'm addressing an IP user explaining that his addition does not warrant inclusion in the lede, Timbouctou comes along and decides to post a massive collection of links and text for the sole purpose of proving me wrong on some irrelevant point or other, trying his best to insult me and pick a fight. This hostile attitude destroys outright all chances of resolving any issue with the user, however insignificant and petty it might be - even that particular one, where he basically agrees with me (as far as I can discern among the hostile comments).
His "defense" every time the issue of his hostility is brought-up is, invariably, that I am a generally rude person, and then he goes on attacking me in the form of "explaining" why he does not like me ("I don't like him because he's this, he's that, etc."), which inevitably turns into just anothertirade ofWP:NPA violations. No doubt this thread will see another massive post of the kind. The "tactic", though it hasabsolutely nothing to do with his own behavior, seems to serve him well - his aggressive behavior is always completely ignored, and he has no incentive to stop whatsoever since he manages to have his way in the articles as well by edit-warring and bullying ("please report me if you think you have anything other than rants to offer to a interested audience"[117]). --DIREKTOR(TALK)14:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been following these two editor's dispute for a few weeks now and I've declined to take a side in the content dispute, but my observations of these two have been exactly how DIREKTOR has described them. Timbouctou has been overly aggressive and heavy on thepersonal attacks as can be seen inthis thread on my talk page andthis thread on an article talk page. My position so far has been to try to get both editors to calm down and try to work collaboratively. From what I can see, DIREKTOR has been willing to walk away and not return the insults. However, I did block both editors for edit warring onSocial Democratic Party of Croatia. I had hoped that by the conclusion of the thread with Timbouctou on my talk page that he had finally decided to give it a rest, but apparently not by the thread provided by DIREKTOR. I hate to say it, but I think a block might be in order, or at the very least an interaction ban.--v/r -TP14:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Update. The user was notified of this thread[118], and decided to post another set of aggressive remarks and attacks of the exact same sort on the aforementioned thread[119]. Again without addressing the subject of the thread (I for one still do not know what it is that he wants). Interestingly,Brunodam's IP pitched in with his support and advice on his talkpage[120]. No doubt we are now in for yet another long elaboration about how down right rotten I am as a person, and how much worse I am in comparison to him. --DIREKTOR(TALK)19:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I find it interesting that neither TP or DIREKTOR have deemed it notwoerthy to comment on thecontent of the latest discussion atTalk:Josip Broz Tito (and the relatedTalk:Tito street decision). Since I don't find neither of them objective, let me just mention that whoever takes interest should take the time to read through it. You might want to ask DIREKTOR how come sources magically become reliable after 13 days. You might want to ask how come he - living in Croatia - somehow missed the fact that something was being discussed in virtually every media outlet in the nation. You might want to look at his editing history as well and see how constructive he is in this and other articles he's involved in. (I particularly like reading his latest rants atTalk:Draža Mihailović - he offered an interesting perspective on what constitutes "comments on editors"). One might also ask how come I was not notified that this is being discussed here, and how come TP didn't check if I was before commenting. Cheers.Timbouctou (talk)19:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Youwere notified, both on your talkpage[121] and on the article[122], link included. It really seems that, whenever your disruptive behavior comes up, you invariably feel the need to start talking about content disputes and myself as a person (not that it hasn't been useful thus far). And why, pray tell, is TParis not objective? You have something against him as well? --DIREKTOR(TALK)19:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, everyone who ever worked on articles you happen to fancy has noticed your tendency to push a distinctly POV revisionist version of history, and you've been doing it for years. It can be proven quite easily actually if only admins actually took a closer look at what is being discussed anytime a spat occurs. Because of your long-time disuption it only makes sense that youcause conflict wherever you appear. The only reason you are still around is that you run off to ANI every five minutes and get ignorant admins to do the dirty work for you. No editor who ever had to edit the same article you were interested in thinks you can be worked with and you have provendozens upon dozens of times you can't work withanyone, let alone that you know the meaning of the wordcnsensus. TP is a fine example of that kind of admins - he never bothered to look at the discussion here, just like his last involvement boiled down to an exercise in equality. In this particular instance you removed a perfectly notable and referenced piece of informationon sight because it showed up n the article on your favourite politician. Realising that you won't let him add it to the article he created a standalone article and now when you found out that there's a separate article, you quote that same reference you once described as "not good enough" to justify its merger back into the article on your favourite politician, to bury it there. And for the notification - I honestly missed it because I received other messages in the meantime and only read the bottom of my talk page. Sorry bout that.Timbouctou (talk)19:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
What personal attack? You never once mentioned anything related to the discussion at hand, which is atTalk:Josip Broz Tito. The sole purpose of your appearance here was only to comment on my person, which btw you know nothing about just like you don't know anything about DIREKTOR's or the topic matter in general.Timbouctou (talk)20:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I've told you time and again I was not going to comment on content. I know nothing about the subject. My goal was to help you two discuss the matter in a civil way so you could come to an agreement. You wanted to discuss DIREKTOR's character rather than content.The talk page speaks for itself, I have nothing else to say.--v/r -TP21:20, 21 October 2011 (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.
Might be worthwhile to toss a page protect onPregnancy? It'll obviously be at the wrong version whenever someone chooses to do so, but the level of discourse at that page... does not reflect the best standards of the community. The page is already listed atWP:LAME, so maybe it's a lost cause, but... more uninvolved eyes to keep an eye on user behavior wouldn't be amiss, it's getting dumb.SDY (talk)01:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Two sysops edit-warring is never a good sign, but it looks like they've moved to duking it out on the talk page. I don't think (additional) protection is warranted unless it starts up again. --Danger (talk)02:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Ty3-gypsy, an LTR-Retrotransposon found in many animals and plantsGypsy Day, a day reserved for the transportation of livestock in Southland, New Zealand"Gypsy", nickname for Brazilian mixed martial artist Junior dos Santos and other , there is no notablillity about them at all.94.69.224.46 (talk)20:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the IP removed some entries from the page,User:Doc Tropics added them back, and the IP immediately posted here to have the problem "fixed." There's not even an ongoing back-and-forth here. We have guidelines (WP:D andWP:MOSDAB) about what entries should be included on disambiguation pages; I've posted atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages asking for someone there to take a look at the page and bring it into compliance with those guidelines. Further disagreement should be handled through discussion atTalk:Gypsy. There's nothing here for ANI to discuss.Theoldsparkle (talk)21:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I can agree that Gypsy Day needs to be removed - it does not link to an article on that topic. The article on dos Santos never suggests that this is his nickname. The ty3 does not link to a specific article either ... granted, it might do as a redirect if it's really a "common" term (talk→BWilkins←track)21:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Right, the whole article needs corrigible, when I said there is no notability, I was meant we stand on the theory rather than in Case. (artist's Junior dos Santos name, may means something like the term , means nothing)94.69.224.46 (talk)22:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Com' on guys, you have a half day caring about for a word that represents or meaning nothing else but loathsome, if you really want to get a good occupation, go and check something interesting --Brazilevandance (talk)11:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Note: A brand new userid created just so that they could make a racist comment like immediately above is clearly not here to improve an encyclopedia, and I have blocked accordingly. (talk→BWilkins←track)11:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I find myself very concerned at the behaviour ofLongLiveMusic (talk·contribs). So far she has mindlessly reverted minor edits with very inappropriately-used revert rationales (in a fashion I highly doubt she'd feel comfortable with were I not editing from an IP address), and indiscriminately peppered my page with rather inaptly used Twinkle templates, including one for personal attacks, which I tend to take quite seriously. Her conduct is extremely inappropriate for someone dealing with IP editors. Whilst I'm a former editor and am quite able to handle myself, I don't think a user with such a poor grasp of Wiki policy on new user interaction ought to be particularly involved in vandal-whacking.
Please note that I am not asking for the templates on my page to be stricken, nor for my issue with the cite-tag on German phonology to be taken to mediation. I am merely requesting comment on what I believe to be fairly unjust measures taken by the user in question. I would not be so dismayed at her conduct were it not sobad faith and mindlessly procedural, and I would like to reiterate my belief that such a user is not well-suited to dealing with new users.60.242.48.18 (talk)06:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Wran, copyright concerns and edit-warring in our 'Dominique Strauss-Kahn' article.
User:Wran, who states that he is a copyright lawyer[123], has repeatedly reinserted a section into theDominique Strauss-Kahn article, despite it consisting entirely of a quote (unattributed, except in the references) From aDaily Mail article.[124][125] Not only does this seem to be edit-warring (Wran has repeatedly been asked to discuss this on the talk page), but I feel that his/her assertions regarding copyright cannot be allowed to override normal Wikipedia policy regarding copyright issues - which is to err on the side of caution, and to seek the advice of others where there is any doubt. After attempting to discuss this on Wran's talk page, it has become obvious that Wran considers his/her own qualifications as a lawyer (which of course I have no means to verify, though I see no particular reason not to take him at his/her word) sufficient to ignore policy, and indeed to refuse to even discuss the relevent content in the appropriate place. I see no point in me reverting yet again while Wran is acting in this manner, and ask that an admin do so instead, and then ensure that Wran complies with what is normal expected behaviour, particularly where copyright issues are concerned.AndyTheGrump (talk)19:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the copyright issue - is it a cut and copy paste? but I do know theUser:Wran needs to stop repeatedly re adding this disputed content and move to talkpage discussion. Also, on a tangent - ifUser:Wran is a copyright lawyer I will eat my hat. This disputed content has been stuffed in six times now in the last four days, three times byUser:Alis9 and then three times by User:Wran - neither of them have ever made a single talkpage comment and these five reverts and one addition between them are their total combined contributions to the article.Off2riorob (talk)21:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The entire 229-word section is enclosed in quotes. It is correctly referenced as being from the Daily Mail, but has no in-line attribution. Wran suggested on his/her talk page that the fact that our quotation had omissions from the original (correctly indicated by ellipses) somehow made a difference to copyright concerns. If this is true, I fail to see why.AndyTheGrump (talk)21:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Wran has just posted the following on his/her talk page: "it's all a matter of public record and therefore UNCOPYRIGHTABLE". I think that given this display of ignorance in regard to the copyright issue under discussion must be seen as the clearest indication that his/her claim to be a copyright lawyer is bullshit of the highest order. I have informed Wran on his/her talk page that I consider him/her a liar (and a fool), and I have no hesitation in repeating the same here. Give Wran's self-evident misrepresentation, can I suggest that a substantial block would be in order at this point? We clearly don't need bogus 'lawyers' making decisions on copyright issues.AndyTheGrump (talk)14:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Unacceptable remarks against a particular community on talk page
Again please refer to the following comment made by User:Sitush on Yadav talk page:
"I will have a think over the next hour or two. If the lead is unbalance then it will not be good news for the Yadav community, since we'll likely have to mention the Naxalite connection, political corruption etc as those are the issues that are well reported."
Tagging a particular caste with corruption, naxalism etc is highly unacceptable and spreads hatred.Corruption or naxalism has nothing to with a person's caste but its with the mindset. Definitely such comments again and again show user's hatred for a particular community and the reason why he has hijacked that page.— Precedingunsigned comment added byRockstar1984 (talk •contribs)21:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Your tit-for-tat filings are going to become rather tiresome very quickly. There's no humanly-possible way that someone could consider those remarks as against an entire community. You're starting to turn this project into aWP:BATTLE, which will not end well for anyone (talk→BWilkins←track)21:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I have notified Sitush since Rockstar1984 failed (again) to do so. Please make sure you notice the big orange box that says, "Youmust notify any user who is the subject of a discussion."LadyofShalott11:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The remark has been taken out of context of the wider talk page discussions. Consequent upon edits made during the last few hours by Rockstar1984, I have referred the matter back toWP:3RRNBhere. Despite advice offered by others, it seems that nothing much is being taken on board here even though they did open a couple of discussions (and immediately objected to my comments therein). This article attracts a lot of POV contributions from new-ish users, meats and socks, unfortunately. They believe that they can bludgeon their POV in the face of rational, policy-based discussion. It looks like Rockstar1984 might be the latest in a fairly long line - I am particularly concerned that they keep using the "we" word, eg:here andhere. -Sitush (talk)13:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This is utterly ridiculous. I do understand why referring back to 3RRNB was pointless, but this person is continuing to ride roughshod over consensus that has taken weeks to attain. -Sitush (talk)18:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Sitush, request you to stop playing with words, matter raised now and one discussed earlier are very different as is relevant from recent discussions. No one except you has objections to that. I fail to understand what you have against Yadav community that you are not able to understand the most simple things. why having only negative content (even though if it is misleading) gives you pleasure. Relax dude, breathe.Invent your time more constructively--Rockstar1984 (talk)18:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
So,this edit by IP:79.233.5.130 was just reverted byUser:Savh. It's very odd. He talked about Vanatau the moment before and then just went to the South Sudanese Foreign relations article and vandalised it. Anything that can be done about it? I know you can't block the whole city of Frankfurt, but this behaviour is still unacceptable.Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie |Say Shalom! 24 Tishrei 577216:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Same person editing from different IDs to get concensus and dominate a page
this is to bring your notice to users 'Fowler&fowler' & Sitush.these 2 different IDs are created by the same user. he has been using these two IDs to post as different users and to get consensus on Yadav Page for things that most of the other users disagree.
he doesn't allow users to make any edits in the page and thus is blocking everyone else to contribute on the page.
Too many pics from the same book has been added which doesn't give any additional information to the users and present a biased view.If others try to add any additional information/pics in the page, it is conveniently removed by him giving a flawed logic
Reporting me doesn't justify your recent vandalism on Yadav Page. How can you not allow others to contribute.this is against the very idea of wikipedia. You have been reporting and getting anyone banned who challenges you and domination on Yadav page— Precedingunsigned comment added byRockstar1984 (talk •contribs) 17:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC) --Rockstar1984 (talk)17:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)--
Fine I will revert my edits but what what consensus are you talking about. Go through the talk page. Every one is dissatisfied with what has been happening on that page recently.Consensus is created by group of 2-3 people who are not letting others contribute.Can you tell me the rationale behind adding too many similar pics from the same book and not allowing any other person to add other pics giving additional information to the users.They have added pics from flickr which is not a verifiable source. Anyways, I am reverting my edits but I am not satisfied with way that page is being handled.wiki admins are completely ignoring the plea of a larger population. And yes, request you to pls check IPs of above mentioned users, they are one and the same --Rockstar1984 (talk)18:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)WP:SPI is where you request IP checks etc, although I doubt that you will get anywhere with this one. For the record, I have not added a single image to that article - images are really not my bag. Also for the record, this warring has gone on for days & has involved much text content as well as images - the 3RRNB report only lists some from today. -Sitush (talk)18:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Have reverted it back to what it was. However my query remains unresolved.Please check IPs of Sitush and flower and also please justify what is the rationale behind adding too many similar pics from the same book and not allowing any other person to add other pics giving additional information to the users.Also, request you to please go through the discussion on Yadav talk page and see it yourself that it is a case of [[WP:OWN] where nobody is allowed to make changes on the page. Pls go through the recent edit history of Sitush.He is strongly anti-yadav and is creating an environment of hatred and unrest by putting only negatives on that page.--Rockstar1984 (talk)18:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Dude, you have only got 50 edits, you need to back off and take your time, stop reverting, read someWP:Policies and guidelines and focus on non attacking good faith discussion on the article talkpage. Also its a big wide wikipedia, I suggest you broaden your horizons with a few simple edits elsewhere, join aWP:Wikiproject and perhaps return to this disputed article at a later date.Off2riorob (talk)19:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Bwilkins, its better you go through the entire matter and investigate before giving your valuable remarks.Ever since this request was raised, Sitush's and Fowlers support for each other has decreased. Go and find out yourself-Rockstar1984 (talk)18:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
So, Rockstar1984, are you saying that the knock-down, drag-out fights that Sitush and Fowler&Fowler have had before were entirely fiction designed to confuse the rest of this? And the fact that they have extremely different writing styles--that's just one person being remarkably competent at maintaining two identities? To be honest, you can open anWP:SPI, but I don't even know if you'd get Checkuser approval, because the two are so obviously different. Just because two people support the same thing doesn't mean that they are actually the same person.Qwyrxian (talk)02:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Having consulted the management of SABRE (who are referred to in the article being proposed for deletion), and seen related contributions on TV Tropes and the Urban Dictionary, we suspect this may be retaliation from a former SABRE member. Our most obvious suspect is a former user named B4133, who was permanently banned in April 2010 for abusive and threatening behaviour. However, our evidence is circumstantial at best, and we would be unwilling to take further action unless we have further proof.
Unlikely, shy of a court order. Please see[126]. That said, the editor should not be vandalizing your page as they've done. Probably a warning from an admin and go from there.Ravensfire (talk)18:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
To expand onRavensfire's comment, a Checkusercould examine the accounts in question and make an educated guess as to whether they're the same person or not. However, looking at the AfD discussion, I can't see a sufficiently strong argument for opening the requisiteWP:SPI, since the other account in question has only edited Wikipedia twice, and both of those edits were to the AfD. That would make the second account aWP:SPA, to be sure, but that's about it right now. If you believe your User Talk page (or any other Wikipedia page, for that matter) to have been vandalized by either of the accounts in question, I'd recommend bringing it up atWP:AIV. Meanwhile, more sets of eyes are on the matter now, so with luck, it won't escalate past this point. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk)19:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I think by the user's admission, it can be safely said that he is not here to help create an encyclopedia.Phearson (talk)02:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The following accounts areConfirmed as each other and have been indefinitely blocked:
IP blocked. I don't know who the sockmaster is at the moment; I did come across a possible one in the CU results, but the MO does not match. –MuZemike18:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Somebody please stop Rezabot[127], who is wreaking havoc to the interwiki's on template documentation pages he runs into. The source of the problem is a misunderstanding of what interwiki's should be on documentation pages. His bot is doing fine with templates themselves, but as long as the problem with documentation pages isn't fixed, he should be stopped. Examples:[128],[129].Debresser (talk)17:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
In addition, I didn't like the notice on this bots userpage to write him on the Farsi Wikipedia. I think that a bot active on the English Wikipedia should be monitoring his English page, and that should be the only venue of contact with him.Debresser (talk)17:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I see the problem and have blocked the bot until Reza can fix it. I also agree with you, that he should check his page here, but I'll drop a note at the Farsi project as well. --Elen of the Roads (talk)18:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, that was a weird experience. Never tried typing right to left before. And trying to guess what the buttons do, given that I don't speak Farsi and can't even transliterate the script. Definitely, he should not be expecting people to leave him messages there - if he wants to run the bot here, he should watch the page here. --Elen of the Roads (talk)
I checked my botcontributed it had 2800 edits in template namespace and i copied them to excel file and i found only 3 of them were in /doc sub-page 2 of them you edited and another one i reverted. i think the problem is solvedReza1615 (talk)21:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Thecode related to interwiki bot script is unchanges since two weeks. I found a wrong interiki link atvi: wiki and a new form of /doc subpage which is not known by the bot framework. The last one does not cause the given problem but leads to wrong interwiki placement on vi-wiki. Unfortunately wrong interwiki links may be distributed by the bots. At least I am working on a solution for doc subpages at vi-wiki. @xqt09:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I've reported them at AIV, but there's a backlog there. This is purely an attack account, Q, feel free to nuke them with all due prejudice.Dayewalker (talk)08:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The above user has been harassing me, leaving the same message plastered three times in a row on my talk page, bothering me about my username which was grandfathered in and agreed to atWP:ARBCOM, and looking up my block log history -- NONE OF WHICH is any of his business (see[130],[131]).Quis separabit?14:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to add, I don't feel I need to justify my username to anyone who feels the need to inquire, particularly whenUser:Alison, an admin, attests on the talk page that my username has been grandfathered in. I am not going to take this grammatically-challenged abuse and nonsense.Quis separabit?14:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Sigh* I really dont have time for this. All that happened was that i posted a message on his page saying why is his username exempt from the rules and he reverts it as nonsense, so i asked him (i didnt revert i created a new setion) and he subsequently posted a rather agressive toned message on my page[132] which i was rather taken back by, so i simply told him i dont want to waste anymore time with this madness and i said , in his words; we have no further discussion. thus ending the conversation. Not sure why he reported me for asking him a query then i asked him why he removed it which he replied by plastering an agressive message on my talk, if you think thats harassing then you must be joking. If anything your harassing me. Please stop wasting my time, i am sick and tired of these situations which i always seem to fall into.User:Goldblooded(Return Fire)15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
If you "always" fall into them, perhaps you should examine what it is about your editing style that causes that to occur. Hopefully in spite of your last message, you realize on some level your edits were inappropriate, and you'll just move on. If so, there's nothing more to see here as long as the situation ends.Dayewalker (talk)15:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Have you read the definition ofWP:REVERT yet? My favourite part is highlighted inWP:3RR where it saysA "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word (talk→BWilkins←track)15:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Yet, you claim that "i didnt revert i created a new setion [sic]"? It contained the same type of query ... therefore meets the definition of a revert, right? (talk→BWilkins←track)15:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Not exactly, but honestly does it really matter? With all due respect i suggest you should read up onWP:LETGO, and i'll go by what ive previously said this debate ended long ago , before he even reported it (which was totally unessarially) anyway i have to go since most saturday's i usually help out this elderly couple i know in the community. If you want to discuss this matter further or have any other questions/queries about me or my editting i suggest you post it on my talkpage or on the constructive criticism page but please keep it clean i dont want threatening material on there. Thank you :)User:Goldblooded(Return Fire)15:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
You have a validly-placed warning, you keep questioning why, and people are merely trying to help you to avoid the same problem in the future. Off you go then, if you think you have learned accordingly (talk→BWilkins←track)16:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why nobodySpecial:Searched "rms125a@hotmail.com prefix:wikipedia:a" and showed Goldbloodedthis, which would've answered his initial question and hopefully stopped this whole thread from happening. →Στc.21:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again Σ, at least someone has some common sense. That is all i really wanted to know, but instead the madness began and i was subsequently told to shut up and apparantly i talk a load of nonsense and im an idiot and i dont listen to a word anyone says which is totally untrue, and then i was threatened with a ban! All rather depressing really.User:Goldblooded(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)13:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Otto4711 - WP:ban proposal
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.
A few weeks ago I reported that a banned user,Are You The Cow Of Pain?, continued to edit under multiple IP's. I was expecting the IP's to be banned but unfortunately nothing happened. So is there any chance something can be done this time around?--TheMovieBuff (talk)18:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Support community ban - add to Wikipedia:List of banned users - support for a community ban has the added benefit that it allows any editor to automatically revert all edits by banned users (and their sockpuppets) without violating WP:3RR. -Off2riorob (talk)21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
If we have to semi or even full-protect every article he disrupts, I believe we will do that. If we cannot do that, then there is no purpose of imposing any ban or block on him. –MuZemike07:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Support ban in order to facilitate handling per Off2riorob's above comment (Peregrine Fisher: that's why the ban helps).Johnuniq (talk)03:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Support--I should have proposed this some time ago. Otto4711 has been a large contributor, in his various incarnations to longstanding poisonous atmospheres in both LGBT and deletion areas.Jclemens (talk)03:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Support (but he maybe already banned by Arbcom?) I check Otto's block log, which said not to unblock him without contacting Arbcom. Can I infer that he is already banned by the Arbitration Committee?OIFA (talk)03:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
To the best of my investigation, that block was placed by one arb, acting on information supplied to the committee behaviorally linking Otto and Cow, and was never formally recorded as an ArbCom action.Jclemens (talk)06:52, 23 October 2011 (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.
Changes to Template:Di-replaceable fair use
Please seeUser talk:SchuminWeb#Changes to Template:Di-replaceable fair use. SchuminWeb has made fundamental changes to a template which reverses how policy is implemented regarding some images. The post by Future Perfect at Sunrise in the linked discussion outlines how and why this is a bad idea. SchuminWeb maintains that a Tfd with 4 editors commenting (3/4 supporting) is sufficient consensus for this change. I believe this should have been brought to a wider venue. We now have three issues:
Edit warring on the template by SchuminWeb against so far 3 admins concerned about this change
Rudeness, flippancy and dismissal of concerns by SchuminWeb
And of course where and how to have the community discussion regarding whether this change should be made or not
I'm amazed that people are so up in a wad about this, but there you go, I suppose. I don't care anymore. Do whatever you want with the process.SchuminWeb (Talk)16:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I believe AzaToth suggested that, but that rather begs the question. SchuminWeb edit warred for this change claiming community consensus. Now, either there is or is not consensus; I opine not, but I submit that neither you nor I alone can judge that. In short, I refer you to the third bullet point above; this requires more input IMO. However, if you wish to restore that so we have a working template while this discussion is ongoing, I have no objection. I would check with AzaToth and Future Perfect prior to doing so, however. Should I notify them of this thread, since they have not weighed in? Also, as a secondary note, this in no way addresses SchuminWeb's behavior in edit warring on the template itself, and his incivility to three concerned admins on his talk page, which has me concerned, especially as he tried to close this section[133] in order to avoid discussion here.KillerChihuahua?!?17:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
"The entire discussion was had at TFD. It doesn't matter where we had the discussion. We had it, and consensus was achieved.". I think the phrase we reach for here is "I don't bloody think so". You don't effectively screw about with policy (i.e. an editor can unilaterally short-circuit the CSD for an image which is clearly speediable) by having a discussion in a backwater page which no-one knew about. Did you link it atWT:NFC? AtWP:VPP? AtWP:CENT? No, I thought not. As an admin, you should frankly know better.Black Kite (t)(c)17:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
A discussion at TfD that is not advertised anywhere simply cannot change policy. Therefore the modified version of the template is arguably deletable underWP:CSD#T2 as an unambiguous misrepresentation of existing policy.{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} should be restored, SchuminWeb should be subjected to one (1) application of theclue-level adjustment device, and everyone should move on. If this matter needs further discussion, this should be done at eitherWT:CSD orWT:NFCC with a cross-post to the other location and toWP:VPP andWP:CENT.T. Canens (talk)17:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I have restored the deleted template, with a note that a deletion with wider implications needs to be discussed at a venue with wider visibility and participation.Black Kite (t)(c)17:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
tl;dr version: I'd prefer a reversal of the IDHT but I'm not holding my breath. Support template restoration
full version: Clearly I would support this course of action, as it restores the policy and procedures in place for over 4 years and undoes SchuminWeb's ill-advised unilateral change of that; I confess I would be more optimistic about the future if SchuminWeb had acknowledged that he did not apply best judgment in this; or even if he acknowledged that the current (unanimous) consensus is that he did not apply best judgment, and made some kind of statement that in the future he would seek wider input before taking such actions, and follow more closely his admirable statement from his user talk page that"If you are writing to comment on an action that you disagree with, first just fix it, and then tell me what you fixed and why you fixed it. This permission also includes reverting administrative actions that I have made. I won't wheel war with you if you revert an administrative action. Just make sure you tell me that you did." as I would prefer to be assured this type of lapse, compounded by edit warring and WP:IDHT, would not happen again.KillerChihuahua?!?17:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Apparently Haabet moved the article to "long neck women" in 2008 and was told that that was unacceptable. Perhaps we should tell the user that this behavior is disruptive and will get them blocked? Looking through the users talkpage the question ofWP:COMPETENCE arises. The fact that the user is banned from the Danish Wikipedia also suggests that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·21:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Haabet's command of English is atrociously poor. He cannot even write a single sentence that is grammatical and clear. In his edits, his intention has been unclear. However, their effect has always been counter-productive. There is nothing to lose, but everything to gain, by banning him.--09:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked Haabet indefinitely - Alexf deletedKayan (Burma) to make way for the move, and Haabet recreated it and redirected it to a disambiguation page. If he's not a troll, he's completelyincompetent. If anyone knows what language he does speak (he certainly doesn't seem to have the English) and would like to explain the situation to him, that would be a kindness.Elen of the Roads (talk)12:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
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.
User:sitush made following comment on his talkpage.[135]. He is either Jimbo himself, who may edit without making others know this. Or he is trying to impersonate as one. In either case the account should be blocked. Or, given the context of the talk he is making it public that he may game the RFCU requirements. Whatever be the case an action is required.Ikon No-Blast18:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No action is required; the edit you linked is clearly meant to be humorous. In addition, while this thread is done, please remember in the future that you must notify anyone who you report on this noticeboard that they are being discussed. Frank | talk 19:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Given the context of the talk, it is quite obviously a joke intended to poke fun at the fact that he's has numerous frivolous SPI opened against him (I myself am apparently a sockpuppet of Sitush, much to my surprise). I think the most "action" that is required here is telling Sitush that sarcasm can be misinterpreted, and to keep this in mind. -SudoGhost19:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No need. The frequenters of my talk page either start their own section (usually a diatribe) or are well aware of my humour etc. Ikonoblast is just being deliberately obtuse, even after I explained that it was joek-y. This is probably because they are on the wrong end of a discussion atTalk:Yadav. -Sitush (talk)19:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
You did say it was a humour, however, a bit late. It has nothing to do withtalk:Yadav. Anybody impersonating, or giving hints that he is a sock of banned account Or Jimbo should be banned. No matter what is the context. it has been done in the past too.Ikon No-Blast19:21, 23 October 2011 (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.
This list was nominated for discussion by me, as I feel that it contains a lot of trivia, recycled press releases, etc. Some folks have had the courtesy to discuss it calmly; but others have mocked and abused the very nomination and those editors who support it. There has been conflation of this list with the whole concept of Occupy protest as an article, falsely stating that we are somehow seeking to suppress news of the protests; there have been not one buttwo attempted early non-admin closes on the false theory that this is aWP:SNOW situation; and generally there is a level ofad hominem and downright nastiness which is to me inexplicable, especially since any competent reader can see that I am myself a support of these protests, just trying to maintain our standards of actual encyclopedic content. Could some folks take a look at what's going on? See also some of the abusive posts to my talk page and that ofCrusio. -- |15:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Mike, would you be opposed to me closing early as anWP:IAR close to keep to avoid further drama in the AFD and here?--v/r -TP16:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, there are nearly 40 votes, and 9 out of 10 are keep votes. Allowing this to close early as snow keep would have been the right thing to do, and would have ended the "downright nastiness" a lot faster than starting yet another discussion on the drama board.—SW—speak16:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, where are the abusive posts on yours and Crusio's talk pages? I'm not seeing them. This entire situation is getting blown way out of proportion; Orange Mike and Crusio are only fanning the flames here.—SW—confer16:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I too interpreted the situation asWP:SNOW. I saw a user request that non-admins not close as SNOW, so I let it alone for someone else to handle. I agree it should be closed immediately. --Odie5533 (talk)16:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me (albeit indirectly) that I am mentioned in this thread. I really object to the remark that Mike or I myself are "fanning the flames" here. And for those counting the votes above, AFD is not a vote (do I really have to remind people here about this?) Mike brought this to AfD in what is completely and obviously good faith. I myself have been presenting policy-based arguments why I think this should be deleted in, I think, civil and unemotional ways. One may certainly disagree with me, but I don't think that my arguments should be brushed aside casually (and note that I am not the only "delete" !vote here) and I certainly don't think that they are fanning any flames. I came to this debate after it was for the first time non-admin closed as "speedy keep" less than a day after it was brought to AfD. I am completely baffled about the vehemence with which people seem to feel attacked by someone just questioning whether this article should be kept (as Mike notes, nobody is proposing to deleteall articles about the "Occupy" movement). I think it was inappropriate that the AfD was non-admin closed asecond time, despite repeated requests on the page to let it run its due course, which is why I reverted that closure.
Having said all this, tempers seem to flare (and I admit to being close to losing my patience with all this drama myself). I don't object if a respected admin like TParis would close the AfD now. --Crusio (talk)16:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Can an Admin just close it as Snow so everyone involved can move on to other issues besides an AFD that has no chance of closing as anything but keep.Ridernyc (talk)16:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Closed I've left what I think it a fairly accurate close rationale that covers Mike's (et al) opinion with room for reevaluation later. I think there may be significantrecentism involved here but at this time it's fairly strong consensus toward keep.--v/r -TP16:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It is a continuing shame that editors are either unable or unwilling to separate their personal points of view when it comes to establishing notability or encyclopedia worthiness of a topic. Sometimes this gets thwarted, e.g. Marcus Bachmann, but as we see here today, sometimes the mob is just too big and the pitchforks too pointy to overcome.Tarc (talk)16:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Mike, for what it's worth, as I tried to explain at the AfD, I think you acted in good faith, and I'm disappointed at the incivility that erupted. One reason I asked for a snow closure was to shut that off. And now we have incivility spilling over to ANI. Delightful. I'm not seeing any abusive posts on Mike's or Crusio's talk pages.Lagrange61317:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
No objection to the snow close, but what a disappointing situation overall. The title is fine for a worthwhile list, but the content is basically worthless. --Onorem♠Dil17:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
No offense intended. Seedevil's advocate and the OP's opening statement in the AfD: "Spam-magnet which is serving as a giant advertisement for a bunch of low-profile events. This has nothing to do with my extremely strong support for these protests; but our standards cannot be waived just because I agree with them."Have mörser, will travel (talk)12:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I am one of the editors voting delete and opposing a wp:snow close. I am - as probably opposed to most wikipedians - very much *for* having (more) voting on WP. Voting is not evil, voting is a simple form of assessing the sheer number of supporters of some opinion. Like it or not, any large majority will be able to enforce its will in WP, irrespective to whatever policy says, in most situations. So this AfD is a clear keep, I have no problem at all with that. But using a majority to shut opposing opinions is unbecoming, specially unbecoming for people (as most of the keep'ers likely are) that support, or do, a protest by people that believe their voices should be eared. Shame on you. -Nabla (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)PS 1) I do not see any huge incivility specific to this AfD discussion, sure it got harsh, maybe a few ad hominem arguments could have be removed/striked, but (unfortunatelly) not that different from 'the usual' nastiness (it does not turn any nasty remarks in here into good ones - simply pointing that this is a more general problem) 2) This AfD completely fails thethe snowball test: it was not even remotely unanimous (a undisputable fact), and the objections were reasonable and based on policy -Nabla (talk)22:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Isn't it better to say 'I accept removal of my rollback if the community feels it's necessary'. I don't get why we need to remove it so you won't do it again. If you in good faith used rollback in a manner you felt would be acceptable and since you weren't sure later sought clarification as to whether it really was acceptable and the community made it clear they did not agree with your view of it being acceptable, isn't it easier if you just learn from what the community is telling you and don't do it again? (For reasons of history etc, the community may feel it necessary to remove usage but that's a different thing.) Are you saying you don't trust yourself to obey any restrictions the community places on the use of the tool? If so, it seems it should be removed regardless of whether your use here was acceptable.Nil Einne (talk)19:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, you don't need to feel pressured to sanction me. I was just trying to be a bit light-hearted in my complaint while seeking comment on my behavior and his. Since nobody seems to care one way or the other, I'm OK with it, too. But the guy did about 1000 edits with same summary and the same type of errors, and I only rolled back the 10% that were still "top", so there's a lot of damage that someone will have to deal with still.Dicklyon (talk)21:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
While rollback is only forvandalism, it has also been used to mass-revert multiple bad, but not vandalistic, edits, by the one editor. But the safest thing to do before using rollback in that way is to come to a community noticeboard like this before doing the rollbacks and asking for the community's imprimatur for them. --Mkativerata (talk)21:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks; I knew that, but forgot to ask. Now asking forgiveness (or otherwise) rather than permission. I forgot to notify the guy, too, so I'll do that now.Dicklyon (talk)21:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I've had to mass rollback a couple of people for reasons other than vandalism; the key is being completely confident that the action isreally needed, because if you're just reverting lots of good faith work that isn't disruptive in any way (intentionally or unintentionally), you're just creating a big mess. If you're not 100% sure that the action is necessary, as Mkativerata says, bring it to a community noticeboard and discuss the problem and what to do about it. Bottom line in this case, though, this clearly isn't an "abuse" of rollback that warrants a loss of privileges.21:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Since I mention you here, I'm required to notify you of that. So I did, after a few hours delay when I was out and about. My complaint here about myself was also about you.Dicklyon (talk)21:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
But you just told me on yourtalk page that you didn't actually look at all of the articles you reverted; you felt justified by the fact that they use the same edit summary (which, admittedly, is something I need to work on) and had a similar type of change undertaken... don't you think other people, i.e. the ones you're asking about this, should know everything that happened?Magus732 (talk)21:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Some of the reverted edits were useful and a case for "abuse of rollback" could be made, but I share the frustration expressed by Dicklyonhere regarding how relatively minor edits can cause huge diffs which make checking the edits impossible without a lot of work. Regardless of the merits of that issue, it would be premature to remove the rollback right due to theguideline which permits rollback "To revert widespread edits ... provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location", as was done.Johnuniq (talk)03:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - there has been no complaint by anyone about this editor. He was wrong to use rollback in the manner he did, but it is clear that they have brought this matter here not to be subject to vilification but to draw attention to the editor who's "clean up" activity warranted the action taken by Dick in the first place. He knows how to use rollback and removing it at this time would only be punitive and no benefit to WP. Looking at Magus talk page, that is where proper advisory action is required. They have a history of idiosyncratic style-related editing and misleading summaries.LeakyCaldron08:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - TheWP policy clearly states that these rights should only be removed upon persistent misuse, and the first instance here is largely debatable.Niluop (talk)15:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for starting this unnecessary and POINTY thread. I just wanted to get some attention on the problem. If I had been aware of the clause under rollback usage that explicitly justified what I did, I certainly wouldn't have come here. If anyone is motivated to help repair the mess that Magus732 made, that would be great.Dicklyon (talk)16:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The usual practice, as several admins pointed out above, is to discuss first before performing the mass revert, since if there's a mistake we'll have to do another mass revert again. That said, I don't think there's any rollback misuse here.T. Canens (talk)17:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Although I probably have my personal and professional Wikipedia naïveté to thank for this opinion, I don't feel Dicklyon should have his rollback privilages revoked. I may not agree with what he did (or how he did it), but it doesn't sound to me like he did anything wrong.Magus732 (talk)20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is there still a "vote" here? Dicklyon boldly offered his own Rollback rights up because heknew he was correct, and the mere possibility of removing those rights was preposterous. An interesting tactic, but to each his own. He keeps Rollback - end of story. This is becoming a "useless" thread, IMHO.Doctalk04:28, 24 October 2011 (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.
Toa Nidhiki05 Should Be Blocked
Toa Nidhiki05 should be blocked. He is being a disruptive contrarian on the NFL Lore page.
His only purpose is to be a contrarian. He has demanded "consensus" when it is clear that he will never agree with anything. I have attempted many times to explain why an event should or should not be allowed onNFL lore, yet, he continues to insist on being a contrarian.
I checked his reputation--he has been blocked more than once and has repeatedly engaged in edit wars. I suggest that his block be for an extended period, considering his history.67.169.25.132 (talk)—Precedingundated comment added22:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC).
I don't think this warrants full protection as only one IP is editing against the consensus reached on what should or should not be added to this "lore" list. Full protection would IMV adversely affect potential edits by other registered and IP editors.TonywaltonTalk22:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
In October I see three reversions (not contraveningWP:3RR) toNational Football League lore by Toa Nidhiki05, citing additions made against consensus. I see 18 edits by 67.169.25.132, adding things. I also see another editorremoving something added "against consensus". I also see several suggestions by 67.169 for entries to the "lore" list being rejected by editors other than Toa Nidikhi05 (too numerous to quote diffs; seethe talkpage ). 67.169, it appears that you may be the only one in step - "consensus" doesn't mean only your contributions are of value ("Toa Nidh [sic] your contributions are useless", as you saidhere). It means you need todiscuss the merits of contributions to the list, rather than simply stating that only you are right. No admin intervention required here, except possibly to draw 69.169's attention toWP:CIV andWP:NPA.TonywaltonTalk22:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I requested the block. Here is further explanation of the situation. Tao never provides any explanation for his reverts, simply citing "no consensus," without any real explanation. I had attempted to add events to the list, with valid citations and reasonable support - only for Tao to insist that there was "no consensus" on whether those events should be considered memorable for NFL lore. Thus, I opened a thread to discuss the removal of events that I believed were not memorable. I stated that many of the events could be parceled out to other pages on team-lore or rivalries. I was trying to adapt to a stricter standard of "memorable" when previously I had been more open-minded. No one responded to the thread--so I went ahead to make the changes; only for Tao to reverse the edits because there was "no consensus." It became clear that Tao had no intellectual interest in the NFL lore and simply wanted to be disruptive, which I must add, he has a track record of doing. By the way, people have said worse things to me on Wikipedia than "annoying prick."— Precedingunsigned comment added by67.169.25.132 (talk)23:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
If I wasn't having my reputation slandered on here, I wouldn't feel any need to respond. However, this is my statement on the matter:
Yes, I have a history of disruptive editing. I'll admit to that, I have nothing to hide, as anyone who looks on mytalk page will notice. However, it is just that - ahistory. You'll notice my last block was in April - six months ago. My blocks were further for 3RR violations - not for vandalism or personal attacks. I get caught up in my interests and occasionally get too involved.
With that aside, the only one being disruptive here is IP - you may notice on the main page of the 'NFL Lore' page there is a notice underevery subheader that new additions must be discussed first. Now, IP decided toremove lots of content, includingThe Epic in Miami, a very notable game that is often listed among the best ever. Indiscriminate removal of events without even any discussion is not bold or even prudent, so Iboldly reverted to allow discussion. I made acomment on the talk page with a perhaps ill-advised wisecrack that 'If you seriously think the Epic in Miami isn't lore, you need to get checked out', a comment I did not intend to be taken seriously. IP madethis statement:
Dude, you are an annoying prick. You're only purpose is to be a contrarian. You have demanded "consensus" when it is clear that you will never agree with anything. I have attempted many times to explain why an event should or should not be allowed, yet, you continue to insist on being a mindless contrarian.
Like most people, I don't appreciate being called a 'prick' or 'mindless contrarian', and removed the comment. I also warned IP on his talk page with the lowest-level personal attack warning. Now, here we are. It appears IP believes he is always right, and is not willing to discuss with me in good faith.
Now, what here warrants a block from me? I never personally attacked (save an ill-advised wisecrack), never mass removed content, and never removed large amounts of notable content. I don't believe anyone deserves a block here. I do not think IP is using good faith or editing constructively, but this can easily be solved by alerting him on policy, asking him to create an account so he can bementored and be involved further here. I know I started out rather disruptive on here, but WP is a learning experience - hopefully, this dispute can aid in that for both parties, myself included. I rest my case.
EDIT: Also, I do have intellectual interest in the NFL, as evidenced by myuserbox page and my involvement on Panther-related pages. I edit the stats for Steve Smith weekly, and for Cam Newton occasionally.
IP, when you bring a request here you should provide evidence, which you did not, and also sign your posts. You have provided insufficient evidence for administrative action and therefore this thread should be closed.TFD (talk)01:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To start with,Off2riorob (talk·contribs) is a good editor who has taken on the thankless task of helping with BLP problems, which I think is admirable. However, at the recent ANI discussion dealing with Beta's block[136], Rob made this comment about the blocking admin[137]...
"...Yes, but regrettably for you, it is active contributors to articles that make this place work - and you have only six minor contributions to en wikipedia articles this month, and as such a minimal contributor you have no right to restrict active good faith contributors from contributing."
When theadmin understandably took offense, Rob became upset[138] and asked to see the admin's RFA (from 2005[139]). I tried to talk to Rob on the page about his feelings on judging other editors, and encouraged him to take something that radical to the Village Pump. Rob replied that his belief[140][141] "is reflected in common sense." He repeated the process with anothersix-year veteran editor[142], comparing his output to Beta's in an attempt to discredit his opinion.
I've tried to discuss this in good faith first on the ANI, then on Rob's page, but he closed the discussion and called my good faith apology "vandalism,"[143] so I gave up on talking it over with him. Yet again following our discussion, he[144] commented snidely toPurplebackpack89 that Purplebackpack89's opinion was in agreement withHinata, who didn't have enough mainspace edits for Rob's tastes.
My question here is this actually a policy, or "common sense" in Rob's terms, to summarily discredit the contributions of editors and admins based on one man's criteria? If not, can someone clarify to Rob what's going on? This seems a pretty inflammatory thing to just decide arbitrarily, and I can't see how it adds one ounce of calm or clarity to ANI discussions. Thanks in advance for your attention.Dayewalker (talk)23:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I will not comment about his comment to me, but that is uncivil. And he tries to discredit people. Obviously, that is against Wikipedia rules. And please - when does it matter what edits I made? There is nothing wrong with my edits. I've kind of give up on editing mainspace, but I may later. --23:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like some clarification on whether or not Rob's edits are within policy, as he says. If they are, I'd like to see the policy so we can all adjust accordingly. If not, I'd like someone to let Rob know he's pouring gas on the fire with his judgements, which seem very uncivil to me. He's not very communicative on his talk page to anyone who disagrees with him. We spend a lot of time discussing how to bring in new editors, Rob's edits and attitude don't seem as if he even cares about keeping veteran editors and admins.Dayewalker (talk)23:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Off2riorob's comments were incivil, yet at the same time, there isWP:SPADE. While he should not deny that others have no right to do something, he has a point that there is a problem when editors who do little hurt editors who do a lot. The project does not gain when this happens. I'd cautioon Off to be more civil, and the editor he warned, to try to be more active in aconstructive fashion, rather then in blocking. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me23:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- My comments were completely civil and I will not retract or apologize or be warned for any of them - I repeat them again now - I double them. - Users contribution history is relevant and can be quoted and it is not uncivil to mention that they have not contributed to the improvement of content in article space.Off2riorob (talk)23:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Bro, some of us areeditors in the more traditional sense of the word, rather than writers. we have enough to deal with just keeping a lid on the content that's here and now rater than consider adding new content on top of it all. I do not put a premium on a person's article creation or contributions, because 9 items out of 10 it is just penis-waving look-at-me bean-counting. Look no further than the WikiCup, the Pic of the Day, and DYK for that sorta junk.Tarc (talk)23:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course this is a consideration with some experienced contributors and in fact some not so experienced contributors - ultimately we all have our part to play. - and simple article contributions is not a specific guideline at all - there are multiple factors worthy of consideration -Off2riorob (talk)00:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, after being attacked - a comment of -don't attack me with your wiki lawyering crap is about as civil as it gets - and after being further attacked by them a comment of,I took the data from the comments here - please stop your crap attacks on me. Its borish. - is equally understandable -Off2riorob (talk)00:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I checked, and I haven't found a single image or bit of descriptive text in any of those places of someone waving around their penis while counting beans yelling "look at me". Just figured you should know... thanks for wasting my time Tarc! ;-)
Echo'ing Tarc. I'm a decent example in this; I've contributed to content creation on a bunch of articles, but my edit history won't support it (article talkpages will), and the rest of my time is spent "keeping a lid..." as Tarc puts it. Best,ROBERTMFROMLI|TK/CN00:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a big difference betweensome content creation and practically zero, which is what Rob was pointing out in the case of Hinata, or recently in the case of the admin.Black Kite (t)(c)00:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I was alerted to this thread because I was mentioned. Me agreeing with another editor who didn't have mainspace contributions seems like an ad homenum (sic) attack. Did I check to see how many contributions the user had? No! Did I particularly care, or does it matter to what I said? No! An autoconfirmed Wikipedia user can comment in any discussion regardless of the number of edits he has. If edits are relevant at all, which they're not, perhaps the user should have commented on the extent ofmy contributions, all 8,000+ of them. I would have said much the same things about Beta acting inappropriately regardless of whether or not Hinata had commented. Also, the bold text was highly inappropriate. I think this series of actions by Rio should be noted as highly inappropriate; in what manner that is is up to someone elsePurplebackpack89≈≈≈≈00:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I spit in the face of your comment - "I think this series of actions by Rio should be noted as highly inappropriate;" - as a series of actions goes, there are none. - Users (there are exceptions) that do not contribute to article space have no authority and their contribution history can be mentioned and is relevant. -Off2riorob (talk)00:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Who? Me? RobRio? Daye? I'm complaining to a certain extent about Rob's actions (and since there are multiple diffs, itis aseries of actions), and to a certain extent about being mentioned at all. Agree with Bush about the spit comment being highly inappropriate. RobRio, can you point to a policy or guideline that says that "contributions talk", i.e. people with more contributions should be listened to more? BecauseWikipedia:Equality, among others, suggests the oppositePurplebackpack89≈≈≈≈00:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Its just reflective of real life -"contributions do talk" and talk loudly' - Wikipedia:Equality is a close to worthless essay that like the users I was commenting on - hasn't been edited in a year and that in itself reveals, like the editors, they and it have little assertive authority.Off2riorob (talk)00:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, .. live the dream - I am here , right now - getting the message across - I never said it was/would be easy - push the boat out -Off2riorob (talk)01:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
(undent) I was actually talking about your comment, but... whatever. Whoever started doesn't matter, a lot of these comments have been unacceptable, and context does not excuse incivility.SDY (talk)02:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Half-following this, just here from a page protect request a bit ago, but I heartily agree with the B. Might also be worth readingWP:NVC. We should reward our long-term contributors, sure, but we should not coddle them or give them a sense of entitlement. There's a lot more toWP:CIVILITY thanWP:NPA, but it seems like that's the only portion that gets enforced. I don't know the specifics of what precipitated this, and I don't have an opinion on the details, but a specific and absolute refusal to even listen to criticism is a bad sign.SDY (talk)01:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Well - this crap is a false portrayal -When the admin understandably took offense Rob became upset and please stop replacing it. If thats the best attack you have got this thread might as well be closed now.Off2riorob (talk)02:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Rob, I'm not trying to attack you. I started a discussion on the Beta thread, and then took it to your page to try and talk calmly to you. You didn't want to have anything to do with it, and now other editors are trying to discuss the matter with you, and you're rejecting conversations with them as well. You're escalating the situation with comments like "I spit in the face," can't you see that?Dayewalker (talk)02:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Recommend closing this topic. There was clearly nothing actionable here from the start, and this appears to be an irrational escalation of a rather harmless dispute between editors that should never have gotten so inflamed to begin with.AerobicFox (talk)02:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Rob has made a similar comment before, about TenOffAllTrades when he blocked Baseballbugs recently. I think the general point Rob makes does have merit, but I can't judge if in these cases it is all that relevant.Count Iblis (talk)02:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I remember that comment. In that case Ten had blocked Bugs for seemingly punitive reasons which a snowball of editors disagreed with, and Rob was pointing out how Ten had only 5-6ish minor edits in the article space for several months, and therefore had no right to be interfering with an active editor(bugs). I see harm to making such a point, or relevance for the merits of such a point to be debated in its own ANI topic though. I think this discussion is more likely to pointlessly escalate into something that requires admin action than to argue that there is something currently for an admin to do.AerobicFox (talk)02:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Rob's comments on admins being worthy of using the tools to block is one thing, and that could be debated at the Village Pump or somewhere else in policy. There might actually be something to that in the future, but it should be based on policy, not one editor's opinion. However, twice in that same thread following his comments on the admin, he used the same tactic to discredit regular editors who[146][147] were merely giving an opinion on the matter. If we're going to start discouraging editors from giving their opinions based on their contributions, who's going to decide who's worthy to speak at ANI?Dayewalker (talk)02:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it not taking things a little too far, to take someone to ANI because they are making what you perceive as irrelevantad hominems but which other editors(myself included) may see as potentially relevant. ANI is for personal attacks, or a level of incivility which causes significant disruption. If you wish to debate the merits of considering an editors article space edits when considering their opinions then there are avenues apart from ANI which are more appropriate and which won't needlessly inflame discussion.AerobicFox (talk)03:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Believe me, I would have loved to not have this escalate. I tried to discuss this in two different places with Rob, and asked him to take his opinions to the village pump for discussion. He not only cut off discussion, he went back to[148] the behavior, belittling a veteran editor for agreeing with an editor who didn't pass Rob's once-over. At that point, his behavior seemed to cross over into disruption so I brought it here. The Beta thread was heated enough without editors being attacked for daring to speak their opinions.Dayewalker (talk)03:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
This is how I see that this discussion got started:
Yes, but regrettably for you, it is active contributors to articles that make this place work - and you have only six minor contributions to en wikipedia articles this month, and as such a minimal contributor you have no right to restrict active good faith contributors from contributing - you should have opened a discussion and suggested blocking a user and waited for community consensus,and not stepped in unilaterally when you are barely contributing yourself. - We need contributors. Off2riorob
There's no need to be uncivil about this; don't be a dick, please. I never said he wasn't contributing in good faith. The issue is the stalemate re communication that appears to be impassable. --Tristessa
What follows from this needless provocation "don't be a dick" is a retaliatory response by Rob claiming the admin is the dick. You then started a discussion on Rob's talkpage asking him to " Please stop trying to judge other editors based on your own criteria.", Rob then responded that he feels it is a reasonable criteria to hold to which you responded "It's fine that's your opinion, but those comments aren't based on policy, and can be pretty incendiary when they're dropped into the middle of a discussion at ANI.", to which he responded that you are being incendiary to which you started an ANI topic.
I would like to note that I have problems with the way you presented the argument upfront, you stated at the top "When theadmin understandably took offense, Rob became upset[149]", but you omit that Rob becomes upset after Tristessa tells him not to be a dick, and instead characterize Tristessa's comment as "understandable". Again, it seems not to be your pejorative to tell other editors that their opinions are incendiary and that they shouldn't present them any more than it would be Rob's telling other editors not to post because they don't have article space edits. You are free to post that you disagree with opinions you find incendiary just as much as Rob is free to post that he disagrees with posters who don't have article space edits.AerobicFox (talk)03:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
AF, if my response to your ANI post was to say "Just to clarify, this editor has fewer than a thousand main space edits and has been here just ten months, while I have more than thirteen thousand in more than three years," do you consider that dismissal of your opinion at all civil? No, it's ridiculous, and there's no call for that, especially from Rob. However, if that's the way we're all going to agree things should run, so be it. I'd just like to know.
Incidentally, your characterization of the discussion needs one correction. Rob took offense to the way he read something I said, and I apologized profusely for the misunderstanding here[150], which he deleted as vandalism[151].Dayewalker (talk)03:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for omitting your apology as I didn't see that. While I could possibly be offended by such a comment I could at the same time appreciate such a point of view, so I personally would not find it inappropriate(especially since I can imagine many editors having this opinion).AerobicFox (talk)04:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Just do a search through past ANI discussions and you'll see Rob come up often enough, almost invariably about civility. Malleus too, for that matter, if memory serves. But we all know that ANI (or any admin for that matter) never does anything about civility. You can insult people all you want on Wikipedia, we all know that.SilverserenC03:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, seren. Frequency of ANIs filed against is usually a tally of frivolous, thin-skinned busybodies than it is that the target did something actually actionable. You can't just bean-count ANIs anymore than you can look at someone's block log to gauge actual wrong-doing.Tarc (talk)03:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Please, Tarc, don't start. You've taken every opportunity in the past few weeks to insult me, for whatever reason. Like the snide last sentence there. And don't think I don't notice the purposeful use of "Seren" all the time.SilverserenC03:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I would like to re-state my opinion that this thread should be closed since there is nothing actionable, and since this thread will only serve to inflame editors further.03:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I’d like to second the opinion expressed above by Malleus Fatuorum before this thread gets closed. For years I’ve been following the contributions made by one-time users. Not a single piece of new data lacking external source can be trusted. Almost all smaller edits I run into nowadays, contain misinformation, vandalized statistics, unsourced and negative claims about living individuals, political extremism, mock references to insulting lies from non-accessible sources, manipulated half truths etc. Irrespective of our technologically advanced infrastructure – developed more recently – or perhaps because of it, the deterioration of the actual content of Wikipedia mainspace has become more visible than ever, beyond hope for any significant improvement in spite of all effort of our long-time contributors. Mainspace entries, which in the past were stubbed with hopeful expectations, have grown to become undemanding and (usually) badly written blogs featuring highly suspicious subsecs full of misrepresented citations and unsupported refs. It doesn't matter what you say in talk anymore. —A. Kupicki (talk)03:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what the drama is about at this point. But I was just notified on my talk page that I'd been mentioned in this section of ANI, which I don't seem to be. Above, I posted something about rather lame bulk editing of HTML color formats, which was followed up with"User:Nagle - fifty minor edits to en wikipedia articles in the last six months - no content additions at all". Actually, I have somewhat more edits than that. (Nagle (talk·contribs)) My general comment on Beta and his various scripts and 'bots is that his enthusiasm for making changes in bulk needs to be strongly restrained given his history of problems. --John Nagle (talk)03:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose any action against Off2riorob. I agree with closing this thread. There are many editors here who I would advise to dial it back when it comes to civility and unnecessary confrontation. Off2riorob is one, and Tarc is another. I've locked horns with Rob a time or two, and have also tried very hard to make peace with him. I've criticized Tarc's abrasive comments and been blown off. So be it. Both are useful editors here and I appreciate their contributions. Both should take a chill pill, as should several other editors chiming in here. Rob makes a very legitimate point about our primary purpose here - improving and expanding the world's greatest encyclopedia. Of course, there are many useful and productive jobs to be done here, but every one of them ought to be primarily in service of improving and expanding this encyclopedia. Accordingly, productive and useful content creators should be accorded the highest social status here, since it is the work that they do that is indisputably themost useful and valuable. I encourage Rob to apologize to the extent that apologies would be useful, but I also recognize the absolutely essential work that Off2riorob does here in enforcing our BLP policy.Cullen328Let's discuss it04:43, 24 October 2011 (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.
I was going to report him toWP:AIV for continuing the previous behavior for which he was blocked, and decided to go ahead given the extent of the problems and the fact that he immediate took up his edit-warring upon returning from his last block[152].
User has been blocked indefinitely. Given that they haven't seemed to learn anything from their previous blocks, I feel like their continued presence is a net negative. So, I'll address it appropriately.m.o.p05:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
It was closed by a non-administrator as keep, but the participants were roughly split in !votes, and some more commented on the sources without voting either way. That suggests a close call, andWP:NACD discourages non-admins from closing in such circumstances. Perhaps an admin wishes to re-close it in order to avoid further controversy?Have mörser, will travel (talk)17:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I count 5 Keeps and 2 Deletes. That looks like consensus, but for anything besides a Snow Keep I think it would be better for an administrator to close.Edward321 (talk)17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the nomination counts as delete too, so that makes them 3. The nominator has complained to the talk page of the closer, so I assume he was not convinced by the keep arguments yet. Also,User:Lambiam who did not vote either way commented that the source at that time in the article was not independent. Also, the last !vote was still delete for lack of independent sources, so presumably the article had not improved much during the AfD.Have mörser, will travel (talk)18:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I dont think AFD's are races where the last person to vote counts more then any others. I also note the last vote admits it could not check all the sources, so all this proves is that the user made a judgmenat in incopmplete data.Slatersteven (talk)18:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I never said that. I only said that the last !vote suggest that the initial sourcing concerns were still valid in the minds of some participants at the end of the AfD. Ergo, this was hardly a non-controversial closure, as additionally evidenced by the nominator complaining on the closer's talk page. SeeWP:NACD for why non-admins should not close in these circumstances.Have mörser, will travel (talk)18:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, the closing editor basically supervoted by deciding that sources presented by RolandR were reliable and decisive[153], even though another editor, Stuartyeates, who had posted after RolandR in the AfD had disagreed that they were so. It does not appear the kind of clear-cut closure reserved for non-admins.Have mörser, will travel (talk)18:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but the last vote was at 23:35, 22 October 2011 where at it was closed at 04:02, 23 October 2011, I assume you mean that niominator disagreeing with the closure. If I understand things corectly ther is no requirement for the nominator to agree to a close. Also there was a 2 to one vote to vkeep, and a lot of users claimed it was reliably sourced, some of whome appear to have actualy read the sources.Slatersteven (talk)18:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
And if you insist, the depth of coverage in RolandR's sources has been questioned immediately thereafter in the AfD by Malik Shabazz who is an administrator, so surely not the most clueless person around here.Have mörser, will travel (talk)18:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The nominator complainedon the closer's talk page after the closure. And a straight vote count is more like 5:3.5 keep:delete, if you count the user who expressed reservations about sourcing as 0.5 delete. Far from the uncontroversial closure recommended byWP:NACD. This is why I have posted here. Please the guideline. This not WP:DRV. I'm simply asking foran admin to comment. You are not one as far as I can tell, so please stop interfering; you have made your opinion known multiple times already.Have mörser, will travel (talk)18:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Forstly, AfDs are notvote counts, they are a discussion. Secondly, I don't think a non-admin should be closing AfDs where the consensus is not obvious.GiantSnowman18:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not an administrator but am a frequent participant at AfD. I am uninvolved with this particular AfD debate, but agree 100% with Have mörser, will travel and GiantSnowman here. The topic is potentially quite contentious and there were good arguments advanced in favor of deletion based on the claimed poor quality of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. This is a case where the debate should have been relisted for further discussion by more editors, or closed by an administrator. A non-administrative close does not sit well with me. The vote counting going on in this discussion is, in my opinion, not how we ought to conduct AfD debates themselves or later discussion or their outcomes.Cullen328Let's discuss it18:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The operative language inWP:NACD is "better left to an administrator". I don't think that language is enough to de-legitimize the close. Arguing that it would have been okay if an admin closed it the same way, but it is not only bad for a non-admin to have done so, but that it should be reversed, flies in the face of the idea that admins are just normal editors with extra tools, seeWP:NOBIGDEAL. While it is fine to disagree with the close, I don't see anything substantively unreasonable with how the closer read consensus. The close should not be overturned, and if it is to be overturned, it should go toWP:DRV. This is not an appropriate case for an admin or anyone else to unilaterally overturn the result.Monty84519:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
It's worth noting that one editor !voted to delete, but after reading the sources I noted changed his !vote to keep.RolandR (talk)19:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I have been asked on my talk page to review this closure. I agree with many of the opinions above that Alpha Quadrant inappropriately closed this discussion because its result is not obvious. PerWP:NACD, I am undoing the closure and am relisting the discussion. Sandstein 19:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Haven't we been to ANI several times regarding Alpha Quadrant's improper non-admin closures? The AfD isleaning towards keep, but it isn't even close to a slam-dunk.Tarc (talk)19:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This is the first time there has been a discussion about this on ANI. The closure I made was not unanimous. However, at the time of my closure, there did appear to be a consensus that that the subject met the notability guidelines. AfD is not a vote, it is a process where one of the intended purposes is to establish a topic's notability.WP:NACD suggests that these discussion be left for admins, but the policy does not say that non-admins are prohibited from closing non-unanimous discussions.Alpha_Quadrant(talk)20:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
We need to rein in those controversial NACs (it's not just Alpha Quadrant; I've noticed a couple users doing this kind of closes lately). Far from saving everyone's time, they actually consumemore of it. Whenever people contest them, admins will have to spend time reviewing them, and there's always the possibility that an inappropriate NAC slip through the cracks, which means that some admins may decide to spend time reviewing the non-contested NACs as well, which means that having NACs in this system actually increases admin time consumption. This we don't need. Any NACs that are not obvious should be summarily reverted whenever they are brought to the attention of an admin and reclosed by an admin.T. Canens (talk)22:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we need to reign in the idea that admins have some special authority to judge consensus. I would counter propose that any NACs that are not clearly erroneous should go throughWP:DRV if there is a challenge, admins should only revert those closes that are so bad that discussion at DRV would be so pointlessly one sided as to waste everyone's time.Monty84502:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Dave Dial is the classic example of bad behaviour in Wikipedia.
I suggested that some obscure laws unrelated to Obama's bio should be removed. Those laws may be important to those affected by the laws but Obama did not campaign much for them (unlike his signature issues, like closing Gitmo). We need to just have a good Obama bio, not a poorly written bunch of topics unrelated to the man.
Dave Dial just steps in an starts falsely accusing me.
Stop this. First of all, the user that started this thread has been indeffed, and it's not so strange that both Hi Balloon Boy and BAMP are disrupting this article once again, since they are socks of JB50000. Which someone will need to add to the SPI case. Irritating that the socks are not already blocked. Dave Dial (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I see the user who started the thread is Hood River. This shows how savage and bad Wikipedia is. I see that person is named after Hood River, a river in Oregon. Yet the blocker stupidly thinks it is a name that not permitted! Second, Dave Dial just starts accusing people falsely. What if I accused Dave Dial of being _____, an escaped murderer? Same thing.
I offered a good suggestion to improve the Obama article. Those that respond should either agree that the suggestions are good or to make alternate suggestions. That improves Wikipedia. People like Dave Dial just behave badly. For that, he should be blocked.Hi Balloon Boy (talk)14:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
You need to stop throwing around false accusations for one. Two, PLEASE read the above thread on being civil and not attacking other edtiors. Three. don't throwboomerangs unless you're ready for them to come back to you...Wildthing61476 (talk)14:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
My accusations are not false. I discussed a genuine improvement of Obama's bio, neither pro or anti Obama. Dave Dial should make similar suggestions or keep quiet. Rather, he makes false accusations. That kind of bad behaviour should result in being blocked. Dave Dial attacked me. Bullying needs to stop. Listen to the hit song, Pumped Up Kicks. It is about bullying.Hi Balloon Boy (talk)14:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I've declined the user's second unblock requesthere. I, too, echo that a 24-hour block doesn't seem to be a deterrence to this user - if anything, they see it as some sort of bargaining chip with which to play and offer their inactivity for a month. Bizarre, but the threats indicate bad faith.m.o.p16:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
"Dave Dial is the classic example of bad behaviour in Wikipedia."
After spending a long time arguing in circles, I fully agree that it's time to put an end to this. And, given OhioStandard's comments below, I might as well be the one to do it. To sum up the tl;dr below: Mystylplx removed cited content, once, from the article in question, while the IP claims he's done it lots of times with warnings, but has provided no significant evidence vis-a-vis plenty of evidence being provided for the IPtendentiously editing. In addition, there's accusations of socking going both ways; I can find no merit in the IP's claims of socking on the part of the 5th-dimensional imp, while the apparent IP sockingcould (assuming good faith) be simply a dynamic IP with the outlier being checking in from a different geographical location during a vacation. So, solutions:
No action against Mxy. Removal of cited content isn't vandalism, or against any other policy. Sometimes even reliably-sourced stuff isn't appropriate or related to an article. It only becomes vandalism/edit-warring if done repeatedly, and I see absolutely zero evidence of that on his part. Nada. Zippo. Goose-egg.
For the IP: no direct sanctions either at this time, aside from a {{trout}} for tending torwardsWP:IDHT,WP:TEND, and continued pushing ofWP:CIVIL. The latter (along with the unresolvedWP:NLT from whatquacks loudly as a previous dynamic IP addess of the same user) makes me tend torwards imposing a block, but dynamic IPs make action of that sort fairly pointless. He is, however,strongly reminded to comment oncontent, notcontributors, and also that somebody's not agreeing withThe Truth doesn't mean they're out to harass you.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An IP user whose IP keeps changing, (latest99.12.181.124 (talk) has been edit warring, accusing me of sock puppetry, and vandalism, for months. Recently he put upthis ANI himself with his "evidence" of my supposed sock-puppetry. After it was reasonably ignored he went away for a short time, but now is back and justreverted an edit of mine fromRalph Nader presidential campaign, 2000 where I had removed a redundant paragraph containing information that is already covered (better) just two paragraphs above. The edit comment was "Revert vandalism." He also put two vandalism warning templates on my talk page. I've tried discussing with him. I've tried ignoring him. I'm just tired of the whole thing.Mystylplx (talk)07:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Note: This same user has already been blocked for edit warring and was blocked for a month for making legal threats against Wikipediahere because he couldn't convince anyone that I'm really this "Griot" person he's convinced I am.Mystylplx (talk)07:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The content is not redundant.Mystylplx has twice removed it. I have posted reasonable warnings forMystylplx to stop. The warnings, whichMystylplx refers to as "loony," are appropriate. It thus appears thatMystylplx is the harasser. One more instance of vandalism will lead report.99.12.181.124 (talk)07:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see what happened. It was the other one you put back and I didn't look close enough. Well that one was removed because they didn't "draw similar conclusions" to Burden. The papers bear no resemblance to each other and looked at completely different things. In either case it was removed for good reason and was certainly not vandalism.Mystylplx (talk)07:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Spurious accusations of vandalism are not OK. IP, your contribution to AIV was removed for the proper reasons, and I see that a past accusation of socking was thrown out of court (on Mystylplx's talk page). Try talking to the editor instead of accusing them, or you might find yourself hit in the back of the head by a boomerang, all proverbially of course.Drmies (talk)17:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Citing vandalism for repeated removal of sourced content is not spurious. I would hardly refer toUser:Mystylplx talk page as court. I have not made an accusations of socking, or meating. I have made statements, which I know to be true and accurate. "hit in the back of the head by a boomerang"? I take that as a threat. Do not threaten me.99.12.181.124 (talk)01:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I really don't see where you're coming from on this. When, other than this one time, did I remove any sourced content? The fact is a great deal of the difficulties we've had was your constant attempts to remove sourced content against consensus. Formonths you kept removing theAtlantic Monthly content and were repeatedly reverted by myself and several others.Hereherehereherehereherehereherehere and on and on and on... ::As for the discussion page fix of my own comment, what exactly is your problem with it?Mystylplx (talk)04:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Mystylplx admits that he removed sourced content, after warnings. It seems to me he is misusing this forum and article discussion pages for dispute resolution. I do not believe that these are the appropriate forums for such activity, nor does such behaviour reflect good faith.99.12.181.124 (talk)06:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
No. Because youstill did not answer the question. And, even with removing sourced content once, if that was done "after warnings", that means the warnings issued prior to removing sourced content that one time were issued spuriously - unless you have proof otherwise. Show us the diffs. -The BushrangerOne ping only01:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
( non-admin, uninvolved comment ) @IP 99.x: I've nothing to say concerning the content issue, but you're completely mistaken if you think that your accusation of vandalism is in any way appropriate. Drimes' warning of a possible consequence for doing so could have been phrased more politely, sure, but it was nevertheless spot on in substance. We donot describe content disputes as "vandalism", ever. Further, if your IP isn't stable for at least weeks and preferably months at a time, and you want to be taken seriously in disputes like this, you'll need to register an account and stick to it.
Making edits that are in any way contentious from an IP address that changes often is frequently construed by many editors, myself included, as a way to evadescrutiny of one's history. I'm not saying that construal necessarily applies to you, but did want to inform you that you'll get better outcomes in disputes, and generally be taken more seriously, if you edit only from a registered account. – (talk)12:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It goes beyond just evading scrutiny. Here's an example--the 99 ip disappeared for a few weeks in July.Here'shis last edit. Then another IP user showed upheremaking identical edits. The "new" IP user stayed untilheremaking virtually identical edits to the 99.x user during which time the 99.x user wasn't around. Then the 99.x user returnedhereafter which the 184.x user was seen no more.
InIn thisdiscussion on the talk page you can see both 99.x and 184.x denying being the same person. You also see (I think) clear similarity in personality and writing style in "their" comments.Mystylplx (talk)22:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Mystylplx is offended by my stating that he is a meat or sock, with evidence. Here, he accuses me without evidence. I continue to deny I am this person, or even know this person. I stated repeatedly that I was away,away from Wikipedia, dealing with very serious personal matters.Mystylplx did vandalise the article by repeatedly removing sourced content, then used this noticeboard and an article discussion page to air dirty laundry. I'd like to see some evidence of equity on this noticeboard.99.12.181.124 (talk)00:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
All I will say is look at the evidence on both sides and see whoyou think has evidence and who doesn't. I also want to make it clear that this ANI isn't just about the latest incident--it's alongstanding pattern of accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry along withloads of tendentious, disruptive editing. After he was blocked for a month I was hoping he would either go away or come back a bit "toned down" but his very first edits on returning were to accuse me of vandalism and template my talk page. I'm tired of it.Mystylplx (talk)00:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
"evidence that he is a meat or a sock" - what evidence. Present it, please. Got diffs? So far you have not provided a single bit of evidence, onlyconstantly repeating your accusations and ignoring requests to provide your evidence. If you continue refusing to provide the evidence, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there isn't any. -The BushrangerOne ping only01:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
99, in evaluating your behaviorjust in this thread, what stands out is you accuse without evidence and you are impervious to other editors' characterizations of your behavior. So, Mystylplx does something you don't like, and you accuse him of vandalism. Drmies advises you to be careful about bandying about the term vandalism, and you accuse him of threats. The other thing that stands out, as Bushranger rightly says, is you are full of conclusions but with nothing to back them up.--Bbb23 (talk)01:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd be happy to give you his "evidence," at least as he's expressed it to others.Herehe tried to make the case to one administrator.Here'shis ANI about it. Have fun.Mystylplx (talk)03:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that too. Evenmore fun. Note: I actually tried to wade through that because, though I obviously know I'm not this "Griot" person, I was curious if maybe there wassome rational reason for him to think I am. I'll let you decide. I'll just point out that after two admins and one failed ANI told him there was nothing there he continues making the accusation and claiming he has evidence.Mystylplx (talk)03:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I assume you're responding to the IP, but lack of indentation is making it hard to know. In any event, even when the IP provides diffs (as he did at the ANI report), I can't follow his "logic". And I have no idea what he means when he says the "remaining evidence is confidential." For me at least it's harder to respond to someone who makes no sense than someone who is wrong but I can understand. I can't understand him.--Bbb23 (talk)15:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
That's because there isn't any logic. He's decided that I am this "Griot" and has a bunch of convoluted baloney which he thinks proves it. He thinks he knows my RW identity, but is deluded on that too. He just incessantly continues with the bizarre accusations, tendentious editing, and all around weirdness.Mystylplx (talk)17:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
In a court of law, lack of evidence would see the case thrown out. Such is the case here. IP has repeatedly failed to provide evidence of misconduct despite multiple requests. Without evidence, this should be closed as unactionable. --Blackmane (talk)11:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Heh, must be one of those confidential Revdels that no one but a select few can see. As for my affiliation with Mystylplx, I'm still working on pronouncing his username. If I ever get that sorted out, I'll let you know.--Bbb23 (talk)16:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
But Mystylplx brought this report here, not the IP. The issue is what action should be taken against the IP? I note that Mystylplx did not specify any requested administrative action.--Bbb23 (talk)15:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
It's mis-tull-plix. :) And I don't know what action should be taken. All I know is I'm tired of this. What is normally done in cases like this?Mystylplx (talk)17:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Based on your original posts, it looks like you are accusing the IP of harassment and falsely calling you a vandal. You also appear to be accusing him of being the same person as other IPs from similar address ranges. Finally, you say he was blocked and you point to another ANI thread. From looking at that thread, it doesn't look like he - or anyone else - was blocked. It looks to me like articles were semi-protected because of IP issues. However, it's possible that that same thread provides some evidence of IP-hopping - whether it involvesthis IP is unclear to me. Admins who are commenting here are better able to determine what action, if any, should be taken, but my non-admin take is that there is certainly enough evidence to warn the IP and probably sufficient evidence to block him. My feeling is that the block evidence comes as much from his behaviorhere than his other behavior as he seems to be willful in his misunderstanding of what vandalism is, and his baseless accusations betray a similar disinclination to contribute cooperatively.--Bbb23 (talk)17:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The IP hopping is clear from theRalph Nader article and talk page. And it's not just from similar address ranges (see above.) And he was blocked (for making legal threats) due to yet another ANI which I can't find. One of the things about about an IP editor who refuses to make an account is it's hard to find this stuff.Mystylplx (talk)18:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
OK I found it.Here'sthe talk page from the IP he had at the time showing him blocked for making legal threats. If you doubt it's the same person just look at thecontribs. He's also been blocked for edit warring before, but I haven't been able to find that one yet. As I said, he has a long history of this type of stuff.Mystylplx (talk)18:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Apparently, Bushranger agrees with you (see below). In all honesty, I confess to it not being as clear to me as it to you and to BR, but, in any event, I agree with everything else BR says.--Bbb23 (talk)23:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
If you had been involved with any Nader related article it would be obvious to you. He's always there. The IP changes every week or so but always starts with 99 except the one time he went on vacation, or whatever. His personality is quite...distinctive.Mystylplx (talk)01:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
When he went on vacation (or whatever) he just had a different IP and that's the one time he really pretended to be a different person.Mystylplx (talk)02:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
...Actually, there is some prettystrong evidence there...and I'm pretty sureimpersonating another editor is decidedly an offence - which you have just done, 99.12.181.124. And given thatyour accusations of Mtzy's socking have no basis, I thinkWP:KETTLE applies here... -The BushrangerOne ping only07:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I see noWP:DUCK evidence. Furthermore, as an equitable admin will note, the absence of the tildes was unintentional, while inclusion of the quotes was intended to indicate that the statement was made by a user other than myself. As for my statements thatUser:Mystylplx is a meat/sock, there is basis. And, ifWP:KETTLE applies, then I accept your offer thatUser:Mystylplx has made accusations against me without basis, in violation ofpersonal attack andWP:AGF, which I am beginning to sense you are violating, as well.99.12.181.124 (talk)07:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
That would take care ofthis article - and I certainly wouldn't object to it - but it wouldn't go to the heart of the problem. For example, the blocked IP (see above) edited theRalph Nader article. My recommendation would be a long (preferably indefinite) block and semi-protection of the article, although I suppose if a block were imposed, the semi-protection should probably wait until there's evidence of IP disruption. Another possibility is a Nader topic ban.--Bbb23 (talk)01:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
That could work if it was long term and was for all Nader related articles. It could at least force him to get an account and then if he continued in this vein it would be alot easier to show the history. It's hella hard to find diffs and show the history of a user whose IP changes every week or so. But (I think) a better idea would be a range block only for Nader related articles. This would be minimally inconvenient for only those other IP's who are from the same rangeand are interested in editing Nader related articles.Mystylplx (talk)02:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Given my clear understanding regarding the nature of vandalism and harassment, and taking into account the improvements I've made to the project, I request that admins find the appropriate equitable action(s) to this matter.— Precedingunsigned comment added by99.12.181.124 (talk)17:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Deeper and deeper. Your comment above about "improvements ... to the project" caused me to look at those contributions. Given that you've only been editing since October 19 and most of your edits have been to the Nader article, I looked at your most recent edits and started making changes to the article, including restoring some of the language you changed, actually mostly for stylistic reasons rather than more serious issues. The only substantive thing I backed out (as I recall) was a statement that was cited to a political source and was therefore unreliable. Seems like everyone who disagrees with you is evil, eh?--Bbb23 (talk)18:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
As I'm slightly involved, I'm reluctant to out-and-out close. I will say, though, that looking over Mxy's edits, I don't see anything wrong with them - there's no policy that prohibits the removal of sourced content, and the IP's accusations are outright spurious. In addition, the IP has opened aWP:DRN case on the article in question - clearlyWP:FORUMSHOPPING after seeing things here weren't going to go his way. Given hisI didn't hear that attitude, constantunfoundedaccusations and the fact that aobvious prior ID of the same IP was blocked underWP:NLT without, as far as I can tell, anything ever retracting said threat, I'd strongly reccomend a long-term block against the IP. -The BushrangerOne ping only23:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I viewed that I was doing quite well, remaining cordial, especially considering theWP:CIVIL offenses of other users, threats, provocations, etc., while displaying obvious facts that any equitable mind can apprehend. I simply wished to address the matter of content dispute in the appropriate forum.
No policy that prohibits the removal of sourced content? I thought there was, perUser:Mystylplx:
I'll simply point out that those are almost a year old. I was reprimanded for it, apologized for it, and have not used the word "vandalism" in reverting one of your edits since then. The very fact this happened to you before, you rightly complained, and I apologized, lends credence to the idea that you should know better. But I'll also point out that this is about a lot more than simply the most recent accusations of vandalism and templating my talk page.Mystylplx (talk)08:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: To equitable admin, I have never received any such apology, nor was I aware that removing content is not considered vandalism. I am becoming increasingly confused about what the intentions ofMystylplx and his friends are on this noticeboard.99.12.181.124 (talk)08:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there a practicable and effective rangeblock available? If not, I'd strongly support a month or two, at least, of semi-protection for the articles the IP focuses on. Can some other admin step in, please, since Bushranger states that he considers himself slightly involved here? – (talk)19:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: To equitable admin, pardon my oversight. I added the tildes, above, to distinguish the difference in users. The quotes were intended to indicate the identification of another user's statement as it applies here.99.12.181.124 (talk)07:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Very well. But you need to realise that "equality" is not what admins are here to enforce. Also, I'd like to point out that notifying somebody whose name has come up at AN/I is not "canvassing". -The BushrangerOne ping only17:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
As the editor who wassupposedly impersonated, it's good to know that it's now clarified that I was quoted, not impersonated. With that being acknowledged, I thought it might be helpful to participants of this discussion to seethe diff from the discussion in which my quoted comments originally appeared. Seeing them in context may be useful, as they were posted in a discussion quite relevent to this one.--JayJasper (talk)19:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
@Bushranger: Your concern forwp:involved is commendable. But despite counting myself among that policy's strongest and most exacting advocates, my brief review of your history doesn't support your decision to recuse yourself here. On the contrary: Unless I've missed something, it's my impression that the encyclopedia would be better served if you'd implement whatever one-time administrative action you see as called for to resolve this immediate dispute, subject of course to post-hoc review by your fellow admins.
Disclaimer of partisan interest by requestor re qualification to judge adminBushranger asuninvolved.
( Section collapsed by its author on original entry, just conserve the high-value real-estate here. ) To the best of my recollection, (1) I have no previous interaction with either party to this dispute, nor with admin Bushranger. (2) I've never edited the articles the dispute comprises; nor am I active in their topic area. (3) No one can reasonably suggest that my judgment of Bushranger asuninvolved represents an appeal to a like-minded political ally, since our respective views on national politics appear to be emphatically and mutually opposed. – (talk)21:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Admin action is needed to resolve this, and no other administrator I'm aware of has investigated as thoroughly. Unless something I missed in your contribution history clearly prohibits doing so, I'd ask that you consider this as a formal request from the community of mere mortals ( akanon-admin editors) for whatever admin action you deem necessary to resolve this dispute and close this corresponding thread. – (talk)21:46, 24 October 2011 (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.
Please restore POV tag toOccupy Wall Street and help me with dispute resolution?
I have been accused of edit warring and warned twice because I want to include information about calls to amend the Constitution to theOccupy Wall Street article. I have spent several hours over the past five days carefully sourcing and condensing the material, but three other editors insist ondeleting it without any specific objections that I have not fully addressed, apart from vague claims of undue weight. I believe I am beingWP:TAGTEAMed by people who simply want to discredit the movement (they also want to remove the most recent polling from the intro even though they had no objections to it when it was not as favorable.) However, I am not going to make any formal accusations until I have tried all other means of dispute resolution that do not involve accusing editors of misbehavior. What is the correct choice of dispute resolution methods in this case?
Right now I just want to add a{{POV}} tag to notify everyone that there is a dispute. I have done so butit was quickly reverted with the edit summary, "consensus is not a dispute." I do not want to be accused of edit warring over a tag, so I am here asking for some administrator to replace the POV tag and explain that it shouldn't be removed until the dispute is resolved, onthe article's talk page, please.
I have stated on that talk page that I intend to replace the disputed material since nobody seems likely to have any specific objections to which have not already been fully addressed, but I will not replace it until after a length of time to be decided by the administrator2/0 who has warned me against edit warring twice but has not replied to my messages since the last warning.
Generally speaking, from least to most aggressive DR is the usual path Negotiation before Mediation, for example - details are atWP:DR. Some advice, though - it is rarely productive to edit war over adding a tag to an article.KillerChihuahua?!?12:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I would like to tryWP:EAR as a method of avoiding confrontational dispute resolution, but these accusations of forum shopping (after I have, in each instance, followed the instructions of various uninvolved noticeboard posters to take it to some other noticeboard or here on AIV) make me wonder whether I would be further accused of that. Would anyone object if I tried EAR and if so, would you object if I tried a more confrontational means of dispute resolution?Dualus (talk)16:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
It is quite unfortunate that Dualus is also using all of these notice boards to continue accusations while still refusing to begin true dispute resolution. In his latest effort at NPOV he is now making accusations that may beWikipedia:Libel.--Amadscientist (talk)05:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice try, but no. No threat has been made and the page clearly states how action is taken if any for this problem within Wikipedia. Why do you ask?--Amadscientist (talk)22:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
There are some obscure laws that passed during President Obama's term. These were in the Barack Obama article. The article is "Barack Obama". It is not "The World during the Life of Barack Obama". The 3 small parts that I removed were discussed in the discussion page. Basically, they are obscure acts. President Obama never campaigned hard for these, like the closing of Gitmo or the stimulus packages.
Scjessey just reinstates these, falsely accuses me of vandalism, and still offers no logical explanation of why the passages are there. His bad attitude poisons the atmosphere. That sort of lack of behaviour just creates animosity. He is unlike SMP028 who actually suggests a project to look for relevance of those new laws.
Instead, Scjessey just uses automated templates and automated Twinkle. He creates a hostile environment by refusing to use the talk page and just falsely accuses other of vandalism.
He should be sanctioned by revoking his Twinkle access. Twinkle makes it too easy for him to be a bully. He should be forced to explain all of his actions, not just insert and delete.Hi Balloon Boy (talk)03:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
You have not informed Scjessesy of this report. In addition you have been repeatedly been blanking sourced content fromBarack Obama without any proper explanation on the talk page: some of your responses there have been overly aggressive, verging onpersonal attacks.[156] Your edits were reverted and you received the standard warning templates as you approached 3RR. Calling those reverts "vandalism", as you did on the talk page of the article, shows a misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. At the moment you are editing disruptively and could easily find yourself sanctioned, perWP:BOOMERANG.Mathsci (talk)05:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Off-topic question: I've been having great difficulty accessing theBarack Obama page since Hi Balloon Boy filed this report. I have not had this problem with any other page. What could be causing this?Viriditas (talk)06:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
It is rarely a good idea to perform the same edits to an article three times (diff anddiff anddiff) in half an hour. Particularly for a featured article concerning an extremely high profile individual (Barack Obama), a considerable degree of patience should be used, and insisting on a particular edit after making four comments on the article talk page at the same time as making the edits is not desirable. The sanctions link you provide above provides a good reason for working calmly on the article talk page rather than escalating a rather trivial issue to this noticeboard.Johnuniq (talk)06:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
For which user? Both are in the wrong here, to varying degrees. Also, as an aside, I'm trying to figure out why exactly revoking TW access is the solution that the poster is looking for. As far as I remember, revoking TW access was only deployed against people that can't tell the difference between vandalism and non-vandalism. This is just people using tools in an edit war, not a remove-TW violation, but a block violation, as MuZemkike stated.SvenManguardWha?07:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, it probably bears mentioning that the OP here has been gone from Wikipedia for over two years, then returns to edit war on the Obama page tonight, then "retires" for a day or two[157] when the 1RR restriction is brought up to them. I'd politely suggest this one pass with no blocks issued since the edit war has stopped, with warnings for both editors for the future.Dayewalker (talk)07:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not possible to remove Twinkle access any more. It came up on this board once before. As I understand it, the feature was causing more trouble than it was worth, so it was removed.Absconded Northerner (talk)08:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
SeeWikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 25#Blacklist and the linked discussions. From what I read, there's no reason why a user couldn't be forbidden from using Twinkle or otherwise whatever they are doing that is causing problems (whether they are using Twinkle or not), if it's felt they are a somewhat productive editor but have problems that need to be dealt with. This will be enforced, as with all editing restrictions, by blocking of said user if they violate the restrictions.Nil Einne (talk)11:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
As stated above, and numerous other times here and at AN, it is no longer technically possible to revoke Twinkle. —DoRD (talk)15:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Only someone with a username "Department of Redundancy Department" could write a comment that begins "As stated above, and numerous other times...". Too funny. --Scjessey (talk)16:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion about Twinkle is interesting, but academic. Clearly this was not a misuse of Twinkle. The original posterremoved three paragraphs of a featured article with an edit summary "trivial parts removed and discussed in the discussion page", yet no discussion had taken place. I used Twinkle to restore the content and warn the user per standard practice.After this action,Hi Balloon Boyexplained the reason behind the removal of content, and I immediatelyresponded with a warning not to remove cited content without first getting a consensus for doing so. None of this is out of the ordinary, and I had thought the matter would end there.
Sadly, HBBagain removed the content with an edit summary of "Undid automated TW reversion that Scjessey did not discuss. My rationale is clearly stated in the talk page with no opposing logical reason given." Clearly my earlier article talk page comment was ignored, as was the explanation Ileft on the editor's talk page. I gave HBB a chance to act responsibly byasking him to self-revert.
Instead of doing that, HBBresponded with a personal attack, so Ireverted the removal of content a second time,warned him in the usual manner andadded the standard notification about article probation concerning Obama-related articles. After HBB'sthird removal of content (with another misleading edit summary), I decided towarn him one more time and turn in for the night.
After reviewing my actions in this matter, I can honestly say I would not have done a single thing differently. I did nothing more than perform the standard actions after observing an incident of removal of content - standard actions which I have performed many hundreds of times over the years. Had I known Hi Balloon Boy had onlytwo days of editing experience (I didn't look until this morning), perhaps I would'vesoftened my approach by giving him more time to revert himself, but ultimately he responded with a personal attack so it is unlikely the sequence of events would've changed. --Scjessey (talk)13:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
That is why Scjessey should be blocked. He has no clue that he is disruptive. A non-disruptive person would simply explain why he thought those obscure laws pertained to the bio of Barack Obama. Instead, he attacks me, deletes my revisions, and falsely accuses me of vandalism.Hi Balloon Boy (talk)14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
This is classic Wikipedia bad behaviour. Call someone you like a sock. Why not call me a Communist, too? This is another example of bad behaviour by Scjessey and another reason why he should be blocked.Hi Balloon Boy (talk)14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
(after e/c) I suspect that the other editor is mistaken, as both of the alleged sock accounts predate JB50000, and also predateGaydenver (talk·contribs), who is supposed to be the sockmaster. It is possible that there is a sockmaster behind all three, but I suspect that if that is the case, it's someone else who has been blocked or banned, and JB50000 was just caught before these two. I have taken the liberty of informing BAMP that he is under discussion at AN/I, because it's not clear that he would be aware from the discussion on the talk page that he is now under discussion here.Horologium(talk)17:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This is the voice of reason. I am not those other people. I simply had a good suggestion for the article (removing some obscure laws not related to Obama). I suspect that Scjessey is a violent Obama supporter (the kind that blindly supports all of his policies, even if Obama supported not covering his mouth when coughing because he was too lazy). In contrast, I support a better article. My suggestion is very neutral, neither attacks nor supports our great President, but merely improves the article.14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
This looks like another case of "let's beat up the newbie" and side with the veteran, however wrong that person is. First, let's look at the facts. Balloon removed the section on 02:35 23 Oct, following a talkpage discussion (Talk:Barack_Obama#Version_2) where several editors complained about the number of random facts in the article. He was reverted (with no vandalism tag but marked as minor in violation ofWP:MINOR) by Scjessey at 02:40. Balloon posted his reasoning on 02:39 23 Oct. Scjessey's response was simply "Please don't remove cited content without first establishing a consensus for doing so". Lack of consensus alone is not a valid argument and does not really count the discussion we'd ask for inWP:BRD, and any tolerance of this type of argumentation runs counter to our goal of a well-trimmed and edited encyclopedia. Scjessey, as a veteran quite aware ofWikipedia:General_sanctions/Obama_article_probation and what it involves - as well as one with a reputation for very poor behavior (seeWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Scjessey), then very quickly jumped to edit-warring andtagging the repeated clearly 'non-vandalism, substantive, well-commented' edits as vandalism using Twinkle. I would suggest asking Scjessey to avoid Barack Obama as he does not seem to have the temperament for it. However, at a minimum he should be barred from using Twinkle for his assumptions of bad faith - if not technically, then through our consensus. It's no wonder participation is in such decline with such tolerance for bad faith by our veterans.II | (t -c)17:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh what a crock of shit . We have to deal with editors like balloonboy day in and day out, on this and many other problematic articles. On top if that, it is more than likely just a sock of one of several long-term abusive editors who have abused the Obama page over the years. Revert them, block them, ignore them, this is not the type of editor we wish to attract. Scjessey was in the right here.Tarc (talk)17:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This editor, I see, acts like an Obama campaign worker, not a good Wikipedia writer. Besides, there are 300M Americans and maybe 300M others who are interested in America. If just 1 in 100,000 of them comes here (1 in a city of 100,000!), that is 600,000 people editing the Obama article.Hi Balloon Boy (talk)14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Tarc, although in calmer terms. We have an account returning after two years away to edit war on one of our highest-profile articles, followed by another account popping back up after ten months of inactivity to pick up the edits, all because of an inactive discussion started ten months ago by an indef blocked editor.
In any case, this section was started by an editor who promptly "retired" after asking for Twinkle to be removed. That can't be done, so unless someone wants to make a block on twelve+ hour edits, there doesn't seem to be any admin attention required.Dayewalker (talk)17:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This editor, I see, acts like an Obama campaign worker, not a good Wikipedia writer. Besides, see how I am wrongly smeared. I did not retire. I merely retired for 1-2 days. This was to show that I am a good person and do not insist (but back away). See how those bad people attack me; they re-pay my nice offer of backing away with an attack.Hi Balloon Boy (talk)14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
If this is your take on this situation, you either are oblivious to the sequence of events that lead up to this thread, or have an agenda. Continually referring to the editor who started this thread as a 'newcomer' when the account is more than 2 years old, while failing to understand the Talk page sequence, as well as the objection of the removal by several long time editors, is not helpful. To continue to refer to other matters here in this thread shows that you have some other objective here.Dave Dial (talk)18:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The sequence is laid out quite clearly by myself above. Certainly, I have objectives: to elaborate on our complex rule system, which I know well (having edited here since 2007 and having read most policy pages carefully); to swiftly show strong disapproval towards veterans who break rules, assume bad faith, and do not discuss in order to deter such behavior in the future (by them and watchful observers); to make people feel like this is a professionally-run operation rather than a partisan club; and, certainly, to make newcomers (in this case, someone with less than a hundred edits) feel welcome. Admittedly, my background includes that I tried editing Barack Obama a few years back and soon gave up after encountering Scjessey and Tarc, which should not be surprising given what the arbitrators observed. As far as your comments, generally I'm leery of those swinging theWP:SOCK weapon first without even attempting to discuss on substantive merits; I do find the way thatUser:BAMP just showed up suspicious buttwo wrongs don't make a right, and in any case Bamp's involvement came entirely after the incident this is focused on. Dayewalker suggests a "warning" for both users above. It's clear that Scjessey has already received many warnings, and action should be taken. From August 2009 to August 2010 Scjessey was limited to 1 revert per week. It's clear that this did not instill the good habits that ArbCom thought it would (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles/Proposed_decision#Scjessey_admonished_and_restricted).II | (t -c)18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
That Arbcom case was completely useless in explaining anything. It's sheer tendentiousness to dredge up a years-old botched case to berate the responsible editors around here. Perhaps lacking in tact and diplomacy, something everyone here ought to practice, Scjessey's edits were the right outcome. It serves no purpose other than rules for rules' sake to demand that editors patrolling the article tag team bad edits and misguided editors rather than the one who happens to be there at the time. Making a case out of this only inflames things and enables people who would disrespect the article. Just calm down everyone. It's not vandalism, just a bad edit. A newly-arrived editor was too bold and needed to be told to slow down. From what I can tell there's hint of a sockpuppet and that can be investigated. That's all there is to it, so please don't turn this back into aWP:BATTLE-ground for the wholebirther thing again. -Wikidemon (talk)19:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Both Balloon Boy and Scjessey acted disruptively by edit warring, but I seenothing to suggest that Balloon Boy wasn't acting in good faith; they removed the content with an edit summary and wrote up an explanation on the talk page, and they were reverted and issued a templated warning that was not even appropriate for the context in which it was used. Scjessey not only edit warred, but accused Balloon Boy ofvandalism on the talk page, which was completely inappropriate as well. One particular comment of concern was when Balloon Boy said, "Wikipedia allows people to be Bold" and Scjessey replied, "your "boldness" is vandalism" The only reason I'm not imposing the clearly-applicable sanctionssanctions for both users is because the issue is a bit stale at this point, IMO, but this is the type of disruptive incident should not be repeated in the future.19:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I strongly urge you use your administrative tools in the service of article stability and quality rather than to undermine the work of productive editors, particularly on a high profile featured article. In form, Scjessey should have been more diplomatic in the face of edits which, good faith or not, were disruptive. The lack of tack and wiki-political sense has caused Scjessey trouble before. And Ballon Boy, if indeed a novice editor, neeeds to learn the limits ofWP:BOLD, and not rushing to file sanctions requests. In substance, Balloon Boy needed to stop and whether Scjessey or someone else, somebody needed to stop him. You obviously don't mean literally that you don't see any evidence of bad faith editing by Balloon Boy, because if you read this entire thread the evidence is explicitly presented that he was editing strangely and aggressively, and exhibiting some patterns of a sock. You've just decided not to give it credence. Socks deserve every courtesy until they're proven socks, for sure, as there is sometimes a simple innocent explanation. But erring on the side of disruption has been a continuing oversight on the part of administrators dealing with the Obama article, who have played the sucker to lots of fake accounts... many dozens at this point though we've mostly stopped keeping count. -Wikidemon (talk)19:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Lulz. Mr. ImperfectlyInformed, that Arbcom was over 2 years ago, and since then I have not repeated such actions in subsequent hot-topic discussions. If you feel otherwise,WP:AE is thataway. Now if we're done withad hominem broadsides, should this filing be closed? The sock "retired" before he could get boomerang'ed, and there seems to be no legitimate consensus that scjessey did anything actionable.Tarc (talk)19:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Two or three editors have done a great job portraying my actions as bad here. I find the characterizations by II and Swarm to be particularly egregious, with Swarm's edited timeline of events just being plain wrong. The editor who caused all this trouble by popping up after years of absence and removing several paragraphs from a featured article without consensus vanished, only to be replaced by another "dormant" editor who began to do exactly the same thing. This sort of thing is common in Obama-related articles, and the editors who basicallypolice this problem should beapplauded, not pilloried. I'd also like to object to the accusatory and inaccurate section heading. --Scjessey (talk)22:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
What's perhaps most astonishing about this incident is that Scjessey continues to say that he sees absolutelynothing wrong with the behavior and would do it all over again. All of the following are A-OK in his mind: (1) breaking the rule on edit warring for the article under probation, which he was most clearly aware of; (2) tagging his second revert as "vandalism" [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=456924080&oldid=456923095] (and the first revert as minor), when clearly it was not vandalism; and (3) not responding to Balloon with any substantive response but rather a snippy "develop consensus first", in violation of Wikipedia's discussion expectations inWP:BRD. Scjessey's rather tendentious summary above, which conveniently neglects to mention his tagging the edit as vandalism, his lack of reasoning in response to Balloon's comments; and finally that Scjessey's Balloon's "personal attack" was only in retaliation to Scjessey's inflammatory vandalism tagging. Such a summary is apparently just fine in his mind, but it strikes me as fundamentally dishonest. It's enough to make any sane person's blood boil, as mine does when I think about it. It's clear to me that there's something wrong with the whole area when such a situation is looked at with blithe nonchalance, as the Obama regulars see it. But, eh, if the jury is to be the Obama regulars, who am I to argue with their judgment? Perhaps Wikidemon is right that us non-politics types just don't understand the rabid paranoia which such an article requires. However, I've worked on plenty of highly controversial articles and my experience has never been that paranoid attacks and bad faith improve the situation. Such a position directly opposes Wikipedia's pillar of good faith and civility.II | (t -c)01:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, you paint afalse picture of what actually happened:
The rule on edit warring (whether or not the article is under probation) does not apply to edits that are clearly disruptive.
The second removal of contentdoes constitute an act of vandalism, and so I tagged it as such. What else would you call repeated the removal of content, if not vandalism?
I gave all the justification that was necessary, including article talk page comments and user talk page comments.
Incidentally, I've just discovered that you've hadyour own problems with this topic, so perhaps you might want to climb off that rather high equine on which you are perched. I'm starting to get the distinct impression there's someother reason you're fighting hard for some sort of sanction. Seriously, I've never seen such an enormous mountain made from such a tiny molehill before. --Scjessey (talk)02:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the vandalism policy is misunderstood.The lead to vandalism states: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." And there is no reading ofWikipedia:VANDALISM#Blanking.2C_illegitimate under which the edits could have been considered "blanking". As far as justification, per BRD, if you don't have any reasons, it's essentially the same as saying you do not oppose the edit. And "get consensus" is not a reason.WP:BOLD is a longstanding guideline - there is no requirement to canvass around and get "consensus" before editing.II | (t -c)02:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
You might be missing the point. Bold is okay, and it wasn't vandalism. There's no requirement per se to get prior consensus, but if you're going to delete three paragraphs from a featured article without prior discussion you're almost certain to get reverted and "please gain consensus first" is an obvious and legitimate response. "Revert vandalism" is a null response if it isn't vandalism, I agree. If someone reverted a good faith edit of mine as vandalism instead of saying "please gain consensus first" or offering a real reason I might do the same - restore my edits (at this point 1RR) with a similar comment: "my edits weren't vandalism, no valid reason given for reversion". At that point we're square, it doesn't matter who started it, and we all have to talk on the article talk page about the underlying reason why the article should change or stay the same. If they removed a second time while giving me a warning, that's the breaks. Either way it's at the stage where both sides need to cool it. That's where it should begin and end, except that: (a) Balloon Boy may be a sockpuppet, and (b) for some reason this ended up as an AN/I report with editors advocating others to be sanctions. An administrator looking at this before it got stale could tell both editors to can it (no blocks, just tell them to stop)... as a featured article it's legitimate for someone to restore the prior version. And then everyone goes to the article talk page to figure it out. This ought to be very simple. -Wikidemon (talk)04:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
ImperfectlyInformed continues to be wrong about this, and insists on attacking me for doing nothing more than what anyone else patrolling Obama-related pages would've done. The second removal of content most certainlywas an act of vandalism because (a) he had been warned not to do it, and (b) he went ahead and did it anyway. So on the first removal of content, we can assume good faith (and I did), but when it happens a second time (despite the warning) then it is fair to say it is no longer editing in good faith, ergo vandalism. And as if it wasn't enough that HBBthrice removed the content, he has nowretitled this section in an accusatory manner. Meanwhile, the "retired" editor is back atTalk:Barack Obama slinging aroundbad faith at someone else. --Scjessey (talk)14:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I stepped away from the article for more than a day, like I promised. I also reviewed all the comments on the talk page. Not a single person among 300M Americans could provide a reason why those obscure laws are a significant part of Obama's bio (of course 295M did not look at the article). Some may believe that those laws are important, but even if they were, they are not integral to Obama's bio. In the absence of a good reason to reinstate those passages, they should be removed.Hi Balloon Boy (talk)14:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I voiced my support for keeping the information in the article at the talkpage[158]. Since I was the only one who actually entered into what could realistically be called discussion with Balloon, I encourage others to take notes.II | (t -c)15:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar for you. The others who did not enter into a discussion should be admonished. I did enter a discussion, like you, and offered concrete steps to improve the article, like re-examine what is important about Israel and why mentioning Admiral Mullen might be good for the Admiral Mullen article but has little to do with the Obama article.BAMP (talk)18:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Note - BAMP is now topic banned from the Obama articles. It's looking more and more as if someone from the article's past is having a spin at sockpuppeting. Although the actual edits they were trying to achieve aren't earth shaking, the edit warring and manipulative attempts to sanction established editors ring familiar. No point engaging disruptive editors in debate as a reward for making trouble, best justWP:DENY and move on. Now that one of the proponents is blocked and the other is topic banned can we please close this discussion and move on? -Wikidemon (talk)20:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
One of those cases where the edit-war is too slow to go and file a report, but too annoying to ignore. It's aboutGaddafi's date of birth. There's a discussion on the talkpage, but the user won't wait for some outcome but instead keeps going. It's now about someWP:OR-basedaddition to the footnote. It's been going on for 2 days...Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ09:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
"Wait for some outcome"? Some people are reverting me without discussing at all. I suggest everyone weighs in on the actual talk page instead of playing childish wikigames.Mewulwe (talk)10:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I had a look at the article's history. I see Mewulwe making his original edit, another editor reverting, and then Mewulwe reverting the revert. Mewulwe,WP:BRD isbold, revert, discuss, notbold, discuss. After your original change (Bold), it was undone (Revert), at that point it is up toyou to go to the talk page (Discuss) and say why you believe your disputed edit should be included in the article, with nothing further being done with the disputed content until consensus is achieved. Youdon't edit-war to keep the 'facts' (factual or not) in the article while the Discuss part of BRD is taking place. -The BushrangerOne ping only23:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but user BigzMMA has been behaving badly. He removed the AfD notices from all the articles he thought should be kept, voted multiple times (including reinstating votes after they'd been stricken), removed other editor's votes, changed the link to the AfD discussion onUCMMA to a non-existent page, bad-mouthed editors who disagreed with him on both their talk pages and the AfD discussion page, ignored consensus atWP:MMANOT, called everyone who disagreed with him "a lynch mob" (as well as threatening action against them), and guaranteed he'd happily and immediatly replace any deleted article. SeeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA and user Osubuckeyeguy's talk page (talk page).— Precedingunsigned comment added byAstudent0 (talk •contribs)18:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I was considering bringing this behavior up earlier today. I'm somewhat involved as I recommended merging a bunch of MMA events into the parent, disavowing an opinion on that article's notability due to lack of subject experience. Various of us have since gotten nastygrams from him:
He also changed the MMA notability guideline for MMA out of process[159] and from what I can see he has marked every edit of his as minor, except maybe two or three he missed by accident. I can understand he feels a bit persecuted now, as the same few people have seen fit to try to point out to him how the processes go, but right now he's being aWP:SPA who won't play by the rules and is rude about it.Mangoe (talk)20:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
That's a very ambiguous legal threat, so I'll assume good faith and say the user was just being aggressive.m.o.p00:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked the user for four days for the impressive amount of personal attacks they managed to make in the last while.m.o.p00:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This editor has been disruptive since starting to edit just a few weeks ago.Talk:Jat people is littered with assumptions of bad faith, accusations of bias against other editors, a refusal to engage in substantive discussion, a failure to read what others have wrote, and general disruption.This andthis cross over into personal attacks. The first diff also clearly shows that the user is not here to constructively build the encyclopedia through consensus and a reliance on sources, but merely to promote the glory and wealth of his caste. While, at one point, xe did try to introduce sources, after those sources were generally rejected as non-RS (web forums, publisher who just copy wikipedia mirrors, or articles that didn't actually say what he claimed), xe gave that up. I don't see how this editor can ever be a positive contributor to Wikipedia, and so it's time for them to be blocked. Note: I am involved in this article, as well as other articles on Indian castes/tribes with the other editors.Qwyrxian (talk)21:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Support block I considerWiki00756 (talk·contribs) to be disruptive. Among other things, he has been inserting less than relevant images into the infobox ofJat people. One of these is a BBC (copyvio) picture ofJarnail Singh Bhindranwale, who is both a controversial and polarizing figure, even among the Jat people. Although he is admired by some, he is seen as a terrorist by others. In the picture, Bhindranwale and his compatriots are shown armed with machine guns. I can't see how this is a representative picture of the people, but user:Wiki0076 doesn't seem to get it, for he has repeatedly inserted it. (Note: I am involved in this article as well.)Fowler&fowler«Talk»22:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Support block.Yes, I am here again - setting some sort of record this week, surely. Put simply, the issues are (a) unwillingness to discuss in any meaningful manner; and (b) POV pushing. There are numerous problems with the article but there are ways to resolve those, and ways which never will resolve them. The very fact that on several occasions, includinghere andhere, the contributor has pretty much invited a block demonstrates that they have no intention to work in a collaborative manner. -Sitush (talk)00:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Given the user's last few days of public activity, I don't think they're grasping the notion of teamwork or consensus, but seem to be intent on imposing their will and insulting anyone who gets in the way. Luckily, we have ways of dealing with this. Blocked for two weeks.m.o.p00:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Removed mention of hoax characters. It should be noted that Jonathon Cohen seems to be a legitimate real person according to various press releases originating fromTemple Kol Ami (Fort Mill, South Carolina) - seehere.
If we could get a checkuser to compare all the IP addresses and accounts listed in there, I'm pretty sure we'll find a match.m.o.p05:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is my 5th report to Wiki admins since 21 October 2011. Starting from 10:57, 21 October 2011 group of users (before it were users D.H and 83.89.0.118, now it is also User Ajoykt, Revision 20:46, 21 October 2011) persistently continues to delete my contributions on theOPERA neutrino anomaly page, namely the block:Other researchers pointed out that the Cohen-Glashow arguments are valid only if theLorentz symmetry is broken by the presence of a preferred frame but they become invalid if instead the symmetry is deformed.<ref>G. Amelino-Camelia, L. Freidel, J. Kowalski-Glikman, L. Smolin, ''OPERA neutrinos and relativity'', [http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0521 arXiv:1110.0521].</ref> The group claims that the reference I provide cites the primary source. But the primary source here is the original OPERA announcement whereas the reference to arXiv:1110.0521 is a secondary source because it is a research paper which analyses some prior results and works. Besides, the group destroys my contribution in such a way that it could be undone only manually and also it creates difficulties in analyzing their actions.
The attempt touse the Talk Page to change the user 83.89.0.118's opinion was not successful, s/he keeps on referring to some policies and rules which were never documented in Wiki. Here's the discussion thread:
Hi. First of all,I'd like to express my protest against those who deleted my contribution in 1st place, without prior discussing. Why you didnt want to discuss your decision before applying? You must restore my contribution first, then discuss the possibility that it should be deleted. Besides, your group destroys my contribution in such a way that it could be undone only manually and also it creates difficulties in analyzing your actions.Now about the Smolin etal paper. 1110.0521 is a secondary source because it is a research paper which analyses some prior results and works. You know exactly that it will be published (although, Arxiv is itself a reliable source because it is a e-media source and it is premoderated, and some renown scientists, like Grigori Perelman, just put their work on Arxiv without further "publishing."). If you dont trust three authors fromINFN,University of Wroclaw andPerimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, then I have doubts about your neutrality. Besides, you are making double standards because the CG paper is not officially published yet either. To conclude: you must restore my contribution first, then discuss the possibility that it should be deleted. Otherwise it is an offence to my work and work of those 3 authors.User1344 (talk)07:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
User 83.89.0.118, you deleted my original contribution within 4 minutes since it was posted. You claimed that the Arxiv paper can't be regarded as a secondary source, without any attempt to prove your statement. On the other hand, you left intact other contributions on the same page which referred to Arxiv's sources. Can you explain why you did that?— Precedingunsigned comment added byUser1344 (talk •contribs)08:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Because the other contributions were backed up with secondary sources, e.g. articles fromNew Scientist. Adding a link to the primary source is fine as long as one or more secondary sources are listed alongside it.--83.89.0.118 (talk)08:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean "backed up"? Those were the news websites, they cant be classified as the secondary sources because the latter are defined as those which "rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." Those news websites didnt contain any analysis or evaluation, did they? On the other hand, the paper 1110.0521 did contain the analysis of the Cohen-Glashow's paper (also at Arxiv), as can be easily judged from its abstract and content, therefore, why does it need additional "back-up"?User1344 (talk)08:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
1) The work a journalist and his or her editor does in unison is evaluative. 2) The claim that you cited with regards to Lorentz deformation etc. does not appear in Cohen-Glasgow's paper, i.e. it is original thought. To the extent that a source conveys original thought, it is a primary source, which must be backed up by a secondary source.--83.89.0.118 (talk)10:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
(1) No, news websites are news websites, they cant contain the analysis and evaluation one can rely upon in Wikipedia. Otherwise every 12-yrs old journalist or reporter will start to teach scientists how to do physics and decide what is wrong and what isn't, and the whole division into primary and secondary sources won't make sense anymore, (2) you are not only wrong - you seem to be ignorant in the modern beyond-relativity physics. The Cohen-Glashow paper is based on the beyond-relativity theory developed by Coleman and Glashow himself some time ago. That theory presumes that the Lorentz symmetry is broken by the presence of the preferred reference frame, and it has not been confirmed by experiment yet. Moreover, it is not the only theory available at this moment hence the Cohen-Glashow arguments are not universally applicable at most (actually, they merely indicate that the Glashow theory couldnt explain the anomaly if it existed). The paper 1110.0521 gives the example where the Cohen-Glashow arguments fail, namely, when the Lorentz sym is deformed rather than broken. Moreover, the paper analyses also the original OPERA report as well as some preceding work.User1344 (talk)12:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
1) "news websites ... cant contain the analysis and evaluation one can rely upon in Wikipedia" According to which guideline or policy? 2) Calling anyone who disagrees with you ignorant, is not generally considered a winning strategy for buildingWP:CONSENSUS.--83.89.0.118 (talk)14:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Listen, in an attempt to justify your highly controversial actions towards my contribution you have ended up proving the point that one page written on some news webpage by sobebody who's not even an expert in the fied is more "secondary" or "reliable" than many-page article written by three university professors. Don't you find your logic a bit twisted? Now, you are pretending to be offended and try to deviate the main topic of discussion. I dont want to build anything with you because I have doubts both in your competence and neutrality, sorry. Ok, I've already spent lots of time lecturing you so let me ask you a binary-answer question:User 83.89.0.118, do you admit that the paper Arxiv:1110.0521 qualifies as a secondary source?User1344 (talk)05:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Listen, I don't really care about you. As you were told onAIV, arXiv is not a reliable source, and your position is weak. That is your problem - not mine.--83.89.0.118 (talk)06:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
"...arXiv is not a reliable source" According to which guideline or policy? Show me the specific rule, not another obscure sentence.User1344 (talk)07:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Please try to work out something sensible on the talk page. I'd say don't worry too much about whether arxiv is primary or secondary, if the content is legitimate and written by recognized experts in the subject. I don't recognize the other two names butLee Smolin's stuff is certainly well known if a bit controversial. If all else fails, try arequest for comment regarding the content question. As others have said, admins here deal with technical issues and user misconduct but they don't have special authority about content. You're both apparently pretty new here and it takes a while to get the hang of this stuff, so relax, quit wikilawyering over intricate content policies, and just try to do what makes sense in presenting a complete and neutral article. My own (uninformed) take on the matter is that the arxiv paper should get a brief mention with a cite, but not too much coverage unless it starts getting significant attention from other physicists. Outlets like New Scientist count for something too, but not a big amount. This isn't really an occasion for an RS dispute since that's intended for when someone is trying to put nonsense or contentious stuff into an article (typically about politics or the like), or to try to present something questionable as fact. Here it sounds more like "here's this alternate take on the experiment" which (if the paper is not considered fringe) falls underWP:NPOV saying to present all significant points of view. Also, if either of you are connected with the paper's authors, you might want to mention that on the talk page or in any case take a look at our conflict of interest guidelines (WP:COI).71.141.89.0 (talk)14:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Non-admin comment I don't see any administrative action to be taken here. There is discussion ongoing between the editors involved in the dispute.WP:ANI should not be the venue offirst resort for any and all disputes; matters should be brought here only when there's a clear need for action by someone with the additional tools. Take a look at the big box at the top of the page. (No, the other one.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk)16:09, 24 October 2011 (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.
Problematic IP
74.237.193.215(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) appears to edit sporadically, but has been editing highly unconstructively each and every time. It appears that for the past 3 years, this IP address has added the final results to articles on reality television competitions that are in the middle of their seasonal run. I attempted to report the IP toWP:AIV, but I guess due to the nature of the vandalism and the fact that the IP only edits once every six months, it is not actionable there. But is it actionable here?— ()03:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Is the information being added true and reliably sourced? Wasn't the result of the spoiler fracas a few years back that we don't label information so as to not spoil things for our readers? If so, then how much less acceptable would it be to withhold factual sourced information (if that's what it is) from them? Of course, if the IP is getting their (true) information from an inside source, than it won't be reliably sourced, and what they're doing is essentially OR, even if it's correct.Beyond My Ken (talk)04:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that this particular IP's last edit prior to this one was over a year ago. There's a pattern... but a reallyslow pattern. Unless there are other IPs or named accounts suspected to be the same user that can be evidenced (which would for SPI most likely anyway): if AIV wouldn't touch it, why would it be an AN/I issue?Doctalk04:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
A year between edits, given they're being handily reverted, is too slow to do much about. Even a year-long block wouldn't stop them and another year from now, they may be gone from that IP. An indef block of the IP could wind up causing an even bigger waste of volunteer time, so I see nothing for an admin to do here unless another unhelpful edit pops up within, say, a few months.Gwen Gale (talk)04:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
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.
Resolved
–he's been blocked. He's been unblocked. No further beneficial action is likely in this venue. If this is a long-term problem, tryWP:RFC/U to establish that. --Jayron3204:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
MF iss starting to break the line between Civility and Personal attack. AtTalk:Manchester United F.C. he startedcalling me "ignorant", which I agree as no one knows everything. I called him "Mr Know it all" (not civil as well but not an attack), ending with a blatant personal attack calling mean "Arse" (Asshole in AmeEng). I removed his attack with{{rpa}}here perWP:TPO, restoring them thrice with "My comments are not refactored". This user has been blocked and unblocked for this reason over and over again. Have I or the community have to bear over and over again to an user that does not attept to stop attacking other people that disagree with him?Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect?Correct it!See terms and conditions.02:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you asking for administrator intervention? If so, my call is not to do anything. If you'd been called an ignorant arse without any provocation, maybe, but this thread is a classic escalation of insults from both sides (eg "Knowledge god" a sarcastic insult you've left out from your summary above) that should go completely unsanctioned, if anything just for the sake ofbringing an end to it. --Mkativerata (talk)02:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
In Spanish we have a proverb "eye for an eye and everyone will end up blind". In this way have I start to attack him as well. If the answer is yes please let me troll the page of the user who has called me Mexican fajita and faggot for two years.Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect?Correct it!See terms and conditions.02:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Toys back in pram please gentlemen. I am still at somewhat of a loss to see why my question about singular or plural on a Featured Article seems to have precipitated such passion, and feel faintly bad about it. But I think talk page discussion will be more productive than a drama contest at this board in terms of resolution. --John (talk)02:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Is "arse" in British English truly as bad as "asshole" in American English? It sounds a lot more civil(ized), particularly imagining the accent. -Wikidemon (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)In response toUser:Volunteer Marek below, I meant it semi-humorously but I am truly interested in the question, I do think Tbhotch may have overstated the case (without the "hole" it's a lot less scatological), and discussing that could mean something useful comes out of this. :) -Wikidemon (talk)03:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Calling someone an "ass" or and "arse" is not productive. At least with "ignorant" or "a know it all" you can at least justify the meaning (well intentioned or not), but probably nothing to be done on either side except to say "cool it."Quinn❀BEAUTIFUL DAY02:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I warned Malleus about making personal attacks last month. Clearly he hasn't taken it to heart. Blocking for 24 hours.Kaldari (talk)02:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you blocked one party in an escalating dispute where the other party acknowledges that he was uncivil?SandyGeorgia (Talk)03:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Block me if you want (it would help me to focus on a page I don't manage to end). But unlike MF, I don't engange on personal attacks every day or I've been warned for that. I keep them to myself and that's all. If my block will prevent something anyone can perform it.Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect?Correct it!See terms and conditions.03:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I blocked Malleus because I recently warned him against exactly this sort of behavior. If the other party also warrants blocking, let me know. I am not familiar with that editor's history, however.Kaldari (talk)03:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh jesus fucking christ, unblock him already. This has gone from boring to boring AND stupid in under 60 seconds. Are you seriously going to sit around AN/I and discuss the nuances of the British "arse" vs. the American "asshole"? Find something better to do, there are more appropriate forums for deep intellectual discussions such as these on the internets. In the mean time nothing useful is being accomplished - you've fed the drama mill, you've pissed off and Malleus, AND given him more reasons to portray himself as a martyr (maybe even justifiably so) and .... what's the point of this again?03:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And which is the attack "narrow-minded"? As far as I know it is the opposite of open-minded, and neither are "attacks". And again, blocks are preventives not puntatives, if you believe I'm going to attack people the next 24 hours contact a sysop and block me. Contact people with I work the most and you will see that I try to be gentle most of time, unlike MF which block log (that includes the same reasons) is incredibly long.Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect?Correct it!See terms and conditions.03:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
So, you've demonstrated that civility is subjective (I think "narrow-minded" is far more offensive than the unharmful word "arse", for example), and MF's block log is as long as it is because he's long been a target for wannabe-big-dick admins (and everyone knows that).SandyGeorgia (Talk)03:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I, personally, would let "narrow-minded" slide like water off a duck's back, but being called an "arse" - them would be fightin' words, as they say. And it's OK to be uncivil just because they're out to get you? -The BushrangerOne ping only03:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Nah, "arse" is such a cute little word, not at all ugly like "ass"-- now, if you call someone "narrow-minded", you're attacking theircharacter, and that's not cute.SandyGeorgia (Talk)03:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not into feeding drama, but if someone wants to ignore warnings, they will be blocked. Those are our policies.Kaldari (talk)03:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
"Our"? As they say in my country, "who's 'we', paleface"?SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Sandra drop it. It is clear that MF is your friend and you want him to be unblocked, but call admins wannabes and dicks (and I can list their names as you call themall dicks) is not a justification. If you don't like their work, you can nominate yourself to be an admin. And sorry I don't speak English if you didn't know. The antonym of "open-minded" is"narrow-minded", I didn't know it is considered an attack.Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect?Correct it!See terms and conditions.03:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Um, exactly who the heck is "Sandra"? Am I being patronized now? Please don't pull the Spanish thingie on me-- I'm fluent, as you well should know (I believe we've had talkpage discussions in Spanish), and narrow-mindedis an insult in Spanish, as you well do know. Please don't pretend that I could call youporfiado ormente cerrado and not have that considered offensive,especially since delicacy and diplomacy in speaking is considered basic etiquette in Spanish. You're making things worse for yourself by pretending that your Spanish is an excuse, and that is giving a good idea what drove the discussion to such low places.SandyGeorgia (Talk)03:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I fully support the block on Malleus for incivility, as it's something he relishes. I also support his inevitable unblock, which I estimate will occur at the 47 minute mark. If we're going to do this every couple of months, we might as well start betting on it.Dayewalker (talk)03:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
"Narrow minded" can be interpreted and it's meaning argued. Just like "ignorant." Neither are necessarily an insult, simply an observation. Calling someone an "arse" on the other hand is juvenile,insulting, and not very creative.Quinn❀BEAUTIFUL DAY03:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Civility blocks are retarded, we don't appoint admins to play Miss Manners and tut-tut people for saying "arse" and "ignorant". Seriously, grow up and thicken your skin.Tarc (talk)03:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Then we have admins who need to be sanctioned for improper application of policy. Either way you wanna split these hairs, this was a pointless block.Tarc (talk)03:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose unblock From the looks of it there was a pattern of incivility developing that needed to be stopped from continuing.Quinn❀BEAUTIFUL DAY03:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
By blocking one side who has a long history of civility problems and who has ouright said civility is not required to contribute, and warning the other side who doesnt' have said history? -The BushrangerOne ping only03:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Unblock - stupid dispute, stupider block. Minor incivility does not warrant a block, and even if it did blocking one side in a two-person dispute is inappropriate.Nikkimaria (talk)03:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
He's already been unblocked, and as Dayewalker eerily predicted and noted, it was 47 minutes after the block.Doctalk03:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me this quaint obsession with "politeness" is a North American thing, something to do with wanting to present a civilized facade, regardless of what is really happenening. In Britain, "arse" is a relatively innocuous word which doesn't generate the same aroused protestations. Shame this has happened, just when it seemed things between content editors and admins were settling down and getting more civilized. A block like this is an extreme level of incivility, and content editors need to be given some kind of special award for valorous conduct when they have to endure them. --Epipelagic (talk)03:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not even an North American thing, it's some kind of weird sub-set-of-American-high-schoolers-who-used-to-run-for-student-council-president-and-are-now-admins-on-Wikipedia thing. Plenty of North Americans of all colors and class backgrounds laugh off being called an "ass" (and especially being called an "arse") on a regular basis. Hell, in some North American milieus "ass" is what they call you if they like you.04:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad that somebody is sticking up for the poor admins here. Where would they be if nobody stuck up for them? They might be, like, despised, by the people who do the actual work on the encyclopedia, or something. Or wait... scratch that, let's be more precise: they might be subject to honest articulation of the fact that they are despised. Better put a lid on that kind of thing and make sure that any negative feelings like that are buried deep down inside the proles' heads. We wouldn't want the poor admins to know how people actually feel about them cuz then their feelings will be hurt, and that is whatWP:CIVIL is about, ain't? Gimme a break.04:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth. You can say you don't like the admins, you can say why you don't walk the admins, but saying "weird sub-set-of-American-high-schoolers-who-used-to-run-for-student-council-president-and-are-now-admins-on-Wikipedia thing" is not the way to go about that - it's namecalling, and makes you look as immature as you think the people you're describing are. But whatever, I'm done here. -The BushrangerOne ping only04:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose unblock. This editor has a history of incivility and a counterproductive attitude towards his own conduct. He is a liability to the community.VanIsaacWScontribs04:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Question. Am I to conclude that no matter how many warnings someone is given regarding personal attacks, they should not be blocked for it? The blocking policy says that "persistent personal attacks" are a valid reason to block someone.Kaldari (talk)04:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Not when it's a minor incivilityand when both sides are being uncivil. Dispute resolution ends with the block button, it doesn't begin with it.Black Kite (t)(c)04:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Dispute resolution is not the only purpose of blocking. Believe it or not, I actually think that Civility is an important policy and worth enforcing. The health of our community is not improved by editors constantly insulting each other - even minorly.Kaldari (talk)04:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
If you think that's the case, you should have investigatedboth parties and applied equal sanctions. Since you didn't do that, the appearance is that you were just out to get Malleus (which makes you arguably not very original :) So, kudos, the damage is done, and content will suffer (Tbhotch is avery hard working editor, but he can't write content.)SandyGeorgia (Talk)04:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I did a cursory investigation of both parties. I couldn't find any evidence that Tbhotch had been previously warned regarding personal attacks, but I knew that Malleus had (as I had warned him myself). Do you believe that admins should not take previous warnings into account?Kaldari (talk)04:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Response to the four comments above: folks, go home, it's over. I know you were hoping for apecking party but it didn't turn out that way. Give it up.04:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Left unblock and close and archive this As John predicted at my talkpage this would start to be a drama on how he is the victim here. I really don't like how the things are with some users. MF can call you ignorant (in a negative way) and Sandra (yes I want to call you Sandra as I don't like diminutives) can call administrators "wannabes and dicks". I was warned sometime ago for "bite the newbies" but I think we should bite them and prevent them of the corrupt side of Wikipedia. You need to be a delegate of theWP:Featured X of Wikipedia or be an "experienced editor" with more than 3 years at least, or be the friend of "the cream of the crop" to be "above the policies and guidelines".
I've seen many times that issue. Any user that use the essayWP:DTTR is the perfect example. "Being a regular" is not a reason to do what you want, whenever you want; is an absurd way to justify yourself and avoid to be kicked out, as well to help you to forget that you don't make the rules, you follow them; andignore them if it is for good. MF will do it again in the future and all of you will start with the "this is a minor uncivil comment", "it was not his fault", "the other parts should be blocked as well" or "he is right, get over it and continue with our lifes" until it happens again. I only wonder what would happened if the "Yes, I'm an ignorant and I'm glad to not be [MF]" would be a "Woah, calm down. Why you called me an ignorant. Of course I am, but please remain civil". Surely, he would ended calling me an arsehole again and not explaining his view in simple Englishas Mkativerata did. There is enough evidence that he would do it.
Of course those are my thoughts about this, they won't be considered by MF or his supporters, and I really don't care. I am going to pass through this and continue with my life. I just want all of the MF supporters you to remember this discussion the next time he attack again, and create a subsection atWP:CIVIL to explain people that "Minor incivilities are justified, please
use them cautiously. Here is a list: "Ass/Arse", "Idiot", "Stupid", "Ignorant", "Bitch", "Dick", etc. The use of 3 to 5 times a day are acceptable. But remember that if you have not been here since 2007 or before, or if you are an important user to this site, you may be blocked from editing, yes for being a big dick". No one will do it of course. I'm not going to answer the replies, it will have no sense to waste my time.Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect?Correct it!See terms and conditions.04:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I haven't looked deeply into this incident and think it was relatively minor, but if any real damage was done it was by the unblocking admins and others enabling and encouraging the uncivil behavior. Whether or not the block was ideal, MF has a long-term, incorrigible civility problem and it does no good to either MF or the project to encourage that behavior or to use him as a proxy for one's own sentiments on the rules and authority. It is completely appropriate for an editor to be blocked because of a long term history of warnings and blocks on an an issue, when he does it again. As far as I know nobody has issues with MF for who he is or what his opinions are, only for how he abuses other editors. This is over, but it will happen again. What then? -Wikidemon (talk)04:36, 26 October 2011 (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.
Banned user BigzMMA and suspected sockpuppets
I suspect BigzMMA, who is on a 96 hour ban, is using sockpuppets to continue to vandalizeUltimate Challenge MMA. Since his ban, several IP editors have started editing that page and they keep changing the links of the articles up for deletion discussion to non-existent links. I did not notify him of this since he's already serving a ban and thus couldn't respond anyway.Papaursa (talk)03:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like Bigz, at least from a cursory glance. BigzMMA never uses edit summaries, and never edits sections, only the whole article. Both IP editors act in different fashion. Also, 188.* edited in a completely different time range - 81.* is in the same time range of edits, though. In either case, protection will stop them.
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.
Resolved
–he's been blocked. He's been unblocked. No further beneficial action is likely in this venue. If this is a long-term problem, tryWP:RFC/U to establish that. --Jayron3204:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
MF iss starting to break the line between Civility and Personal attack. AtTalk:Manchester United F.C. he startedcalling me "ignorant", which I agree as no one knows everything. I called him "Mr Know it all" (not civil as well but not an attack), ending with a blatant personal attack calling mean "Arse" (Asshole in AmeEng). I removed his attack with{{rpa}}here perWP:TPO, restoring them thrice with "My comments are not refactored". This user has been blocked and unblocked for this reason over and over again. Have I or the community have to bear over and over again to an user that does not attept to stop attacking other people that disagree with him?Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect?Correct it!See terms and conditions.02:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you asking for administrator intervention? If so, my call is not to do anything. If you'd been called an ignorant arse without any provocation, maybe, but this thread is a classic escalation of insults from both sides (eg "Knowledge god" a sarcastic insult you've left out from your summary above) that should go completely unsanctioned, if anything just for the sake ofbringing an end to it. --Mkativerata (talk)02:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
In Spanish we have a proverb "eye for an eye and everyone will end up blind". In this way have I start to attack him as well. If the answer is yes please let me troll the page of the user who has called me Mexican fajita and faggot for two years.Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect?Correct it!See terms and conditions.02:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Toys back in pram please gentlemen. I am still at somewhat of a loss to see why my question about singular or plural on a Featured Article seems to have precipitated such passion, and feel faintly bad about it. But I think talk page discussion will be more productive than a drama contest at this board in terms of resolution. --John (talk)02:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Is "arse" in British English truly as bad as "asshole" in American English? It sounds a lot more civil(ized), particularly imagining the accent. -Wikidemon (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)In response toUser:Volunteer Marek below, I meant it semi-humorously but I am truly interested in the question, I do think Tbhotch may have overstated the case (without the "hole" it's a lot less scatological), and discussing that could mean something useful comes out of this. :) -Wikidemon (talk)03:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Calling someone an "ass" or and "arse" is not productive. At least with "ignorant" or "a know it all" you can at least justify the meaning (well intentioned or not), but probably nothing to be done on either side except to say "cool it."Quinn❀BEAUTIFUL DAY02:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I warned Malleus about making personal attacks last month. Clearly he hasn't taken it to heart. Blocking for 24 hours.Kaldari (talk)02:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you blocked one party in an escalating dispute where the other party acknowledges that he was uncivil?SandyGeorgia (Talk)03:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Block me if you want (it would help me to focus on a page I don't manage to end). But unlike MF, I don't engange on personal attacks every day or I've been warned for that. I keep them to myself and that's all. If my block will prevent something anyone can perform it.Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect?Correct it!See terms and conditions.03:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I blocked Malleus because I recently warned him against exactly this sort of behavior. If the other party also warrants blocking, let me know. I am not familiar with that editor's history, however.Kaldari (talk)03:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh jesus fucking christ, unblock him already. This has gone from boring to boring AND stupid in under 60 seconds. Are you seriously going to sit around AN/I and discuss the nuances of the British "arse" vs. the American "asshole"? Find something better to do, there are more appropriate forums for deep intellectual discussions such as these on the internets. In the mean time nothing useful is being accomplished - you've fed the drama mill, you've pissed off and Malleus, AND given him more reasons to portray himself as a martyr (maybe even justifiably so) and .... what's the point of this again?03:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And which is the attack "narrow-minded"? As far as I know it is the opposite of open-minded, and neither are "attacks". And again, blocks are preventives not puntatives, if you believe I'm going to attack people the next 24 hours contact a sysop and block me. Contact people with I work the most and you will see that I try to be gentle most of time, unlike MF which block log (that includes the same reasons) is incredibly long.Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect?Correct it!See terms and conditions.03:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
So, you've demonstrated that civility is subjective (I think "narrow-minded" is far more offensive than the unharmful word "arse", for example), and MF's block log is as long as it is because he's long been a target for wannabe-big-dick admins (and everyone knows that).SandyGeorgia (Talk)03:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I, personally, would let "narrow-minded" slide like water off a duck's back, but being called an "arse" - them would be fightin' words, as they say. And it's OK to be uncivil just because they're out to get you? -The BushrangerOne ping only03:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Nah, "arse" is such a cute little word, not at all ugly like "ass"-- now, if you call someone "narrow-minded", you're attacking theircharacter, and that's not cute.SandyGeorgia (Talk)03:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not into feeding drama, but if someone wants to ignore warnings, they will be blocked. Those are our policies.Kaldari (talk)03:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
"Our"? As they say in my country, "who's 'we', paleface"?SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Sandra drop it. It is clear that MF is your friend and you want him to be unblocked, but call admins wannabes and dicks (and I can list their names as you call themall dicks) is not a justification. If you don't like their work, you can nominate yourself to be an admin. And sorry I don't speak English if you didn't know. The antonym of "open-minded" is"narrow-minded", I didn't know it is considered an attack.Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect?Correct it!See terms and conditions.03:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Um, exactly who the heck is "Sandra"? Am I being patronized now? Please don't pull the Spanish thingie on me-- I'm fluent, as you well should know (I believe we've had talkpage discussions in Spanish), and narrow-mindedis an insult in Spanish, as you well do know. Please don't pretend that I could call youporfiado ormente cerrado and not have that considered offensive,especially since delicacy and diplomacy in speaking is considered basic etiquette in Spanish. You're making things worse for yourself by pretending that your Spanish is an excuse, and that is giving a good idea what drove the discussion to such low places.SandyGeorgia (Talk)03:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I fully support the block on Malleus for incivility, as it's something he relishes. I also support his inevitable unblock, which I estimate will occur at the 47 minute mark. If we're going to do this every couple of months, we might as well start betting on it.Dayewalker (talk)03:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
"Narrow minded" can be interpreted and it's meaning argued. Just like "ignorant." Neither are necessarily an insult, simply an observation. Calling someone an "arse" on the other hand is juvenile,insulting, and not very creative.Quinn❀BEAUTIFUL DAY03:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Civility blocks are retarded, we don't appoint admins to play Miss Manners and tut-tut people for saying "arse" and "ignorant". Seriously, grow up and thicken your skin.Tarc (talk)03:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Then we have admins who need to be sanctioned for improper application of policy. Either way you wanna split these hairs, this was a pointless block.Tarc (talk)03:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose unblock From the looks of it there was a pattern of incivility developing that needed to be stopped from continuing.Quinn❀BEAUTIFUL DAY03:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
By blocking one side who has a long history of civility problems and who has ouright said civility is not required to contribute, and warning the other side who doesnt' have said history? -The BushrangerOne ping only03:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Unblock - stupid dispute, stupider block. Minor incivility does not warrant a block, and even if it did blocking one side in a two-person dispute is inappropriate.Nikkimaria (talk)03:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
He's already been unblocked, and as Dayewalker eerily predicted and noted, it was 47 minutes after the block.Doctalk03:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me this quaint obsession with "politeness" is a North American thing, something to do with wanting to present a civilized facade, regardless of what is really happenening. In Britain, "arse" is a relatively innocuous word which doesn't generate the same aroused protestations. Shame this has happened, just when it seemed things between content editors and admins were settling down and getting more civilized. A block like this is an extreme level of incivility, and content editors need to be given some kind of special award for valorous conduct when they have to endure them. --Epipelagic (talk)03:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not even an North American thing, it's some kind of weird sub-set-of-American-high-schoolers-who-used-to-run-for-student-council-president-and-are-now-admins-on-Wikipedia thing. Plenty of North Americans of all colors and class backgrounds laugh off being called an "ass" (and especially being called an "arse") on a regular basis. Hell, in some North American milieus "ass" is what they call you if they like you.04:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad that somebody is sticking up for the poor admins here. Where would they be if nobody stuck up for them? They might be, like, despised, by the people who do the actual work on the encyclopedia, or something. Or wait... scratch that, let's be more precise: they might be subject to honest articulation of the fact that they are despised. Better put a lid on that kind of thing and make sure that any negative feelings like that are buried deep down inside the proles' heads. We wouldn't want the poor admins to know how people actually feel about them cuz then their feelings will be hurt, and that is whatWP:CIVIL is about, ain't? Gimme a break.04:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth. You can say you don't like the admins, you can say why you don't walk the admins, but saying "weird sub-set-of-American-high-schoolers-who-used-to-run-for-student-council-president-and-are-now-admins-on-Wikipedia thing" is not the way to go about that - it's namecalling, and makes you look as immature as you think the people you're describing are. But whatever, I'm done here. -The BushrangerOne ping only04:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose unblock. This editor has a history of incivility and a counterproductive attitude towards his own conduct. He is a liability to the community.VanIsaacWScontribs04:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Question. Am I to conclude that no matter how many warnings someone is given regarding personal attacks, they should not be blocked for it? The blocking policy says that "persistent personal attacks" are a valid reason to block someone.Kaldari (talk)04:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Not when it's a minor incivilityand when both sides are being uncivil. Dispute resolution ends with the block button, it doesn't begin with it.Black Kite (t)(c)04:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Dispute resolution is not the only purpose of blocking. Believe it or not, I actually think that Civility is an important policy and worth enforcing. The health of our community is not improved by editors constantly insulting each other - even minorly.Kaldari (talk)04:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
If you think that's the case, you should have investigatedboth parties and applied equal sanctions. Since you didn't do that, the appearance is that you were just out to get Malleus (which makes you arguably not very original :) So, kudos, the damage is done, and content will suffer (Tbhotch is avery hard working editor, but he can't write content.)SandyGeorgia (Talk)04:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I did a cursory investigation of both parties. I couldn't find any evidence that Tbhotch had been previously warned regarding personal attacks, but I knew that Malleus had (as I had warned him myself). Do you believe that admins should not take previous warnings into account?Kaldari (talk)04:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Response to the four comments above: folks, go home, it's over. I know you were hoping for apecking party but it didn't turn out that way. Give it up.04:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Left unblock and close and archive this As John predicted at my talkpage this would start to be a drama on how he is the victim here. I really don't like how the things are with some users. MF can call you ignorant (in a negative way) and Sandra (yes I want to call you Sandra as I don't like diminutives) can call administrators "wannabes and dicks". I was warned sometime ago for "bite the newbies" but I think we should bite them and prevent them of the corrupt side of Wikipedia. You need to be a delegate of theWP:Featured X of Wikipedia or be an "experienced editor" with more than 3 years at least, or be the friend of "the cream of the crop" to be "above the policies and guidelines".
I've seen many times that issue. Any user that use the essayWP:DTTR is the perfect example. "Being a regular" is not a reason to do what you want, whenever you want; is an absurd way to justify yourself and avoid to be kicked out, as well to help you to forget that you don't make the rules, you follow them; andignore them if it is for good. MF will do it again in the future and all of you will start with the "this is a minor uncivil comment", "it was not his fault", "the other parts should be blocked as well" or "he is right, get over it and continue with our lifes" until it happens again. I only wonder what would happened if the "Yes, I'm an ignorant and I'm glad to not be [MF]" would be a "Woah, calm down. Why you called me an ignorant. Of course I am, but please remain civil". Surely, he would ended calling me an arsehole again and not explaining his view in simple Englishas Mkativerata did. There is enough evidence that he would do it.
Of course those are my thoughts about this, they won't be considered by MF or his supporters, and I really don't care. I am going to pass through this and continue with my life. I just want all of the MF supporters you to remember this discussion the next time he attack again, and create a subsection atWP:CIVIL to explain people that "Minor incivilities are justified, please
use them cautiously. Here is a list: "Ass/Arse", "Idiot", "Stupid", "Ignorant", "Bitch", "Dick", etc. The use of 3 to 5 times a day are acceptable. But remember that if you have not been here since 2007 or before, or if you are an important user to this site, you may be blocked from editing, yes for being a big dick". No one will do it of course. I'm not going to answer the replies, it will have no sense to waste my time.Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect?Correct it!See terms and conditions.04:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I haven't looked deeply into this incident and think it was relatively minor, but if any real damage was done it was by the unblocking admins and others enabling and encouraging the uncivil behavior. Whether or not the block was ideal, MF has a long-term, incorrigible civility problem and it does no good to either MF or the project to encourage that behavior or to use him as a proxy for one's own sentiments on the rules and authority. It is completely appropriate for an editor to be blocked because of a long term history of warnings and blocks on an an issue, when he does it again. As far as I know nobody has issues with MF for who he is or what his opinions are, only for how he abuses other editors. This is over, but it will happen again. What then? -Wikidemon (talk)04:36, 26 October 2011 (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.
Banned user BigzMMA and suspected sockpuppets
I suspect BigzMMA, who is on a 96 hour ban, is using sockpuppets to continue to vandalizeUltimate Challenge MMA. Since his ban, several IP editors have started editing that page and they keep changing the links of the articles up for deletion discussion to non-existent links. I did not notify him of this since he's already serving a ban and thus couldn't respond anyway.Papaursa (talk)03:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like Bigz, at least from a cursory glance. BigzMMA never uses edit summaries, and never edits sections, only the whole article. Both IP editors act in different fashion. Also, 188.* edited in a completely different time range - 81.* is in the same time range of edits, though. In either case, protection will stop them.
Tried to edit an AFD page, but couldn't because it contained links to Google, which triggered a spam blacklist
Now, I can see including that as an article blacklist, but that's just insane to include more generally. Looking at google's various sources is considered a key part of showing something as unnotable at AFD. Please fix this ASAP. As it stands, you can't even save changes ifsomeone else at some point included google in their comments.86.** IP (talk)17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Good temporary fix, but it's still a pretty bad blacklist item, that should probably be removed or made article-space only.86.** IP (talk)17:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I can reproduce the issue, but as far as I can tell www.google.com isn't on the spam list and has never been there. My best guess is that there is a bug of some sort. That url shouldn't be causing problems.Dragons flight (talk)17:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
(EC) with below. For clarity Google is not blacklisted. Only www.google.com/url? is. The reason is because these function as a redirect. I can't see any reason why they should ever be on wikipedia (they are simple redirects, they don't allow you to view the cache or something if the page is down), they mostly happen by accident when people copy the links of Google search results. They add another point of failure (Google) and also may lead to confusion (people thinking the site they're going to is Google and so trustworthy) and also mean people are forced to visit Google to visit the external link (allowing Google to collect their data). However the primary reason they were blocked is because they can be abused, as anyone can use them to link to spam sites overiding the blocklist.Nil Einne (talk)07:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
No, this is not a bad google rule, these are bad google links, which can, and I have demonstrated that, be used to circumvent the blacklist. Anything from google ending in '/url?' is a possible problem. And none of these links are necessary. However,http://www.google.com?q=Wikipedia is not blacklisted (and of course will not be blacklisted). Do note, that other parts of Google have already been blacklisted for a long time as they can (and for that: have) been abused for circumventing the blacklist. As I have said before, spammers and people on a mission are inventive, they will use whatever means available to get around blacklisting. I hope this explains. --Dirk BeetstraTC06:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
(EC) I have added it temporarily to the en wiki whitelist, until AnomieBOT 58 removes all the Google redirect links. Until then, if a newbie is editing a page and gets hit with a spam blacklist warning, they won't know how to fix it. If we weigh the costs and benefits, I think scaring away newbies is much worse than allowing this spam to persist for a week or two. --King of♥♦♣ ♠07:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Nah .. not completely sure about that, the previous hole in Google was abused. Sure, such editors (who are clearly and knowingly circumventing the blacklist) run into immediate blocks without warning, but you'd still need a quick way to detect it. This is not hitting a massive number of editors, this is not hitting every Google link, this is just a small portion of links to google that have this problem, and not many people will paste in this Google link. Do note, additionally to the 'hole to circumvent blacklist' problem is that these links do go through Google, and hence will get (again unnecessary) click-value for Google (though that is a minimal side effect) --Dirk BeetstraTC07:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Just as a note, two other google(-related) 'redirects' (which were abused) are blocked by:
\bgoogle\.(com|(com\.)?[a-z]{2})/.*[?&]btnl=1
\b(lmgtfy|letmegooglethatforyou)\.com.*[?&]l=1
The issue is, maybe no single spammer noticed it until now, but since it waspublished on Wikipedia people know of the loophole. That with the point that it is utterly useless (use the direct link - if you copy the google result link, did you actually look at what you are linking to?) ánd demonstrated as being a way of circumventing the blacklist I think that this really is better to blacklist. --Dirk BeetstraTC09:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to view Graphic sexual material on the tooth fairy talkpage bySummerPhD
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
I would appreciate if someone who is not involved would please reviewthis and consider if removing it as a courtesy to the editor who wrote it. As that editor appears to be offline at the moment, and so wouldn't be able to see my request on their talkpage, they can't do it themselves.
User has cause to believe I may believe in the tooth fairy[165] and therefore may not be an adult[166], and is well aware children read this page. Invitations to view graphic sexual material is therefore rather questionable on that talkpage.Penyulap talk12:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm tempted to refer toWP:NOTCENSORED, but this situation has me scratching my head somewhat. You're proposing we remove part of his comment onTalk:Tooth fairy because it references sexual content and might be seen by minors? I really don't think that would fly, to be honest.Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)12:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Um, wow. No, I did not say you may believe in the tooth fairy. I said, "Your apparently straight-faced claims that theAP article is stating -- as a fact -- that the tooth fairy is real is beyond discussion." This was in response to your seeming insistence that the article not clearly state that the tooth fairy is fictional. As for your baseless assumption that I believe you "may not be an adult", it is... um... a baseless assumption. Wikipedia is not censored. The first link in the article is toFantasy which links toFantasy (disambiguation) which links toSexual_fantasy. The talk page links repeatedly toSpecial:Contributions/SummerPhD with a laundry list of articles ranging fromTooth fairy toLady Marmalade toPiledriver (sexual). Wikipedia does not provideANY assurance that text, internal and external links and images in articles are "appropriate" for children or anyone else. The expectation that all/or some articles are "safe" is akin to thinking all of the books and videos in your library are "safe". -SummerPhD (talk)13:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The Bright line that has been crossed in my opinion is the phrasingas an invitation. However, as you are back online, the point and my request are moot. So we can return to discussing ejaculation on the tooth fairy talkpage where you feel it belongs. Maybe I should post some images to go with your links ?Penyulap talk13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
DeeperQA (talk·contribs) has somehow managed to upload an illustration, even though he's blocked. I recommend (1) deleting the illustration; (2) removing his talk-page privilege; (3) blocking the sock that uploaded the illustration. He's already been indef'd, and I've been trying not to respond to him, so someone else can notify him if they think it's necessary. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→17:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Forum Shopping, Disrupting Talk Pages, Failure To Assume Good Faith...
User:Redefining_history has made it his personal mission in life to change the way Wikipedia handles "Esports Atheletes". I've lost count but he has taken part in somewhere around 15 different conversations about the same sources at this point. His edits are highly disruptive such as this one where he copied a massive wall of text into an RFC[167], the first reply here sums up the situtuation nicely.[168]. He has however not slowed down one bit, his behaviour on IRC was summed up here[169]. At this point the editor has been told the same thing dozens if not literally close to 100 times. He is arguing from ideology and out to prove us all wrong on his campaign to bring justice to the world on behalf of "Esports athletes". I would love to provide difs of everything but in a week this editor has managed to rack up hundreds of edits all on various pages all about the same sources for the same topic. Tonight he started this topic[170], he then pasted a bunch of unreliable sources into an AFD, and now has gone to a closed AFD trying to figure out how to keep arguing about sources[171], he is now back at Reliable Sources bugging them again as I type this[172]. It is clear he has no self control and will not stop on his own. I feel at this point there is little left to do but ask for a topic ban.Ridernyc (talk)07:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Not an admin, but I would like to support a topic ban regarding video games for this user. He has been active in##wikipedia-en-helpconnect several times, has posted bits of IRC logs with out consent of participants, and has been repeatedly told on IRC that wanting to know if his sources are reliable and help with notability is disruptive as answers were provided to him. When his questions were answered in a way that did not suit him, he continued to demand answers and refused to be quiet until he got them. He had to be silenced on IRC because his refusal to accept the answers by helpers and demands for his questions to be answered was disruptive and we were not able to help other new users. Beyond that, this user has been warned on the reliable source notice board andWikipedia talk:Notability (sports) that he was forum shopping and being disruptive. And today, he is back onthe Reliable source noticeboard despite the warning right above. --LauraHale (talk)07:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
On gaming forums (on one of the sites he strongly pushes to be admitted as RS), he has requested help from other players and fan of the subjects to create the articles, and most importantly to try and keep them from being deleted.This is one such thread,this is another. Also stated intent to recreate the pages as-is against deletion consensus (that's why i've saved copies of the wikicodes to post them again when the argument is over.), leading to at least one of the AfD'ed article being salted. Also admitted to having copied an article from the player's Facebook page (lol the maelk one is a copy from his facebook page). Claimed to have "admin approbation" (admins has no problem in articles for dota players, i approached them. and this is why i posted here, i wanted to let the community handle this). Made attempts at meatpuppetry, but after being warned on here, edited in his post(s) "ninja'd / "meatpuppetry" isn't allowed on wikiepdia.".
General complete opposite of a dispassionate approach and consensus-seeking attitude.
Upwards of 90% of edits done in articles within a narrow single-topic spectrum.
I can verify, and I support, what Ridernyc and Salavadrim have been saying. Time and again, "Redefining History" asks a question, receives an answer he does not like, and either complains and carries on and on about it, or asks the same question somewhere else, gets the same response, so on and so on. He seems totally unwilling to learn (or even acknowledge) basic concepts such as reliable sources or notability, no matter how many times he's correctly informed on them. I too support a topic ban.13:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
By this point, I think it is necessary for Redefining History to take a step back from the electronic sports articles. Not only is it disrupting the Wikipedia community with his relentless discussions, but he beginning to draw some negative attention to esports as a whole and as such, endangering some otherwise fine esports articles with deletion, due to this new negative perspective from senior editors. What I can say, however, is that he is a very passionate editor and if he were to use that to learn about Wikipedia etiquette more, as well as how to properly format pages and find appropriate sources, we could have some very positive results elsewhere.
Comment This account is less than two weeks old. I agree with the opinion that this user's approach is disruptive. But these a rookie mistakes. I left some pointers on discussion etiquette on my user page, and RH did take them to heart, and revised his style somewhat. I would feel very uncomfortable topic banning a user this soon after they have joined the community. The user wrote several articles on gamers, and over-reacted when they were found not to meet our guidelines. They have quite a bit to learn about WP process, but they should be given a chance.The Interior(Talk)17:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree he has not taken anything to heart. He promised three different editors that he would stop. He then went nuts again last night, he didn't even last 24 hours. He has show no abilty to listen and comprehend what is being said to him. This is not about bad faith, this about someone with a total inability to act in a rational way with others.Ridernyc (talk)18:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
However, I agree he has shown to be, purely from a content-creation side, rather competent. Hehas created a lot of articles from scratch. I think he could be a great asset to Wikipedia, and have tried to help him realize that to no avail. I would be in favor of a limited-term topic restriction, hoping to give RH some time to explore other areas of the wiki and learn the editing process. Hopefully it will only help him re-focus. :)Salvidrim (talk)20:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree he is amazingly competent at editing -with the exception of talk pages where he just creates a giant mess-. The simple fact that he has managed to find so many different places to to lobby for his sources amazes me. I feel maybe he is a bit to close to this issue and if he wants he can show his dedication to the project by working on something else. This is why I bring up a topic ban. If he can demonstrate self control and ability to learn in other areas, he can always approach the admins to lift his topic ban.Ridernyc (talk)20:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Problematic IPs
Resolved
Some IP in the Philippines has been vandalizng various articles on reality TV shows, similar to how the previous one I reported (adding false results, MOS-violating modifications, and also some BLP vios[173],[174]), and does so on a much more frequent level. IPs who have been behind this vandalism are:
He's currently on the 49.145.64.0/18 range, but was previously on the 112.205...range. Clearly this guy cannot be allowed to keep vandalizing the pages as he does, and he looks like he's fairly contained.— ()02:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
There'd be collateral, so blocking the range isn't realistic. IP blocks and page protection where necessary is the best thing.WilliamH (talk)13:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you positive that there is enough collateral on the 49.145.64.0/18 range that it would negatively affect the project? Because this guy hits so many pages that protection, in my opinion, isn't a realistic option.— ()19:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
A /18 range equates to 16,382 host addresses, and the range is registered to a large ISP. Even without factoring in network address translation at the customer's end, that's just too big a chunk to shut down in one go. If there were specific patterns to the DHCP lease, several smaller rangeblocks would be an option, but I don't see a definitive pattern to the list of addresses you've provided. So, unfortunately, the admins are left with Whac-a-Mole™ as the most effective recourse. Sad how one miscreant can bollox the works so badly. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk)22:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
IP user 192.89.123.41 added a supposed alias to the articleJosh Sawyer without a source,[175] so I reverted him, asking if that alias was for real. He reverted me, claiming to have undone my "vandalism".[176] I reverted him once more, explaining in my edit summary that what I did was not vandalism, and that since a source was provided, readers could not tell that this alias was for real. He reverted me again, claiming once again that he had "undone vandalism" on my part,[177] so I reverted him once more, and left a note on his talk page requesting that he stop accusing me of vandalism, and that he needs to add any information to aWP:BLP article with a source, which was what I was asking him to do.[178]. However, he ignored me and reverted me once more, again repeating his claims of having "undone vandalism" on my part.[179] I think he is trying to make some sort of claim that Sawyer andBrian Mitsoda are the same person, as he has been doing the same sort of thing on that article, and other articles.129.33.19.254 (talk)14:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
User:DeknMike has been edit-warring to remove templates I placed in the new articleChurch Planting Movement, noting problems with weasel-wording, and with sources affiliated with the subject.[180],[181],[182],[183]. I came upon the article by chance, and gave what I thought was a civil response to a request for help on the talk page, by indicating that sourcing was a major issue. I have repeatedly attempted to explain the problems on the article talk page, but DeknMike has chosen instead to edit-war, after I pointed outWP:3RR in an edit summary, to post a warning regarding the same on my talk page. He/she has also repeatedly accused me of bias (and of 'vandalism' in an edit summary), and seems completely unwilling to either accept policy regarding the need for independent third-party sourcing for the article, or to raise the matter elsewhere if he/she thinks that I'm misinterpreting policy. It seems to be a classic case ofWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and I think that admin intervention may be needed to get DeknMike to respond in an appropriate manner. DeknMike is not a new contributor, and surely is familiar enough with policy by now to understand that edit-warring over valid templates etc is totally inappropriate, and to understand Wikipedia sourcing requirements.AndyTheGrump (talk)20:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Good luck working things out or coming to any kind of reasonable compromise or conclusion with DeknMike. Long experience shows that he gives not a damn about Wikipedia's policies. He just wants articles to read the way he wants them to read and will do what it takes to make them read that way. --Steven J. Anderson (talk)23:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not that I don't care about Wikipedia's policies, but that I care they are fairly administered, and that verifiable sources are included, not just thinly-sourced documents that claim things that are not true, and editors who make unsubstantiated claims and then - rather than dialogue about them - impugn my character. I asked for instances of weasel words, and when you could not verify your claim, I considered it specious and removed it. You asked for sourcing and I added even more. You falsely claim that the sources are the originators of CPM, and I have repeatedly shown you that you are mistaken. If you don't want to hear, I can't help that. You may think Christians are empty-headed dolts and bigots, but I forgive this ignorance and press forward.--DeknMike (talk)02:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
"You may think Christians are empty-headed dolts and bigots". I don't. I've seen dolts and bigots involved in all religions, and in none. I have a great deal of respect for honestly-held beliefs, but I see no reason to accept the words of believers when it comes to factual assertions about the spread of their beliefs. All I asked was that assertions about the success of the Church Planting Movement be verified from sources other than evangelical Christians. You have not only failed to provide them, but have consistently attacked me for even asking for such sources. I only became involved in this article in the first place because you asked for help on the talk page. The next time you ask for help, I'm inclined to suggest that the actions of thePriest or the Levite, rather than the Samaritan may be the proper response.AndyTheGrump (talk)04:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This editor blatantly moved the film articleRa.One toRa.One (flop). He, likeUser:Guru coolguy, is showing severe bias towards the film, most probably in relation to his dislike for Shahrukh Khan. I suggest immediate blocking of the user from all film-related articles. Please note that this will be the second time that the said user has been hauled up for blockable behaviour, which caused him to be blocked previously. In light of this, I see no change in his attitude and strongly suggest him to be barred from Wikipedia.AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy05:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Was originally blocked for 1 week, but afterthis from a sock of his, I have ramped up his block to indef and placed a rangeblock down. –MuZemike06:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Just spotted a major edit war on27 Club going on -- it's now been protected byUser:Nev1, but one of those involved is creating an incredibly hostile battleground. For starters, the 13 reverts is clearly wayyy over the top (and there's anotice at the edit warring board for that), but this user has been accusing others of edit warring when only on their second~ revert, seemingly in an attempt to scare them off reverting him further[184]; accusing others of harassment[185] over a notice left on his userpage[186]. To his credit, hedid start a discussion on the talk page of the article, but not after far too many reverts, and is now pushing his POV instead of relying on sources to make the point:[187]. There's a serious lack of collegiality here, and he's using reverts and user talk page templates to make his point, creating a pretty hideousbattleground in the process.Buttons to Push Buttons (talk |contribs)17:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I can tell you exactly what the deal is. There was a discussion a long time ago on whether or not Amy Winehouse should be added to27 Club list and the community was amicably working on reaching consensus UNTIL some rabid Winehouse fans DELETED the discussion and kept adding her before any agreement was reached. Since they deleted the discussion, it apparently went dead and Winehouse's inclusion on the list went unnoticed and unchallenged for some time. From day one, the people who insist she must be included have shown blatant bias and appear to be fans of hers who are doing this as a way of mourning their idol. I understand how they feel but in an attempt to keep the article accurate and historically relevant, only unbiased inclusion based on reliable data and evidence should be considered. And because that article has been the subject of edit warring for a long time, I feel that community consensus is the only way on which everyone can at least agree that there was an agreement, or that more people voiced an opinion one way or the other. User:Muboshgu, by the way, jumped on me, not knowing anything about this issue. If he and the others would have initially taken the time to discuss the issue on the talk page in a reasonable manner, everyone wouldn't be reverting everyone else. Anyway. Now, finally, people are semi-amically discussing the issue on the proper page so it should work out fine when some time has gone by for the community to reach an agreement.G90025 (talk)17:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem is, your attitude has been completely beyond the pale. You've placed harassment notices on the user or talk pages of users[188][189] in retaliation for them placing notices on your talk page[190][191]. Then you've repeatedly re-added them even where they don't apply, saying "please don't remove warnings on user talk pages until they expire" (which is false, seeWP:REMOVED). And all the while you remove them from your own -- which is, of course, fine, but evidence of you trying to apply one rule for yourself and another for everyone else. This attitude is disruptive, counter-productive and not in keeping with building an encyclopedia.Buttons to Push Buttons (talk |contribs)17:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Well I agree that tempers have been flying on here this afternoon and that I perhaps could have directed others to the discussion on the talk page and possibly avoided an edit war. Perhaps I did not initially explain the situation correctly or in a manner whereas the others would understand the history of the article and what happened before, and why, at least in my opinion, that a consensus needed to be agreed upon. Because of that pre-existing condition, I do believe that some of those users were making destructive edits and one kept making edits with misleading edit summaries which is clearly an intent to deceive. So anyway, there are probably no innocent parties involved but everyone seems to have calmed down, including myself, so I don't think this will cause the destruction of Wikipedia ultimately.G90025 (talk)17:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, what are you calling for, Buttons? The battleground mentality is plain to see. That G has been removing material against the wishes of at least four other editors (five, if you count me, but I haven't edited the article, I think, at least not for this matter), that is obvious. I've been removing specious warnings they placed on the user pages of editors they disagreed with--about a half a dozen, I think (just look at G's history). Then there's a specious warning onUser talk:Wizardman and a few other talk pages. I've looked at their edits on other articles, and leavingCaylee Anthony alone, as we all should, I see the repeated insertion against consensus of some trivial and unverified internet rumor onFred Rogers. Where is the net positive this editor is contributing to the project? We have a fully protected article and a giant waste of time and electrons.Drmies (talk)17:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I feel I have clearly explained the situation and what has happened going back for months and months on27 Club. Please see the paragraph above. I have no idea what you are referencing aboutCaylee Anthony. I recall making some minor edit on that article after watching and researching the trial in great deal. I would say I know more about it than most people. As far asFred Rogers, the rumor is not trivial and I *did* verify it by citing. It is relevant because it involves an extremely common false notion that Fred Rogers was somehow in military service. That idea goes beyond the Internet and has existed for decades. People wonder if it's true. The inclusion of information, with citation, to show that it is not true is extremely relevant to the article. You are accusing me of a lot of things,Drmies, which are meritless. While I admit that the27 Club thing got out of hand on the part of all parties, I'm a pretty well-educated person who makes valuable contributions to Wikipedia. If someone thinks otherwise, they have every opportunity to question contributions, edit them, or discuss them on talk pages.G90025 (talk)17:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I'm surprised G90025 hasn't been blocked for edit warring yet, considering how far beyond 3RR the user went before the page was protected. – Muboshgu (talk)18:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks to people like you who kept insisting on including biased material and ignoring a previously-existing discussion on whether or not to include the musician on the list. That article has been ravaged by Wikipedia dictators for a long time who have ignored any attempts at a reasonable coming together of the community minds. Maybe you should consider your own behavior also when you are accusing others.G90025 (talk)18:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
That's certainly worth bearing in mind, but a block at this point would harm ongoing discussion. I think it's simple enough to say that any further edit warring once the protection expires will be dealt with harshly. I'm inclined to impose something along the lines ofWP:1RR for the next while. – (talk)19:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The merits of the content issues are not up for debate here, but over on the article's talk page, as you should be aware -- you've even contributed to that discussion, for which I'm glad. But bringing those issues here does not help. A "reasonable coming together of community minds" does not include14 reverts and false accusations of edit warring (while committing it yourself and blanking any and all mentions thereof), vandalism or harassment to try and get editors to back down so you can have your version of the article included. This is a discussion of how you have acted towards others, while bringing a battleground mentality to the encyclopedia, which I believe to be completely incompatible with our aims for the project, and ignoring the spirit of civility and collegiality.Buttons to Push Buttons (talk |contribs)19:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Coming from someone who's never visited the page, talking about 'wikipedia dictators' is generally not a good way to convince people there's any merit to your argument, particularly if you've reverted 13 times against multiple editors in a situation where it wasn't justified (like a clear cutWP:BLP violation or vandalism) and also edit warred to keep warnings place on a user page rather then a user talk page despite apparently knowing (by merit of removing them from your own page) there is no requirement they be preserved even when properly place on the talk page.Nil Einne (talk)19:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
How this user avoided a block is miraculous, but bottom line here: page protected, no further action is needed for now. He's been formally warned, and if the edit warring continuesafter the protection expires, G90025 is almost certainly going to be blocked.19:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I feel like ANI tends to produce odd results. That might've been the most severe violation of 3RR I've ever seen, and the user doesn't have any repercussions? – Muboshgu (talk)01:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
And yet blocks are used for cases of edit warring, when page protection would prevent the behavior without blocking. Rules is rules. (Please don't respond with any variation ofWP:IAR.) – Muboshgu (talk)02:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The point is you can either use page protection or blocking. Once the page has been protected, a block would not normally be necessary. While not everyone agrees page protection was the best call here, most are willing to leave it up to the discretion of the admin who did chose to protect.Nil Einne (talk)07:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a long term abuse sockmaster that has an obsession with Disney articles and this IP seems to fit their MO. I cannot for the life of me remember the account name but they are community banned and are to be blocked and reverted on site. Damn it, it's on the tip of my tongue. I will update if I can think of the name.NoformationTalk06:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
For several monthsUser:Davis100 has continuously vandalized pages, adding information that simply is not true. He has been warned in January, February, March and August of this year and yet he has continued to vandalize pages. A permanent ban would be justified in this situation as it seems all he has done is vandalize pages.Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk)17:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
You're going to have to be a lot more specific than that. Do you have any diffs pointing to this behavior, preferably recent ones? Also, you should have notified the user--I have just done that for you.Drmies (talk)18:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Both are now blocked for edit-warring, suggesting that this was a grudge complaint. Let's assume that this thread won't be resumed and if it is, it better be with some decent evidence.Drmies (talk)18:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I had posted a note to that effect, but I think it must have gone in an edit conflict. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop has posted an unblock request with something of an explanation. --Elen of the Roads (talk)20:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Looking in to the August warning, I don't know if I'd call it vandalism. It appears to relate to edits like[192][193]. From what I can tell, there really was character called Maxine played byCherie Johnson. Our article on the actress says she was recurring and in one of the edits Davis100 themselves admitted the person did not appear in the credits so the change was probably unwarranted but I wouldn't call it vandalism and would be even careful in labelling it 'information that simply is not true'. It's more of a content dispute and while Davis100 was in the wrong they did seem to stop and may have stopped earlier if it was explained main cast would only be those that appeared in the credits regardless of whether certain people think they are main. Davis100's bigger problem appears to be edit warring.Nil Einne (talk)18:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Equalizer2011 (talk·contribs) was involved in avery lame edit war onTake That ([194][195][196]). I warned both users regarding edit warring[197][198]. A little bit later, Equalizer entered another edit war, this time over redirecting the articleBrana Bajic[199][200]. As a side note, Equalizer had prodded this article but it was ineligible due to a past AfD, which is how I came across this user in the first place. I'm not sure what the policy is on edit warring on adifferent article following a 3RR/edit war warning, which is why I brought it here instead ofWP:AN3. —KuyaBriBriTalk22:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Despite checkuser saying the accounts weren't related when I opened an SPI three days ago, I'm fairly sure Equalizer2011 is a sockpuppet ofDweeby123 (talk·contribs). The edit summary styles and the articles he's edited (British BLPs & soap opera characters) are the same as Dweeby and his other accounts. Today Equalizer performed very similar edits to Dweeby's last sock,BVRT11 (talk·contribs) -[201] and[202]. BVRT/Dweeby previously edited the Take That article and reverted Yids2010 -[203]. Someone please tell me I'm not the only one who can see the behaviour of Equalizer is very, very similar to Dweeby and his other accounts? -23:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
When I saw "British soap" the first person who came to mind wasUser_talk:Dodgechris. After he was blocked for socking and disruptive editing he vowed to sock if we kept him blocked, and he generally edited articles about British soaps. I don't know if this is enough for a CU, but he's a blocked user anyway and Equalizer2011 looks like a blockworthy candidate anyway, so might be worth a look.NoformationTalk01:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Inconclusive and showed no results, but another administrator has{{Usernamehardblocked}}. [•]15:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Resolved
Confirmed matches to each other. No other accounts present.Elockid(Talk)02:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
IP blocked. I don't know who the sockmaster is at the moment; I did come across a possible one in the CU results, but the MO does not match. –MuZemike18:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
