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.
UserNeuroticguru left a message on my talk page (User talk:LF#Multiple accounts notification) accusing me of using multiple accounts in order to sway the deletion of an article, and also writing that it is my "last warning" when I don't recall ever receiving any prior warnings. I have NOT been using multiple accounts, they have got their facts wrong. I'm not sure if this user is an administrator or pretending to be.LF (talk)23:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor is not required to be an administrator to post appropriate warnings. If it's not appropriate, just ignore it. It's fine to remove it from you talk page if you'd like.Note the policy is to notify other editors of postings initiated here using the {{subst:ANI-notice}} template; I've done so for you this time but please do so in the future.Nobody Ent00:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
If it is of any reinforcement to you, this user is not an administrator and does not possess any right other than auto-confirmed which means he cannot block you. The best he can do is report you toWP:AVI orWP:SPI but if what you say is true, this will quickly die out and you should be fine. This user was here since 1 July 2007 at 01:04. Thought this might help.— ()()00:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: In my defense and to clarify my actions by adding the rest of the story, I never stated nor pretended that I was in an administrative role of any fashion. I felt that I was following Wikipedia protocol as regardingmultiple accounts. Obviously, I see and understand the error of my decision. I realize now that this alleged infraction (performed byLF) did not need to be escalated to a "Level 4 vandalism" template. I was not going to personally block the user in question. I was just trying to flag their account for what I believed were actions taken against the integrity of Wikipedia and an articleThe Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols which I had created. I will gladly remove said template from LF's user page. I sincerely apologize to LF for that rash action on my part and to all involved as regarding the aforementioned matter. However, I do feel that LF is in violation of creating multiple accounts in order to renominate the aforementioned article for deletion. LF nominated the article for deletion back in November of 2011 underLachlanusername, which now redirects to LF's user page. The article ultimately passed with a "Keep" vote at that time. Presently, LF is the user who has nominated the same article for deletion again, not but three months later. This is my reasoning for believing that LF and Lachlanusername are the same person. If I am wrong, then again, I apologize. PerhapsChoyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 andCyberpower678 can look into that matter, if they feel so inclined. Thank you for your attention as regarding this matter.Neuroticguru (talk)01:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Lachlanusername was his former username. He renamed his account to LF on 16:04, 18 December 2011 according to the logs of that account. Renaming your account moves all content from your old userspace to the new one leaving a redirect behind. That is my observation on it. As I am not a checkuser, I cannot analyze if he is using another account or not and therefore cannot contribute more to this matter.— ()()02:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I've closed the AfD. It was nominated before by the same editor--why that editor would expect a different result this time is a mystery to me.Drmies (talk)02:30, 18 February 2012 (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.
Kumioko resignation
This was probably not a good thing to bring to ANI; you're pretty much guaranteed to get more snark than help on this page. There's nothing requiring admin action here, and if anything further comments are going to make things worse. --Floquenbeam (talk)16:58, 18 February 2012 (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.
Kumioko has announced his intent to resign. He's in a lot of pain. He's been through a lot. I know a cry for help when I see one. I think it would be detrimental to the pedia. We need administrator intervention asap. –Lionel(talk)04:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The two resignation posts (15 and 17 February) remind me of theGoodBye page at MeatballWiki: "...the GoodBye message is seen [by] the author as a means to punish the rest of the community for failing him". The connection seems perfectly apt, since Kumioko has pushed the drama button rather than quietly slipping away. Per MeatballWiki, if Kumioko is given enough positive feedback as a result of his threats to leave, he will subsequently feel as if he has gained privileges as a vested contributor, one who can get away with breaking the rules.
Frankly, I think Kumiokoalready feels as if he is a vested contributor. He told me that I should not have questioned him because of his"6 years... 320,000 edits" seniority. This vested seniority apparently allows him todeclare the intent to engage in edit warring, and to thenengage in edit warring. I think the best way forward is to ignore his plea for attention and let him move away from the project. In time, I imagine he will return to positive contributions, but without the attitude that his anti-collegial actions are above reproach.Binksternet (talk)04:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
ThanksBinksternet for your "understanding" and "sensitivity." You're definitely the guy to goto in a crisis.
Anyway... We have an Article Rescue Squadron (ARS). What about an Editor Rescue Squadron? We could use the acronym "ERS" (pron. erse). It could be staffed by touchy-feely editors who do whatever it takes to show a disgruntled editor how much they are valued, how wonderful they are, that it gets better, you know, crap like that. Who supports formation of an Editor Rescue Squadron (ERS) to work on editor retention?–Lionel(talk)06:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Textbook case ofWP:DIVA. Ignore. 11:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
There are a couple of options:
A. Kumioko is perfectly capable of sticking around and doing good, undramatic edits that quietly improve the encyclopædia. If they chose to do that I would support it very strongly, and I doubt others would stand in their way.
B. If, instead, the editor chooses highly-strung rhetoric and resignation threats, the best thing for wikipedia - and for kumioko - is that they follow through on their threat sooner rather than later. Of course, if at a later date they decided to come back for option A, that would be OK too.bobrayner (talk)11:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed those also. We shouldn't put up with that sort of vote, they should be removed immediately. RFA is bad enough without editor's opposing candidates to make a point/emote whatever.Dougweller (talk)16:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Please drop the sticks. If the editor has resigned, let them go in peace. If they return, their failings can be discussed then. Rfa is not going to be changed via discussion on ANI, so if you want to change it, please make a proposal atWT:RFA.Nobody Ent16:13, 18 February 2012 (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.
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.
DGG was the admin who did an A7 deletion of the article he wanted. Retribution against an admin carrying out policy, by virtue of inappropriate page moves with an entirely untrue rationale, does not bode well for the user's long term suitability for the project.Jclemens (talk)05:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I was following that. Someone bobs up, makes an article with all evidence pointing to it being about themself(enough with the spell-check, Firefox, I know it's non-standard) that gets A7'd, makes clumsy attack against deleting admin, creates the article twice again, it gets A7'd twice again. User rightly gets blocked for this disruption. I don't think they'll try that again too quickly. Minor matter that has already been resolved. Is further action really needed?--Shirt58 (talk)05:20, 18 February 2012 (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.
Long term disruptive edits, sockpuppetry, vandalism
We don't really poke around on the offchance we'll find some misbehaviour, and neither do we control or take much note of what happens on other sites. 147.203.126.215's edit history doesn't seem to be anything to worry about, and I can find no mention of that IP address on the sock puppet investigation you linked. If you're proposing that 147.203.126.215 is SCFilm29 and that SCFilm29 is evading their indefblock, you'll need to provide evidence. If it's something else you want administrator assistance with, you'll need to be more specific.EyeSerenetalk13:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
This user has started to insert random spamlinks since December 2011. Now, the user has continue to spam on various pages and the user has been indef blocked now and has a global account locked by the steward, Trijnstel. Some of them were trying to edit, but the abuse filters has disallowed them, all links used were blacklisted. When the current link has been blacklisted, the user keep change links, mostly are the rugby equipment shopping website. Also,User:Группа "Свежий ритм" (Russian name for The Fresh Beat Band), has spammed to the flag shopping website, including the addition of spam images (deleted on Commons) which it is World Rugby Shop logo. Before the long-term protection onThe Fresh Beat Band, the page has been a long-term favorite target which indef-semi protection is better and more positive. Many sockpuppets since December now. The IP used is currently blocked. For more information, seeWP:LTA/FBB or if you found this user's sock(s), please submit atWP:SPI/FBB, Thanks. --Il223334234 (talk)07:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I've asked MuZemike to comment here; I at least am not sure whether he said that based on general behavioral observation or based on the Checkuser findings.Nyttend (talk)01:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
There is aPossible connection between Il223334234 and all the Fresh Beat Band socks, on both behavioral and technical evidence. --MuZemike01:37, 19 February 2012 (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.
Seems to have been resolved. Of noteWP:RfPP seems like a better place to have raised this.
Any chance of page protection being renewed here as the article has again been attacked by the same troll as in November with consequent necessary reverts. ----Jack |talk page13:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Just as a broken clock is right twice a day the "troll" does have a point. Why is there a "retired" tag on your page and why is your talk page redirected to your userpage? If you are going to be actively editing then you shouldn't be discouraging others from discussing your edits with you. --Ron Ritzman (talk)14:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay. It's in a few watchlists so someone will spot the troll when he comes back. By the way, I've sorted the talk page problem and thanks for letting me know the policy on that. ----Jack |talk page17:06, 18 February 2012 (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.
User WhiteWriter
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.
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.
An outbreak of template-hacking racist vandalism
There's an ongoing outbreak of racist vandalism using a rather tricky hack involving templates that click-hijacks users to an antisemitic website. Some measures have been taken, but I suspect the perpetrators may intensify their attack if this isn't nipped in the bud fairly quickly. Could people with the relevant skills take a look atWikipedia:Village pump (technical), and see if they can help with the issue there? --The Anome (talk)19:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Filter 453 now created to temporarily prevent all but old/experienced users from editing templates
There are reports that the pages being linked may also contain malware. It's time to put a stop to this. before it spreads to higher-risk templates and presents a major threat to readers. Accordingly I've just created and enabledfilter 453, which should temporarily stopall recently-created editors from editing templates at all.
I'll disable it in a few hours, when this has blown over, and all the affected templates tracked down and fixed, but I think it will be a good idea to keep it around for the time being so that it can be re-enabled at a moment's notice if this starts up again.
There will undoubtedly be some blowback from this, but I think at the moment this is the least disruptive of all the possible short-term options, until this either goes away of its own accord, or more thorough precautions can be taken against this sort of vandalism. --The Anome (talk)20:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I added a limitation to #453 that should still stop the hacking links but should allow normal template editing. Other filter people, please see if you can refine this. Thanks Anome!NawlinWiki (talk)21:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I have a sinking feeling that coming technical "improvements" to the template system are going to make this type of problem a lot worse. Sigh.67.117.145.9 (talk)21:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Filter 453 now disabled
On review, there don't seem to be any bad edits among those caught by filter 453, and no new reports of racist vandalism on the help page, so I've now disabled it. I hopefilter 139, which is similar but more specific, should be able to handle things from here on. --The Anome (talk)22:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh crap. What's preventing 139 from working? Can someone please take a look at filter 139, and find out why it's not finding these edits? In the meantime, I've re-enabled 453, which is simpler, and surely has a better chance of blocking this.Please be very careful viewing the diffs given above: they cover the article content, and parts of the rest of the user interface, with an invisible image that clickjacks every link to racist sites which may well also contain malware, even in preview mode.--The Anome (talk)00:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and I think that's what was stopping the filter evaluation code from testing things properly, and that was confusing me even more: I had to go and dig up some actual vandalism, de-fang it, and move it into template space, to try to fix this. --The Anome (talk)01:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I think there was a small error in one part of the regex, which I've tried to fix. Can you look again and see if that makes sense to you?Fut.Perf.☼01:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi: was that the addition of the backslashes before the closing square brackets? Unfortunately, I've been editing round and round in circles, and I may well have overwritten your change: can you check both 139 and 453 for sanity, please? --The Anome (talk)01:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I've figured out how it's done, and I've blacklisted the mechanism for doing it. Hopefully, this will result in the template vandalism being stopped. Email me if you want details.Reaper Eternal (talk)13:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for the explanation. That was driving me crazy for a bit. Well, there's one more technique I've learnt. It might be a good idea for the long term to expand the filter's capabilities to take that into account. --The Anome (talk)13:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I was going through the the backlog atWP:AIV when I came across the report of this anon user. He/she had been doing a LOT of editing of talk pages, generally changing links, some correcting of spelling. Thing is... the anon user is correcting other people's work. Wiki link changes (such asthis) are POV pushing.
The editor had not been sufficiently warned enough for a block, so I have added a warning. But there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. Not all edits have been reverted. Rollback is great - but this anon-user has been VERY prolific over the last few days, and because a lot of the edits have been in archives they have not been noticed. So, can anyone help with reverting a tonne of edits, please?
I've stepped back from reverting the edits, as I am (a) going cross-eyed from staring at the screen and (b) more importantly starting to have doubts as to whether or not all the edits are good/bad faith or even need to be reverted. A lot of the earlier ones seem to be clearing up disambig, and not all are in talk pages. I have, as far as I can tell, reverted all the talk page edits, but I would appreciate someone else double checking the rest of the edits.
Someone apparently recently changedConservative Christianity from an article into a disambig page, meaning that links there need to be disambiguated. I don't see that doing so is POV pushing or needs to be reverted. I've reverted your reversion of 90.214's edit to my userpage, because it was a useful edit, not vandalism.Pais (talk)22:10, 18 February 2012 (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.
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.
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 want to know is this a normal custom that unblock requests are not reviewed or put on hold by admins till block expires? My question is related toUser:TopGun'scurrent block and theone before this. His last block of 72 hours was put on hold before it expired. At least an editor with some good contribution to the project should not be dealt like this. --SMSTalk22:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
And yes, if no admin is willing to unblock, but at the same time they're unwilling to decline, they do often last. I can guarantee dozens of admins have reviewed it, but decided not to act. (talk→BWilkins←track)00:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Bwilkins. The blockis confusing, though, and I spent at least 10 minutes trying to figure it out. It's a 1RR violation, but the editor (a) claims admins can't decree 1RR, and (b) seems to assume it's only for his interactions withUser:Darkness Shines, since that's what set it off. I'm currently looking over this to see if he gets someWP:CLUE, at which point I presume BWilkins will unblock; otherwise, I'd keep the block. Someone else can do it, of course; I'm only posting this summary to save others the trouble of going through the diffs.Xavexgoem (talk)02:16, 19 February 2012 (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.
SarekOfVulcan removes question on talk
user:SarekOfVulcanremoved my question and quote from a newspaper aboutJames O'Keefe. I provided several media citations and asked why it wasn't mentioned in the article on the talk page. Thenuser:SarekOfVulcan's action/response was to remove all mention from the talk page. This seems very aggressive nor does it explain why wikipedia should ignore the event-- or even ignore my question about it.Apajj89 (talk)02:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Also SarekOfVulcan's summary "rm per BLP -- some of those aren't even the same person" is FALSE. All those articles are referring to the same person/case.— Precedingunsigned comment added byApajj89 (talk •contribs)02:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The "more sources" Apajj89 posted are repeats of The Record source. The one that wasn't a repeat was aboutJeffrey O'Keefe, a completely different person. Apajj89 is wrong and Sarek is right that they are about completely different people. The sources that actually are about the right O'Keefe are about the case being dismissed, but you present it as though they were not. Apajj89 was violatingWP:BLP, Apajj89 presented an inaccurate summary of his sources, Apajj89 presented an inaccurate description of his sources (he really only had two, The Record and one completely irrelevant one), and Apajj89 has presented an inaccurate picture of SarekOfVulcan's actions.Ian.thomson (talk)02:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, thesources 12345 talk about the issue and some mention its status as dismissed. I never implied otherwise. The issue got a lot of press and curious readers, like myself, may wonder why its not in the article (the question I asked on the talk).
Here you only present the accusations,nothing about their dismissal. Don't act like Glenn Beck, you were downplaying the dismissal of the charges.
And again, the northjersey.com source, the bergendispatch.com source are repeats of The Report. You're only repeating sources that just repeat The Report as if they are different sources with those. The newsvine.com and blogspot.com sources are blogs, which do not meetthe reliable source guidelines. The Salon source was a good source when it came out but it is soddy work to present now (as things have changed and the charges have been dismissed).
WP:BLP gives any editor the right to remove potentially libellous material, and talk pages are for article improvement instead of POV-pushing for trying to advocating BLP violations.Ian.thomson (talk)02:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yep, because asking why an issue mention in several media articles isso POV. Anyway, I'd done with wikipedia. I'll go write on sand, seems more productive.Apajj89 (talk)02:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
That is not it at all. What you presented completely ignored that the charges were dismissed. You took the one source, repetitions of it, and a source about someone else, and presented only the accusations. You asked for the accusations to be included, but did not mention at all that the charges were dismissed. THAT was POV on your part.
Really Ian? I agree that the edits weren't without problems but I hardly think this is the kind of statement that helps us attract and keep new users. Perhaps, since this is a new editor with no experience with the dozens of policies here, it would have been more useful to show the user an example of how the edit should be written and present it as an example rather than drive the user off. --Kumioko (talk)03:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see you trying to explain to this user what he did wrong. And "you only present the accusations,nothing about their dismissal" doesn't explain what what wrong and what would have been right? I'll apologize for bitey remarks when you apologize to Sarek for hounding him.Ian.thomson (talk)16:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Well I'll give you credit that your partially right there. I didn't but no one else did either. Not one as far as I can tell from the talk page. Lots of criticism about what rules were violated, what they did wrong and what could happen if they continue. Not one statement of let me know if you have questions about doing this, nothing about you got some good info and usable references but we have to make the statement POV. It still may not have worked but no one tried.That is why the world is turning away from Wikipedia, more than 8 years of insulting new users, running off potentially useful editors. Because the majority of our messages have a bitey, unhelpful undertone and our most senior editors lack the patience or desire to help groom the new users. But your right, I was so focused over the last years of building an encyclopedia that I was blind to this cultural degradation. We are losing editors aster than we can recruit the because the word of mouth is spreading the news that Wikipedia, for all its uses as a place to find information, is not a friendly place to edit. And just for the record, that you even made the ultimatum indicates that a part of you, somewhere deep inside, sees that the situation could have been handled better. --Kumioko (talk)17:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Note - I just wanted to drop a note that I asked Sarek, yet again, to please follow the directions on the big orange banner to notify editors when e drops their names at ANI. I realize I am about as wanted as a leper these days but I still shouldn't have to find out by watching the page. --Kumioko (talk)02:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Would that be the big orange banner that says "You must notify any user who is thesubject of a discussion"? Because I don't see any text that says "any user whose name you drop"... --SarekOfVulcan (talk)02:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that your posting on Apajj89's page was quite sufficient evidence that you knew about this discussion - and you appear to be trying to getyourself into trouble. I suggest you stop...AndyTheGrump (talk)03:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I made a comment to an editor on my opinion of how I thought of the situation. It turns out I was correct. Whoda guessed. Perhaps you are correct though that I shouldstop. I have been considering doing just that myself and have hardly made any non discussion related edits since my ridiculous block. I even deleted most of my sandbox projects and 99% of the code I wrote for my bots and scripts, not that it matters. Certainly there would have been strong words for an editor not notifying another editor if there name was mentioned here. Irregardless, I don't expect that anyone has a problem with Admins not notifying users of discussions so I would suggest modifying the orange banner message slightly to say that notifying the user is not required if there is a reasonable assumption that the users would know about it. --Kumioko (talk)03:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah that's as good of an excuse as any I suppose. Certainly I didn't really think anything would be done about it, especially since he is a highly respected admin and I am a barely functioning editor but it would still be nice if the Admins actually followed the rules on occasion instead of just enforcing them when it doesn't apply to them. Thankfully I have 22, 000+ pages on my watchlist including this one so it gives me a wide breadth of visibility. --Kumioko (talk)04:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
[I] have hardly made any non discussion related edits since my ridiculous block. Have you considered that that might be part of the problem? That maybe instead of making comments almost exclusively to discussion pages you should, instead, work on content that you enjoy writing about for awhile? -The BushrangerOne ping only04:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Kumioko, I say this with all interest in you still being around WP and editing,WP:DROPIT. Involving yourself dramatically and disruptively in a conflict is a very quick way to burn up whatever good faith the community has with you at this point. Please stop using loaded language to generate a specific response (Victim language, pejorative phrases, evasive assertions, etc). I would immagine (though I don't have the clairvoyant understanding of) the admins who blocked you considered your actions in addition to the way that you were communicating when determining if blocking would prevent further disruption to the community.Hasteur (talk)04:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
First let me clarify I simply asked Sarek to notify me when he called me out like the big orange banner says. Thats it. All this extra banter is just a petty way to say that admins don't have to follow the rules unless they want too. In response to your comments on the other issues though and we are really really off topic but I did what I thought to be good edits for the last 6 years (over 300, 000 of them) and that seemed to cause problems too. So it seems I'm screwed either way. I would give some examples but undoubtedly someone would sight Diva or something. Additionally, actual editing and improvements seem passé these days from everything I have seen lately so I am just doing what seems to be important here these days and participating in discussions. I will likely make some edits to other stuff again, but for now I am just doing what all the good Wikipedians seem to be doing. I'm not perfect and never claimed to be but maybe its also possible that admins are not above reproach and occassionally its appropriate to point that out and risk getting blocked or banned by their fellow cabalists. This isn't about my block so I'm not going to dignify that comment with a response that you appear to be trying to provoke. --Kumioko (talk)04:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
And its clear to me that the community is more interested in protecting its admins from well earned criticism than to actual problems such as Ian's comment above telling a user that its better they didn't edit here anymore. I remember a time when that sorta comment woulda received a flurry of severely worded responses, but I guess this is the new Wikipedia and things like that are now acceptable. --Kumioko (talk)05:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Lol, actually its snowing but I'm done commenting on this discussion. We have strayed way too far from the original topic and no one wants to discuss/do anything about it anyway. --Kumioko (talk)05:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Kumioko is hounding me
Kumioko only get involved because of a past feud with Sarek, and after provided no correction to Apajj89, called me pointing out what Apajj89 did was bitey, and insisted that I should have pointed out what a good post would have done (which I did, and as if that's what he was doing). No other editor went after me about this, but then again, no other editor got involved because of a prior grudge. When it became clear thatKumioko wasn't going to win any fights at ANI, hecame onto my talk page. Before I removed the thread, he repeatedly misread a number of my statements in whatever way was possible to make me out to be the bad guy (which makes his complaints about other editors not assuming good faith all the more ridiculous).
Then stop interacting with him. It's not reasonable to get in a talk page tussle with another editor and then register a hounding complaint on ANI.Nobody Ent21:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec)I only got involved because Ian was being uncivil to a new user (telling them that they shouldn't edit anymore) and I told him to not be so bitey. Then he left me some defensive and rude comments and left a talk back just to show me he deleted the discussion and and called me a Diva. I just told him I left my last message so as far as I am concerned the matter is closed. Just because he can't take a little constructive criticism doesn't mean I am hounding him. --Kumioko (talk)21:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Removing the edit withWP:DFTD was an escalatory move, not a de-escalatory one. I'd suggestDon't wish to discuss further or the like if you wish to end an own talk discussion.Nobody Ent11:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Redslider (talk·contribs) has been making a variety of accusations about editors at DRN, RSN,Talk:Charles R. Pellegrino etc. On his talk page today he writes ", Wikipedia is protected by law from suits arising out of defamation or malicious intent to harm the reputation of a person, as I understand it, individuals are not so protected. It would, of course be up to the subject to decide if and how to pursue such matters. But I think some of your "several editors" ought to consider the matter. We're not just talking about "blocking" somebody from Wikipedia, anymore." Could someone uninvolved have a look? Thanks.Dougweller (talk)10:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the whole context of the remarks is significant (as referenced by Dougweller) and my response to his subsequent caution was,
"no legal threat was made, nor do I have any legal threat to make. What i did say was simply to advise people that they should be aware of what they do and use common sense. Especially when it comes to things that may cause personal or professional injury to others. That, I believe is in the best tradition of Wikipedia. Nothing more than that. Redslider (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)"
If any uninvolved individual here (and I mean any single individual) thinks that I have crossed the line, I will immediately remove the offending sentences. No threat, whatsoever was intended.Redslider (talk)10:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
As I said in your talkpage:Yes, the statement made clearly is intended to "chill" a discussion, and suggests to others that they should behave differently, or else legal action can be taken against them. Indeed, the majority of your interactions on Wikipedia appear to contain faux legalese, which if you truly believed in the community nature of this project, would not be necessary. You would be best to read WP:NLT very carefully, and consider your next steps extremely carefully (talk→BWilkins←track)10:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Remarks in question have been removed. Not intended to 'chill' anyone. My apologies. I shall exercise more care in the future.Redslider (talk)11:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Request for Clarification: I immediately removed the offending remarks, as I said I would. Then some editor reverted them as "strikeouts". But this leaves the offending material still readable and still a potential for chilling others. I restored my deletion, but I don't want to get into some edit war over this. What am I supposed to do? Thank you. (there was an edit conflict. I put this where it would have normally occurred)Redslider (talk)11:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Other editors should note that the removal rather than striking of the remarks has rendered subsequent discussion confusing. I tried to help Redslider by striking them in the usual way (perWP:REDACT), but he insists on removal. Even so, as Bwilkins says the same basic mindset pervades his other contributions in other locations, even if they are less explicit in these terms.Nomoskedasticity (talk)11:33, 19 February 2012 (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.
Redslider is not required to require to strike comments ontheir own talk page -- Redslider can simply remove the entire section if they'd like.Nobody Ent12:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Having shopped the issue of the controversy ofCharles R. Pellegrino's (lack) of a PhD toBLP/N (twice),RS/N, andDRN, and having been rebuffed at all of these,User:Redslider is now laying out threats on the article talk page, such asthis. The raw facts, as investigations have uncovered, are that Pellegrino made the news, worldwide, when it was discovered that the PhD he claimed to have was denied by the supposed granting institution; this was in connection with the withdrawal of one of his books by the publisher on the grounds of spurious sourcing, so it hardly lacks notability. We can takethat issue to RFC/U, but if he's going to threaten that we "may face disciplinary actions", well, it seems to me that his slow motion edit-warring and combative, threatening approach are problem enough.Mangoe (talk)14:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I have been, marginally, involved in the discussion at the above article, in which one editor,User:Lung salad, seems to be insisting on adding material against consensus of the other editors on the topic. It is their apparent belief/understanding that the material LS has been restoring relates to fringe theories as perWP:FT. LS himself had recently been subject to a short block for tendentious editing on the same article - that block has now been lifted. I believe it is reasonable to ask admins who have not been involved in the discussion to review the recent history and make such actions, if any, that they deem appropriate.John Carter (talk)19:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Need some help with a new user, including guidance onWP:NPA
I've been trying to work with a new user after I PROD'd the user's new article,Dracu. After the PROD was disputed and I nominated the article for AfD, the editor made some personal attacks:[10],[11]. I thought I hadproperly cautioned the editor, but the editor then postedthis, essentially accusing editors that want the article deleted to be communists and racist against Romanians.
I'm trying to assume good faith here, and I think this editor may get some benefit from someone other than me (they probably see me as too involved) to give them some advice about editing in Wikipedia.Singularity42 (talk)20:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
This comes in as a response to user Singularity42's previous message.
Hello everybody. As we all know, there are plenty of haters among us. This guy that has previously posted a message is nothing but an individual of bad intentions. With under no circumstances I have broughts any of the aformentioned accuses. Moreover, I have tried to ask for help, but he kept on deleting my messages and destroying my valuable work on my article. Instead, he could very easily tell me what to improve. It seems that he is just trying to be ambitious in deleting other's work using racial judgement. Well, we are one race and we are all the same and this is my own statement. Why is he insulting me then? I therefore make a humanist call to all you guys around here and ask you to please this guy and give him the right answer. I am a friendly citisen and will ever be. I don't want to fight or argue with anyone, but hey, haters is what I don't understand. How can I protect my articles from such egoistic and outrageous attackers? Thank you guys and the best of luck in your lives. User:Cabbynet (regarding the articleDracu)— Precedingunsigned comment added byCabbynet (talk •contribs)21:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
All this over a Romanian word? If people flip out over stuff like this, then... never mind, this is typical of how everybody else here reacts over relatively minor stuff. --MuZemike21:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)To be blunt: they aren't "your articles" once you've posted them into Wikipedia, which is why the edit page warns "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. " What you can do is create your article in your userspace, e.g. create it here:User:Cabbynet/Dracu, and then work on finding sufficientsources to support it.Then put in in what we call "mainspace:"Dracu. The folks responding are just trying to maintain Wikipedia standards not attacking you personally.Nobody Ent21:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I've blocked him for 24 hours after he removed the AfD notice from the article for the second time. Coming on top of the other problems, it was necessary to give him time to think.Favonian (talk)21:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
A troll? On Wikipedia? What an original idea! (I feel sorry for the so-called girlfriend -- trolling Wikipedia, what a way to show a girl a good time).Nobody Ent22:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that made my day. "You dare ask for a source? No wonder academia considers Wikipedia a non-referenceable trash." Oh my.Huon (talk)23:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I am generally on the minority side of consensus, rather consistently; This serves participants of this discussion rather well. For if I were asked, these very recent developments pursuant to this thread receive my first D- grade. (almost failing) It is only for deleted contributions unaware to me that preclude my ability to say you actually failed; being esteemed by me. The rest becomes tl;dr, while remaining irrelevant; so feel free to disregard me now.My76Strat (talk)00:06, 20 February 2012 (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.
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.
User Kkm010
I have some concerns about the editing behaviour ofKkm010 (talk·contribs), specifically about their use/non-use of edit summaries and their addition/updating of factual information in articles whilst either not adding or updating citations. These concerns are magnified by the very large number of edits which this editor is currently making.
In about half to two-thirds of their edits they do not use edit summaries at all, but when they do they are frequently meaningless (such as 'ok' or 'done'), or more worryingly, completely misleading, e.g.[15],[16] and[17],[18],[19] and[20].
I am also concerned about the way in which this editor updates factual information in articles without updating citations e.g.[21],[22],[23].
I have also noticed that, if reverted, this editor will also bounce back with IP edits, which then often reflect the issues above e.g.[24] and[25].
Looking at this editors' talk page it is clear that a number of other editors have recently expressed concerns about odd editing by this user.— Precedingunsigned comment added byRangoon11 (talk •contribs)
I don't see a big problem here. Unfortunately, many experienced editors do not use edit summaries or are cryptic when they do. You can advise the editor to do so (there are templates for this sort of thing). The worst thing I see in the edit summary diffs you provide show that the editor uses "minor" when the changes are not minor (there's a template for that, too). A little more troubling is if Kkm is indeed coming back to reedit without logging in. That should be corrected if true, particularly if the edits are controversial.--Bbb23 (talk)03:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I do agree that most often I don't mention edit summery but its not possible for me to mention on every single edit that I do. I also agree that there are times when I often don't log in but do make some constructive changes. Thanks!--*04:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It's really a very good habit to always include an edit summary. How much detail you put in depends on the context. If there's any controversy at all about your edit, more detail is better. Also, marking an edit as minor is really reserved for changes that havenothing to do with the substance of the article (formatting, punctuation, things like that), and even then a brief edit summary is helpful. Finally, you should make a greater effort to log in before making any changes at all. If for some reason you can't log in, then wait to make the change until you can. When a registered user makes a change from an IP address, itlooks suspicious, even if it's perfectly innocent. Besides, it adds to your edit count. :-) --Bbb23 (talk)15:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
These IPs're all editing from the same location and hounding the same user's edits. They've been making multiple reverts, collectively in violation ofARBPIA's discretionary sanctions. I realize blocking any of the individual IP addresses won't accomplish anything, but maybe Admins've developed more sophisticated tools for dealing with this sort of thing.—Biosketch (talk)10:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
See[26] for an earlier discussion. This editor was an SPA atEUCLID (university) where his concern was accredition (the dispute was about whether Euclid is accredited, and he was disparaging a source which said it wasn't). His recent editing atThe Higher Learning Commission appears to be an attempt to make apoint about accrediting agencies by misrepresenting a case in whichDickinson State University was the subject of a report stating that it was a diploma mill and that THLC might sanction it. See[27],[28],[29],[30] and[31]. He's been reverted each time (except the last one which I just noticed) and warned about this on his talk page. He's obviously using this to try to discredit an accrediting agency. This edit[32] is probably also relevant toWP:POINT.Dougweller (talk)13:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Note that his latest edit to THLC ([33]) which has an edit summary saying "added proof that HLC accredits Dickinson. Not to defame or discredit, but out of public interest." says "A february 2012 audit report depicted a HLC accredited[3] institution Dickinson State University as a Diploma mill." For some reason he uses 5 sources all of which quote the same report (so one would be sufficient) and say "Dickinson State could face penalties from the State Department for violations of the federal student visa program, as well as sanctions from the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security and the Higher Learning Commission in Chicago, an accreditation agency, the report said." Note that none of his edits had mentioned that Dickinson may face sanctions from the Higher Learning Commission, all dwell on the fact that the HLC was the accrediting agency for this public state university. That doesn't seem simply an edit "Not to defame or discredit, but out of public interest".Dougweller (talk)13:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been watching the THLC article (now I am), but I have had the EUCLID article on my watchlist for a while, and I often battle with Satinmaster (including recently) about POV content changes he makes there (e.g.,[34]). I try to avoid accusing editors of having an agenda because it's done too often at Wikipedia without any solid support, but in this particular case, Satinmaster does seem to be pushing against certain reputable agencies and pushing in favor of certain institutions.--Bbb23 (talk)15:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I blocked the user indefinitely. The user has had plenty of second chances already, and s/he made multiple disruptive edits following the "final warning" I issued about 12 hours ago. --Orlady (talk)16:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Curtis Lovell II
A relatively new article, until I happened on it edited pretty much solely byThor0407 (talk·contribs) and76.87.67.241 (talk·contribs)(I suspect they are the same person, possibly even Lowell himself or an associate). Heavily promotional, with way too many copyright questionable photos, lists of "reviews", and dvd sales links. I removed the worst of it, fixed some formatting and tagged for a few things. The IP has reinserted, and reinserted the majority of the material. I left them messages hereCurtis Lovell II andFebruary 2012. I'm not sure I handled this very well, and am at 2 or 3rr with them myself, so am backing away. Anyone else out there with a cooler head and some time on their hands who wishes to drop in and access the situation?Heiro06:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
If they were, this "This file is missing evidence of permission. It has an author and source, but there is no proof that the author of the file agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide evidence of permission by either providing a link to a site with an explicit grant of permission that complies with the licensing policy or by forwarding email communication granting permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.
This also applies if you are the author yourself.
Unless permission is granted, the file can be speedy deleted seven days after this template was added (13 February 2012) and the uploader was notified." wouldn't appear on them.Heiro06:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I think sources may have been misused too. That "Modern-day Houdini" thing cited a news article which doesn't include the phrase; googling for it (with Lovell's name, to filter out the various other people who also claim to be modern-day houdinis) returns lots of results, all apparently written by (or copied from) Lovell or a publicist. This is supposed to be an encyclopædia, not a platform for self-promotion. However, I'm not sure that this is a case for AN/I right now...bobrayner (talk)10:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Curtis Lovell II did send all the proper permission and copyright to the permissions-commons@wikimedia.org email, so what is the problem. All the text is original and photos, property of Curtis Lovell II.Curtis Lovell II (talk)11:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you understand that other than having it attributed to you, the text in the article can be deleted, changed, etc by anyone?Dougweller (talk)17:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(outdent) This article has a number of problems, not the least of which it's being tag-teamed by a host of anon IPs and SPAs. They are repeatedly edit warring to insert a sentence claiming that CBS News referred to the subject as "the next Houdini", however the reference provided is a bare URL to the subject's own website. The anon IPs claim the video for this broadcast "was" on his website but the link is now dead. In any case, as this is a BLP, statements by CBS News can't be sourced by links to the subject's own website. I have requested semi-protection at RPP to put a stop to this.Night Ranger (talk)21:08, 20 February 2012 (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.
Created the nonsense articleBlahBlahBla, then taken it toWP:REFUND with a reason of "I love this page so much!"
Created the mega-short articleXicn which was redirected.
Filed a RFA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrandonSkyPimenta) that smacks of vandalism ("What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?" "BlahBlahBia was not a good page, so it was deleted.")
Warned me of the TFD discussion for{{NOT}}, even though I filed that TFD myself
I'm not seeing anything good from this editor at all. It's clear that they're only here to vandalize and act like a child, not to build a project.Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)02:34, 20 February 2012 (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 recently went through Northiran'slist of created articles and discovered that most had to be tagged for deletion (mostly due to being copyright violations). In response, Northiran recreated most of the articles again (which I have done my best to deal with), andvandalized my user page. Can an admin look into this please? I think there's needs to be two things done:
A temporary block so that the user's contributions can be cleaned up without them being quickly re-created, and
A cleanup of the user's contributions to look for copyright violations. (I did try this originally atWP:CCI#Northiran but was told it was rather trivial for CCI, which makes sense. In any event, ANI is probably the more appropriate forum after the vandalizing in reply to being called out on copyright violations.)
Jameh Mosque of Amol - deleted as a copyvio, recreated by user as a copy/paste as a section from another Wikipedia article, redirected by me accordingly
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.
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.
User:GoodDay - topic ban request
This is actually a bit close, but the fact that both GoodDay and his mentors agreed to this topic ban tips the balance over. GoodDay is topic banned from pages relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, broadly construed. This topic ban will be lifted when he has demonstrated to his mentors that such a restriction is no longer necessary, and can be re-applied by them if necessary.T. Canens (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2012 (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.
So, as some of you may know,GoodDay (talk·contribs) has had a bit of a patchy past, and a little while ago was the subject of an RFC/U (seeWikipedia:Requests for comment/GoodDay) where he was placed under the mentorship ofDBD (talk·contribs) and myself. An area that GoodDay edits sometimes are articles relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, and his edits on the articles and comments on the talk pages often generate far too much heat, and very little light. We've discussed this with GoodDay and recommended he stay away from these articles, and he has agreed to a topic ban (see[39]} but I think having it rubber stamped here would be for the best. I think he's capable of doing good work, but this topic area is generating a lot of complaints (seemy talk page for examples) and we feel it'd be for the best. Regards,10:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems like he's willing to accept a voluntary topic ban on his own accord. This can all be hammered out on his page, and then if if that voluntarily accepted ban is violated, bring it back here.Doctalk11:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to be bureaucratic, but must disagree slightly with Doc9871; any kind of ban can (almost by definition) lead to strife or contention later, especially if the scope of the ban isn't perfectly clear or if it misses the point, so it can be really helpful to discuss a ban with the community. If somebody's volunteering to stay away from a specific area where their edits generate more heat than light, then I'd be happy to rubberstamp that. I wish more of us had the self-control to avoid stressful areas; my blood pressure could certainly benefit from staying away from a few controversial pages.bobrayner (talk)12:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban of whatever duration, ideally indefinite. GoodDay has been a fly in the ointment around British and Irish articles for years doing little more than trolling on many occasions, and rarely contributing anything useful to any debate. I'm generally hesitant about voluntary topic bans as if GoodDay decides he wants the ban to end surely the process is just voluntary still and he can just carry on the same as before?13:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
One Nigh In Hackney, your comment is needlessly aggressive and unpleasant—if someone you perceive as difficult to work with is voluntarily and peacefully willing to remove themselves from an area of conflict, there's no useful purpose to taunting. (Not that there isever a useful purpose to taunting, but I digress.) Nevertheless, ONIH's point about the 'voluntariness' of the topic ban is well taken. It would be helpful if the mentors were to expand upon their views of how the topic ban might come to an end. Is this intended to be an indefinite ban, or fixed-length, or subject to review after some set period of time or after some other condition is met, or what? And who would be able to make the call on lifting it—is this a completely voluntary 'ban' that GoodDay would be able to revoke himself, or would it require the approval of the mentors, or would it require a full-blown consensus here...?TenOfAllTrades(talk)15:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it'd be wise for it to be a topic ban that we could revoke, on the condition that his editing improves elsewhere. This isn't being done to punish GoodDay, nor is it implying that he is solely to blame. Perhaps he is being baited somewhat, but he is taking the bait and it's getting him in trouble. He's very capable of doing good work, but this topic area is causing him issues and I think it best he has a break from the area.22:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not so much that he is taking the bait, but that he is most of the time dishing out the bait. I find the line that suggests GD is basically a nice helpful type whose endless comments in British Isles-space are misunderstood and provoked, to be well wide of the mark. In fact, he often doesn't understand the simplest issues, either of the facts themselves or of the point at question in a given talk subject. But that doesn't hold him back - he sees a need to not only act confused but, where possible, to very deliberately act in an inflammatory and serially provocative wayeven when other editors of differing views are discussing things in a reasonable manner. This is the case with his most recent edits inTalk:United Kingdom where there was no possible implication to his remarks other than to try to cause trouble. He also seeks to recruit for trouble and, where possible, to derail attempts to achieve consensus by way of sustained, distracting and trivial sequences of ill-informed and unhelpful opinions. His contribution-to-talk ratio is depresssingly low. He is very, very experienced in Wikipedia and knows a great many tricks, which is the sole reason why he wasn't perma-blocked ages ago. I am emphatically *not* one of the "nationalist editors" complained of endlessly by GoodDay and some supportive others here, but I'm heartily sick of him, because in the UK and Ireland space, he has absolutely nothing useful to contribute and a great deal of extremely exhausting and repetitive "opinion" (for opinion read: deliberate provocation) to bore us with. Would be happy to see him barred from this space, voluntarily or otherwise.Jamesinderbyshire (talk)13:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
GoodDay is a NPOV editor in an area that is absolutely overloaded with groups of nationalists, many of whom are very aggressive and work in groups. I have , on more than one occasion told him to take that whole sector off his watchlist, but the bias of the whole sector irks him and he goes there expresses a position that is loudly rejected by the nationalists who hate him because he repeatedly points at the bias they support. If GoodDay is asking for a topic ban then I support him.Youreallycan15:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban. The subject areas where GoodDay (repeatedly) trips up indeed fall within the field of interest of British/Scottish/Welsh/Irish & English "nationalists", (myself being one), as well as those who couldlegitimately claim to hold a NPOV. The problem is not who edits and watches these articles, but rather when GoodDay's views upon British and Irish (Brirish) topics are trumped byWP:Concensus and/orWP:RS he frequently plays the "ownership issues" card then retreats to snipe from the sidelines; this invariably increases frustration on the part of other editors to the point that we arrive here. GoodDay is capable of being an asset to Wiki so long as he can keep a lid on his OCD-like tendencies (his overwhelming desire for consistency/conformity/uniformity) and, in accepting that holding a minority opinion is a bitter pill which everybody must at sometime swallow, remain clear of theBrirish articles. I wish him well in his efforts to do so.19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Sensible move. Fully agree with Youreallycan's analysis regarding ownership by nationalist editors. Quite blatant....and disgraceful.LeakyCaldron19:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose topic ban. I agree 100% withYoureallycan. The areas of United Kingdom, Ireland and British Isles are plagued by nationalist POV pushers who game the system and tag team edit. GoodDay's actions in these areas are nothing compared to the disruption caused by these nationalist editors.Van Speijk (talk)21:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban. The issue has absolutely nothing to do with any notions of "nationalist bias" and such like - it is solely to do with GoodDay's continuing disruptive behaviour. I agree withUser:Endrick Shellycoat. If GoodDay wants to withdraw from those topic areas, he should do so.Ghmyrtle (talk)22:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose topic ban There appears absolutely no urgency to seek draconian solutions pm GoodDay unless a whole big group of the offenders is included as well.Collect (talk)10:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Could those who are suggesting that there is a "whole big group" of "offenders" or "nationalist POV pushers who game the system and tag team edit" or who "are very aggressive and work in groups" please give some examples and diffs to show what it is that they are talking about, rather than making unsubstantiated allegations about unnamed editors?Ghmyrtle (talk)10:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban. Too many incidents have been sparked of and far too many collective hundreds of hours of users editing time has been wasted on GD. Whatever the reasons I don't care, but there can be no doubt that GD is unable to maintain NPOV on this topic area. I would far rather precious editing time is dedicated to improving the vast number of articles in need of some TLC rather than wasting it on keeping one user's issues in check.SFC9394 (talk)11:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose perYoureallycan andVanspeijk. Completely unneccessary. GoodDay is an impartial, NPOV voice of sanity in an area that often amounts to nothing more than a giant game of nationalistic cat-and-mouse. His presence would be very much missed.20:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with above opposing voices. I personally do not care about thoseBritish Isles, but we still haveIt is a country in its own right[10][11] in the UK lead. Appears double reliably sourced. Interesting, what the hell does it mean though?AgadaUrbanit (talk)23:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. His own mentor proposes it and he himself agrees to it. If they both think it's a good idea then sure, I'd give it the official rubber-stamp. --Ϫ01:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Support and please action. This clearly has sysop backing and is wanted by both GoodDay and the mentor; can it now be taken as done? The above Oppose remarks appear to derive from a mistaken view of the pretend "anti-nationalist" context of GD's obsessions. Thanks.Jamesinderbyshire (talk)17:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Clarification
As I'm currently making gnome corrections to the birth/death dates of bio articles, will those gnome edits be allowed on the British & Irish bio articles? Afterall, they don't cover nor effect the political topics-in-question.GoodDay (talk)20:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Problematic stable IPs editing on prehistoric animal articles
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 would like to request an extended block for four related stable IPs (all four advised of this action):
These four IPs have been employed by the same user over several months (as far back asAugust 26, 2011) for a long series of almost unremittingly problematic edits; out of about 125 live edits over 5 and a half months, I've found less than a half-dozen that were useful. Since the beginning of the year, the best this user has managed was to adda picture of a fish. The user appears to have an obsession with various Late Triassic and Early Jurassic geological formations of North America, particularly theMcCoy Brook Formation. The majority of his/her edits have been tomisrepresentvariousprehistoricanimals as having been found in their pet formations. Other types of problematic edits includewholesalehijackingofarticles,installinghoaxanimals on2011 in paleontology and2012 in paleontology, and creating talk pages for articles that do not exist as a way to sidestep the restriction of IP editors from creating articles in mainspace (see for example yesterday'sTalk:Ammospondylus, which consisted of text borrowed fromTalk:Anchisaurus with a couple of words changed). Often their edits are a patchwork of text borrowed from other articles; this may be a result of limited English (see for example the clearly machine-translated "With these remains, it is likely that "Merosaurus" gender ceases to be a cripple, and his remains are very few Europeans" fromyesterday), but it also serves to camouflage the edits as legitimate. The only thing keeping this editor from wider misinformation is the fact they can't create new pages; this editor created at least six hoax articles on WP:ES (Acceraptor,Adaphaumas,Antarctohadros,Arquax,Glacialivenator, andLycovenator). Each of the three 212.170.92 IPs has several warnings about these edits from various users, but has never responded. This type of disruptive editing is particularly insidious because if a reader does not have some familiarity with the rock units and animals involved, the edits do not look suspicious. I did not bring this up sooner because I thought that if I improved the McCoy Brook Formation faunal list, the editor might leave off, but their edits over the past few days have proven me wrong. Because of the stability of the IPs, I think an extended block would be useful (at least more useful than for the typical IP).J. Spencer (talk)23:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The editing patterns from 85.91.95.244 are wider than the other three (perhaps a school or office?) However, all of them resolve to Spain and are confirmed by geolocate as static, so I've soft-blocked them all for a month. If disruption resumes perhaps article protection might be worth considering instead. Hope this helps,EyeSerenetalk13:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Yes, 85.91.95.244 is the odd one of the four. I was interpreting it as the editor occasionally traveling to a second location. I'm not sure how much article protection would help, given that a substantial number of the edits are to similar but unpredictable articles, and one of the common targets (2012 in paleontology) has excellent IP editors that we wouldn't want to cut off.J. Spencer (talk)22:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
That would definitely be something we don't want to hinder then. In that case, now we've set the precedent, I think future problems can be reported to AIV (or you can drop me a note, but AIV will probably be quicker!) Best,EyeSerenetalk08:52, 21 February 2012 (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.
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 don't recall interacting with Milowent anywhere in article space, so I don't know how I attracted his ire, but he has repeatedly left harassing messages on my talk page even after I reverted the previous ones.
This editor is engaged in harassment and wikihounding. He's been around for several years and knows the rules. His talk page shows that this is not isolated.NYyankees51 (talk)18:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't look like that big a deal to me. Milowent is clearly a little peeved at some of your recent editing activity, which could appear to some (and I don't necessarily mean me) as having a somewhat anti-progressive focus. If it becomes really bothersome, perhapsWP:RFC/U is the place to go. --Scjessey (talk)19:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Considering that your most recent AfD nominations seem to be trending in overwhelming keep directions, I can understand why he might be irate at the nominator. Not to mention that you seem to be focusing significantly on LGBT topics. Add to that the userboxes on your page and I can see how someone would take the nominations in a negative direction. And i'm not saying that there's anything wrong with your userboxes, just that when those subjects and LGBT topics are combined in a social setting, it's never anything good. So I can understand Milo's thought process.SilverserenC19:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
So if this behavior is understandable, I have a list of editors I have a beef with for the same reasons that I'm considering harassing in a similar manner.NYyankees51 (talk)20:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I hope some attention is given to NYyankee51's current editing pattern, focused exclusively on LGBT topics and consisting of edits likethis. Individually, the edits might be defensible, but taken collectively it looks like quite a POV campaign, particularly when it comes from someone who has a userbox on his user page expressing support for the notion that marriage is for straight people only (he's quite welcome to that view, of course -- but it makes one wonder whether his intention is to improve those articles).Nomoskedasticity (talk)19:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
What matters is the nature of the edits. Some of what you are doing is fine -- but spilling tags all over the place (in a topic area where you clearly have a strong opinion that clashes with the values of the organizations) raises questions. For instance: instead of tag-spamming and large-scale deletions, why not add sources to support the material instead?Nomoskedasticity (talk)19:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? This is absurd. I spend hours cleaning up blatant unencyclopedic material in articles in a topic area that Milowent likes, so he's allowed to harass me on my talk page? This is absolutely ridiculous.NYyankees51 (talk)19:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Well actually that's too late now - since by now it is very difficult to assume that you are not ideologically motivated in your deletion campaign. For example it does not seem that you have in fact made a search for sources before nominating some of these topics for deletion. It took me about two seconds on google books to find both books and article treating the New York Metropolitan Church quite prominently. A political agenda may be OK if it doesn't seem to interfere with the neutral judgment of notability and will to find sources also for topics you dislike. I think your recent edithistory tells a history that may put that balancedness into doubt.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·20:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Just seeing this ANI thread. Well, well, well. NYyankees made no effort to respond to my comments on his page, but please be aware that he is engaging in some seriously bad editing choices. My first comment[40] was quite easygoing, I thought, considering what I appeared to be witnessing. He started an AfD,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candace Gingrich-Jones, on a subject that is notable WITHOUT A DOUBT. It snow closed within 24 hours of opening - that's a nom any good faith editor should be ashamed of and say "my bad" and move on and try to do better next time. Bad AfD nominations do happen but I sorta recognized his username and searched my username and his and saw he was also behindWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gathering_Storm_(advertisement). Both subjects are about gay rights, and one can only conclude this editor has some axe to grind against gay people. I cannot and will not ever stand or suffer pov-pushing bullshit like that on wikipedia. It is unacceptable. Checking his talk page history he clearly has some issues here that long predate me.
NYyankees deleted my easygoing first comment without explanation. Obviously because he had no defense. So my second comment[41] was more direct. Yet still no response. My third message called him out completely[42] yetstill I get no response. This is from an editor who had been *topic banned* from editing in related areas, apparently.
My fourth and last comment to NYyankees[43] took a different tack. Yet another gay-rights subject article, but he made appropriate edits, I thought. I noted that, and I asked him nicely how he was finding these articles, and shared that I was personally involved from a reporting standpoint on that story. That's all I said.
Then, without warning, I log in and see this ANI thread. I also see NYyankees has asked me on my talk page to "stay off my talk page unless you have something constructive to discuss." Well, Idid have something constructive to discuss -- his anti-gay fetish -- and I tried to do it a number of ways without result.
So, since its clearly worthless to have any effect, I pledge to stay off his talk page COMPLETELY, however, I hope other editors will look into his very disturbing editing conduct.
Speaking as an uninvolved admin, the first of those requires some serious assuming to see any good faith in it; and the second, it's simply not possible to see it as anyting other than aWP:POINT violation, as there was "indpendent, significant coverage" in the article's references at the time of nomination (unlessThe Times of India, likeThe New York Times, isn't aWP:RSDon't laugh, that claim was made at one point). Neither nom has asnowball's chance of passing even beyond the pointiness so I've closed them both. -The BushrangerOne ping only04:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
As much as I hate to say it about a fellow NY Yankees fan, a look through NYY51's contributions shows avery' disturbing pattern of editing.Beyond My Ken (talk)05:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
NYY51 continues to make ill-judged AfD nominations and edits that strip content from LGBT-related articles using an unusually strict interpretation ofWP:NPOV as justification (example). If this behavior continues, perhaps some consideration should be given to some sort of topic ban. --Scjessey (talk)18:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
My complaints against NYY donot remain the same -- they are exacerbated: NYY's new talk page comment also says "I stand by the content of my edits, AFDs,..." What? A number of NYY's recent AfD nominations are so bad, that if he cannot even admit that (and he continually refuses to engage on the substance), he must be banned.--Milowent •hasspoken02:27, 21 February 2012 (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.
Administrator John Carter has a history of attacking me and posting obnoxious comments to Salem Witch trials task group. Administrator John Carter makes it clear on its personal page that it thinks this kind of obnoxious behaviour is within its rights. This entire thing is beyond my wikiskills and has gone on for several years and is escalating.John5Russell3Finley (talk)18:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
It is standard etiquette to notify people of such discussions, but, of course, I had not been. The above editor also has exhibited serious problems of failing to assume good faith, almost seemingly to the point of paranoia, about the topic, as can be found at his own talk page, my own (including information I had just now deleted, including unfortunately material I just now removed, prior to seeing this discussion, posted by him after I had made yet another request of him not to post on my page), as well as at theWikipedia talk:WikiProject Massachusetts/Salem Witch Trials Task Force and his other previous allegations of misconduct, which had earned him his one block to date. I believe there are extremely serious conduct and POV issues regarding the above editor, and would welcome seeing them addressed. Also, I suppose I should tell the above editor, who indicates a rather pronounced lack of knowledge of how the project works, that this would have been more reasonably posted by him atWP:AN/I. And, of course, JRF has a rather extensive history of obnoxious behavior on my own talk page as well.John Carter (talk)19:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, by the way, I think calling me an "it" is probably at best a violation ofWP:CIVIL. The issue, as can be seen by JRF's history of posts to noticeboards and such over the past year, is, unfortunately, that the Salem Witch Trials Task Force has been, with the possible exception of JRF himself, in his self-described intermittent edits, has done little to develop the content, and shows little if any recent direct activity. I do agree that the conflict seems to be escalating, in large part because JRF seems to believe that his own individual, recently minor, work in the field qualifies for the task force to remain active and as narrowly focused as it has been. Such a belief is pretty much contrary to basic reason, I think.John Carter (talk)19:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I've just spent about 45 minutes poking through the various talk pages and histories, and I think there's enough in the way of POV warning flags and evidence of combativeness and OWNership issues to cause concern. Of particular concern is John5Russell3Finley's use of his position in WikiProject Massachusetts/Salem Witch Trials Task Force to seemingly imply some kind of authority over article content—a massive misunderstanding of how WikiProjects (and especially task forces) operate—and his willingness to characterise perfectly good edits as "vandalism" and "personal attacks". Whether there's enough to support a topic ban (which seems to me to be one viable solution) I'm not sure; I suspect an RfC/U might be the next logical step, but I'd be interested to see what others think.EyeSerenetalk19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the time spent, although I'm sure you feel you probably had better things to do. Personally, like I said elsewhere, I think there might be a just basis for keeping such a group, but probably expanded. Also, I wonder whether notifying him (I'm assuming John is a male here) of his POV problems might or might not be sufficient.John Carter (talk)20:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I wasn't trumpeting my diligence by the way, it was just one of those reports where one diff leads to another, then to get the context you have to go to various other pages, and they lead to more diffs, and then you have to backtrack because you've thoughtlessly closed a tab you needed to refer to, and so on... :)
It's not my place to speak for the viability of the task force; my concerns are more to do with the way it's apparently being operated as a personal fiefdom and a vehicle for disseminating The Truth(TM). Illustrative of my concerns arethis andthis (referring to the TF to imply WP:OWNership and consensus); andthis (WP:POV), further evidenced by John5Russell3Finley's strong idealogical resistance to a WikiProject Christianity link with the Salem Witch Trials articles when there's clearly an indivisible relationship between the two.
As to a way forward, I'm happy to leave a note on their talk page addressing the above. Hopefully that will be sufficient but I suspect a more long-term solution might be for WikiProject Massachusetts (or another parent project) to examine the role of the Salem Witch Trials Task Force. Editor agendas and conduct issues we can cope with by theusual means, but I think what we can't have is WikiProject processes being misused in this way and thereby lending a patina of officialdom and respectability to the whole thing. It seems to me that coming out of his walled garden might be good for John5Russell3Finley as well.EyeSerenetalk10:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Help with an AfD
I'm writing here because of the AfD discussion for the articleSleepy Hollow (band). There's not only a revert war going on with several IPs over sources in the article (which I've reported to that noticeboard), but also an ongoing argument over what exactly establishes notability for a band and whether or not the band meets it. Recently it seems that it's gone beyond debating and is heading into nasty territory. Most of the arguing is going on from random IPs whose main or only edits are to the Sleepy Hollow article and AfD. (The link to the AfD is hereWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleepy Hollow (band).)
One of the biggest claims from the IPs is that the band has had a huge influence on the music world akin to the Beatles, to where multiple notable performers have changed their style because of this band. There is no evidence to support this beyond the claims of the IP users who have been posting and multiple editors have tried to explain this to the IP users. There's also been arguments over what is a reliable source, what isn't a reliable source, and what would show notability for the band. Part of the revert war concerns one of the band members who has established a good but predominantly non-notable side-project before joining the band and some of the links provided are for comments the band member has made in regards to the mosque being built near Ground Zero and that they'd prefer to build a rehab center for their charity.
The argument is starting to get a little heated and while this might be premature to bring it here, I'd really like for an admin to step in and help keep it from getting worse. I admit that my last post there was a little irate, but the back and forth is getting old. I know that it's somewhat mild in comparison to other arguments on here, but I really think that we need a little mod intervention here.Tokyogirl79 (talk)20:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
I was worried about that. I guess that if they do another edit, their IP will be blocked? I'm still not unconvinced that the various different IPs wasn't a specific set of editors or one editor using different computers to try to sway the debate.Tokyogirl79 (talk)05:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
I also participated in that AfD, and concur with Tokyo's observations and concerns. The five IPs were all from a narrow 40-mile-radius geographic region (2 from Garfield, 1 from Clifton, 1 from Edison, and 1 from Parsippany, New Jersey), to Tokyo's point, and I would not be at all surprised if one of them did not match up with the one non-IP (Kimsuccess) who was pressing the same position, if anyone were to do a sock check.--Epeefleche (talk)23:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you should stop edit-warring and also stop labeling edits as vandalism when they areWP:NOTVANDALISM. You should also have notified Owain of this discussion, which I have done for you.--Bbb23 (talk)21:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not shopping this is a results of the reverts he has made which includes removing quotes from the organisations on rules. The other question is over the validity of theFlag Institute as a source. I made the edits he reverted them. He doesn't want to talk, what else can I do?--Kitchen Knife (talk)22:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
You should raise these content issues on the Talk pages of the articles, not on the editor's Talk page. You (and Owain) should discuss the content and stop accusing each other of vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk)22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Even assuming that's true, then obtain a consensus for your view of the content on the article Talk page without Owain (if he doesn't contribute to such a discussion). You can also continue your discussion onWP:RSN. In my view, none of this requires administrative intervention, which means it doesn't belong here. Ghmyrtyle's suggestions, particularly on the boomerang point, were well made, and your pointy response was not.--Bbb23 (talk)22:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I have already raised the subject withWP:RSN. I added lines from the Flag Institutes rules to the article and he removed them. He is unhappy with any description that includes unofficial or no legal standing.--Kitchen Knife (talk)22:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I concur on all points with Bb (including that Ghmyrtle's comments did partially address your query, even if you evidentally have some history with them). I would note the talk page of one article mention in the first post remains empty and the other one was last used for discussion in 2007. Neither of these are sign of a dispute that needs to be brought to ANI because talking to one party is impossible. Funnily enough, there appears to have been some discussion on Owain's talk page (although as noted no notification was made by you when you opened this thread as the big orange box says you were supposed to do). But the messages leave a lot to be desired. However this also doesn't support the idea talking is impossible or 'he doesn't want to talk'. (There was evidentally some discussion in another article talk page as well.) Again excessive aggression, personal attacks, accusations of bad faith or vandalism etc obviously isn't helping the discussion so I suggest it needs to stop. (You obviously can't directly force the other party to stop, but people are more likely to have sympathy to your dilemma if it's really a one sided problem and people tend to respond far better when they aren't getting that stuff from the other side.) Raising it on RSN is fine as is all the other stuffWikipedia:Dispute resolution (linked from the header) suggests when done properly (e.g. without forum shopping). But again if consensus is reached there and/or the article talk page and Owain refuses to participate yet tries to overide the consensus, then you may have an issue which requires administrator action. Not before again. As was stated early on, the only reason to come here seems to be forum shopping. If that wasn't your intention then just drop it here and take on board all the advice you've received here.Nil Einne (talk)23:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been watching this a bit and tried to refer the matter to the England wikiproject when it showed up on the fringe theories noticeboard, without much success. My personal reading at the moment is that both of them need to back down from this edit war and let some other people edit the sections in question.Mangoe (talk)01:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm writing because the article "Nordic Walking" ([[44]]) is being constantly reedited by the user Natashadashenko ([[45]]). The statements that are uploaded by the user should, as I understand be taken as, common facts, which they are not. The true history of Nordic Walking (including it's birth) is still largely unknown to the world because of exploitation of Marko Kantaneva (the sport's creator) by his former employer. The lengthy trial periods have furthered delay.
Now being that I am acquainted with Marko Kantaneva I realize that my article might have some bias in it. And if suggested I'll gladly cooperate with a competent individual to rid it of any remaining bias. However what one can not have tolerance for is the fact that Wikipedia, being a public database of neutral (as factual possible) knowledge, is being manipulated in a propaganda like manner with unproven (though the "History" section has so far been almost entirely false) statements. Especially when there is concrete evidence to completely undermine those statements. Meaning (in the context of the before mentioned article), Nordic Walking was not a sport that developed overtime, it is a sport that was created by the individual Marko Kantaneva. His piece "Sauvakävely" was even given a copyright status, by the Copyright Council of the Finnish Ministry of Education in 2009 (statement 2009/16). [[[1]]] (Yes I am aware that the document is in Finnish, but that doesn't make it legally unqualified!)
Since I have contacted the user Natashadashenko without response and he/she just stubbornly keeps reediting the article with largely unproven and/or false information I ask the help of a moderator. Be that in the form of a discussion (with all parties), intervention or block if necessary, but in order for wikipedia to hold on to it's integrity steps must be taken.
My Original Research bells are going off:"In 1997, a Finnish ski pole manufacturer Exel, working with Marko Kantaneva, introduced the trademarked Nordic Walker poles utilizing lighter one-piece cross country or Nordic ski pole shafts plus user-friendly Nordic style straps and "Nordic walking" became the accepted term for fitness walking with specially designed poles which are now marketed by nearly all major ski and trekking-pole manufacturers." — That is unsourced. That needs a source. Glass houses, rocks, etc.Carrite (talk)00:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Straight to the point: If you compare my edit and Natashadashenko's edit you'll find that there is a lot more of this information. Currently I am no longer editing the page as I risk being banned completely should I do so (an edit-war). Since the user Natashadashenko seems to be completely uncontrollable and out of reach I see only one appropriate solution. Since all that is mentioned in his article is also mentioned in mine, with the exception of the history being changed to stay true to facts.KMuuli (talk)07:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
As another note : The whole "Nordic walking is defined as fitness walking with specially designed poles. It developed from an off-season ski-training activity known as ski walking, hill bounding or ski striding to become a way of exercising year-round. Ski walking and hill bounding with poles has been practiced for decades as dry land training for competitive Nordic skiers. Ski coaches saw the success of world class cross country skiers who used ski poles in the summer for ski walking and hill bounding and it became a staple of off-season Nordic ski training." statement is unsourced and ultimately false, again I point to my own article for comparison where it actually is sourced. (View them under the original articles history. I think a permanent revert is order.)
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.
Yes, between Sarek, myself, and another handful of admins, I think there are probably enough eyes on the editor for now. —DoRD (talk)23:50, 20 February 2012 (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.
Removal of templates from redirects
There doesn't appear to be anything that admins need to do here. HairyWombat and Bearcat can further discuss this on their talk pages if needed.28bytes (talk)19:36, 21 February 2012 (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 am having trouble with an Administrator. They are insisting that it is correct to remove templates such as{{db-g7}} and{{rfd}} from redirects because their presence makes the redirect show up on the uncategorized articles list. Unfortunately, removing such templates undermines the deletion/review process. The arguments on both sides are eloquently presented on the administrator's Talk page atUser talk:Bearcat#Deletion of Maynard F Pound Crabbes. (The redirect in question has been deleted anyway.)HairyWombat00:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, you're quite right that{{rfd}} goes at the top of a redirect nominated for deletion. It's been that way for a very, very long time... so, yes, I believe Bearcat is mistaken.28bytes (talk)00:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Template:Rfd suggests otherwise, which makes sense; if you happen to beusing that redirect, you're going to want to know of the deletion discussion. The article it links to will still be linked below the RfD notice, so it's more turned into a "soft redirect" than "broken".28bytes (talk)00:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Wombat is misrepresenting the situation slightly. There was never any issue involving the{{RFD}} template, or at least none that I was a part of — in fact, I'm the one whopointed him to the RFD process in the first place. That template does notcause the issue under discussion, because it adds the redirect pages toCategory:Redirects for discussion and thereby avoids the problem entirely. Rather, the issue began and ended with the use of aspeedy deletion template, which doesnot add the redirect in question to any maintenance category, with the result that because you've broken the redirect the page does show up on the uncategorized articles list (where, for the record, the categorization projectmust deal with a page if it shows up; there is no "my project's rules trump your project's rules" exemption.)
But long story short, I'mnot mistaken, as the dispute didn'tinvolve the RFD template in the first place. And, in fact, you can't G7 a redirect anyway, so the db template wasn't appropriate for that reason either.Bearcat (talk)00:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Bearcat is being revisionist. In the discussion he stated, "The problem is, as I've pointed out, that placing any template, regardless of its intent or applicability, between the top of the page and the #REDIRECT has the effect of breaking the redirect, thereby ...". No exception for{{rfd}}. I am pleased to hear Bearcat will not be removing these after all. And you most definatelycan{{db-g7}} a redirect; general criteria apply to redirects.HairyWombat15:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
If a page shows up on the uncategorized articles list, I have an obligation to deal with it. If it doesn't show up there, I don't. It's really that simple, it doesn't mean I'm being revisionist, and it's not going to change the fact that I have an obligation to do somethingif a page shows up on the uncategorized articles list.Bearcat (talk)17:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, perhaps I misunderstood. I'm looking at the deleted history ofMaynard F Pound Crabbes, and here's what I see:
HairyWombat creates a malformed redirect.
You fix it.
HairyWombat decides he doesn't want it anymore and tags it for{{db-author}} deletion.
If I understand correctly, you're saying an editor can't G7 a redirect they created because it makes the page uncategorized? Wouldn't just deleting it remove it from the list of uncategorized articles?28bytes (talk)00:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This is arguable. The criteria actually states, "... provided that the onlysubstantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author." {My emphasis.) In my view that was the case even after Bearcat's edit, and{{db-g7}} still applied.HairyWombat15:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Technically, placing that templatebetween the top of the page and the #REDIRECT causes the page to stop functioning as a redirect and start functioning as an article instead — but if the template isn't also adding a category along with it, then the page shows up on the uncategorized articles list and the categorization project has to deal with it.Bearcat (talk)00:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
{{RFD}} does add articles toCategory:Redirects for discussion, but that's not the template that was at issue.{{db-g7}}, the one that was actually at issue, does not add articles to any visible category (it does add a hidden one, but hidden maintenance categories don't keep a page off the uncats list; only visible content categories do.)Bearcat (talk)01:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2)The editor pointed out documentation which clearly supported their action[46]; rather than look into the situation and explain that {{rfd}} was okay because it didn't crash the webserver or whatever happens if articles are uncatgorized, you gave them a curt bureaucratic answer[47] -- and Wikipedia's civility and not a bureaucracy pillarsdo trump your project's so called rules.Nobody Ent00:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
And I did not "fail to look into the situation", either; I'm the one who pointed him to{{rfd}} in the first place, and he didn't come back to initiate the discussion you're looking at until several hours after the page had been deleted (which was in turn several hours after the interaction over the page in question, in which I originally pointed him to{{rfd}}.) So you're misreading what's even happening in that discussion; this didn't even begin until well after the page in question had already been resolved, and I hadalready taken,hours earlier, the "here's what you should do instead" approach you seem to be expecting to see inthis discussion. Rather, what's going onhere is that HairyWombat seems to have decided to go out of his way to debate the issue so that he could prove me wrong, wrong, so very wrong hoursafter the matter hadalready been resolved, at a time when there was already nothing leftfor me to help him any further with.Bearcat (talk)00:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Bearcat is being revisionist. As I point out above, Bearcat stated thatall templates placed before the redirect line are problematic. Also, when I quoted fromTemplate:Rfd#Usage, Bearcat's response failed to point out that this template was not, in fact, a problem. (I am pleased to learn that it is not.)HairyWombat15:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Er, no. For one thing, I never took an issue withany use of the RFD template — again, remember,I'm the one who pointed you to RFD in the first place. The issue that we had began and ended with{{db-g7}}, and the pagenever came back onto the uncategorized articles list after that. Severalhours later,after the page had already been deleted and there was no longer a problem, you came back to my talk page and started quoting template guidelines at me to prove that I was wrong — again, about an issue thatdidn't exist anymore, making it entirely moot who was or wasn't in the right unless the point was to go for a "HAH! I WAS RIGHT AND YOU WERE WRONG! BOOYA! PWNED!" gotcha. But it's worth noting that your first comment on my talk page still addressed the G7 template, and you didn't begin quoting RFD until themiddle of the conversation — at which point it was quite easy for me to miss the fact that you'd shifted tactics, and thus continue addressing db-g7 since that was the only template we'd ever actually dealt with in the original interaction (and since, again,I'm the one who pointed you to RFD in the first place.) If you were talking about RFD from the start, you should have said so — but the conversation would have been completely different, because (all together now, once more with feeling)I'm the one who pointed you to RFD in the first place. I don't claim to be perfect — but it certainly isn't my job to be able to read your mind if you're not entirely up front with what you're talking about.
And at any rate, I don't know why we're even having this conversation, because unless you're planning to spend your time on Wikipedia running around creating random redirectsjust so you can speedy them, for no other reason besides creating random redirects just so you can speedy them, then you and I are probably never going to run into each other over an issue like this again.Bearcat (talk)17:50, 21 February 2012 (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.
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.
Now, he uploaded it again asFile:MDHMurderSuspect.png on November 30 with flagrant lies that it was the work of a federal employee and the source was intentionally left off to mislead. It is the work of a police sketch artist and as seen inthis link is the property of the Fairfax police.
Image needs speedy deleted and both the user AND IP needs blocked for flagrant copyvio.
Presuming the above comments about his misrepresentation is correct, perhaps we need to block this user? As I've been involved in theIca stones article I shouldn't do it, but it seems pretty clear he is socking - he couldn't have edited that many times accidentally logged out and not noticed it. I was wondering about this before but hadn't noticed the image socking, which confirms it. There may be another sock also...Dougweller (talk)11:05, 21 February 2012 (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.
Archiving
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Not a major issue, of course, but it seems MiszaBot hasn't done anything since the 17th, so alternate means of clearing out the building backlog might be needed soon. -The BushrangerOne ping only03:08, 21 February 2012 (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.
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.
Hi all. Nudity alert. Some joker keeps inserting photographs of naked women onJessica Biel andJennifer Garner. I don't know those actresses, but I do know that nudie pix shouldn't go in infoboxes. I've blocked them indefinitely for BLP violations, but I could have blocked them for edit-warring as well. I'd like someone to check me. I left a note, a few minutes ago, at the Commons noticeboard about the supposed Biel photograph. If one of you is a Commons expert/admin, can you pop over there and see if anything needs to be done? Thanks in advance, on behalf of the children of the world.Drmies (talk)06:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
We don't - accounts must be autoconfirmed to upload files locally. If you're talking Commons, that's out of en.wp jurisdiction. Take it up there. —Jeremyv^_^vBori!07:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The pictures graciously provided by the above-mentioned "User Confirmed" were all copyvios, so their demise was a case of "competing causes of death".Favonian (talk)10:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This has become a recent problem: editors uploading images to Commons, creating accounts here, and transcluding (is that the right word?) the Commons image to get around our "no uploading by new users" policy. Generally the images uploaded to Commons are completely non-free - fake nudes, publicity shots, etc. Most of the time it's some lame fanboy but sometimes it's deliberately disruptive, and I don't know if we can do anything about it here. --NellieBly (talk)10:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the problem cannot be solved at Commons. We do have quite enough disturbing images, so uploading new ones is not needed to get the disruption they want. And we do want to have also images that are disturbing when (mis)used. Missing permission does mean we cannot keep these ones, of course, but the same images or similar ones uploaded legally might very well fit the scope of Commons, as do images that are very much worse. --LPfi (talk)13:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
It'snot that the images are disturbing: it's that they'renon-free, and are being uploaded specifically to get around Wikipedia's policies. (And in fact, none of the images I've seen uploaded in this way were in the least bit disturbing: they were mainly promotional photos, and they were usually uploaded because somebody "didn't like" the (unPhotoshopped) free image we had of the individual.) Commons needs some way to police uploads by new editors - possibly by not allowing them to be used *at all* until someone's vetted them. This is not aWP:NOTCENSORED issue; this is a problem regarding the spamming of non-free images. --NellieBly (talk)16:43, 21 February 2012 (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.
Canvassing Editor
The editor (SPA)User:Persephone19 appears to be canvassing across multiple articles about an RFC request about the removal of undue material inTalk:Quantum_mind by putting messages on talk pages that are not related to the discussion.[48][49]
The user never mentions the RFC in the two diffs you've provided. It's not a nice thing to do, to bring up another editor on unrelated talk pages, but it doesn't rise to canvassing.Achowat (talk)15:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree w/Achowat. I don't see evidence of canvassing in the two diffs. Are there more diffs, or am I missing something? As an aside, the editor would perhaps do well to leave a completely neutral message atWikipedia talk:No original research, requesting feedback. That is because one communication that is acceptable communication is for an editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion to place a message at the talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion. --Epeefleche (talk)23:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't even looked. They can retract the legal threat, but that won't matter: pure vandalism/soapboxing/disruption.Drmies (talk)15:16, 21 February 2012 (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.
User Gabirro - personal attacks
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
I'm requesting a block onUser:Gabirro for repeated personal attacks. He was given afinal warning in January after previous personal attacks[50],[51], including numerous others which almost certainly came from him while not logged in, which perhaps an editor can track if necessary. He has been inactive for most of February, but today began some more personal attacks[52],[53] - the latter on me, and probably in response to my warning him in January, which he may just have read now. The user essentially has one area of interest (Gabirro Contribs), and has regularly got into conflict with editors in this area.Greenman (talk)18:16, 21 February 2012 (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.
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.
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.
Newbyguesses has said they do not plan to post toWT:V anymore. If multiple difficult-to-follow posts resume, please ping me on my talk page, and I'll do something adminy. --Floquenbeam (talk)01:02, 22 February 2012 (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.
User:Newbyguesses is disruptingWT:Verifiability by posting 50 to 100 mostly uninterpretable comments per day. He has not been responsive to suggestions there and on his talk page that this is a problem. I think a block of a few days to let people try to recover and clean up the mess is needed, at the least.Dicklyon (talk)21:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
A few days? Hell, no. I don't see any super-stern warnings from any admins (though NBGhas been spoken to about it), and I see nothing in the block log since the account's beginning in 2007. This report is premature to say the least, IMHO.Doctalk21:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You can do that: seehere. You could talk to any admin about this before you bring it to AN/I. This should be the last resort.Doctalk22:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This edit cleared 160,000 bytes off the talk page. That may help. Archiving is valuable. The above section-header is not in compliance with best practices atWikipedia:talk page guidelines. I won't change it, because the level of comprehension displayed in such common circumstances here is insufficient to make it worth attempting to communicate such complexities of etiquette. Apparently, reading the talk page guidelines is forbidden to some editors according to ancient tradition? Thank you. NewbyG ( talk)22:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to process this. I think you're saying that Dicklyon is too stupid to understand why the header should be changed (by which you mean, I think, that your edits at that talk page are not disruptive). Is that correct?Drmies (talk)22:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I thought WP:AN/I was the place to ask an admin for help. I don't see any templates that cover what he's doing, but several have asked him to try to control it, and his edits seem to just get more random.Dicklyon (talk)22:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Either of the admins that have discussed this with NBG (Elen of the Roads, LeadSongDog) would probably grant help if you asked them for it. Your only edit to their talk page was to notify them of this thread. AN/I is not the place to go first.Doctalk22:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, LeadSongDog notified NewbyG at his talk page already, and that didn't get a decent response; I assume he's involved enough that asking him would be pointless. Maybe Elen...Dicklyon (talk)22:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Would User:Dicklyonplease, for courtesyand accuracy, refactor your first post here as follows :
User:Newbyguesses is posting 50 to 100 mostly uninterpretable comments per day. This is disruptingWT:Verifiability. He hasnot been responsive to suggestions there and on his talk page that this is a problem. I think a block of a few days to let people try to recover and clean up the mess is needed, at the least. [User:Dicklyon|D talk) 21:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
would it be possible to come up with a compliant section-header? The one *you* made up is offensive to this page, and *myself*. *You* should change it, Thank you. NewbyG ( talk)22:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I am too stupid to interpret your suggestion, especially as your formatting has made hash of what started out as a sort of normal threaded conversation.Dicklyon (talk)22:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Just think abbout it for a while, what *you* have done, and you could stop posting here. *You* have been told it was inappropriate action on your part. See an admin, or come to usertalknewbyguesses. You have got this process wrong, wrong. Thanks. NewbyG ( talk)23:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Right, both of you back to your corners. No matter what the basis of the dispute here, and I leave the determination of that to admins more experienced in policy pages than I, it's neither appropriate nor helpful to sit around ANI and snipe at each other. If you've made your case, sit back and wait for an admin to deal with the issue. If you haven't made your case,make it, and then sit back and wait for an admin to deal with the issue. Under no circumstances is the correct wait to deal with this "sit around ANI and demand the other guy refactor what he said and tell him how mean and unconstructive he is". Stop that.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)23:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree w/the above comments by Doc and Fluffer to the effect that other (indicated) means of addressing this should be exhausted before further seeking to address the issue here.--Epeefleche (talk)23:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I really don't understand. Why is it too early for Dicklyon to come here? Those talk page posts are almost textbook disruption, and at least two editorshave asked him to stop on his talk page, and on the policy talk page, to no avail. I suppose one more firm warning couldn't hurt, and I'll leave one now, but was Dicklyon really that far out of line to come here to ask for help? This strikes me as what ANI should really be for. --Floquenbeam (talk)00:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess my meaning wasn't as clear as I thought it was (must recalibrate witty-commentary-o-meter...). What I was going for was "posting to ANI rapidly becomes useless if you and your opponent bog the thread down in back-and-forth sniping, so sit back, relax, and let outsiders look at the issue now that it's here", not "don't post here."A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)00:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, well that Ido agree with. Ithink Newbyguesses just said on his talk page that he was going to leave WT:V alone. If so, great. If not, I'll limit him to a certain number of comprehensible posts per day. --Floquenbeam (talk)00:47, 22 February 2012 (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.
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.
Admin Fastily has deleted an article I have created without the slightest bit of due diligence and labelled it a hoax leaving it impossible for me to undelete it. He neither left a comment on the talk page or nominated it for deletion, nor did he bother to contact the author of the article (me). His talk page and this admin report page show that he has a very long and very active history of doing exactly this sort of thing over and over in all sorts of fields in which he cannot possibly be capable of judging whether something is correct or not. Anyone who believes he has the authority to blatantly disrupt or delete the work of other wikipedians without going off of anything but his own feelings of knowing more than he does, and how thinks he doesn't have the slightest need to follow the processes established for questioning information on WP should not have the ability to delete articles or should not be an admin.Drew.ward (talk)04:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you guys. I will add the sources that I had set out to add earlier. Either way, my reason for submitting this request is less about this article and more about the actions which led to its deletion and the fact that this particular admin seems to end up in this exact situation over and over again year after year. All that would be required is the slightest bit of due diligence. It takes very little more time to follow the review process than it does to click delete. These careless actions should be a red flag.Drew.ward (talk)04:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Google Scholar and google books are very lacking in linguistics sources. Also because the field is fairly new and specialized, many linguistics articles on this site have only a single reference as perhaps only a single person has written about something.Drew.ward (talk)04:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree re:Gbooks, but that's not relevant. If what you say is correct, your topic might simply not yet be notable enough. Anyway, did you want anything else from an administrator?Drmies (talk)04:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Only that situations such as this where Fastily deletes an article without first attempting to determine if it should be deleted or not, be prevented from occurring again as this seems to be his normal pattern judging by the comments and requests of others.Drew.ward (talk)04:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
That's not a matter that could ever be resolved at ANI: it's the matter for an RfC/U, a process that I have given up on.Drmies (talk)04:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Drew.ward, the simplest way to prevent this type of problem in the future is just include some reasonable sourcing before pressing "save" when you first create the article. Your article's initial version[54] certainly would have been rejected atWP:Articles for creation, for example.67.117.145.9 (talk)07:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair points by both Drmies and 67.117.145.9. Glad to see that the instant issue was addressed, and the article was restored so quickly (kudos to Drmies). If there is an issue with the subject's notability (I'm not certain myself, from what I have seen so far), that can be addressed elsewhere I would think. Ripe for closure?--Epeefleche (talk)07:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
For the record, considering the first version of the article, I see why it was speedily deleted. I don't think Fastily overreached much here. Is it really a notable concept? I see a grand total of 6 google results for "verject + grammar" and the article is orphaned. --Luktalk09:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that it is notable. And I've sent it to the proper process to be taken care of.— ()09:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm uncertain whether it is notable as well, and whether it is a dicdef. Drew did indicate that he was going to add multiple sources, but so far I've only seen one added. It also isn't an inline citation, and doesn't quite indicate what in the article it supports (as an off-line ref, I can't figure that out on my own, or determine how substantial a discussion it contains). @Drew -- would it be possible to change your reference style to supply inline citations in articles?--Epeefleche (talk)10:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
It appears that Fastily made a mistake, and has been making several lately. Perhaps Fastily needs to slow down a bit and maybe take a short wikibreak before he burns himself out. --Ϫ09:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the deletion was valid, considering the content and available sources. Forum-shopping was pointless - this has been here,WP:REFUND and <insert deity here> knows where else. OP: please take it to ONE place - this is not a situation where ANI was ever a requirement (talk→BWilkins←track)10:25, 22 February 2012 (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.
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.
Just like you 3RRed yesterday atÉric Abidal, as well as edit warring at numerous other articles, against consensus? Also you have NOT notified the editor in question (I have done so).GiantSnowman13:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I was never suggesting that he should be "bitten". However, consider this, though he started editing on 29th January, he already has 490 edits and knows enough wikicode to create 2 templates so you would think that he also knows how to use talk pages. However, I'll concede one point. There were no non-automated messages to his talk page until Qwyrxian posted one today so let's give him a chance to talk. --Ron Ritzman (talk)14:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
When it was me, I blocked quickly, now why not do the same? Plus, I'm not 3RRed, so I came here to talk about the problem.--Raulseixas(talk) 22 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec)In the future, 3RR reports should go toWP:3RRNB, but now you don't need to because Thegoldentime has not broken 3rr: xe has 3 reverts in the last 24 hours, which, while not ideal, is not breaking the rule. I see that someone has already warned the editor, but I'm going to rewrite that by hand so that they see it's not just an automatic message.Qwyrxian (talk)13:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I think its quite interesting I was blocked because an admin "thought" I was going to break the rule and here you have a couple editors actually breaking the rule and the "rule" states that they didn't break the rule. This is the kind of ridiculous selctive policy enforcement that we need to stop. Either they did it or they didn't. The punishment should be consistent. --Kumioko (talk)15:04, 22 February 2012 (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.
Night of the Big Wind has promised to "back down" from Epeefleche. Epeefleche is advised to try redirects more often, particularly for primary schools, rather than full AfDs. None of the rest of this appears particularly actionable in any way (or at least in any way that would achieve agreement here), and the discussion is generating far more heat than light.Jayjg(talk)20:34, 23 February 2012 (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.
Greetings by fellow admins. I would like to propose an interaction ban between the above listed users. Over the past week, Epeefleche has contacted me several times claiming that he feelshounded by NotBW. The dispute between these two editors surrounded articles that Epeefleche has PRODed or put up at AfD. An example:Hum Sab Ka Pakistan wasproded by E,removed by NotBW, and thenspilled over to the talk page. This is part of a larger pattern of E PRODing articles due to there being no GNEWS, GBOOKS, or Google hits then NotBW DePRODing the articles he just tagged because those methods ofBEFORE are not good enough for non western subjects. While I am not contesting the fact that some E's nominations for deletion have been shaky, there are other people that can look over his edits than Night of the Big Wind. --Guerillero |My Talk18:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
A lot of them haven't been the best and initially by checking the prods night did nothing wrong but the whole thing has got out of hand when Epeefleche began doing what he accused night of and then both reacted. See discussion here at Wikiquette[55] and both users talk pages for more as night isn't the only one to have a problem with Epeefleche mass nominations.19:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Slightly wrong no one likes it when someone mass nominates articles and it becomes disruptive. When numerous editors have a problem with something it shows something isn't correct. Now given the nom for his prods were substandard reasoning what did night do wrong and the answer is nothing he objected to his reasoning and de prodded we all can. And that comes as something from me as i and night rarely get along but in this case Epeefleche is as much in the wrong19:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Also he just dosent take the time to properly assess the articles which was shown by the serial nominating of schools over 100 with barely any time in between to show he didn't carry outBEFORE as he stated he did. Its not the nominating its the speed and lack of good quality reasons followed by him doing exactly what he accused Night of thats an issue. They should both of left each other along which i think was going to happen before Epeefleche started hounding him back now nights minor attacks back were a reaction which he shouldn't of done but they are as bad as each other and there is more to this than what Guerillero has laid out. A interaction ban is probably appropriate but also a discussion on whether nominating for afd on such a large scale at one time could be considered disruptive.19:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I routinely carry out awp:BEFORE search before PRODing or AFD'ing an article. As well as, for that matterkl, !voting at AFD. I've said as much before. The fact that the vast majority of my !votes are in-consensus supports that I do proper research. It is a blatant mis-statement to accuse me of not following wp:BEFORE. It is also an obvious mis-statement to say I hounded Night. I've not hounded him at all, and no basis has been supplied for that accusation. I believe that my nominations and !votes at the ongoing AfDs atthe current schools AfDs are appropriate, as reflected resoundingly in the !voting there--but that in any event is a red herring, because it would not excuse the indicated behavior.--Epeefleche (talk)20:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
WQA is toothless. A few people there have suggested an interaction ban between you two. That can't happen at WQA but it can at ANI/AN --Guerillero |My Talk19:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see yet why anyone needs to be blocked. An interaction ban is a good idea: if one is indeed stalking the other, then an interaction ban should put a stop to that. FWIW: I do think that Epeefleche can be quick on the draw, but I also see significant evidence of Night following Epee around, without the kind of justification described by DGG in the WQA thread. Night, leave him alone. The wiki won't break if you do.Drmies (talk)20:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Guerillero given your post is largely about Night of the Big Wind what is your opinion of Epeefleche it dosent take long when reading his talk page and Wikiquette to see the problem isn't just with night and I'm concerned that you only seem interested in one side. And if he contacted you for intervention as your opening statement suggests to get involved and to possibly bring here then some could be mistaken for seeing it as forum shopping which is what Night is seeing and reacting to. I do agree it isn't however. This problem isn't going to go away when night backs off as it appears several editors have an issue here and if we want to resolve this it needs to be disused whether mass nominations of articles without enough research is disruptive. Its not the nominating or even if the article gets deleted its the lack of research taken and time to adequately assess the nomination. There has been discussions re this at the RFC on schools, Wikiquette,WP:Schools and on all take pages even at AN a whilst back its an issue that needs resolved because it won't be long before another editor looks at his edits and we go back on the cycle. Oh and I'm not saying his noms are wrong as a reasonable amount are just that he needs to take more time and provide better reasoning and stop nominating large amounts within minutes which clearly shows not enough time taken.20:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The wiki needs people to both want to delete things and keep things. It is part of life on the 'pedia. Epee is just asking as the party who is putting things up for deletion in this case. I have looked over E's AfDs for the past month andmost of them ended in merge, redirect, or delete. Should he slow down his nominations? Sure. Was the majority of his nominations wrong? No. As for the idea that I was canvassed, I came here under my own free will. I was never asked to start a thread. I was asked for advice and I looked closer at the evidence and started this thread. --Guerillero |My Talk20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
My AfD !votes have beenagainst the consensus close only5.7% of the time, over the past 250 AfDs. Night's !votes, in contrast, have been against consensus38.9% of the time. (Edinburgh, in those AfDs in which he has participated, has !voted against consensus 10% of the time; I would guess this may well be better than average.) The accusation by Night/Edinburgh that my !votes/noms are sub-standard is belied by the facts. In fact, they are significantly more in-consensus than those of Night and Edinburgh.
Night's baseless assertion that this is his reason for following me around, and confronting my edits in the manner indicated below, does not bear up under scrutiny.
Night admitted, at the Wikiquete noticeboard, to following me around. And the record is replete with evidence of him doing so to confront my edits.
I'venot, in contrast, followed Night aroundat all to confront and inhibit his edits. Despite Night's and Edinburgh's un-supported and baseless assertions to the contrary. Edinburgh seems to think that the mention of the fact that Night has been warned by 3 sysops over the past half year tonot hound is in itself hounding. Obviously, it isn't. It is, however, directly relevant to our Arb committee's pronouncement that "Editors may be blocked for disruptive behaviour, which can include repeated or extensive violations of the civility policy, refusal to work toward consensus, or repeatedly ignoring community feedback."
Furthermore, the Witiquette noticeboard string isreplete with evidence as to what Night did wrong. As he (as he has admitted doing) followed me around the Project. And confronted my edits. The record reflects, among other things, Night: a) edit warring, b) abusing Twinkle, c) violatingwp:v andwp:or, d)removing appropriate tags without proper reason, e) taunting, f) engaging in incivility (such as writing to me:"you can stick that hurling article straight up in your <censored>"; since redacted), and g) current AfDs such asAfD Hum Sab Ka, in which Night !voted against the deletion I had supported on what appears to be a fictitious basis.
And your above statement clearly shows you are hounding and the fact you are looking at my edits very heavily as well as your above statement shows the problem. The result isn't the issue its the fact your reasonings aren't complete and the rate of the nominations one after another shows you clearly don't give enough time as many an editor has tried to get you to do. Now i also hate to think you think I'm siding with night which I've said above we barely get along most of the time and as I've said above he shouldn't of made the personal attacks but when you began stocking his edits and now mine thats shows the problem isn't just nights. Personally the result of this should be night being warned of personal attacks and both warned about hounding given you are doing it and finally a limit on the number of articles that can be nominated at any one time to avoid supposed disruption. Ive not looked through your edits in total and have no intention to but given all the mentions of your noms in many a discussion its no surprise others are. So I'm deeply annoyed that you decide to stalk me.20:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Also Epeefleche do you not think when several editors advise you to take closer looks at articles before nominating and raise this with you then something is wrong. You were asked several times to take more time when nominating and you have ignored every one. I couldn't give too hoots with you nominating articles for deletion what i do give a hoot about is the fact that as was raised at other discussions for instance GNews is hardly likely to come up with results for non western countries especially when the title could be in another language will not come up with results. Also you just don't have an answer to the the question of how you can do research when nominating articles virtually straight after each other as you did in december with schools its physically not possible in the time you took. I would provide you with the timings but I'm not going through your edits.— Precedingunsigned comment added byEdinburgh Wanderer (talk •contribs)
Where are you getting this from Edinburgh seems to think that the mention of the fact that Night has been warned by 3 sysops over the past half year to not hound is in itself hounding. No you looking through his edits is I've never mentioned an admin or am i likely to as i never looked through his edits, block log or warnings.20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
In fact I've now looked at both your block logs as you prompted me to with your warning above and you are both as bad as each other i cant defend either of you because you both have similar history. You both need to back away from each other and possibly topics as well .20:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree. Pleaseseewp:HOUNDING. I'venot followed Night around the Project (as he has admitted following me), turning up at pages he edited. And I've not at those pages confronted his edits with de-PRODs and contrary !votes and edit warring and removal of appropriate tags and violations ofwp:CHALLENGED and Twinkle abuses and violations ofwp:OR. As Night has done.
Your assertion that my rationales "aren't complete" is belied by the facts. You do above-average work at AfDs, in my opinion. But my !votes are even more in-consensus than are yours. Reflecting more than adequate wp:before searches and reasoning.
I do appreciate your saying Night shouldn't have made his personal attacks.
As to my running a tool to see what percentage of my !votes are in-consensus, and then comparing them to the 2 editors who suggested that my !votes were flawed, it is a reasonable way in which to explore whether there was any basis in the assertion. Clearly, there isn't. When Night !votes in a non-consensus fashion6x more than I am, it is certainly curious that he should say he is following me and confronting my !votes because ofmy poor !voting record. There is simply nothing in my running the tool to respond to that accusation that falls within wp:hounding -- I've not at all followed Night to any article or AfD to confront his edits.--Epeefleche (talk)21:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The solution is you both stop even remotely looking at anything to do with each other. Also i have no problem with you nominating its the reasoning don't just use GNews or books its never going to give a full picture especially on articles from outwith the west so the chances are a prod may be removed. Also speed when you nominated all those school articles at basically the same time it looks rightly or wrongly that you haven't taken the time to do full checks. So all you need to do to avoid people questioning is slow down a bit and give wider reasoning. The result may be the same but you will have covered all avenues and the likelihood is they won't get removed.21:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I'venot at all hounded Night. That's a baseless accusation. As reflected in my above comments.
Furthermore, my record at AfD fails to show the flaws you assert are inherent in my !voting. I routinely followwp:BEFORE, as I've indicated, routinely doing research on articles first (sometimes in paper sources), and then later nominating them, and my !voting record reflects the propriety of my research. The reasoning I supply is based on my understanding of our notability guidelines, wp:before, and wikipedia practice. My reasoning generally is in accord with the consensus view. In any event, that wouldnot be cause for the hounding to which I've been subjected, by an editor thrice-warned.--Epeefleche (talk)21:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Epee is correct that he has been with consensus at AfD over 90% of the time, which is about as often as is possible. However, he also votes delete over keep by a margin of greater than 3-to-1, which goes a long way to explaining how this can happen — AfD results being heavily skewed towards deletion over time. It doesn't follow that because an inclusionist like NightotBW is out of consensus more frequently, they are in any way in the wrong. That's simply the nature of the beast, inclusionists push the big rock uphill making AfD defenses. I don't think there is any problem with Epee, although I would suggest that he doesn't create the impression of "picking on" the work of any one editor by challenging pieces up and down their activity log, assuming this has been happening. Run a couple test cases to get a response and discuss. There's plenty of bad stuff to stop at the front gate, if someone is making a good faith effort at creation within guidelines, target your work there. I'm not sure how precisely applicable any of this is, only that this smells like a deletionist/inclusionist tiff...Carrite (talk)22:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't say night is an inclusionist per se he challenges guidelines that keep articles therefore probably ends up in deletion of articles like the rfa he has done on schools. They just disagree on this. Otherwise i agree with you but it works both ways. Night has agreed to back off so hopefully Epeefleche will as well then there will be no need for this to continue.22:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Carrite. I don't view myself as a deletionist -- I honestly try to apply our rules. I've been doing a share of clean-up of what I understand are articles that fall outside of our rules, and that largely accounts for the balance here. When the rescue squadron was working as it did before, I routinely did what I could to improve articles I noticed through that venue, often with success. And tagged articles for rescue myself. And I would rather an article -- if notable -- be kept.
The problem here is that Night has engaged in the activity detailed above. On the basis of his assertion that my !voting is based on poor research; that is belied by the facts, and in any event would not be cause for such behavior. Thanks for your advice, which I gather is "if it is the case advice", but I don't believe I've created the impression -- or, in fact, engaged in the activity -- of "picking on" Night by challenging pieces on his activity log. That simply hasn't happened. And while there are a number of unsupported, baseless assertions from some other editors here, I don't believe that has been one of them. In contrast, Night has admitted to following my edits, and he has engaging in the activity detailed above.
@Edinburgh -- there is no behavior I've engaged in to "back off of". I've notat all followed Night around the Project, confronting his edits. Yet he has engaged in precisely that behavior, in many (dozens?) of articles, and coupled that with the problematic edits indicated above. Please see the above posts. --Epeefleche (talk)22:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Ive read it all and your not getting anything anyone says to you and constantly deny everything. Get the picture Carrite, Dmries and i have all given little snippets of advice take it and this won't happen again if you have a problem with someone because he/she is looking at your edits don't go looking at there's leave it well alone it will sort itself if there is an issue. If you think he's attacking you report it don't take things to heart. By you looking at his its exactly what you accused him off and don't deny it you clearly did that is evident move on back off leave night alone he has said he will leave you alone then this is over. If it happens again report don't start all over again. And i really would take Carrite advice its perfect sense. Do you agree to leave night alone or not.23:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
You've made a series of mis-statements as to my behavior. I've pointed them out. You now ask me a question akin to: "Will you agree to stop beating your wife". Ignoring that the implicit assertion -- your assertion -- is incorrect. I've notat all engaged inhounding Night. And no evidence has been proffered to suggest otherwise. None. Though you have repeated, many times now, that baseless assertion. I'm not hounding Night. And I'm not engaging in the behavior that he has in engaged in, while following and confronting my edits,which are amply detailed at the wikiquette string.--Epeefleche (talk)23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
People have tried to sort it out but your clearly very stubborn night has been the bigger person and agreed to leave you alone and you should do the same and by doing so its really dosent look good. Im no longer prepared to waste my time on you when you won't admit your own mistakes you clearly went to look through his edits and ran various reports that clearly make it look like you did the same as him looking for previous warnings for admins blocks or behaviour of which you would have had to spent time looking through. You ran reports to see what is afd rate was like to yours. No one does this by chance that is clearly doing what he did to you. Im sorry call it what you like but you did the same to night its clear as day.23:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
(@Carrite--edit conflict) Sorry, Carrite, but I think that you are misreporting to say that Epeefleche is with consensus over 90% of the time. I assume that you are depending on SnottyWong's tool that (based on a theory that a redirect is accompanied by an underlying delete of the edit history) incorrectly assumes that a redirect used admin deletion tools. I just yesterday made an analysis of Epeefleche's last 25 AfD Primary-school nominations, and only 2 or 8% met with community consensus, and both of those deletion cases were created by...Guerillero. IMO, both Guerillero and Epeefleche are out of touch with community norms. I've started a discussion atWT:Deletion review#Do appeals of AfD redirect closures (without an edit-history deletion) require DRV. Regarding these Primary-school AfD nominations, I don't think that Epeefleche is doing anything more than gaming the system, and I'm glad to hear that someone is helping to keep balance. It would help if and when Epeefleche agrees to stop nominating Primary schools for deletion. IMO, Guerillero needs to agree to step away from making Epeefleche's AfD nominations worse than they already are. Unscintillating (talk)23:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
@Unscintillating -- I believe that you confirmed that only 2 of those 25 AFDs closed as Keeps. The remainder, I believe, were in accord with my nominations -- which indicated that I was open to deletion or redirect. Being in-consensus 92% of the time may, perhaps, be reasonable. And not cause for hounding, coupled with the behavior detailed above.--Epeefleche (talk)23:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Redirects that have their edit history deleted are not the same as redirects that do not have their edit history deleted. In the case of your Snottywong statistics, this is a big difference, and an enormous difference in your Primary-school AfD nominations. Redirects without an objectionable edit history do not require a deletion discussion. Your 8% deletion rate at AfD (articles for deletion) for primary schools shows that you should stop using AfD to get redirects, and either boldly merge the article yourself, or discuss it on the talk page of the Primary school. Your agreeing to do this will remove this issue from the table. Unscintillating (talk)00:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The closes were in accord with my nominations 92% of the time. So as not to deflect the analysis from North's behavior, I'll discuss further on your talk page. In any event, the discussion ignores completely North's edit warring, abusing Twinkle, violating wp:v and wp:or, removing appropriate tags without proper reason, taunting, and incivility (such as writing to me: "you can stick that hurling article straight up in your <censored>"; since redacted).--Epeefleche (talk)06:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment - NotBW just got in touch with me and asked me to explain my comment about him being an inclusionist. And upon further review, I see that he's not. Sorry. And with that, I'm getting back to work.Carrite (talk)00:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a word about statistics for AfD. Anyone can get whatever percentage record they like at AfD by only commenting on the obvious. If, for example, someone wanted to appear a inclusionist in great accord with consensus, all they'd have to do is to !vote keep on every article that was clearly about to be kept, and save their deletes for a few important ones where it might make a difference. This is not in reference to anything specifically said above, but on the lack of validity of using this number in a discussion. DGG ( talk)01:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there a policy encouraging the creation of articles that are only sourcable in foreign languages. It seems to me that maybe EnWP should not have an article if it can not be sourced in English. I don't find fault with Prodding and AFDing such articles. However, if there is a policy regarding this issue please enlighten me. That being said, I would say that I believe NotBW should not be so active in deProdding these types of articles. Why does EnWP want to summarize the secondary sources when they are not in English.--TonyTheTiger(T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)05:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no such policy, for good reason. It's been suggested before atWP:VPP and shot down in flames. Every time. —06:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
So why is there an issue? It seems that Epeefleche is PRODding things that should be prodded and Night of the Big Wind is dePRODding them with an argument that he should be allowed to contest based on foreign language sources. He should have to refrain from dePRODding in the absence of an English language source.--TonyTheTiger(T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)07:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Clarification: I didn't read your original correctly. What I'm saying is that people have repeatedly proposed that articles at en.wikipedia must be based on English-language sources, and these proposals have always failed. —09:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
we allow non English sources that can be translated and two no one has said anything about sources not being in English just that the name may be different and Gnews isn't the best in those situations. Your reading an issue that isnt there.11:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, this isn't the issue at hand. The issue is reflected in the behavior discussedhere. As far as this minor aspect of the discussion is concerned: a) most articles at issue aren't foreign-source-possible issues; and b) if foreign spellingsare manifest, I include them in my wp:before search, and count foreign-language RS sources the same as I do English sources. But this is a technical non-issue; the problem in the the behavior in the string in the above in-line. --Epeefleche (talk)07:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Tony -- btw, if non-English spellings are manifest, I include them in my wp:before search. But if you look at the scope of the de-PRODs and AFDs, this does not seem to be the crux of the issue.--Epeefleche (talk)06:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Eppe let's put it another way. The only thing that is likely here is the interaction ban proposed which given night has agreed to leave you alone then there really isn't anything left to say if you agree to leave him alone as well then it dosent need to formally done but if you don't then it will. There isnt really anything left to discuss.11:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I can see a ban on Night and an agreement by Epee not to instigate. I think Epee should be allowed to go back to dePRODding and Night should be banned from undoing his work. I am not sure what is meant by Epee agreeing to leave Night alone.--TonyTheTiger(T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)18:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
tony night was in the wrong to begin with that there is no doubt. However when Epee started looking at his archives for warnings and block logs and using it against nights also running reports to compare stats against nights thats making the situation worse it then made night all the more angrier. Now night is leaving him alone the only person who is carrying it on is Epee. He states he ran these reports he states he looked for warnings and blocks that is clearly hounding night back. That is exactly what epee needs to stop doing immediately. They both need warned.19:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Ed -- I appreciate that you note that what Night did was, as you say, wrong. But if you readwp:HOUNDING, you will see that I didzero that falls within the definition of hounding. Zero. I did not follow Night around the Project, and join discussions on multiple pages he edited, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit his work. I didn't follow him around to confront his editsat all--though he followed me to dozens of articles/AfDs. Furthermore, the policy clearly states that "contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process".--Epeefleche (talk)19:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Edinburgh -- What started this was my request that Night stop following my edits and confronting them in the manner that our hounding policy says is inappropriate. Night admitted to following my edits and confronting them, and the manner in which he did so is detailedhere -- and that involved various other issues including edit warring, abusing Twinkle, incivility, etc. If Night stops what concerned me, then that addresses my concerns.
As to you repeating yet again that which isnot true -- let me be clear. I've always "left Night alone". Inasmuch as I've never, everhounded him ... your flatly incorrect assertion, often-repeated, to the contrary. You continue to re-state something which is untrue, akin to asking me to stop beating my wife -- when I've beaten no one, and am not even married. In each instance it has been Night following me, not the other way around, and he admits to following me.--Epeefleche (talk)19:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Lets me make this clearer stop running afd reports against night stop looking at his archives for warnings stop checking his block log. I.e leave him alone your log isn't pretty either. He started it but you made it worse when you started that.19:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Ed -- Inever hounded Night. Please readwp:HOUNDING, which describes its elements as singling out an editor
"andjoining discussions onmultiple pages ... they may edit or multipledebates where they contribute, in orderto repeatedly confront or inhibit their work... Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.... Thecontribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process... If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."
I've never hounded Night. Never. And the rule itself -- which I've pointed you to many times now, clearly indicates that using contribution logs in the dispute resolution process isnot hounding. You're not simply wrong here, you're completely off-base, after it has been pointed out to you many times, and you keep on repeating your mis-statement.--Epeefleche (talk)19:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I concur here. I don't see anything my Epee that constitutes hounding. I see one-way hounding and fairly reasonable actions in the face of that hounding. I don't see those actions as bad as the hounding. I think bans behavior curbs (possibly bans) should be one-sided or at least skeweed.--TonyTheTiger(T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)20:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I've got somewhat mixed up in this debate through my involvement with WP:Schools. To understand this problem you have to understand the context. Epeefleche nominated over 150 primary/elementary/middle school articles for deletion over the Christmas/New Year period as you can see from the discussions atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. Probably about 90% or more of such schools will not justify a standalone article, but a minority will, and these are usually the older schools that have only been used as primary schools in recent times. For schools the normal practice for non-notable schools is to merge content with the locality article or, for US schools, with the school district article as perWikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. While Epeefleche was no doubt acting in good faith, he was nominating these articles at a phenomenal rate with sometimes just minutes between his edits, and his nominations were based purely on the class of school and not the content of the article. Because of the sheer number of nominations and the timing over the Christmas holidays no one had time to investigate the articles in question properly. For most of the articles he nominated, a merge and redirect was the correct solution. In fact, for articles which had little meaningful content it would have been preferable for him simply to go ahead and do a merge rather than bring the article to AfD. However, other more notable schools got mixed up in the frenzy causing people to doubt the reliability of the nominations. This is a good example of the problem:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Peter's Middle School, Old Windsor. It is, of course, absurd to nominate a school for deletion simply because it is currently a "primary school" as of course there was no such thing as a primary school 300 years ago when the school was founded so it's not surprising that searches under a modern name yielded few results. I am currently in the process of re-writing this article to reinstate it. The article was initially deleted altogether and I had to ask the admin to restore the content under the redirect so that I had something to work with. Because of these and similar concerns about Epeefleche’s failure to comply withWP:BEFORE, Night of the Big Wind was quite right to be concerned, even though he has perhaps over-reacted. Epeefleche’s edits consist almost entirely of AfD nominations, Prods, cite tagging and red link removal in lists, all done at very high speed and across a wide variety of topics of which he seemingly has no knowledge or specialist interest. Perhaps he could be encouraged instead to do some content creation and sourcing, and to engage in discussions on talk pages before taking some of these actions. Perhaps the best solution for now would be for both editors to take a Wikibreak for a week to cool off. There is a problem on Wikipedia withWikipedia:Systemic bias andWikipedia:Recentism. I do not know what the answer is and whether it is best to delete unsourced articles from under-represented countries or give them more leeway and let them stand to encourage content creation. Non-English-language sources are permitted. SeeWikipedia:External_links#Non-English-language_content.Dahliarose (talk)12:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
If non English sources are not allowed you'll get a very biased encyclopedia from an exclusively Anglophone perspective. If want to get a general idea what's in the source you can always use Google Translate, which is far from perfect but still useful for that purpose. And you can always have them translated, yes that may cost money (although there might be volunteers willing to do that here). The same could be said about citing books, 99.99% of the time you won't have them standing in your bookshelf so you'll have to get them from a library of bookstore (also costs money and effort) in order to verify the claims in them.SpeakFree(talk)(contribs)13:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
@Speak -- Yes, I've always understood that, and been in favor of, non-English sources being allowed. @Dahlia, as I said in the prior thread, it is interesting that you joined this conversation hours after being warned by me foredit warring at an unrelated subject. But though you are interested in discussing matters from months ago, this relates to current behavior -- hounding and other such behavior this week that is not excusable. We can have a long discussion as to school nominations, following your long above post, but it begins to wander very far afield from the issues at hand. And, as pointed out, I do routinely comply fully with wp:BEFORE. I don't think there are any issues -- and certainly none that relate to this hounding -- with any of the currently open school AfDs. But the place to discuss what we do with school AfDs in the future to (I, for one, support the creation of a notability guideline reflecting consensus), this is not the place for that discussion. --Epeefleche (talk)17:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
TheKarachi Grammar School article that you cited above raises the problem of your drive-by tagging and editing which, although done in good faith, has the effect of being disruptive. SeeWikipedia:Tagging pages for problems. You are taking Wikipedia rules too literally, and applying them mechanically, which is why editors are being provoked by your actions. You are not leaving comments on talk pages to explain why you have problems with articles. Tagging sections of well referenced articles for a lack of references and then coming back one-month later and deleting entire sections because no one has yet added any references, although technically correct according toWP:V, is in violation of one of thefive pillars that Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It should not be an encyclopedia where the only people who can edit it are those who can provide references for every single sentence they cite and where people can’t add any material without a citation. WP:V states that "It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself.” Perhaps you could try adding some sources instead of tagging, prodding and deleting at high speed, and over-usingWP:CHALLENGE every time someone reverts one of your edits. While I do not condone Night's actions I can quite understand why he has been getting so annoyed.Dahliarose (talk)19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You're going off on a tangent. Which does not relate to or excuse the behavior discussed above and at the preceding string. We can discuss elsewhere the warning you were given before you joined this discussion, along with whywp:v is important, but long posts about it here really only serve to divert attention here from the hounding/edit warring/incivility issues at hand.--Epeefleche (talk)20:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This is all very relevant because you are one of two editors involved in this dispute, and the admins need to understand the context. I don't have time to get into a long discussion with you but it is quite inappropriate to give another editor a so-called "warning" simply because they have reverted one of your edits. Another of the five pillars isWikipedia:Ignore all rules. If you could just use common sense rather than slavishly and inappropriately following rules by the letter you wouldn't be in this situation now. I've said enough and I'll let the admins to decide what to do for the best.Dahliarose (talk)20:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Dahlia -- you reverted more than one editor's edits, and this continues the pattern of going off on a tangent. If you want to discuss that, I suggest we do it elsewhere.--Epeefleche (talk)21:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Dahliarose, I read this discussion up until your entry -- waiting for someone to offer what they thought was an example of Epee lapsing from our policies and conventions. You seemed to be the first to point to an actual instance that triggered your concern. You citedWikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Peter's Middle School, Old Windsor as"a good example of the problem" -- which I assumed was an instance of Epee failing to observeWP:BEFORE. I clicked on the links that{{afd}} supplied to search for reference. There were 3 book references, but all three were those ripoffs of the wikipedia itself. There wasone news reference -- which appears to be a mere passing reference to a former student, when he became a participant in a reality TV show. This is insufficient to base an article on. So I don't agree this was an instance of Epee failing to observeWP:BEFORE. I know nothing about the interaction of NotBW and Epee, beyond what I read here. FWIW, NotBW went on recordendorsing this particular deletion. The result of that{{afd}} was redirect. Yoursis the last edit. I agree with your edit there -- which seems quite inconsistent with your position here.
My own interaction with Epee have been positive. I would be disturbed if he was ignoringWP:BEFORE, or other policies. Do you think if you tried harder you could explain more clearly where you think Epee lapsed? If so would you please make that effort? Cheers!Geo Swan (talk)06:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Geo Swan: Epeefleche's nomination for St Peter's Middle School, Old Windsor was "School through age 13. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards. Zero refs, and tagged for that since August. A merge was suggested in August, but no action has been taken. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order." In the first place if an editor has previously suggested a merge and no action has been taken the usual procedure would be to go ahead and do the merge not bring the article to AfD. Secondly the searches for references he did were based on the present name of the school. If he'd taken the trouble to read the article he would have seen that the school was founded in 1799. There was no such thing as a middle school in 1799 so it is a nonsense to include the word "middle" in your searches. This school has been written about in a couple of books[56] and there are plenty of other sources available which will allow me to recreate the article.Dahliarose (talk)10:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Geo Swan: I've provided links to diffs of AfD nominations made by Epeefleche within 1 or 2 minutes of each other. He says that he conducts an offwikiWP:BEFORE search (presumably for 40 articles in two single day, as was the case on Dec. 22 and Dec. 24); I am extremely skeptical.˜danjel [talk |contribs ]07:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Ive proposed a interaction ban below between both of them. Any further action taken against night for the Hounding that Epeefleche feels should be done above the interaction ban if appropriate although as night has left Epeefleche alone a block would be punitive.21:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Night -- Hi. Your point is well taken. As you will see both above and below, I had personally expressed--actually, in a post directed at Ed--that I accepted your agreement. Which, btw, I thank you for.--Epeefleche (talk)22:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You have agreed to leave him alone but he hasn't you and i don't think thats enough to be honest I've lost interest in this its not worth the hastle that its causing. Who is the victim here personally it seems clear to me you both are so its the only way to sort it I don't agree with Eppes stance that he is the only victim As I've stated I've given up on this as its causing all involved further chaos. Night or anyone else can contact me on my talk page if the wish if its civil but this convo is dead as far as I'm concerned.22:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
There are still a few loose ends that has to be solved. Like his aggresive behaviour (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letterkenny Shopping Centre (3rd nomination)), provoking {[57]), ignoring the guidelines yourself where you try to hammer me with ([58]), PA (at least in my opinion) ([59]), digging through my history ([60],[61]). Going back seven months in my history is in my perception a case of searching for a stick to hit the dog, commonly abbreviated toWP:HOUNDING. Epeefleche is certainly not the innocent victim he claims to be. If he does not like it to be scrutinized in his actions, he might have a problem now. As promised, I am prepared to back off. But not as the bad guy. In fact, I still support a temporary PROD/AfD-ban for Epeefleche.Night of the Big Windtalk00:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Formal Interaction ban proposed
The above thread was started with the view of an interaction ban night has agreed to leave him alone but Epeefleche seems to not want to as he feels he is the victim. I therefore propose a formal interaction ban as for this to work Epeefleche needs to agree as well not just night.21:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, in part. Ed had indicated earlier that "night has agreed to leave you alone". I responded above: "If Night stops what concerned me, then that addresses my concerns."
Ed again now indicates that "Night has agreed to back off". As that would address future occurrences of the behavior that led to this string, that would IMHO suffice. But if others feel more is required, I would not oppose whatever is deemed necessary or appropriate in regard to Night's indicated behavior.
At the same time, in stark contrast to Night's prior behavior of following me to dozens of articles, where he confronted my edits in the manner indicated above, I've donenothing of the sort vis-a-vis Night. Zero. I've simplynot hounded Night in the least. And zero evidence has been proffered to indicate otherwise. Ed seems to misapprehend the elements ofhounding. And the fact that out policy plainly states that "contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process"--which is what Ed states repeatedly abovecannot be done. Ed's suggestion is akin to what it would have been to warnDeborah Gibson not to houndRobert John Bardo, when she complained that Bardo was following her. It does not make sense. You don't get a restraining order on the person who is the subject of the hounding, but is not at all engaging in hounding himself.--Epeefleche (talk)21:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I think this thread proves that interactions between NotBW and Epee produce more heat then light. While I hate to put a black spot on either user's record, this seems like the best path to travel. --Guerillero |My Talk04:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Move to close
As indicated above, and as the editor who began the original string that led to this, I accept Night's agreement. Night from what I gather from his above post doesn't see the need to prolong this discussion. Even Ed now says "this convo is dead as far as I'm concerned". It is possible that further conversation may perhaps shed more heat than light. As far as I am concerned, given the above, I think this conversation can be closed as "resolved".--Epeefleche (talk)23:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been trying to understand the back and forth here, and various proposals, ideally to close it, and I understand a mutual interaction ban has been proposed, but I haven't seen examples of Epeefleche following Night of the Big Wind around to oppose or confront him, as outlined inWP:HOUND. I admit I may have missed some diffs or evidence in the long discussion above. Do such examples exist? I recognize that Epeefleche has looked through Night of the Big Wind's history as part of presenting his evidence or argument here, but that doesn't actually fall underWP:HOUND - if it did, then anyone who presented evidence anywhere, at AN, AN/I, AN/3RR, RFC/U, WP:AE, WP:ARB, could be accused of violatingWP:HOUND.Jayjg(talk)06:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Discussion and Statistics regarding Epeefleche's actions at AfD and elsewhere
I'd support a PROD/AfD ban for Epeefleche, or, at least, a limit to the rate of his nominating. While he has a good percentage where his votes match consensus, the sheer scale of his nominating means that the ~10% odd rate where he's wrong is disruptive. TLDR: Epeefleche is an extremely and unusually prolific nominator of articles for deletion in a way that precludes good consideration, and tags and edits tendentiously.
I have done some analysis, which I'm going to lay out below. My methodology was to copy the history page for each of day's AfD log, and then search for the instances of certain usernames. I should note that the statistics I give below are likely to be conservative, because I've worked to reduce false positives, but haven't gone out of my way to find false negatives. All dates and times below areAEST.I should state that I talk mainly about school articles, because these are my primary interest in regards to my editing here on wikipedia, and a category of articles where Epeefleche has been particularly active.
Since December 17, Epeefleche has made 493 AfD nominations, averaging 2 per day, with maxima of 40 nominations made on Dec. 22 and Dec. 24. The next most prolific editors made 125, 89, 84 and 75 nominations (I'm not going to name these users, because they're uninvolved in this issue being that their nomination rate is a whole different league), noting that the 4th ranked user (having nominated 84) is now blocked/banned for prolific nominating to AfD. Over the course of the period Dec. 17 to now 3904 articles have been nominated for deletion with the 493 nominations being made by Epeefleche a significant portion.
Of the 493 AfD nominations Epeefleche made, 161 were school related nominations. The next most prolific school article nominator is Epeefleche'soffsider, Purplebackpack89, who has made 10 nominations of school related articles. Over the same period, 237 school articles have been nominated. In a 3 week period, from December 17 to January 7, Epeefleche nominated approximately 148 school articles for deletion. On two particular days, Dec. 22 (Dec 22 AfD listing) and Dec. 24 (Dec 24 AfD listing), Epeefleche nominated 40 articles on each of those single 24 hour periods. In fact, in 2½ hours between 0729, Dec. 25 and 0956, Dec. 25 (GMT+10), Epeefleche nominated 33 school articles at a rate of 1 every 5 minutes and he later speeds up even further by nominating 6 articles in 7 minutes between 1105 and 1112 (source).
1 minute between his nominations forEngadine PS andMiddle Harbour PS (the latter of which has generated problems because a google search wasn't conducted to find RS's);
2 minutes between his nominations forKelson Primary School andSt. Joseph's School, Oamaru (because, again, a google search wasn't done that would have showed the school dates back to 1891 and is, therefore, of historical value).
While not all of these articles closed as Keep, there were significant enough concerns that should have given pause to an editor working through the articles perWP:BEFORE without substantive experience with school related articles and/or involvement in related projects. While Epeefleche has a decent percentage, the bloc-voting and drive by voting that has been happening at AfD has meant that each has had to fight an uphill battle to survive.
My concern here has been communicated by Dahliarose, the scale of Epeefleche's involvement has overwhelmed the ability of editors to give proper consideration to each of the articles nominated. I am as concerned (but, have not analysed) Epeefleche's PROD-ing of articles, particularly when taking in mind the concerned that NotBW has raised above. His modus operandi seems to be to PROD, and if the PROD is contested, for any reason, to immediately nominate for deletion without further consideration. This is not just related to schools (where I have an interest), as it seems he is now working through another category, Shopping Malls. NotBW is not the only user to be concerned,User:Cutecutecuteface2000 recently dePROD-ed[62] Scotia Centre Mall (Saskatoon) only for Epeefleche to nominate the article for deletion 3 minutes later[63] which was PROD-ed after 6 minutes of consideration (PROD:[64]; and previous edit:[65]) and Corio Village Shopping Centre (PROD:[66]; and previous edit:[67]). Again, I'm not claiming that the subjects of these articles are notable (in fact, they're outside my realm of interest), but it is extremely difficult to believe that Epeefleche worked his way throughWP:BEFORE in such short timespans.
I am also concerned with Epeefleche's approach to tagging articles. EpeeflechetaggedLyneham Primary School with {{refimprove}} despite the article being relatively well referenced. Iremoved the tag, andasked Epeefleche politely which specific parts of the text were concerning to him (and consider using {{cn}}). He then citedWP:CHALLENGED andremoved text from the page. I believe that this is a misuse ofWP:CHALLENGED, which should only concern content that is "likely to be challenged". For example, that Lyneham Primary School, like many other schools, has a P&C association isn't a particularly contentious point and could easily be confirmed with agoogle search (I just don't particularly feel strongly about working it into the article at the moment, being that there are more important things in my life). This was borderlineWP:POINTy.
Moreover, and again, the sheer scale of Epeefleche's tagging has made it difficult to respond and it seems that he is using tagging as a prelude to PROD/AfD-ing
I'll be plain: Ireally don't like Epeefleche's approach. But his editing history doesn't lie. He needs to slow down/stop. Several users have tried to discuss these issues through with him on his talkpage, includingmyself,Dahliarose,Night of the Big Wind,Pmunited andKudpung (twice), to no avail.
It is for these reasons that I agree with NotBW that a ban would be useful in regards to (1) PROD-ing; (2) nominating to AfD; and (3) tagging/removing text perWP:CHALLENGED from articles.˜danjel [talk |contribs ] 05:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)For the record, I will also gladly agree to a voluntary ban on interaction with Epeefleche if he ceases to edit within my areas of interest.˜danjel [talk |contribs ]05:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe that ineach of the most school AfDs at which Dan and I disagreed over the past 5 weeks, his view was anon-consensus view.SeeAfD St. Bede's Prep School (closed Feb. 8 as redirect; I had !voted delete or redirect; Dan had !voted keep);AfD Lockleys North Primary School (closed Jan. 30 as redirect; I had nominated indicating I was open to deletion or redirect; Dan had !voted keep); andAfD Cavendish School (Camden) (closed Jan. 15 as redirect; I had nominated indicating I was open to deletion or redirect; Dan had !voted keep). I understand that Dan and I have had substantive disagreements. Other editors disagree substantively with him and/or me in this area as well -- seehere and this has even drifted into behavioral complaints as sometimes happens with such emotional issues, ashere. Perhaps he would like to divert this conversation, replete with evidence of hounding/disruption/edit warring/and incivility on the part of Night, into a discussion of our substantive differences, or to events of 2 months ago.
My record atall currently open school AfDs is open for perusal here, where my positions in the ongoing AfDs are manifestly and overwhelmingly in-consensus. My record at all ongoing mall AfDs is open for perusalhere, and my position appears to be in-consensus at the vast majority of those as well.
As have stated to Dan repeatedly in the past, it is my practice to perform a wp:BEFORE search before I nominate any article for AfD or PROD. Or, for that matter, !vote at AFD. If the article reflects multiple names, I check the various iterations. I often list my nominations on paper first so that I can do off-wiki research on them in paper sources as well, and only after double-checking them do I nominate those articles that are on my list. I've said as much before. The fact that the overwhelming majority of my !votes are in-consensus supports that I do proper research. It is a blatant mis-statement to accuse me of not following wp:BEFORE. Just take a look at my current open AfDs -- one doesn't receive consensus support in an overwhelmingly high percentage of the instances in which they nom an article for deletion without doing painstaking wp:before searching.
And of course in any event, this would not be excuse for hounding/disruption/edit warring/and incivility. Perhaps it is less than cricket to address a substantive disagreement that one has, largely from 2 months ago, and where one has been on the non-consensus side of AfDs, by seeking to Shanghai an AN/I that relates to current hounding and other related activities.--Epeefleche (talk)05:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
As I stated above, it is easy to vote according to the consensus when you're (a) voting as part of a bloc; (b) voting in an area where drive-by voters vote delete based on a view that, essentially, high schools are inherently notable, primary schools are "inherently non-notable".
You say that you comply withWP:BEFORE, and, yet, your rate of nomination is extremely fast, and you are the most prolific nominator to AfD. It is extremely hard to believe that you've performed offline research when you nominate at a rate that is 4 times as fast as the next most prolific nominator. 1 minute between Engadine PS and Middle Harbour PS is simply an abuse of Twinkle.
As much as you want this to focus on Night, you are mentioned in the section title and it is clear that it is your actions that have led to significant conflict throughout the project. As I mentioned above, many editors have taken issue with you over this and tried to discuss it out, and you still continue.
Finally, you haven't stopped, this isn't just an issue from 2 months ago. You're still nominating 1 school article, in among your 3 or 4 others, every day or two (not counting PRODs) as much as you say that this was "2 months ago". Consensus is turning against you and moreWP:WPSCH editors are getting involved,THAT is all that has changed.˜danjel [talk |contribs ]06:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1) I'm not !voting as part of a "bloc". 2) If you look at the current school AfDs, some are headed for keep, butnone of those are ones that I have nominated or on which I have !voted delete. 3) Your "drive-by" characterization is un-supported POV; other editors with whom you disagree have engaged you in extensive discussion on your issues,even on my talk page. 4) Perhaps you haven't read my repeated descriptions of my research -- I research articles that are deletion candidates first on-line, list them, often then perform paper research, and only then nom those that I have listed. The reason thatnearly all of the ongoing AfDs of mine in schools and malls are attracting consensus support is because of this copious research. 5) We are discussing current issues, not 2-month-old substantive disagreements, and as detailed above the issue is the current days-old issue of hounding/edit warring/incivility/etc. (which you have failed to comment on) by Night, on the basis that he asserted. 6) All currently open school AfDs in which I have participated in any fashion can be seen atWikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools -- my nomination or !vote appears to be in-consensus in each and every case, and I can't see any reason for you to object to them other than what I have pointed to above. This isn't a forum for editors who are against-consensus !voters to seek to intimidate those who are in-consensus !voters, and who perform careful wp:before searches.--Epeefleche (talk)06:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
You can continue to say that this was for something 2 months ago, but it's pretty clear that the problematic behaviour is continuing, if not intensifying, with your tagging and prod-ing campaigns (for example as has aggravated NotBW). The statistics from your edit history stand for themselves. You're in an indefensible position that people have, repeatedly, tried to talk you away from.˜danjel [talk |contribs ]07:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
What atWikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools, which covers the last 3 weeks, concerns you? (School AfDs being the area you indicate is your area of interest.) I've participated in a number of those AfDs. But can't imagine what in them you findthe least bit objectionable. And the last 3 school AFDs that the 2 of us disagreed in, over the past 5 weeks, all closed with the consensus at odds with your position.--Epeefleche (talk)08:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment It is irrelevant whether a user's votes at AfD are in consensus or not in consensus as people vote in different ways. Some people will not bother voting if the consensus is already going in a particular direction and they agree with the consensus. It is also very easy to make your voting pattern appear to be more in consensus by adding keep or delete votes to AfDs that already have an overwhelming consensus.Dahliarose (talk)11:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Dahlia — I gather that you are a WikiProject Schools member, along with Danjel and Edinburgh. And you've similarly indicated your focus is on schools.
Please examineall the current open schools AfDs, covering the past 3 weeks,here. Look at my school nominations, from the past 3 weeks.
Every single one of them isin-consensus. And of course thatis relevant. Nominations are necessarily thefirst !vote at an AfD. They indicate the !voter's positionbefore any other editor has indicated a view. Rather than -- as you assert "an overwhelming consensus" has already been established. And yet, in each of the current AfDs where I have nominated an article, my !vote is in-consensus.
About 90% of your school AfDs were for schools that probably should have been deleted anyway. The problem is with perhaps the remaining 10%. If you flood Wikipedia with AfDs no one has time to go through them all, and bring the articles that do merit keeping up to the necessary standards to avoid deletion. It's therefore not surprising that your actions 'appear' to be in accordance with the consensus. It doesn't help that so few people at AfD actually vote on the content of articles and simply vote keep or delete based on arbitrary beliefs rather than on the sources available. The test will be how many of those articles that got deleted get recreated in the next year or so. It's a waste of everyone's time deleting articles that only get resurrected a few months later. It's also a waste of time bringing non-contentious deletes to AfD. These would have been much better handled as straightforward merges.Dahliarose (talk)22:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Of the school AfDs from the past 3 weeks, which onesthat I nominated or !voted on do you believe should be kept? Any?
Furthermore, I think it is un-supported conjecture to say that editors' !votes at these AfDs -- and many of these AfDs have a number of editors !voting -- are based on anythingother than proper rationales and proper research. I, for one, always !vote only after a careful wp:before search, coupled at school AfDs with my understanding of what our convention is.
As to your comment with regard to "non-contentious deletes" -- If there are any, I would be happy for them to be snow-closed. But, as you see from the !voting at school AfDs, it is an emotional area for some editors; especially for some who find themselves in a minority non-consensus position as to certain articles. Perhaps that is why I haven't seen a snow close of a school AfD this year.
Then again, I'm happy to chat about what we might do together to streamline the process. I've been proposing that we have a clear school notability guideline for some time now. But we are ranging very far afield. I'll drop you a note later on your talkpage with a notion or two as to how we might work together in that regard.--Epeefleche (talk)23:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I have said repeatedly that I routinely perform a wp:BEFORE search. And that I even often go further, performing searches that go beyond what wp:BEFORE calls for. The overwhelming number of my nominations that close in accordance with my nomination request reflects that careful research. The evidence is entirely in keeping with the fact that I do a careful and extensive and appropriate search before my nominations.--Epeefleche (talk)17:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I believe that Epeefleche does good work. Not being distuptive and performing a great service. But the volume of his nominations is a cause of concern. I don't know what is considered a "reasonable" number of nominations per day but it would be helpful if Epeefleche recognizes that sometimes he should put on the brakes and give subject-matter experts a chance to consider the topics being nominated, and consider questions of notability. --HighKing (talk)17:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Herein lies the problem that I have seen, Epeefleche seems to be perfectly capable of understanding the stresses on the community that he is creating, yet he refuses to acknowledge that his primary-school AfD nominations are only resulting in an 8% deletion rate. In his refusal to voluntarily stop bringing primary schools to AfD, he is saying that this is the community's problem, and not his. Unscintillating (talk)02:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE point C1 states, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." "Normal editing" specifically includes merging and redirecting. WP:BEFORE also references our policy at WP:ATD. Unscintillating (talk)03:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
If you want this discussion to focus on Night of the Big Wind, I don't know why you enable the community's concerns about your primary-school AfD nominations, when you could so easily volunteer to withdraw. Unscintillating (talk)05:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
You instead level baseless accusations at me as to my !voting at school AfDs. I've asked you to identify any problems whatsoever in my record atall currently open school AfDs from the past 3 weeks. Where my positions are overwhelminglyin-consensus.
Why do I find your accusations to be especially perplexing, however? You parachuted into this AN/I discussion while you and I are disagreeing in 2 current school AfDs. At each, my view is a consensus one. And yours is a dramaticallynon-consensus view.
This section is, frankly, ridiculous. Epeefleche is being criticized for...what? For nominating articles for deletion, after conductingWP:BEFORE, and being almost always (but not 100% of the time) right? If Epeefleeche were doing these as speedy deletions, the criticism would probably be justified since the time frame for "correction" is so small (I've argued before that CSD nominators should have greater than 95% accuracy)...but the 7 days for an AfD or prod are more than enough time,even if there are hundreds of nominations a month. Some have mentioned that since Epeefleche accepts Redirect as a valid result in many of these articles, that somehow he is wrong to use the AfD process. How can it beworse for a deletion discussion to run than to simply have Epeefleche boldly redirect the articles xemself than to have an actual discussion that someone else is certain to participate in (which is a legitimate, acceptable edit)? Furthermore, in those cases where the deletion/redirect is contested, the process involved in getting a non-controversial redirect done when a school member or alumnus is objecting is inordinately cumbersome when an AfD will likely result in a consensus to redirect. Would the people above prefer Epeefleche start flooding RfC with redirect discussions? Or would they simply prefer that xe redirect every one of the ones xe thinks failWP:N without any discussion whatsoever? No one has yet presented a single thing that Epeefleche has done that is wrong, against policy, or would require any sort of administrative sanctions. A topic ban on AfD's or Prods would be like topic banning a great researcher from adding content to articles simply because they were doing it "too fast" and were less than 100% perfect. Epeefleche is doing something good and helpful for the encyclopedia, and xe is good at it.Qwyrxian (talk)08:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that he conductsWP:BEFORE online or offline. Some of his AfD's were flawed from the outset in ways that would have been revealed had he actually put some consideration into the subject of the articles. This is especially a concern for pages on subjects from the Developing World and/or outside of the US/Europe. Examples I have noticed include:
A most glaring error was found in his nomination ofWP:Articles for deletion/User:PJKs shirt/Southmoor Primary School, which he seemed to genuinely believe was an actual article (judging from his boilerplate nomination text). If there was consideration of WP:BEFORE, the fact that the word "User:" appears at the very beginning of the page title should have become obvious. It didn't. WP:BEFORE was not conducted.
In fact, he has admitted to "not [having] the time" to search for guidance on dealing with school related issues (WP:Articles for deletion/Mater Dolorosa Catholic School (South San Francisco)). If he doesn't have the time to ask for some guidance on school articles, then it's extremely hard to believe that he has the time to conduct offline research on up to 40 schools per day, as he has stated above. The problematic nominations, of which I have given some examples above, point to a problem. Compounding the issue is that, once problems have been pointed out, he does not withdraw nominations (I have yet to see it happen), preferring to stick to his guns.
The problem, then, is that the scale of nominations is such that (1) WP:BEFORE is not being conducted; (2) Errors are happening; and (3) Epeefleche is not modifying his approach to take account of concerns that people are expressing in regards to his actions (as I pointed out above).˜danjel [talk |contribs ]08:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I performwp:BEFORE. I often do more than it asks for. An overwhelmingly high percentage of the time both my !votes and my noms are in-consensus, which supports that I do proper wp:BEFORE searches.See, e.g., my !votes and nominations at all current schools AfDs, covering the past 3 weeks,here.
Dan demonstrates well how ill-founded his accusations are. In his examples from 1-2 months ago — presumably the best he can find, and each balanced by perhaps 10 times as many closes that are in accord with my nominations. In the first, editors express difficulty finding appropriate sources to support notability; the !votes (excluding ours) were 1 Delete, 1 Delete or Keep, 1 Keep, and 1 Re-write. In the second, while a Keep,see the debate as to its sources. In the third, the disputewasn't about sourcing. But israther over whether we should consider a school that goes through only 10th grade a "high school"; and there wasno consensus. In his last example, the article was kept, but the split in editor !votes was nearly even, with many editors pointing to lack of substantial RSs but others swayed by the age of the school.
Read Dan's "glaring example". A deletion request I made. In which I quickly wrote: "I think this should more properly be an MfD -- if an admin could move it, that would be great." As I requested, itwas moved. The result?Delete.SeeMFD User:PJKs shirt/Southmoor Primary School. Of the 6 !voters, only 1 agreed with Dan that it should be kept.
Have Dan and I disagreed at school AfDs? Certainly. Most recently inAFD St. Bede's Prep School — he and Dahlia !voted Keep ... the only 2 out of the 12 !voting editors to do so, I !voted delete or redirect, closed February 1 as a redirect. AndAFD Lockleys North Primary School — he !voted Keep ... 1 of only 2 out of the 10 !voting editors to do so, I nom'd indicating I was open to delete or redirect, closed January 30 as a redirect.
Qwyrxian: Epeefleche's rate is certainly nowhere near 100%. I've not investigated every single AfD that he has nominated because there were so many and I haven't had time, but there have certainly been some which have given cause for concern such as the ones that Danjel has highlighted above, which is why he's appeared on the radar of so many editors. The particular concern with articles from outside the Anglosphere is that we want to overcome theWikipedia:Systemic bias, and it does not help if we have editors going round nominating articles for deletion without even making any attempt to understand the school system in those countries. It is ridiculous to compare a school in Africa with the "grades" in an American high school. There certainly are articles that have been deleted/redirected as part of this process that would normally be kept if AfD hadn't been swamped, simply because people haven't had the time to source them. They can of course be recreated but it is a waste of editorial time which would be much better redirected to improving articles and adding sources rather than having to get involved in endless AfD discussions. The only consolation is that Epeefleche does now seem to have conceded that he is at fault and has slowed down in the last few weeks.Dahliarose (talk)14:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The main problem I have with the nominations is that so many of them could have been handled as redirects, which is even easier than AfD or Prod. When the redirect is challenged, then thee needs to be a discussion. But redirecting the routine primary school article to the school district or town is such an obvious thing to do in most cases, that it would have handled at least half of these articles. Second, the scale is a problem even for those articles that need deletion. Anyone can list an article for AfD after a cursory check on google at the rate of one every two minutes, faster if you think its so obvious that you don't check Google. . To properly investigate a suggested deletion and improve it takes much longer--it can take hours--days, if print sources are involved. To even check on the googles a non-English name, especially from a country not using the Roman alphabet, can take me a half-hour, and, given my background, I think I can do it as fast as anyone. To nominate articles faster than they can be properly dealt with is disruptive, because it does not allow for us to follow the normal processes of considering deletions.
Whether we should relax our standards for schools and other subjects in certain countries where it is more difficult to get information is a difficult question. I have great sympathy for Dahliarose's position, but there does remain the problem of Verifiability; if we do not have verifiable information to write an article, an article cannot be written. However, in practice when there are sources but less than we would like for a US institution, many organizations and schools in Africa and similar places are kept at AfD--it's a matter of judgment, and judgement at AfD depends on who happens to participate and who happens to close. One particularly active person on either side can pretty much influence matters at routine AfDs, and the only way to have more participation is to have only the necessary number, dealing with as many things by Prod or Redirect or Merge as possible. DGG ( talk)18:06, 23 February 2012 (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.
On-wiki harrassment, POV editing, and off-wiki attacks
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.
Ireally didn't want it to get to this point, but it did and we're here. Where to start...
I starteda Wikiquette discussion three days ago in regards to Mistress Selina Kyle. The issues at the time are well presented there, but i'll summarize. I'm a part ofWikiproject Cooperation, a Wikiproject designed to work with paid editors, PR agents, and corporations in order to help them to get neutral, factual, and referenced changes made to articles without violating our policies at the same time. So, both sides end up happy. The main group that the Wikiproject is working with right now is theCorporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement Facebook group, a conglomeration of PR representatives and others that want to be involved in Wikipedia in a forward, transparent, and ethical way.
As explained in the Wikiquette, Mistress Selina Kyle seems to have a significant dislike of them for some reason and went around to various places on-wiki saying extremely negative things about them and, often, myself. This included following me to other discussions I was in. This all factors into the POV editing issue, the most recent beingthis series of edits, which I reverted.
Now, the main things that tipped this over into me coming to ANI was a series of rather crude insults directed at me onWikipedia Review. You can find that discussion threadhere. These insults included:
Silver Seren you seem like a total attentionseeking victimplaying little troglodyte.
And come off it a bit of namecalling is nothing compared to your sliming and pathetic attempts to bully me on Wikipedia for Corporate Representatives.
I'm not surprised, he looks like a skinhead, like one of the latent homoerotic racist thug-boys that's actually admitted he's gay for a change.
This was followed by a long, picture-heavy rant that boiled down to Selina calling me a Nazi.
You can read all of that in the thread directly. There was also a post, which has since been removed though I have a screenshot of it, that attempted to out me. Though this was already done by others months ago and i've never been particular about hiding it, but the attempt stays the same.
Also included in the removed post, and can be seen continued in a post further down by Selina, is a series of insults and attacks on two friends of mine that s/he looked up from my Google+ account.
I do not want any interaction with you on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with anything onWikipedia Review take it up there. I have not linked to that thread anywhere (which by the way, I did not even start, it was a post that another moderator moved) — please do not try to import your drama here.
If you're referring to the three quotes, none of them are. If a single one of them had happened on wiki, I would have immediately come here.SilverserenC20:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think excusing your behaviour off Wiki isn't really reasonable. I was happy to defend you against the lack of civility here towards you in a previous thread, but when the shoe is on the other foot you need to behave appropriately as well. While off-wiki its reasonable to have a lower standard of civility applied I don't think this meets any reasonable standard of behaviour - even down the pub.
Contacting other people who Silver seren knows is especially not cool.
Its not really fair/possible for him to act with appropriate professionalism on wiki when you are doing stuff like that off wiki. --Eraserhead1 <talk>20:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Ihaven't contacted anyone he knows and have no interest in associating with him in any way off-wiki. He has been harassing me constantly ever since I joinedWP:PAIDWATCH if you look at my replies on the WP:WQA thread I gave diffs too --Mistress Selina Kyle(Α⇔Ω ¦⇒✉)20:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
From what I saw of her (?) on-wiki edits she isnot simply an obvious troll. She has pointed out legitimite issues, both small and big, and has made constructive edits. She has spent significant time to improve Wikipedia. I do agree that she was certainly very combatative, and seeing many of those edits with her background was an accident bound to happen. Several editors tried to slow her down (Nobody Ent, Acalamari, Risker), but to no effect. And to be sure, I agree withWP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks, the above quotes made in a semi-public forum are not acceptable, and make it impossible to work together here in a collaborative spirit. But in my opinion you can't reduce her edits to obvious trolling. I for one would wish this could be resolved somehow and sometime, with a sincere apology, and significantly more patience and assumption of good faith in editing.Amalthea22:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
If anyone wants to know
I'm just going to say outright that everything Selina is posting on his/her talk page is completely and utterly false. Not to mention the continued accusations of harassment, when s/he was the one following me to pages I edited. Anyways, if anyone wants me to clarify on something s/he's said, feel free to ask.SilverserenC21:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Blocked
This kind of behavior is completely unacceptable. Editors here should not fear having their personal information spread out all over the Internet if they get on the bad side of another editor. I have blocked MSK indefinitely.28bytes (talk)20:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Draconian solutions donot work - and if the person removed the off-wiki slurs, that ought to be quite sufficient. ArbCom has often stated that it hasno control over off-wiki material, IIRC.Collect (talk)20:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't saying otherwise, my two sentences were meant to be separate comments. I would also consider the use of my revealed personal info to make insulting statements about people I know to also be an issue, but I digress...SilverserenC21:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
After RHMED found out who I was a year ago and posted a link to a page affiliated with me, I went ahead and posted everything else I could find, so I was the one posting it and not them dragging through the mud for it. However, Selina did not know about me having done this before (it's buried in an old thread), so she still attempted to out me, not knowing it had already been done. The attempt is all that matters here.SilverserenC21:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah right. This is the internet. You can't stuff the genie back into the bottle, and it isn't outing if it just repeats something you said yourself a year ago.Kevin (talk)22:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Er, to be logical about it, arbcom policy isn't really applicable here. This is a community discussion, it isn't arbcom, and it isn't under the same constraints that arbcom is under.67.117.145.9 (talk)22:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Endorse block: MSK's behaviour isharassment by our standards any by any standard of cyber-bullying. This is beyond unacceptable and would warrant an indef block of any user. The fact that MSK was conditionally unbanned after 5 years and has since been operating close to the bounds of acceptable behviour only makes this all the worse. Any admin reversing this would need serious justification for it thus I would suggest leaving this to the ArbCom--21:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Question - I have no opinion one way or the other having had no interactions with her, but considering she was recently unbanned, shouldn't this actually be a reinstatement of the lifted community ban?Night Ranger (talk)21:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Endorse block As the admin who unblocked her, persuant to a length ANI discussion where the consensus was to unblock, she was warned that her actions would be held under special scrutiny, that she was to have no more chances, and that she should confine herself editing articles and contributing in ways unlikely to generate controversy. She did none of that from the very first minute she was unblocked. Her first (and as near as I can tell, only) actions since being unblocked have been to embroil herself in Wikipedia politics, pick fights with other editors, and generally exhibit the sort of behavior that she was told, prior to being unblocked, would get her blocked again. It seems fairly straightforward. She was told if she did this, that a block would be the result. She did it anyways, and she got blocked. It should neither be a surprise nor unexepected that this occured. For the record, I had never heard of this person before acting on the prior ANI discussion to unblock, my sole set of interactions with them was the unblock and then a warning to avoid problems. I am disheartened it turned out this way, but thisis the way she wants it. Well, she gets it. I don't like it any more than you. --Jayron3222:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned about your "as near as I can tell (her only) actions since being unblocked have been to embroil herself in Wikipedia politics, pick fights with other editors, and generally exhibit the sort of behavior that she was told, prior to being unblocked would get her blocked again." I'm not happy with "as near as I can tell." I'd prefer to see an RfCU on her behaviour since returning. Not a drama-fest, but a simple diff-based summary and evaluation of her behaviour since returning. It shouldn't take long. The results of that could be presented to AN or ANI for appropriate action. --Anthonyhcole (talk)04:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Good block - From what I've seen since the unblocking, the unfortunate conclusion is that MSK is a net negative to the project - this incident is simply the icing on the cake, as it were. -The BushrangerOne ping only22:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Question How serious is this outing? I'm not sure what was posted at WR, but when a cursory google search for your user name here turns up lots of personal information, is there anything left to out? You've even given an interview about Wikipedia using your real name.AniMate22:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Pretty much anything s/he could find, as far as I remember. That included my Google+ account and then s/he linked to one of my friend's Google+ account and started making insults at him.SilverserenC22:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
And doing a quick Google search myself, I haven't actually explicitly linked my real name with my name here. Yes, I did an interview about Wikipedia, but that only had my real name in it. The only link I can find is that ED.ch page.SilverserenC22:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Well your twitter account pretty definitively links the two, and you've used it exclusively to discuss Wikipedia.AniMate22:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually you were wrong then and you're wrong now. Assume good faith is a code of conduct,not a probability assessment. It is better ten disruptive editors get a second chance than a good editor remain blocked. (borrowing fromJustice Blackstone a bit).Nobody Ent23:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Assume good faith is a first-approximation of how we should react to others. And your own personal pontifications about its meaning not withstanding,it explicitly says"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary" And I have yet to see any good editors who have gottem themselves community banned. The fact of the matter is that you have to be really obnoxious to earn one.Raul654 (talk)00:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Endorse block - technically, a reapplication of community ban. Editor has been given second chance after second chance, assumption of good faith after assumption of good faith, and has quite deliberately trampled over each one, dropping smiley emoticons the whole way. Editor is obviouslynot here to edit articles, but to cause as much havoc as possible before someone catches wise and reapplies the banhammer. People have now caught wise, and the banhammer is and should remain duly applied.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)22:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The oft-cited link at NPA notes that off-wiki shenanigans can be considered as "aggravating factors" in a part of dispute resolution such as ArbCom. As this complaint is solely about off-wiki doings, there's really no basis to block at this time. Note that Silver Seren is a member of said off-wiki website as well, and this is not the first time he has come running to AN/I to complain about something or other over there. Also, there have been several topics over there in the last year or so where Seren's identity was discussed, and Seren posted in those topics repeatedly, engaging with those who posted his personal info. No complaints filed, no requests to delete or redact the information posted. I find complaints of "outing" now to be a bit curious, when in the past such "outings" were freely acknowledged.Tarc (talk)22:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Lift block, impose interaction ban. Both parties are participants at Wikipedia Review, so they can hash out their differences there. Since SilverSeren admits that there weren't any personal attacks in Wikipedia, then a block here isn't the best remedy. Just make them stay away from each other in Wikipedia, and there shouldn't be any further problem as far as Wikipedia is concerned.Cla68 (talk)22:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
That is also illogical. If there's an off-wiki attempt (of any nature) to chill the activity of a WP editor it's perfectly fine to respond to that by imposing a block on-wiki, just like we explicitly do perWP:NLT when somebody issues a legal threat against an editor (whether on-wiki or off). The threatener doesn't get unblocked just because the threatened person responds to the threat off-wiki. If someone has a problem with a WP editor's constributions, they can deal with it through on-wiki dispute resolution. If they pursue it through other means, they are subject to being required to stop editing here.67.117.145.9 (talk)23:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
and there shouldn't be any further problem as far as Wikipedia is concerned. - yeah, because her editing since she got unblocked two weeks ago has been so drama-free and unproblematic. *Rolls eyes*Raul654 (talk)23:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Regretful support of block, but I think 28bytes did the right thing. I think perhaps there's been one too many trips to the AGF well here, and I don't see things changing much. I was honestly hoping she would be able to edit quietly to improve articles, but there seems to be far too much drama invoked at this point. —Ched :23:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Unblock -first, the insults or what have you happened on a different forum where both Selina and Seren are members. In fact Seren is a long standing member of Wikipedia Review and he knows full well that on WR it's much more of a "dish it out and take it" environment than Wikipedia. I could maybe see him getting upset IF HE DID NOT participate in WR so extensively (including on occasions, making "personal attacks" on others as well) but he does, he knows and it's ridiculous for him to come running to AN/I over how someone replied to him there. Basically this is nobody's business but Selina's, Seren's and WR's. If a random person in a bar insults me, can I bring it up to AN/I and demand that they get banned?Second the outing stuff. This one's tougher as that IS potentially sanctionable - regardless of where outing happens, it's against Wikipedia policy. The question is then whether or not actual took place. It is my understanding that Seren has revealed all this information publicly on Wikipedia Review, Wikipedia and elsewhere before and hence this is not actually outing. In fact, if you read the original statement at the top of the thread it does appear that he is much more upset about being called names rather than any outing - which is telling. I'm willing to be corrected on this so if this was some new and previously-undisclosed-by-Seren info then I might change my "vote".VolunteerMarek23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Unblock You can't out someone who has already outed themselves, and you can't block someone for offsite insults in a forum where both users participate. I think an argument could be made for blocking MSK as disruptive, butthis block isn't right.AniMate00:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see any logical basis for AniMate's use of "can't" above (in "you can't block someone for offsite insults").Should is a different question, that's more subtle and which depends on the particular situation. Volunteer Marek: if some other editor came up to me in a bar and started belligerently hassling me about my editing, that's off-wiki harassment and I certainly would report it on ANI and hope for admin action against the person. That just seems like a no-brainer and I'm surprised if you're saying you wouldn't do the same.67.117.145.9 (talk)01:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Really? I mean, ok, if that editor came up to me and threatened me or punched me or something because of my Wikipedia activity then yeah, sure. But if an editor came up to me in a bar and started hassling me about my editing, I'd probably first buy them a beer, and then if they persisted have the friendly neighborhood bartender kick them out on their ass (i.e. settle it in the bar) and not even mention it on Wikipedia. Running to AN/I with "I run into so-and-so last night in a bar and they said something mean about my Wikipedia edits" just seems so... well, pathetic.VolunteerMarek01:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, it would depend on the situation, as I keep saying. And yes, I considered "belligerently" to require more than just "saying something mean". It would be mostly about whether the encounter had a chilling effect on my future editing (such as if there were threats involved). Note that the effects of hassling someone in a persistent, searchable venue like WR are magnified compared to approaching them privately in a bar, and that has to be taken into account too.67.117.145.9 (talk)02:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This would have some credibility if Seren didn't post there all the time as well. It's like two people who work for in the same office go out drinking to the same bar night after night. One night, one person says something mean to the other. The next day the person runs to their boss and says "so-and-so said something mean to me at the bar that we usually hang out at last night! Fire her!". If I was the boss I'd laugh them out of my office.VolunteerMarek02:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unblock Let's keep WR over there, please. Suggest MSK, if unblocked, seek out editors to advise her in her reintegration into Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk)02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unblock per AniMate and Wehwalt; some others, too. From what I saw, MSK was referring to information Seren put out themselves and is all over WR and ED already. We gonna have this sort of Catwoman drama every week? Also, from what I can tell, MSK is on the right side of the issue re corporate marketing; who ever saw ethical marketing anyway? Anywhere? A marketing executive once told me a joke:How can you tell when a marketing guy is lying? His lips are moving.Alarbus (talk)02:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't seem especially relevant to me. There was no outing seeing as Silver Seren had already posted the information, and the childish insults noted here don't rise to the level of directly threatening Silver Seren's employment, to use the example from the case.Kevin (talk)06:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm replying directly to the assertion above: "What happens off-wiki is of no interest to us." This is definitely not true in all cases, as evidenced by the case above. Furthermore, the "outing" information was actuallywrong in the above scenario; it was theattempt to out someone that caused sanctions. --Rschen775406:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unblock. The outing wasn't outing. She called him names on WR. Oh dear. That isnot to say this editor is worth the drama she generates. She's been back for what, a month? As ASCIIn2Bme pointed out recently, the format here at ANI is too chaotic to represent anything like a sound process. Could someone who has some diffs please start an RfCU? --Anthonyhcole (talk)04:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unblock. If she was blocked for outing Silver Seren, then the block is not valid. It took me five minutes' work on Google to identify the user, his high school, college, and even found a photo. He has already outed himself by using the same username on various web forums and revealing too much personal info. --Dianna (talk)04:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No it hasn't. This is just another "I didn't like her then and I don't like her now" kind of vote - completely lacking in substance. Hell, half the people voting on this proposal are more "disruptive" on a particular day than Selina has been in a month, it's just that no-one is running to AN/I with every single minor infraction for them. Let's face it, lots of folks are pissed that she was unblocked to begin with and are gonna try and try and try again to get their way and get her reblocked. In some kind of meta way it's just a running sad narrative of what Wikipedia has become.VolunteerMarek09:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Support at least a 3-6 month block. While it's not clear whether any actual outing took place in this instance because it appears that most of the information had been previously disclosed by the target in the same venue, the combination of (repeat)doxing with name calling is blatantWP:HARASSMENT.ASCIIn2Bme (talk)09:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Endorse block - that kind of behaviour off-wiki definitely has an impact on-wiki; how is one expected to operate as part of a community that that attitude? MSK has also appeared on ANI too many times since their last unblock, and is clearly here to be disruptive.GiantSnowman10:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unblock first off, I'd like to say that I firmly believe that 28bytes made the block in good-faith. However, I honestly don't care if Selina/Silver seren argue with each other over on WR, and looking further down this thread, Silver seren himself seems to be willing to let Selina continue with editing here. In fairness, I would have no problem with...and would even be willing to support...an interaction ban between Selina and Seren, and with Selina being topic banned from certain Wiki-political areas: with less focus on politics and more focus towards articles, I still do believe she can fit in here. Myself and some others have been making an effort to help her, and I have observed improvement in her editing (I disagree with comments saying that her goal here is disruption). Unfortunately, blocking Selina for WR comments has reminded me ofthis thread where a (failed) community ban was proposed for an editor making comments on WR. I also agree with theedited part of this post from Volunteer Marek (plus the "not all" bit, as there is good-faith input too), and would like to add that comments such as "I told you so" in this thread are insulting to people whohave actually made the effort to work with her. Finally, my other (strong) recommendation is for Selina to cease all mention of Wikipedia Review here, unless of course for some reason someone directly asks her about it on her talk page.Acalamari11:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Endorse block Outright attacks on extensively-read blogs/boards that can directly link to on-wiki persona is pretty much as bad as phoning up the editor's boss and telling on them for something. There are times that off-wiki activitiesdo impact Wikipedia, and creating a poisoned environment in this manner is disgusting. Block, ban, throw away the fricking key. (talk→BWilkins←track)12:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Endorse block The terms of her parole were laid out in stone, delivered via certified courrier, and were tattooed into their forehead backwards (so they could see it in the mirror). It's perfectly simple to avoid drama, however some people relish in theschadenfreude that drama induces. Supporters have requested a stay to allow MSK to improve WP, but with multiple listings on these boards since the beginning of 2012 and their previous history, I see more noise than signal coming out of MSK and therefore see them to be a net liability to the WP community.Hasteur (talk)13:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unblock – It isn't difficult to find Silver seren's personal details, and Silver seren hasn't done enough to secure his personal details after his first outing. When Silver seren was first outed on WR and when he discovered his Encyclopedia Dramatica, Silver seren played it cool:[71],[72]. The Wikipedia Review is a rough environment with a history of digging for private information. Silver seren either knew or should've known the risks involved in participating there and with arguing with one of their sysops. I know for a fact that the Wikipedia Review is attempting in out me in their secret 300 Club subforum in retaliation forthe information I've leaked. I knew the risks involved in leaking information from the 300 Club, and I accepted those risks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk)13:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Ambivalent
On the positive, MSK is energetic, intelligent and knowledgeable about Internet technologies and related areas. She clearly takes time to review applicable Wikipedia guidance on an area when she's made aware of it.
As discussed above, the outing claim seems nebulous.
Unfortunately she's shown a pattern of getting the letter of the guidance while missing thegestalt. Her reaction when this is pointed out frequently comes across as wiki-lawyering. There's a bit of a tendency to try toright great wrongs, as evidenced with thisWebsense issue and the like.Volunteer Marek (talk·contribs) agreed to be her mentor; she has apparentlynot used this resource. Others haveoffered to assist her, and she has131(talk page stalker)s, so she could easily bring community attention to issues without charging in herself.
She's been advised Wikipedia Review is a contentious issue howeverit seems to keep coming up for reasons that are not apparent to me.
Endorse Block MSK has violated her terms of unblocking for a 2nd time. We will be back here in a matter of weeks with the same issue, no doubt. I don't see how having an editor who does this canbe a benefit to the community.Wildthing61476 (talk)13:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Endorse Block MSK has repeatedly showed that she is not worthy of the trust that the community has had in her.17:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Weak support forunblock. While I recognise we can and do take action over what people have done elsewhere when it is connected to wikipedia, I do this this needs to be limited. In this particular case, while the discussion in WR partially concerns actions here, it seems that part of the discussion also arises out of engagement with people there. While I recognise that WR comments on people even when they are not participating there, and it's resonable people may wish to engage them there to defend themselves, it does mean we have to consider whether the engagement there is partially the cause of any problems that arise there. And think we have to carefully consider whether there is merit to block people in such a case. In this particular case, I'm not convinced there is. I am concerned about the outing, but since it was removed and since there is some suggestion given some history, MSK may not have appreciated the seriousness with which Silverseren would take the outing, I'm reluctant to endorse a block because of it. (And from what I can tell, the outing was trivial and did not involve the use of private information from Silverseren.) I'm also quite concern about the discussion of Silverseren's friends. From memory, the discussions did not involve MSK. However if the discussion arose out of MSK's outing (I'm a bit confused by the timeline and can't check anymore), then that is unacceptable as MSK should have appreciated that was a risk given the history of WR with which they are intimately involved. (Even some of the regulars there seemed to acknowledge it.) For this reason, I'm only weakly supporting an unblock. I would also suggest MSK take great care when discussion disputes there that arose there, even when engaging with the people involved.Nil Einne (talk)17:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Endorse block When the Mistress was unblocked, I praised the closing admin for doing so. I felt that it was the right thing to do; but she was unblocked with the knowledge that she was on a short leash and that the community didn't want to revisit this type of behavior. The fact that the edits happen on or off WP doesn't really matter; if the purpose is to harrass or attack an editor here; it is inappropriate. Mistress says that silver should take his concerns to WR and hash them out there. WHY? Why were the issues take there in the first place? To avoid censure here? Sorry, I don't buy that as a valid defense.She was on a short leash for this type of behavior, if she abused it revoke it. Perhaps not indef, give her another chance... but still...Balloonman (talk)17:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Note, I want to highlight my last sentnce. I am not opposed to giving her another chance, so indef might not be the appropriate length. I do think she is on a short leash and should know that the community doesn't go for gaming the system. (Eg going off site to flame/blast another editor because it is off wikipedia. That is wikilawyering.) But I would not be opposed to giving her another chance knowing tht the leash is getting shorter each time.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon20:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
How many last chances do we plan to give her? She was unbanned and told that was her last chance. Then she was blocked and unblocked, and toldthat was her last chance. Now we want to give yet another last-last-last-no-really-this-time-last chance? "Stop, or I'll say stop again!" isn't generally a useful way to get anyone to stop anything.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)20:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe it was really "only" once, by Courcelles; From how I understand it SalopianJames merely undid his unblock because it was controversial and he wanted to bring it to ANI instead.Amalthea22:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unblock. Like I said above, I find MSK's approach to Wikipedia problematic in several ways -- mainly too much focusing on editors and editor motives instead of content. On the other hand, every time she came up on my watchlist it was with a positive contribution or a good suggestion. I think she's sincerely and eagerly trying to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. With DGGs conditions, Silverseren being open to an unblock, and her promise to improve with regard to prior combativeness, I now support an unblock. I think unblocking her will improve Wikipedia, which is all I require. Amalthea20:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unblock. The block has served its purpose of bringing relative calm to the situation. See proposals for an interaction ban below.StaniStani20:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unblock Agreed, the block served it's purpose. Her article contributions weren't really concerning. For the time being though, I believe she should focus more on content building than on participating in controversial project discussions.Alpha_Quadrant(talk)20:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Endorse block. Anybody who thinks that this problem is limited to Silver Seren or the Cooperation project is welcome to look at the recent history ofWebsense and its talkpage, the only place I have encountered MSK. The constant misrepresentation, POV, smears, and ABF are very corrosive to the encyclopædia.bobrayner (talk)21:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Endorse block I have been one of those defending MSK and supporting giving her another chance on Wikipedia. I still think it rigt to give people a second chance, but it should be just that - not permanent immunity from sanction.ϢereSpielChequers12:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Topic ban
@Collect, Tarc, Volunteer Marek, AniMate: I'd be willing to just have Selina be under a topic ban in regards to articles about Wikiproject Cooperation (which are, I think, around 10 right now). That would require leaving both the Wikiproject and the Paid Editor Watch group. The consensus here seems to be going more toward an indefinite block, but i'd be willing to give her another chance so long as she isn't trying to insult CREWE and myself or otherwise disrupting the Wikiproject's activities. And, for the people that put endorse, if she really is a lost cause, then she'll be involved in another incident soon enough and be blocked then. No harm in giving her another chance, right? Up to you guys though.SilverserenC00:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not ready to make up my mind about this issue, but if an unblock is considered a clear set of conditions should be defined. I haven't seen the Wikiproject Cooperation stuff so can't comment on that, but I have seen MSK mention WR far too often, and I would want a topic ban on talking about or linking to WR—given the background it's just not helpful for the encyclopedia.Johnuniq (talk)00:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm kind of uncomfortable with this--if Silver wants to drop his complaint against MSK outright, then I'd go along with it, but this topic ban proposal would have the effect of removing one of Silver's opponents from a legitimate on-wiki ideological disagreement. If MSK isn't site-banned, then (unless there's other specifically related misconduct, which there might be as I haven't followed the saga) then I'd think she's as entitled as anyone else to oppose COI editing and any proposals that would tend to enable it. A personal interaction ban between MSK and SS might be more appropriate than a topic ban. Certainly, the personal attacks have to stop.67.117.145.9 (talk)02:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
If it was just an ideological disagreement, that would be one thing. But, in that case, we would likely almost never interact. However, Selina has gone out of her way to make comments about CREWE and myself in as many places as she can, saying things about how I and the group are slimy, unethical, and are trying to "bully" the Wikimedia Foundation. She's accused me of being a zealot and says i'm trying to "silence the opposition". She seems to think this is some kind of war and is editing as such. And a personal interaction ban doesn't make much sense, as the only way that would work is if she didn't involve herself in the Wikiproject anymore, re: the point of the topic ban.SilverserenC02:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not completely comfortable with this either, but MSK has indicated that if there is consensus for a topic ban she is willing to go that route. Still, if I were in a group that was trying to gain legitimacy and show good faith, I wouldn't try to silence one of the more vocal critics. Honestly, trying to get her topic banneddoes make you look slimy and unethical, especially after coming here complaining about outing on a site where you had already outed your self rather extensively.AniMate02:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
If it was legitimate criticism, that would be fine. We've already gotten some of that, which has tailored the processes of how the Wikiproject currently works. Jimbo was concerned about any sort of direct editing by paid editors, even for noncontroversial stuff, so we created the paid editor help section where they can propose the needed changes, with references, and we would do it for them. Other criticism in terms of specific article changes are things we work with. TakeCracker Barrel for instance. There was a bit of back and forth tug of war over what the criticism section should say, with those on the other side feeling that it was being slightly white-washed, so I went ahead and worked out a compromise that made both sides feel better.
But, thus far at least, Selina hasn't been offering any such kinds of criticism. As I said above and have quoted in the Wikiquette discussion, it's all just been negativity and insults. Those aren't legitimate criticism. If you think wanting to get her to stop with that is slimy and unethical...well, I don't know how to respond to that. :/
And the complaint was about theattempted outing. If the intent is there to out someone, I fail to see how whether it was effective or not changes that. There are a number of comparisons I could make to further elaborate on this, but they're all rather hyperbolic in comparison as well, so I won't say.SilverserenC02:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
She did remove the attempted outing pretty quickly, and I don't see how you can even attempt to out someone who has clearly identified themselves over and over. I read the messages on your facebook group where you once again clearly and publicly and using your real name state that you are Silver seren. I agree that MSK needs to be more civil, but the more I look into this, the more I think she shouldn't be topic banned and more eyes should be on you and your group.AniMate02:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I think there's a bit of a difference between, say, just making one link between me and some other service I use. However, listing every single major site I use and then going after my friends is something totally different.
And what exactly have I and the Wikiproject done? We've been doing our absolute best to stay neutral in any additions made to articles. Do you have any specific problems with the Wikiproject?SilverserenC03:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I haven't seen the wikiproject but if you're editing articles about company X based on input you get from representatives of company X, the first thing I'd ask is whether you're soliciting equal amounts of input from opponents of company X who spend comparable amounts of money on PR. If you're not doing that, I'd say there's a potential neutrality problem.67.117.145.9 (talk)03:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
We haven't really worked on any companies yet. But for the stuff that we've done and what we would expect to be given if we did work on company articles in the future, we would need reliable third-party sources for the information. And, while it's true that the companies are not likely to freely give out information about controversies, through the rule of crowd-sourcing, someone will put something about it in the article eventually if there is some important negative thing about them.
No, I don't think so, if you're actively not seeking out the "oppo research" and are just taking what's given to you by one side's PR, you're basically proxy editing for shills. And there are independence-of-sourcing issues even with 3rd party publications whenever PR is involved (that's the whole point of PR). But this is pretty tangential to the MSK misconduct issue, so maybe we can discuss it some other time and place.67.117.145.9 (talk)04:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
What we're here to focus on is to make sure only neutral, factual information gets added. If something is being omitted, it will be pointed out eventually by someone.SilverserenC04:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
If those statements were made on Wikipedia that would be one thing. But they were made on a completely different website where both users hang out. It's basically nobody's business but WR's.
I also want to note that a lot (not all) of the "Endorse" votes above are along the lines of "I voted Oppose to her unblock so of course I'm jump at the chance to vote to reblock again" variety - i.e. by people who have very clearly NOT looked into the issue and are just indulging their standard grudges.
A mutual interaction ban though might be reasonable. Or someone could simply ask Selina not to comment on Seren on Wikipedia or Wikipedia Review anymore in the near future.VolunteerMarek03:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how an interaction ban can work if Selina is going to be involved in the Wikiproject. Nor if she is going to keep going around and try to insult the group of people we're working with.SilverserenC03:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
That's a legitimate point. Maybe Cla's suggestion of a topic ban from the project could be a viable substitute for that instead (though that means that you better not go seeking her out in other parts of Wikipedia in order to provoke - not saying you would, just being preventative and all).VolunteerMarek09:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No way. If there is a problem, it is with the editor's style of interacting. Shoving her off onto the rest of the project is not the solution. This smells like gaming an opponent out of the debate. (It may not be, but that's what it appears to be.) --Anthonyhcole (talk)04:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
By banning her from the debate; though I'm not sure "gaming" is what you're up to. It just smells like that. Look, if she's too awful to deal with on paid editing, she'll be too awful to deal with on images of Muhammad or policy pages or, well, everything. What's needed here is a careful, deliberative review of her behaviour since she's been back. This noticeboard isn't the place for that. The place to begin is a well-moderated RfCU. --Anthonyhcole (talk)04:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
If Selina was engaging in a debate, i'm sure we'd have a polite conversation that ended with some sort of conclusion or compromise that made both of us happy. The problem is that what she is doing is not debating. I have yet to see a specific issue of something we've done wrong come from her responses. Just generalized statements about how the the Wikiproject existing and CREWE existing is wrong and that PR people can never be trusted. Again, there's no real sort of debate that can come from that sort of opinion.SilverserenC04:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You've providedone diff, I think, to support your assertion she should stay away from paid editing. It seems like a reasonable edit to me. If you want her kept away from that topic, or if others want her permanently banned from the site, the least you can do is make a case. So far, all we have is rumor. Meta has recently been severely criticised for its poor process. Let's try and do better. We have the (albeit imperfect) mechanism, RfCU, let's use it. --Anthonyhcole (talk)05:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)confused Silver seren, I'm somewhat confused at this point. I think that the block that 28bytes did was the right thing to do at the time, (given the links and diffs at that point) and I support him on that. I've also seen some of the "unblock" comments that I think indicate a level of clue that I tend to listen to. To be honest, I haven't followed MSK, but have seen numerous threads on drama boards (including Jimbo's talk) that make me feel a bit uncomfortable in the "disruption" aspect of things. I would think that anyone coming from WR (owner of site?), would have the common sense to keep their head down at least until they had built a strong trust in the community as far as content goes. I think it is all well and good to point out things that need to be improved on WP, but there are ways to go about it without so much drama. Are you now rethinking thesite ban request in favor of aninteraction ortopic ban? As you were the one to initially request this ban, I think I owe you the respect of listening to how you are thinking at the moment. I don't much like banning and blocking editors if they can become constructive contributors to the project. I also see that some of this "outing" stuff may be a bit overstated; as well as something outside the remit of WP in some respects. I think we owe our editors consideration to some degree to "off wiki" actions, but we can't govern the Internet either. What sort of "ban" are youcurrently looking for? —Ched :05:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I think Selina deserves another chance, though I do think a topic ban is necessary. I don't think there's any way for someone who believesthis to edit neutrally in this topic area.SilverserenC05:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
well, I think it takes a hell of a man (or woman) to be that forgiving, and I'm impressed. I'm only one voice - but I will think on this. Thank you for clarifying. cheers. —Ched :06:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Silverseren, I, and I believe many others, share her view on the PR industry, as expressed in that diff. I'm pretty sure views like that don't disqualify one from editing in the area. A behaviour pattern may, though.
If you want a topic ban, or if others want a site ban, a readable, diff-based case will need to be made. Maybe a ban of some kind is warranted. I wouldn't know; because the case hasn't been presented. --Anthonyhcole (talk)06:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose topic ban. The corrective measure here is for MSK to change her behavior towards other Wikipedians, particularly those with whom she has had disagreements. I don't see any benefit from topic banning her from an area in which she has done some good content work. However, she needs to reconsider her way of conducting COI investigations,which are now strongly discouraged by ArbCom.ASCIIn2Bme (talk)09:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I'm less astonished by Mistress Selina Kyle than by VolunteerMarek's response atUser talk:Mistress Selina Kyle#Here's the deal... SilverSeren is highly productive, and thoughtful comments at "drama boards" like this are useful, and I don't think it is instructive to disparage him on-wiki to dissuade people from doing so on WR. I think, though, that the more Wikipedia tries to prohibit incivility and "personal attacks", the more timeis wasted in places like this, and the nastier the overall tone becomes. Let's roll back or outright abolish these policies.Wnt (talk)15:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I don't know MSK's history very well (I know its long, but mostly in the distant past), but I am well acquainted with Silver Seren, who has done much substantive article work and is generally a very level-headed guy when it comes to discussions. I would, therefore, recommend we defer to his suggestion that MSK be given another chance. If she needs to stay away from an area for 6 months or something, fine, that will give her a chance to do other constructive work. I am only now becoming acquainted with Seren's cooperation project and the watchdog response group. As someone who frequently reviews less-traveled articles, I know that PR people edit articles all the time with rare detection, so its not like the problem should be ignored even though it will create "drama" to discuss what many know.--Milowent •hasspoken16:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Interaction bans might work within Wikipedia - MSK should be told in a straightforward and non-angry manner that she ought not make personal comments about other editors with whom she is reciprocally banned from interacting, including any denigrating comments about those specific editors on the WR site. The reciprocally barred users should do the same, including not making denigrating remarks about WR participants on Wikipedia.Collect (talk)21:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
That has a chance of working towards deescalation in this case. I'm not sure how amenable people would be towards an interaction ban extending to commentsabout a website though...ASCIIn2Bme (talk)11:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Selina unblocked
I've unblocked her with some rather draconian conditionals attached to the unblock. Those conditions include keeping out of wikiprojects in general (articles and article talk only), so Silver seren's concerns in the above section are hopefully addressed as well.
Just as full disclosure: I am a moderator on WR, but I'm not exactly not on Selina's shitlist, nor is her name missing from mine. Maybe next time something like this happens on WR somebody will find the "report post" button so that people like me can just delete embarrassing crap that nobody should have to deal with having "out there" for people to link to from WP. --SB_Johnny | talk02:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow. That's, uh...wow...quite the unblock, what with the "involved admin" issue, the not waiting for ongoing community discussion about the block to finish, and the recent spamming/email canvassing allegations. I think you need to be prepared to make a strong case for why the need to unblock her right this instant overruled all those factors.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)03:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion is ongoing, of course, but the numbers at the moment (22/17 or 56%) don't suggest consensus exists in favour of the block. Considering an agreement has been worked out between the involved parties, and that the purpose of indef blocks is to prevent disruption until a suitable agreement can be reached, do you anticipate a rush of votes that haven't already been posted in the last two days?TechnoSymbiosis (talk)04:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
It's rather contentious to claim that where a majority supports the block, we should go ahead and unblock before the discussion is closed in either direction. The lack of supermajority supporting blocking does not correspond to a consensus to unblock (the matter of how to default in conflicted block reviews is, in itself, a contentious issue, not best test-cased on dramatic cases like this). I would very much have preferred to see this discussion run its course until all interested editors had had a chance to comment and then see the thread closed properly, by an admin who would then enact whatever the closing consensus was judged to be (numbers are/were currently trending slightly toward "keep blocked", as you noted), than see this rapid unblock by an involved admin re-ignite the fires of "was the block proper? well, was the UNBLOCK proper? why are we all here? who brought the chips and dip? can i start a foodfight? Mooommmm, he touched my side of the carrrr!".A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC) ETA: in addition, given that a number of the votes supporting the block were actually supporting reinstatement of the community ban based on her behavioral record, a detente between Selina and the person she was in a dispute with this particular time that she went off the rails, or between her and a mentor, is of limited use in determining whether to unblock or not.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)19:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps SB_Johnny and others are unaware ofthis statement of principle passed 24 hours prior by arbcom: "In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion with the initiating administrator, even in the face of an ongoing community discussion. In a situation where there is an ongoing community discussion, administrators should refrain from undoing another administrator's actions until consensus has become clear." That is, a consensus not to block, not a lack of consensus either way. -Wikidemon (talk)09:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of it, actually, but I am now. That's probably something that should be approached very carefully, because (as I'm sure most here will know) it's not unheard of for admins (being mere humans) to become very defensive when "their" block is lifted or altered. Otherwise Nobody Ent has pretty much captured what I thought when I saw the talk page, as well as Silver seren's statements above. --SB_Johnny | talk12:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow, another fast moving situation. I hope it's not headed for ArbCom. First, MSK has apologized for going over the line in making those comments about Silver seren[73]. Second, there have been a number of conditions laid out for the unblock on her talk page, which should be summarized here, preferably by the unblocking admin(s). Plural because more than one admin had offered to unblock conditionally over there.ASCIIn2Bme (talk)11:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The "nutshell" version is that she sticks to writing articles and discussing articles, and stays away from boards like this one. I think she's the type who is more comfortable with very simple conditions rather than leaving too much room for interpretation (I discussed that a bit earlier with Bugs on my talk if you want background).
I don't see any reason not to believe that her stated desire to help out and become a "Wikipedian in good standing" is genuine, even though many of her friends and frienemies at the other place apparently disapprove. --SB_Johnny | talk11:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hold on a moment, you're a moderator on WR? Doesn't that mean that you have a massive conflict of interest when it comes to unblocking MSK?Prioryman (talk)18:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Apparently arbcom is now involved, which unfortunately, seemed inevitable enough, but the lesson to be taken away from this is that, when it comes to undoing other admins' actions, if there exists any reasonable room for questioning whether there might be a COI, it's best to leave it to someone else.Kansan (talk)20:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's probably better to deal with the perception of a COI and to question it than it is to deal with an unacknowledged COI and not know to question it. Arbcom has been in touch with me via email (though frankly I'd be just as happy talking to them publicly), so I assume they'll comment once they come to an opinion. --SB_Johnny | talk20:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I explicitly endorsed the unblock on the users talk p, outlined the conditions, and, in fact, offered to do it myself. DGG ( talk)03:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It occurs to me that there doesn't appear to be a simple listing of Selina's (new) unblock conditions anywhere. SB_Johnny or DGG, could either of you draft up an actual list of what she and you agreed to and provide it here, or have her add it to the header of her talk page, or something?A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)04:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Given thatUser:SB Johnny is a moderator on WR, and he has undone a block on another WR'er, shouldn't he be recused from any administrative actions on the basis that he is involved? Is this issue worthy of being sent to Arbcom, so that they can finalise this (and other WR issues) for once and for all? Enough is enough.Russaviaლ(ಠ益ಠლ)18:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I think on those grounds he should revert and allow someone else to make the call. It seems like he isWP:INVOLVED. There is a lot of criticism atWP:AN about meta not handling involved editors appropriately - we need to do the same. --Eraserhead1 <talk>19:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you trying to psych yourself up so you can do it? It looks like SirFozzie beat you to it anyway. Expecting desysop by motion anytime now... Perhaps a ban for all WR participants should follow that? Oh, wait, some Arbs would have to ban themselves. I think they are involved too.ASCIIn2Bme (talk)20:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The good folks at WR would call that a "hasten the day" strategy, ASCIIn2Bme :-).
@Prioryman: surprisingly(!), my email box had no complaints today. I prefer front channels to back channels, so that works for me. My talk page is open if you have concerns, of course. --SB_Johnny | talk20:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
It's interesting to see the interaction between WR and WP in this episode. It was bound to happen, because so many active Wikipedians either have accounts there, including several arbitrators, or are avid readers, like Prioryman. Seeing two Wikipedians disagree with each other here, then go to WR to argue about it, then for one of them to complain about the resulting WR argumentback here at ANI, resulting in the other editor getting blocked, is amusing. I think we need to agree that WR is now irretrievably linked to and part of Wikipedia's culture.Cla68 (talk)00:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Nope, "we" are not required to do any such thing, however much water you like to carry for the chronic malcontents infesting WR. That some otherwise-sensible Wikipedia editors or admins like to keep tabs on what the aforementioned chronic malcontents infesting WR are up to doesn't give WR any special status. --Calton |Talk02:35, 24 February 2012 (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.
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.
Just for the record, KimvdLinde haspublished a manifesto on why she's leaving Wikipedia (namely because she feels it needs expert/specialist oversight for reliability, and has proposed an external system for doing so). This is in sharp contrast to the "I left wikipedia because of the way SMcCandlish is [behaving]" claim that opens this thread. KimvdLinde has "quit" Wikipedia more than once after debates have not gone her way. The implication that I am personally forcing her off Wikipedia is disingenuous at best and contradicted by several years of her own behavioral evidence. —23:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
[74] and[75] (Diffs of incivil, arguably personallyattacking posts against me atWT:BIRDS; also further proof that what I say about her pretending to quit WP as adishonest and fallacious debate disruption tactic is in fact a pattern; it's one that she's used several times in the past, though her complete deletion of her userpage more than once has had the side effect of making this more difficult to observe.)
WP:CIVIL, much lessWP:NPA, does not require servile niceness, nor does it imply any reluctance to express honest criticism of disruptive editing behavior, of the sort KimvdLinde repeatedly demonstrates;WP:SPADE is an essay that well addresses this. "Walls of text" on the capitalization of organism names (an issue on whichI set up a rather straightforward poll) is what KimvdLinde intentionally generates though theWP:IDHT tactic. How this works is covered in detail atWP:SSF. I am not the only one to observe her numerous patterns ofdisruptive andtendentious behavior in the debate with concern and disdain, including people who agree with her, not my, position on the poll issue. The fact of the matter is that KimvdLinde and I disagree about something, and are not going to stop disagreeing about it. Rather than just accept that, KimvdLinde decided to make this personal (check the dates). I've been having entirely civil and even productive discussions with other members ofWP:BIRDS (see my current and most recently archived talk page). This is not possible with KimvdLinde, as the DRN demonstrates. We don't like each other, and we've felt compelled to say so. I'm fine with that and moving on, because I have far more important, interesting and productive things to do than argue for the rest of my life with a borderlinetroll. KimvdLinde needs to accept this and her own share of the fault in the matter, and get over both it and herself. —20:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
One editor expressed the opinion that I had canvassed. He never responded to my rebuttal. That is not the same as "Found to have canvassed". This kind of exaggerations is one of the major problems. But more important, instead of honestly looking at the complaint, the response is nothing more than a counterattack. --Kim van der Lindeat venus22:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
If an admin atWP:AN/I says you were canvassing, it's a safe bet that you were canvassing (that's why AN/I exists - to report user behavior for admin analysis and determination). Do youreally want to debate that? I don't think that's why we're here. I've honestly looked at your complaint. It's calledpsychological projection. Since you're going to pointedly ruin any dispute mediation, I think a mutualWP:SHUNning is in order. Noetica and I did that once after an unhappy dispute kind of similar to this. A month or two later we actually got along well. —22:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
To late. You make the choice to retain the attacks, now we solve those first. After that, if it can be agreed upon that the capitalization issue is left to rest, I am perfectly fine with shunning you. And yes, I have no problem debating the unresolved canvassing issue as there was no response to my rebuttal. --Kim van der Lindeat venus23:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The canvassing doesn't matter; it had the desired effect of derailing the debate, so it's a moot point now (that's one of the reasons why no one bothered responding to your rebuttal).
This shouldn't be here at WQA anyway:
FAIL: "The specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere" (on both our user talk pages).
FAIL: "It is a request for mediation of longterm, ongoing conflicts between parties - try the dispute resolution noticeboard." That's what this is all about; KimvdLinde even opened this WQA case with her views about that long-term conflict ("...trying to force his view on the WP:MOS with regard to Capitalization of Organism Names...").
FAIL: "You have not followed the directions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Avoiding disputes" (KimvdLinde outright sabotaged our dispute resolution noticeboard case.)
FAIL: "emphasise the desire to move forward constructively and address how to move forward on the outstanding content issues while assuming good faith." (KimvdLinde has explicitly stated, in public, that she assumes bad faith on my part, and has not attempted to do anything constructive, only demanded a retraction of unflattering editor criticism, while ignoring my suggestion that she retract some of her own bouts of verbal hostility before making such demands.)
I think we're done here, unless there's some actual showing of "the desire to move forward constructively ... assuming good faith". If there is, then I'm willing to try again. Once. Toward that end, I'll agree to strike what I said at WT:MOS, if Kim will strike her "no good faith" comment in the earlier of the two diffs of hers I posted here, and we both explicitly state we're redacting because our comments should have been more civil and more assumptive of good faith. And she goes first, since she started it with her anti-SMcCandlish posts at WT:BIRDS. Then we agree to avoid each other as much as possible for at least a month, and that includes not making any personally identifiable negative comments of any kind on any pages (other than, I guess, we should be able to raise a legitimate issue on each other's talk page if mutual avoidance is somehow not practical on some issue). I could agree to that. — 23:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Note:I retracted anyway, despite refusal to compromise from KimvdLinde. —22:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
No. You already tried to have the first of my posts be labelled as a attack, and the admin in question stated expecitly to you: "That's not a personal attack. It's just plain bad faith."at the end of the section. The second is just more of the same. Yes, I do not trust you at all anymore, BECAUSE of your own stated desire to eventually force lowercaps on birds. So, I have GOOD reason not to trust you. --Kim van der Lindeat venus07:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Y'all are just talking, talking, talking....back and forth, nothing is getting resolved...how about keeping away from each other and the relevant boards for 48 hours and give an admin or outside editor a chance to discuss this?First onenot to respond gets .5 bonus admin points :)Quinn░RAIN02:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
SMcCandlish,regardless of whether or not Kim has valid points (my personal opinion is that she does, but I'mWP:INVOLVED), your responses to her, each time, just ratchet up the tension. "FAIL - FAIL - FAIL - FAIL" - is this how aWP:CIVIL discussion is held on Wikipedia? No, no it's not. Now how about the both of you take someWP:TEA before theseafood gets broken out. -The BushrangerOne ping only03:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
minus .5 points to Kim Seriously, though, you have both had (multiple) a chance to make your points. Let it rest and see what other people think for a change.Quinn░RAIN03:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Really. I retire because of this, and after a week I check in to find my name dragged through the mud, and the suggestion is to not have an interaction for 48 hours. Excuse me. If he would have let me alone and not dragged my name through the mud, I would have stayed away. --Kim van der Lindeat venus03:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
There's some pretty harsh words being thrown at an editor who's on the verge of leaving the project, and the above is just as bad - if not worse.
The original issue that led the editor to WQA is incivility - whether a certain bunch of adjectives were uncivil, and it appears they were hoping to improve the "relationship". And look, SMcCandlishdoes keep pouring fuel on the fire ... as do others. Shame on the bunch of you, really.
Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and every editor has the same right to edit - but with that comes the responsibility to follow basic community norms and policies; includingWP:CANVASS,WP:NPA,WP:CIVIL.
WP:DIVA or not,"you are one of the most personally poisonous, disruptive, psychodramatic and tendentious people I have ever encountered" is a nastyWP:NPA, no matter how you read it. Inappropriate for the playground, the office, or Wikipedia.
What perhaps makes this a bit more of a challenge is the potential that Kim is actually using herWP:REALNAME - hence the comment about "slander". It'snot slander. However, when you choose to ignoreWP:REALNAME, you do run the risk of having things linked to your real namead infinitum.
What makes this freaking ridiculous is that it's overWP:MOS issues on a bunch of Bird article. Really? You all have a fricking bee in your bonnet over something that can be remedied by an RFC, 3O, or some positive series of interactions? Instead, you resort to "if I don't get my way, I'm leaving" and name-calling? Can you people PLEASE check your birth certificates and verify your age? (talk→BWilkins←track)11:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the "psychodramatic" comment is as you say. But per the recently closed ArbCom on civility enforcement, nobody is going to block a long-term contributor for it. Tough luck.ASCIIn2Bme (talk)13:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Works for me. If the consensus is that I'm entirely in the wrong, please feel free to post a shoal of{{trout}}s on my talk page. But note what else is on there before you do so. The suggestion that I, personally and alone, am WP:OWNing MOS (please! the most-watchlisted guideline on the whole system?) and have it in for WP:BIRDS in particular is ridiculous. Especially since I've said multiple times I no longer even care what that project does. If someone wants to be legalistic about it, I'll be happy to dump diffs as proof. Before I get pilloried, I'd suggest a thorough read of KimvdLinde's participation in the debate, including the most recent archive page of MOS talk (about 2/3 of the extant debate has been archived there already). Then read the DRN. I've made bend-over-backwards attempts at dispute resolution. —16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Short version: I apologize for being sarcastic and incivil, but deny that being pointedly critical of what seem to me to be demonstrably disruptive behavior patterns, and (in a one-on-one personal conversation in user talk that I did not advertise) expressing a palpable distrust of another editor, as we have both done mutually more than once, constitutes a personal attack underWP:NPA policy. No interaction ban is needed; we both clearly understand that a mutualWP:SHUN for a while would be helpful, and we are not presently arguing about the topic that started this fiasco (the animal common names capitalization thing; we actually came toa potentially viable compromise on the issue, but other editors have raised concerns with it, and it's stalled).
Longer verson
I thought I was supposed to be notified of an AN/I filing. Well, anyway... Yes, my criticism of KimvdLinde has been pointed.WP:SPADE andWP:SSF sum up why. I did not choose to make a personal one-on-one "get outta my face" post to KimvdLinde on my user talk page, between me and this user,become a public spectacle; Kim did that. If she hadn't literally copy-pasted it into bothWP:WQA and WP:AN/I, virtually no one would ever have noticed, especially given how quickly I archive my user talk. It strikes me a bit like discovering that you're wearing one green and one red sock, and running around shouting "Oh NO-O-O-O-O! I just CAN'T BELIEVE I'm wearing TWO DIFFERENT COLORED SOCKS! AAAAAAAGGGGHHHH! Please, please NO ONE NOTICE!" I'm not on a playground, this isn't my office, and if I have to be harsh with someone to get their attention on this project that I care a lot about, so be it. You have to pretty muchtorture me into being that harsh, and if you do so, you certainly need to hear it. NB: I'm also using my real name, too. I acknowledge the criticisms that this dispute has been embarrassing and even childish.Mea culpa. I accept and hang my head about my part in protracting a dispute that most people probably think is pointless. But being irritable and cantankerous isn't the same thing aspersonally attacking someone.
Being critical of another editor's actions and behaviors is not an "attack", even if the wording isn't lovey-dovey and even when it does specifically address that editor'sperceived patterns of behavior and the critic's feelings about them and about that editor. I agree that one should, when it's necessary to be critical, be critical of edits not editors to the extent possible. I believe in trying to be as collegial as is pratical, and not treating WP like abattlegorund. This doesn't mean that being honest and straightforward is useless. User:Noetica and I once had far harsher words, but get along famously now after a good month or two of mutualWP:SHUN. KimvdLinde didn't retire, she took a five-day break, and came back to lambaste me, unprovoked, atWT:BIRDS (see diff already posted). KimvdLinde is emphatically not "on the verge of leaving the project". This "I'm going to quit because I'm not getting my way"appeal to emotion tactic is par for the course with this editor (though you need to be an admin to see the deleted versions of her userpage that prove this is in fact a long-standingWP:DIVA pattern).
I proposed mutual shunning already. No interaction ban is needed; we've had no interaction other than this dispute for the latter half of the month. KimvdLinde and I simply disagree strongly about something, and have both had civility lapses that stop short ofWP:NPA. Unless I'm forcibly dragged back here for some reason, I consider this all old news and best left behind. I'm working on templates and articles, and commenting on TfDs, and otherwisegetting over it, and certainly not arguing with Kim about capitalization of bird names. Did I "keep pouring fuel on the fire"? Yes, and it was a bad idea. People do unhelpful things sometimes when they're upset.WP:SARCASM is an actually funny essay because we all know that sarcasm is antagonistic and tends to backfire, but we also all know that it may be the last effective resort when all else fails. Being sarky and snarky is aWP:DICK move when it's unprovoked, but it makes perfect sense when there's no other recourse. (Note: See ourWP:DRN case; "other recourse" was tried.) I was already pushed to the limit of my patience and got rather tooth-gnashy; everyone has a breaking point. I apologize, to KimvdLinde and the community for being weak and not holding out longer. I have better intentions, and far more useful things to do here, than to be incivil or to prolong debates that will not see resolution.
It's not reasonable to expect editors to wade through the voluminous aggressive interaction onWT:MOS and archives to decide which editor's behavior was more disruptive. How about KVL retires as indicated they were doing and SMC nevers mentions their name again? Or justkeep going, andgoing...Nobody Ent16:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
...that might not be the best way to phrase that. KVL is retiring because of, as they say, the way they were treated. Your wording above makes it almost sound like that's what they should do, whereas the incivility should have never happened, and yes ... they should just go off to different corners of this very large project and edit happily (talk→BWilkins←track)17:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
KVL has been retiring for far too long. SMS opened aDRN back on 6 Feb that was so evenly presentedSteven Zhang (talk·contribs) notedthis is how it should be done. Several volunteers offered to help, including suggestions of sponsoring Rfcs which KVL rejected. The thread was closedclosed 9 Feb based on KVLs retirement announcement. Since that time they have forum shopped WQA, AN, and now ANI. I'm good with my phrasing.Nobody Ent18:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You folks do realize you're arguing over a capital letter, right? Not even on a person, but on a bird? Which can't read? Have you considered thatwhoever wins, not only will the world not end, but 99% of the readers of the articles in question won't notice the difference, and the remaining 1% will just shrug? --GRuban (talk)20:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
OK. So? Do you really believe that the contribution you make to the encyclopedia by actuallywriting articles is worth so little that you're willing to give it all up as a matter of principle overthis? Because of an argument over whether it should be "Yellow-bellied Sapsucker" or "yellow-bellied sapsucker"? Isn't thesubstance of the 15,000 articles more important? Where it lives, how it lives, what it looks like, what it eats, what it sounds like, how to identify it, how many of them are there, how does it migrate? Not the thrice-darned capitalization of it's freaking name! Look back over your career here. Say to yourself - hey, self! You wrote some darn good articles! You helped students, birders, enthusiasts, and curious people of all sorts know more about birds - real things! And now you're considering giving it up in a fit of pique overa capital letter, a matter of style, not substance. Self, you're worth more than that, your contributions are worth more than that, your readers deserve more than that. Now you're going to have a nice cup of tea and read over some of those articles you wrote, and consider what's worth more in them, their contents or their capitalization. Then if you still think the capitalization is worth more, you're going to be gravely disappointed in yourself. --GRuban (talk)04:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is an unwieldy system governed by the lowest denominator that can proclaimconsensus. It essentially gives all the power to those that have the time to spend on petty disputes, drawn out decision making processes, and who know how to play the rules the best."
"The key problem is that WP has a behavior based enforcement system. This has as an effect that content disputes can go on for ever as long as both sides canverify (WP:V) their claims with somereliable sources (WP:RS). Many of these intractable content disputes end with incivility and blocking of editors because of that, or with one party just quiting. In the latter case, this is often the person with the least amount of time to spend online. Unfortunately, experts are among those that do not want to spend ages on wikipedia, yet would have the most to offer with regard to quality content. The result,mediocrity rules."
"Now that a ruling class has been established, consolidation of their rule is in order. Slowly but surely, rules that they deem correct are forced upon the whole of wikipedia at the expense of the content builders, who are far more often not interested in the governance intrigues by the ruling elite that has taken ownership of the policy and guideline pages. As a result, more and more of them will leave at the expense of wikipedia."
One problem with this scenario is that it's an "us vs. them" fantasy in which "experts" are knights in shining armor and everyone who isn't a specialist in the favored narrow field is a destructive dragon. In reality of course, most everyone here who wants to write normal English, instead of "Johnson had aRock Pigeon but it was eaten by hisBall Python, who choked to death on it, so he instead got aDog and twoGoldfish", creates good articles too, and stops vandals, and does all the good things that make Wikipedia work. "Editor who supports capitalization of species common names" != "good editor". The idea that there's a special class of editor here that does nothing but set up style disputes is silly, and the idea that these imaginary "style warriors" are a conspiracy and cabal that are actually the overlords of Wikipedia is absurd. It's simply never getting through to KimvdLinde that people can disagree with her without being evil, crazy or stupid. Not everyone is well suited to collaborative editing. —06:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I made no such promise. I offered to retract and not interact if my offer was met half way, and this offer was rejected, very pointedly. I'm under no obligation to cheerfully accept your and only your position at a forum-shopping AN/I case. There's an aphorism about "airing one's dirty laundry in public" that applies here. —21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
An RFC, as suggested above, sounds like a good way to address the substantive issue, and not have seasoned editors get mired down in tussles that can otherwise be avoided, and appear to be non-productive for all concerned in any event.--Epeefleche (talk)01:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I do have to say that, with regard to what SMcCandlish said about Kim (quoted above), I think it's a quite shockingly nasty way to treat another editor. In fact, I'm seeing an uncomfortable amount of aggression on SMcCandlish's side, and what appears to be little more then defensiveness on KimvdLinde's side. With regard to capitalisation, I think an awful lot depends on what the experts in the relevant field, or the way names are published in the relevant field, do. I wouldn't want, for example, Wikipedia to insist on the Rollsroyce, or Buckinghampalace.Pesky (talk)18:00, 22 February 2012 (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.
Comments struck out
My comment was struck out because I haven't got any registered account and edit from Hong Kong.[76][77] Talk page enquiry was deleted right away.[78] Any admin to take a look at what happened?1.65.157.46 (talk)13:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
To clarify what Yunshui has said, if you are Instantnood, then it doesn't matter what IPs you use, you are banned and any comment you make can be reverted or otherwise removed. If you claim you are not Instantnood then you need to clarify this, although if the evidence is strong it may not help.Nil Einne (talk)18:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a question, prompted by the above -- is it proper for us now tostrike a sock's comments, rather than only flagging the author of the comment as a sock with a note following their comment entry? Years ago, the practice of striking was deprecated, but perhaps that has changed (it is a change that I would welcome). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk)07:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Just because somebody is banned doesn't mean that everything they've writtenmust go. I think we should exercise a little judgement in each case. Where a banned user has influenced the flow of discussion on a talkpage, and the ban is related to that discussion, then striking the comments out makes it clear to others that the comments should have no standing, but still allows folk to see how the discussion developed. There might be other cases where we know the account is a sock but striking-out is excessive so a note is preferred - particularly useful for ballot-stuffing. On the other hand there can be cases where striking out is insufficient; we could delete a comment if it's highly disruptive. We have a toolbox; pick the best tool for the circumstances.bobrayner (talk)16:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Starting today,User:Petrukhina has made multiple reverts of the same IP's edits (116.39.110.175). Most are reverting to the same edit war this user has had withUser:Illyukhina. Both users have been blocked in the past for the same edit war. I would like an admin to look into these edits by these users.Karl 33420:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
It ranges over a number of articles, and certainly does appear to call for attention. What has to be sorted it is who is in the wrong here (much has to do with location of birth, date of birth, and how one's nationality is described) ... and the answer will require more attention that I've given it ... and whether there is sockpuppeting going on.--Epeefleche (talk)07:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems to have gotten to knee-jerk reverts of all edits the other makes. For example,here Petrukhina is reverting the IP's change of USSR to Soviet Union; she seems to prefer USSR. Buthere she is reverting the IP's change of "former Soviet Union" just back to "Soviet Union", she doesn't seem to have any objection to "Soviet Union" there. (Personally, I don't think it makes a big difference; the terms are synonymous.) --GRuban (talk)20:35, 23 February 2012 (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'm on my phone at the moment, so find it hard to add entries to the 3RR noticeboard. Can someone take a look at theNordic walking article? Two editors, both of whom have been warned about edit warring, are continuing their reverts. The IP involved is one of the named users, as can be seen on my user talk page when they fixed the IP's signature. ---Barek(talk) -21:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
It's interesting to note that KMuuli posted in the earlier section that they are no longer editing the article due to a 3RR warning, then 20 minutes later used an IP to revert back to their version. ---Barek(talk) -22:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
SinceUser:KMuuli is continuing to revert (as an IP) after acknowledging a 3RR warning to their named account it is reasonable to issue a block. The other named warrior,User:Natashadashenko, is already blocked 31 hours. There is a long-term struggle between these two editors atNordic walking and the prospects for improvement appear dim. Suggest a basic 3RR block followed by escalation to both parties if the message is not received.EdJohnston (talk)23:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The revert was done manually since I wasn't able to do it automatically. Since I got the notice just now (in the morning, it's 7:45 am here) I appeal that my block be canceled as I did have to option of revert. Unless the article is properly fixed however Wikipedia will now be advertising false information. I also point out that Natashadashenko has still not responded to any of these notices/messages, thank you.KMuuli (talk)05:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Also note that when this "proper" dispute over this article's facts will happen it would be a lot easier doing it in some community live rather then over Wikipedia, which is horrendously time-consuming and as I've seen so far, ultimately fruitless.KMuuli (talk)06:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
So am I to understand correctly that the course of action Wikipedia moderators/editors will take, is simply ban both sides and shut their eyes to the problem?KMuuli (talk)14:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
What you're to understand correctly, is thatedit-warring is never permitted, even if you think you'reright. We havedispute resolution processes for a reason. Admins do not deal with content disputes here - we deal with improper behaviour, and edit-wars are improper behaviour, period. We will notWP:BAN anyone yet, weWP:BLOCK in order to protect the project from inappropriate behaviour. (talk→BWilkins←track)15:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not necessarily, KMuuli. If there's a dispute about the content of the article, the best resolution is to discuss the matter at the article's talk page and find a consensus. However, if both sides refuse to discuss the situation and instead continue edit the article abusively (edit warring, sockpuppetry, etc.), then the immediate problem is those editors, and the solution is to block them to prevent further disruption to the article. —C.Fred (talk)15:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you not read the articles that I've been trying to spread around. That is exactly the problem. I am constantly being told to enter a dispute, but with WHOM!?!? You see my dilemma being here is that I've been honest and I sincerely acknowledge the fact that my thread has bias and maybe even unintended commercial in it. But no one has even tried to discuss it (Natashadashenko refuses to answer, nor do any of the moderators/editors really talk to me). Thus farBarek has just gone about making changes, in good faith I'm sure, but you can't tell a story you don't know. With no disrespect at all, but the history of Nordic Walking is very difficult to understand. This is because, Tom Rutlin, the creator of Exerstrider is trying to take credit for Nordic Walking, which Exerstrider just isn't (recently he has began copying Marko's content and methods). He shouldn't even be in the "Nordic Walking" article, but he is there because in all probability he initially uploaded the page and also because there is common misconception about the two sports. Furthermore, the history of Nordic Walking is foggy because of exploitation towards Marko Kantaneva from his former employer (they used his piece without his approval at first and then tried to take credit for it, seeing as an "owner" of a sport would be bad for business). Nordic Walking DIDN'T DEVELOP FROM SKI-WALKING, IT ISN'T IN ANYWAY EXERSTRIDING AND IT DOESN'T HAVE DIFFERENT STYLES and lastly MARKO KANTANEVA is the author of the sport (as it is known today), that is the bottom line. (Every argument here has proof, which I also provided. And although I understand that saying that Marko Kantaneva created the sport can seem promotional, it is nevertheless a fact. Ignoring it would be like ignoring that Thomas Edison invented the light-bulb, even though that is also promotional for him. NOTE: Ironically he was also involved in some plagiarism.)
Epeefleche, the difflinked here shows KMuuli replacing the IP signature with his own, demonstrating they are the same user.
KMuuli: Aparently asking you to stay off my talk page just upset you to the point that you now bash my name both here and on the article talk page - you might want to reviewWP:CIVIL. Any review of the article editing makes clear that I have attempted twice now to clean-up the mess caused by the edit warring. The first time, in order to purge the promotional tones and unsourced marketing claims, I reverted to the version prior to edits by either party that had been involved in the edit warring. The second time I tried fixing it was by editing directly to your version to make it more appropriately worded (demonstrating that I had no "preferred" version, yet you imply ulterior motives above). You claimed on my talk page that those edits were "minor" - in your mind they may have been, but between rephrasing and purging marketing materials reduced the article by over 2,000 bytes of text (over 20% of the original length) in order to bring the tone into a more neutral wording. I find it hard to understand how that can be viewed as minor, but whatever you wish to believe, fine.
MKuuli, please reviewWP:DR, which describes the established Wikipedia processes for dealing with dispute resolutions of content disputes. Remember, Wikipedia is not on a deadline, it is aa work-in-process: there are a large number of articles that need considerable work to review and cleanup - that does not mean that we abandon community established processes to clean them up. ---Barek(talk •contribs) -17:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: Another IP has now appeared, whose only edit anywhere on Wikipedia has been to revert back to the version by KMuuli. I've restored my second attempt (listed above) where I attempted to remove the promotional wording and marketing claims. ---Barek(talk •contribs) -17:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
You got ahead of me Barek: The following is what I was going to post...
":Barek: I find myself baffled. I have no idea how I keep insulting/bashing you, if anything you can describe my tone as rude or blunt, but in noway have I (at least not intentionally) insulted or bashed you. But if you feel all that offended then again, I have no say in this. Reverted to my version? Maybe so, but did it ever occur to you that it might be the case that Natashadashenko already undid your changes, so that I wasn't able to see them? Because excuse me, and I truly mean this, if I did revert your page in a rush of "edit-warring" then the blame is on me. Because I do admit, Natashadashenko was at some point just bothering me up to the point that I bluntly reverted his edits (he still refuses to communicate). But with all this displeasure between us (if you really do feel offended) we have digressed from the main topic. The article still needs to be fixed. And as a measure of good faith I hereby, officially apologize to you Barek, for being hot-headed and not properly reading through all the article edits. You need not accept the apology, but I will still offer it (NOTE: I post it here, because, well there really is no other place to say this). And for future reference, before the edits are made and something isn't sure I can provide more evidence and reference on the subject (for example to those "unsource" health benefits, which no-one really has because they aren't in contact with the author). I may however not be the best unbiased writer. And lastly I know how the article may seem strange, because correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the only sport (or one of few) in the world that has an individual author/inventor/creator."
Now however I again have to apologize, I looked it up. I did revert your work. Let my emotions get ahead of true scientific facts. I know Wikipedia isn't really a place for emotion and what not, but my only excuse is that I am human. I don't know what I can do to help Barek, but you have been understanding through all this and the only moderator so far who has looked into the subject on a more deeper level. So I thank you and again offer my humblest apologies, you just got in the way of a raging inferno that burned everything in it's path. Sorry for the unintentional insults. (NOTE: Now I feel somewhat awkward.)KMuuli (talk)17:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
KMuuli, lets just forget all that, and focus on the article. We can take further discussion to the article talk page, as it's not an issue for WP:ANI matter at this point. ---Barek(talk •contribs) -17:37, 22 February 2012 (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.
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.
Please review the removal of (references to) his comments byUser:Jayjghere andhere.
Jayjg and me were discussing on my personal Talk-page anaddition I did at theDaniel Pipes page. But after a while, I came to the conclusion that we would not be able to find a resolution, so Imoved the whole thread to the Talk page of Daniel Pipes in order to attract comments of other editors (note that Jayjg wascanvassing to do the same). Subsequently, Jayjgremoved his comments altogether as he wrote "my comments were meant for a user talk page, not an article talk page. I did not give consent to have them moved to an entirely different context.". Fair enough, so I replaced the paragraphs where used to be his comments with diff links to those comments - for other editors to be able to still follow the thread. Next he also removed those diff links. So after that I putdiff links to his original edits at my talk page, which, you guess, he also removed. Hewrote on his talk page that I create the false impression he commented on the Talk page of Daniel Pipes page, but the section is clearly headed "Moved discussion". I consider his removal of the diff links to his comments, as a modification of my comments. Please advice. --Honorsteem (talk)19:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why Honorsteem feels it's appropriate to move my template warnings to an article talk page, or even my user page discussion with him there, but I made it clear to him that I
made the comments in the context of a user page discussion, which have different rules governing them than article talk pages,
did not authorize him to add comments to that article talk page with my signature, giving the impression that I had made those comments there, and
did not want him then adding comments indicating that I had "deleted" the comments, thus giving the impression that I first made the comments on the article talk page, and then later retracted them.
I see no reason why Honorsteem needs to move the comments to the article talk page at all. I note his user page indicates he is making aWP:Clean start, and I've received an email suggesting that he is an editor who has been twice permanently banned by the Arbitration Committee. I'm not familiar with the editor in question, but this doesn't feel like a "clean" start to me.Jayjg(talk)20:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The clean start has nothing to do with this incident, it is on my user page for transparency reasons. I made a clean start too on the Dutch Wikipedia, because my original user name felt too much indentifiable to me IRL. I didn't indicate the clean start there clear enough and it was mistaken for sockpuppet abuse. I tried to argue my case there, but failed. To prevent any such confusion here, I indicated the clean start on my user page. Before all the confusion around the clean start on the Dutch Wikipedia I had no issues. As far as I can recall I have never encountered Jayjg before. Administrators can contact me through email if they want to know my old user credentials. --Honorsteem (talk)20:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Without commenting on whether these particular comments belong on a talk page (because I haven't read them) I will point out that the license you release your edits under allows another editor to move them anywhere and for any reason so long as you are attributed. They technically do not need any authorization to do so and if the editor is soliciting editor opinion in good faith then I see nothing inappropriate about moving a conversation from a user page to a talk page (I'm sure I've done it myself at some point). This, of course, is based on the assumption that the conversation isrelevant to the topic of the talk page to which its being used. I'm not sure how warning messages for a user could be relevant on an article talk page.NoformationTalk20:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. Those warnings are of course not too relevant, but the thread went from those warning messages into the topic of the article page, and to avoid deciding arbitrarily where to cut, I copied the whole thread. Also, I think that is not the main concern of Jajyg --Honorsteem (talk)20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's some suggestions:
Refactoring the thread slightly might be worthwhile, removing the templates and replacing them with a note.
Copying is probably better than moving. Leave a note on your talk page, and make it clear on the article talk pagewhere the thread id moved from.
Noformation is perfectly correct, you are at liberty to do this if you think it helps.
Please both of you are old hands,WP:AGF, and work on resolving the issue, not arguing about the location of the discussion.
I think there's a more fundamental issue here:User:Honorsteem is a banned editor. He's been banned twice from Dutch Wikipedia, banned twice from English Wikipedia, and is still banned on both. When I warned him about a BLP violation, he argued with me, then starting moving my posts around, thenfollowed me to an entirely unrelated page to oppose me, then brought me here to complain about me. As far as I can tell, what I should have done, and should still do, is block this sockpuppet, and delete or strike all of his contributions, perWP:BAN. I have not yet seen any reason why I shouldn't still do so.Jayjg(talk)12:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I dont have any blocks on en.wikipedia, please don't smear. Also now Jayjgremoves my comments from his Talk page, I didn't know that is allowed like that? For me this discussion was closed with the copyright consideration. --Honorsteem (talk)13:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
From the department of redundancy department,Wikipedia:Clean start: "A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account." Is this the case here? And who or what would decide--a CU?Drmies (talk)15:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I suggest Jayjg strike his comment above regarding Honorsteem being a banned editor, unless more information comes to light.Kansan (talk)16:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Honorsteem wrote "Administrators can contact me through email if they want to know my old user credentials." (20:26, 14 February 2012). Obvious suggestion is for an uninvolved admin or CU to email him/her. I didn't check directly into the talkpage/usertalk issue but from context here, absent confirmation of problems with the user history, Rich Farmbrough's comments/suggestions sound sensible to me.67.117.145.9 (talk)05:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Cleanstart violation
OK. Honorsteem is indef-blocked on the Dutch wiki for socking. As far as I can tell, no socking has taken place here. [I'm not going to give those names and links; they're hardly secret, but I am reluctant to air out too much laundry. You can always email me.] However, the old accounts (there's two) were not clearly discontinued (I'm looking atWP:CLEANSTART), and on one of them one edit was made recently (minor, nothing to worry about). There were no blocks on the old accounts, but editor is still active in the same fields; there is a warning or two for edit-warring and a speedily deleted copyright violation. That's not great, but it's not a real issue right now, as far as I'm concerned. Honorsteem, let me propose the following: go to your old accounts, properly logged in as that account, and put "retired" on them, and maybe blank the talk pages. You can even scramble the passwords. If you like, I can block them, and then you can never be suspected of foul play again with those accounts. I think that will show plenty of good faith and will put this part of the discussion at rest; for the other part, stick to Rich's advice. (I personally do not like such copying/moving at all, even if it is allowed, maybe, by the rules, and I can understand Jay's taking offense.)
All you old hands, please check my comments to see if I overstepped or sidestepped anything: I've not had many dealings with clean starts and I'm anxious to get this right and put it behind us. Whatever Honorsteem did on the Dutch wiki does not concern me since, as far as I can tell, they haven't done that here. Still, Honorsteem, een ezel stoot zich in 't gemeen niet twee keer aan dezelfde steen. ;)Drmies (talk)16:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Drmies, thank you for hijacking this thread. Even if I would do stuff under the old account, as long as it is not sock puppet abuse, I see no problem, just like there would be no problem posting under two different IP addresses. Sjalom. --Honorsteem (talk)23:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
From the internets:Thread hijacking is the process of replying to an existing thread with a different topic. This is generally discouraged. It is better to start a new thread if you have a problem that is related to an existing posted issue but clearly different. On the other hand, it is better to respond to the existing thread with additional information if you have what appears to be the same problem. Posts that hijack a serious thread with off-topic discussion are also tolerated but generally discouraged.. You have the right to start a new thread, here or on any other appropriate forum to air your concerns. This issue is now closed. --Honorsteem (talk)09:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Huh? the internets? I got a different link for you:WP:BOOMERANG. I don't know what your personal grudge is against me, but your claim of a clean start should be accompanied by the appropriate actions on the old accounts. Yes, you have three accounts in all, and on one of them you were active recently, and you were blocked indefinitely on the Dutch pedia for socking. And you ask us to trust you? I'll start accepting your good faith when I see proof of it. I will be glad to start a new thread, but you could have put this to rest already and no one would have cared.Drmies (talk)15:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
AN/I is not "the internets" (thank goodness). When somebody starts a thread at AN/I,all relevant materials to the matter at hand are subjects of dicussion - and the apparent fact that yourWP:CLEANSTART hasn't been so clean after all isvery relevant to the subjects of discussion here. You can't declare a discussion "over", either -especially in a situation where it suddenly becomes apparent it's turning in a direction unfavourable to you.My dad does that in RL all the time. Finally, as Drmies notes, at AN/I,your boomerangdoes come back. -The BushrangerOne ping only18:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not just the issues raised above. I first encountered Honorsteem when I warned him about BLP at Talk:Daniel Pipes. Since then, he's talking tofollowing me around to other completely unrelated pages, and opposing whatever I was saying at those pages. Three days after I first warned him, he showed up atTalk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates to oppose my position at an RFC there. A few days after that, he showed up atTalk:Circumcision to oppose my position in an RFC there. There's no coincidence here.Jayjg(talk)16:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
And it only gets worse.
AtLev Landau he's apparently decided, based on his own personal criteria ("Jewish" is a purely religious designation), that Landauwasn't Jewish.
I set up automated Talk: page archiving5 months ago atTalk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Honorsteem recently began insisting that I had done so "without consensus" (despite the fact that no-one objected for 5 months), and atTalk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates#proposal he's proposing that automated archiving be turned off and all archives be restored to the article Talk: page (despite the fact that the Talk: page is already over85k 99k and growing quickly, and the archives are almost 140k), and that we must have a !vote and achieve "consensus" every single time we want to archive a thread!
He's still claiming that he hasn't been following me around to oppose me, and insteadaccuses me of being uncivil when I point out he's doing it. He's also well aware of this on-going thread at AN/I, but is conspicuously avoiding it.Jayjg(talk)05:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This edit strikes me as diametrically opposed to the very concept of a clean start. The old accounts that I know of only had 1235 combined edits, and right now Honorsteem as 142. There's nothing illegal about putting some Service Award (for 78,000 edits and ten years of service) on one's user page that does not appear to be correct, I guess, but it's odd, especially in this case.Drmies (talk)18:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow, Drmies; good catch. That's bizarre. I agree with your observation. And I actually do think that -- if that is the case here -- puffery mis-statement is not permitted on user pages; I've seen that invoked I believe vis-a-vis an editor who claimed on his user page that he was a wikipedia founder.--Epeefleche (talk)00:42, 22 February 2012 (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.
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 know that I am putting my neck on the line here, but I blockedHonorsteem (talk·contribs) for his abuse of clean start, disruptive editing and the fairly well supported idea that xe is houndingJayjg (talk·contribs). One to the pillars ofclean starts is that an editor leaves the areas that he was once editing in. I know that this admin action isn't going to be popular. I should be up for the next hour or so. If a Consensus appears after a nice amount of time, more then three hours, any uninvolved admin can reverse my block without any reaction from me --Guerillero |My Talk05:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Endorse block per the rationale presented by the blocking administrator. The combative attitude of the editor and the recent hounding of Jayjg were clearly unproductive and contrary to the spirit ofWP:CLEANSTART. —Nearly Headless Nick{C}06:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Endorse block - I am a strong supporter of allowing clean starts, but it is incumbent on the user to actually make them a clean start. Putting up service awards, while about the least of the problems here, is emblematic of how it does not appear that the user intends to completely start over anew.Kansan (talk)20:38, 22 February 2012 (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.
Block review and admin issuing 1RR
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 was blocked for one week for a 1RR sanction issued by an administrator,Bwilkins. I asked for a policy which said an admin could do this, none was presented to me... I also checkedWP:1RR which says community or Arbcom can do this. I refused to recognize the sanction at all occasions mentioned including the place it was supposedly imposed. I was later blocked after a tit-for-tat report made by an editor who admittedly hounds my edits (and agreed to stick to 1RR on his last unblock). The blocking admin said I was baiting the user, while uninvolved editors have opposite thoughts about this. I've presented the diffs to him. The block discussion can be viewed here[80]. My previous block expired before its review was completed and the reviewing admin specifically said that I would have been unblocked and that it was not justified by the blocking admin. Both the escalation per that and the block itself were illegitimate. I want the block reviewed as an admin does not have any authority for imposing sanctions, appropriate steps should also be taken to prevent such disruptive blocks from Bwilkins. --lTopGunl (talk)15:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: you have beenrepeatedly blocked for edit warring and battleground behavior. You were warned thatthis behavior would not be allowed to continue, and told to hold yourself to 1RR to avoid further sanctions. You are now attempting to convince us that if you refuse to agree to restrictions designed to prevent you from becoming disruptive and getting blocked again, not only can you not be blocked for your disruption, but you also can make the restrictions go "poof"? When an editor is on their third block for the exact same behavior, they no longer get a lot of rope before they're pulled up short. It seems to me that in that AN3 report, Bwilkins was doing his best to point out that lack of rope andkeep you from getting blocked again by telling you "behavior X is disruptive, and you'll be blocked if you continue it. Don't continue behavior X. In fact, here's an easy rule of thumb that will keep you from carrying on with behavior X." That you chose toput your hands over your ears doesn't change that fact.
Bottom line: whether a literal "1RR" was imposed here or not, you were very clearly warned that continuing your problematic behavior would end in a block. You continued your problematic behavior, and you were blocked. What part of this did you not expect?A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)16:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hell no... getting hounded by an editor who's following you to all articles you edit is notWP:BATTLE. And my previous block was reviewed. Have you even checked the linked discussion? There'sno policy that says that an admin can impose a 1RR and there's no evidence of me editwarring with Darkness Shines in that report. Both reverts were against other editors. Imposing unilateral sanctions is exactly as bad as pushing content in without a consensus. This block was no less than disruptive. --lTopGunl (talk)16:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Appropriate block, even if not for the right reason. I agree Bwilkins shouldn't have cited a "1RR restriction" in the block reason as you weren't under a formal 1RR limit. That said, the block was warranted and I don't think there's anything actionable against Bwilkins.Strange Passerby (talk •cont)16:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
No, this is not just about the block itself. Bwilkins thinks that sanction is right and I'm sure he'll block again based on that. There'sno such sanction and I've still refused to recognize it. And as for the block on any other reasons, both reverts were different content and different editors, not even nearly baiting. And then the other editor still reverted it in... that wasn't considered edit war? This was clearly about Darkness Shines. --lTopGunl (talk)16:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
TopGun, 3RR isn't a right, it's simply the point at which you are absolutely guaranteed a block. Lower grade edit warring is also blockable. In contentious areas, the community - and admins - take a dim view of continuous edit warring by repeat offenders. I recommend that you restrict your revert rate as advised. Should you choose not to, it is very likely that you will find yourself repeatedly blocked - or indeed, find the community proposing a topic ban. Refusing to recognise the legality of the court - or whatever it is that you are trying to do - seriously cuts no ice where disruptive behaviours are concerned.Elen of the Roads (talk)17:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I do understand what editwarring is. But this is not 3RR we are talking about. This is a 1RR that was wrongly imposed. This block was not for repeated editwars. It was for that 1RR. Can you guys please address what the issues are instead of throwing everything on me? Bwilkins imposed an illegitimate sanction, and then blocked on it. That is the issue here. There was no other warning for a long term edit war or gaming to avoid 3RR, this sanction was simply imposed after I reported Darkness Shines breaking his restriction. Infact, he wasn't blocked for it and I was for his tit for tat report soon after. --lTopGunl (talk)17:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I have not viewed any link above; my view, generically is this: an admin who imposes 1RR is essentially saying "you have two choices: I can block you now for disruption, or I can AGF by giving you aword to the wise and hope you'll take the hint." Admins are explicitly given the task of protecting the project from disruptive editing; whether it is called 1RR or something else is beside the point. Many editors who are blocked disagree with either the block, its reason, or both; I suspect this same conversation would have been started if the block were for "disruption" rather than for "1RR". Frank | talk 17:41, 22 February 2012 (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.
Support as they appear to have their fingers in their ears, and even acknowledge that they have done wrong, let alone change such behaviour.GiantSnowman17:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Informing ANI that he has continued to edit war (which, lets face it, is what he's doing) and intends to carry on edit warring, warrants an explicit sanction. --Elen of the Roads (talk)17:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Legitimizing the ill imposed sanction from a single administrator simply encoraging to do that again... If an admin violates policy, he should be treated the same way as other editors. Instead of taking measures against Bwilkins actions, a formal sanction is being proposed. If it was done other wise, it would have been one thing... this is just being done to legitimize his behaviour. To be fair, he should be desysoped for his actions here. As for Darkness Shines, he admittedly hounds me anddraws me into edit wars, baits me into his disruptive discussions. I'm providing diffs below. --lTopGunl (talk)17:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Support.WP:3RR says: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act ifthey believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring" (my emphasis). I think that in getting sidetracked over the 'legality' or otherwise of formal restrictions TopGun has fixated on something that's causing them to miss the woods for the trees. Whether or not they recognise a restriction is irrelevant. Admins can and do apply the spirit as well as the letter of WP:EW, so in that sense admins don't need 1RR; it's intended more to assist editors moderate their own conduct by setting a clear boundary. In short, Bwilkins didn't need to quote 1RR in his block notice at all, it was a perfectly valid block without that anyway.EyeSerenetalk17:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Desysopping for using a slightly incorrect block rationale? Sorry, but no justification. Prove that BWilkins has been consistently wrong with their administrative judgments. It takes 2 people to edit war (A first mover and the respondent). If your edits get reverted you may have your one "Revert", after that you MUST go to the talk page to discsuss it or enlist uninvolved 3rd parties to help determine what the consensus is. If a user is deliberately hounding and baiting you, put the thread up toWP:WQA to see if a uninvolved 3rd party can help resolve the issue. If the baiting user has been noticed by multiple editors, consider filing aWP:RFC/U. In short, there's no reason to be the singular defender of the wiki. There's plenty of other voluneers that could be enlisted.Hasteur (talk)18:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, he actually has been repeatedly wrong in his judgements with reports as far I'm relevant. He first made bureaucratic decisions, rejecting AN3 reports and asking me to go to ANI while they could have been acted on for their over all, and later fully opposed them on ANI. He also previously blocked me without a proper justification... that block was later explained by other admins at ANI while Bwilkins still failed to explain. In this case as well, he simply imposed a sanction.. I asked him to link a policy stating that he could do it, he did not. This decision of a community restriction will simply endorse policy violation by admins. It was not a simple 'wrong' reason. --lTopGunl (talk)18:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hrm... Looking at this I'm seeing a very light application of the cluebat in an attempt to enlighten you that what you claim as a violation is not a violation. Any more diffs you'd like to put up for consideration. At this point 2 diffs where BWilkins is giving you friendly advice or declining attempts to reach for the sanction button doesn't ring in my mind as administrative misconduct.Hasteur (talk)19:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1) There's no policy indicating an admin can impose 1RR (block on editwar, yes... 1RR no.), 2) My reverts were not against DS and I was told that I was baiting DS (I've proven the case for opposite with diffs), 3) It clearly violatesWP:EXPLAINBLOCK. But forget it. Way to go with legitimizing policy violations by admins. Good precedent. --lTopGunl (talk)01:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Support: Not really a loophole and there are numerous tactical ways to impose the same outcome. After reviewing this editor's history, I've revoked rollback - repeat edit warriors have no need for rollback whether or not the privilege has been used in the edit wars.Toddst1(talk)19:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. The 1RR restriction was an alternative to being blocked; given that TopGun had been blocked four times in as many months for edit warring, most admins would have blocked him for a month (in keeping with the standard escalating blocks for edit warring). What's tough about this one is that TopGun has been editing Wikipedia for over five years without any obvious difficulties (i.e., blocks) until very recently -- which is probably the reason for the 1RR rather than a long block. Let's remove the 1RR restriction from the equation; even if the restriction hadn't been imposed, even if the restriction was invalid, he still was edit warring. --jpgordon::==( o )21:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Support as a very unfortunate necessity. You can lead an editor to the rules and policies. You can show them point blank that even a single revert can be considered edit-warring. You can highly suggest they consider themselves under 1RR to avoid future edit-warring blocks. The can even block them accordingly for the disruption caused. When all you see is wikilawyering to get out of it, simple failure to evenlisten orread, followed by all we see above and below...well, unfortunately, it's time to put it in writing. I'd hate to see 0RR imposed, and I still suggest thatsomeone may need to RFC/U here if things don't improve. I have never worked so fricking hard to get an editorunblocked - makesthis one seem easy (talk→BWilkins←track)21:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. We shouldn't have to do this, but when it's been imposed reasonably and properly in an informal manner and the subject objects to the informality, we need to make it official to close a seeming loophole.Nyttend (talk)01:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Support - I also recommend anyone take a look atUser:Magog the Ogre/Indo-Iran. Sadly, I never got to finish it. But, as stated there, I provide enough proof for my contention that TopGun is not the only one misbehaving here. My contention that DS has hounded TopGun is proven by Darkness Shines own admission, and my statement "look at my talk page history" is enough to prove the same for JCAla.Magog the Ogre (talk)05:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, DS has hounded TG about Pakistani culture articles. Isn't that why DS got the 1RR warning (plenty of fault to go around, though)? And, because of DS's hounding, it's impossible to discuss sourcing and other issues with TG--increasing the bad South Asian articles on wikipedia. Still, TG is trying to shoot himself in the foot here, and I hate to abuse someone of that opportunity when they're so focused.Pseudofusulina (talk)06:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Support - I didn't add to this discussion immediatly as I wanted to think hard about what actions we take against one side of this situation. However after considering this for a bit I agree that the need is of prime importance to discourage further disruption formthis user. Instead of a site ban, this and the separation seems reasonable.--Amadscientist (talk)06:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Support - I have my own experience with his edit warring and battleground mentality which has led to numerous disputes on Indo-Pak related topics. I also propose taking away Rollback Rights from him (if he still has them). I wonder why roll back rights were even given to him in the first place noting his block log. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ23:01, 23 February 2012 (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.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
[85] Magog has seen this one and recognized it has a hounding revert..[86] there was no way he got there by himself.
[87] Got here through my contributions list; the stub was only edited by a few users before. On a BRD revert (with a good explanation he couldn't object to - he then tagged the article for deletion - well known story ahead).
[88] I'm one of the starting users of this article, definitely accessed from my contributions and the dispute spilled over his BLP, now at DRN at length wasting time I could use to edit articles.
[89] Got in to make some edits here and there where I was having a dispute (and an old editwar) with a really rude IP editor who was reverting 3-4 users. then posted on the IP's talk to ask him if there was anything he needed to be edited so that he could do that on his behalf[90].
[91] Tagged a former FA for CSD just after I edited it and this turned out to be a bad tag (the article actually got deleted and then restored[92]). This one was ridiculous as the criteria he gave for CSD (12) was incorrect since even in case of violation all 3000 revisions of the article would not be copy vio.
[93] Very obvious: added a POV tag to the main country article on which I'm working with a few users to get it to FA and just had a peer review. The version was of right after the peer review. Then started inviting conflicts on the talk page - strongly rebutted by many users there.
[94] Came here to edit and started massive disputes (still on) after I reverted a confirmed sockmaster whose sock was blocked but was given a chance to discuss his dispute instead of a block. I really really tried to help him resolve here (all on talk page) but no use.
[96] An old editwar but I quit the dispute and left the sources on talk page since he didn't let me add a word to the two line section for which I had sourced info.
[97] Very obvious: andWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on talk even when two editor told him he was wrong. Continued to add verification failed tags to verified sources.
[98] An RFC !vote (rather vote); something like "whatever JCAla says".
[99] I simply restored an unexplained removal by a vandal who first blanked and then CSD'd the article as "hoax"... nevertheless DS comes to revert and to talk page to discuss my habits.
[100] Nominates for deletion just because he doesn't like the article's subject.[101] A clear keep with editors stating that his nomination was unwise.
[102] This article is deleted, but I think admins can see the history... he followed me here too editwared and then nominated for deletion instead of moving to the correct title. Although consensus was delete, content could have been adjusted in a move.
[103] another article he followed me to, and then entrappedme into editwar... later he violated his 1RR and was not blocked for it, instead I was blocked for his report on Bwilkins's sanction.
All these might not be bad edits, but some are there to justify that he is following me to other articles ever since. Other disruption and baiting:
[104][105][106] habitual Afd'ing of notable articles with notable subject.[107] This one was where he followed me to actually. He also CSD'edMuhammad Iqbal... which was a former FA, it was restored later with DS being strongly rebutted.
[108] Reverts in content while the RFC is still open and there are clear objections about putting the content in till closure. Then does the same again while the RFC closure is pending[109]. This is clear POV pushing.
He has also admitted following my contributions on false pretext, where I merely revert content blanking by IP editors, he blames me of adding unsourced content to the article:
I thought I was quite clear, yes I began to check his contributions after his edit warring unsourced content into articles. This is what I mean by I followed him, I was checking his contributions. Why is this an issue? An editor continually edit wars uncited content into articles, then he needs to be checked.Darkness Shines (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC) -[116].
He first denied checking my contributions claiming he used RC patrol to view them or reached there from elsewhere and later admitted with statements like above. He's been blocked a number of times for such behavior towards me. This as reported above was after his last unblock[117]. Another discussion where he's editwarring on explained POV tag and an administrator (Magog) explains to him that I was 100% correct atleast in this case, but DS as usual refuses to listen.[118]. He also has a long history of personal attacks for which he has received final warnings on ANI previously.[119] --lTopGunl (talk)18:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I started this report as a review for my block... this was done after the restriction proposal, as that seems to be aimed simply to legitimize an illegitimate action by an administrator without looking at the full picture. --lTopGunl (talk)18:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I suppose you'll oppose the proposal for me on the same basis? This is ironic. And no, this is not a retaliatory proposal. See the main section.. I started by claiming the same... these are simply diffs and a proposal. --lTopGunl (talk)18:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I hope it won't take too manyopposes for you to see the light. This isn't going to happen--and, by the way, a site ban? You know you're asking for the moon, right?Drmies (talk)19:08, 22 February 2012 (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.
Based on the diffs provided in the previous subtopic, I propose an interaction ban between these two users to avoid the hounding or policing. Any thoughts?— ()()
Condition: Both users,User:TopGun andUser:Darkness Shines are to avoid any interactions between each as stated inWP:IBAN. Failure to comply with these restriction may result in a block with escalating blocks for each additional violation following their last block.
Expiry Time:Indefinite but can be appealed after 6 months of no interactions between users in question.
That may be and TopGun may get provoked and start a dispute.— ()()
Support per my previous proposal and all the diffs I provided. All of DS's voluntary initiatives either involve lying or trolling. --lTopGunl (talk)23:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I think that we should AGF on this, given the statement that DS made on my talk page. The rope is short but if TopGun agrees to the same deal that DS has already agreed to then there is no need to escalate the matter. TG seemed not to be happy about it a few days ago, but things change. TopGun? -Sitush (talk)00:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Requesting interaction ban is not battleground... that word is getting too cliche now. The diffs provided above even point out DS sneaking in non consensus content with weasel edit summaries into an article. There's no more space for good faith here. He's been doing this since too long. This has to be formalized. --lTopGunl (talk)01:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Very strong support. There has been enough collateral damage from these two fighting. Everyone to their seperate corners please. It would have been nice if they could manage this themselves, but since they don't seem to be able to, separation seems the best solution.--Amadscientist (talk)01:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Support And then the two of them drag all of wikipedia into their mess. I accused DS of baiting TG.[121] DS told me to get away from his talk page, by telling me to stick it where the sun doesn't shine, thencame to my talk page to try to bait me when TG was not available.[122] Don't edit the same articles. Don't nominate each others' articles for AfD. In fact, both should probably stay away from AfD in addition to each other. I think the TG block could have been handled better, though. DS got the 1RR block, but TG was blocked for a week for violating it because of the strife the two of them cause together. The heavy-handed responses to TG, who was so upset, did nothing to convey this important message, that both editors were contributing to a great deal of incivility and the block was a reflection of the high level of incivility and drama created on wikipedia for everyone by both of their actions. Sometimes someone has to stop being indignant, and I personally think the best person to do so is the admin. Nonetheless, they refuse to try to communicate with each other in a civil manner, and too many community resources have been directed to this already. Edit and ignore each other, speaking to or about the other, or don't edit.Pseudofusulina (talk)01:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
As one who has had disputes with TG in the past on the applicability and scope of given references, I am following this with interest as I have consciously tried to avoid getting sucked into edit-wars with him. I'm curious to know how does an interaction ban work. Can they work on the same articles or not? If not and an article was the space of both user's edits before, how to decide whether they can edit etc etc?AshLin (talk)04:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like to try to work with TG. Yes, I think he has issues with sourcing; but not at the level DS hounded him about it (and vice versa, no clean slate here). I don't think they can work on the same articles. I don't know how to decide. TG has excellent cultural knowledge of South Asia, enough to edit many problematic Pakistani and Indian articles. I would hate to lose him as an editor--we are in desperate need of editors with his knowledge. Maybe they need to both drop off of articles either has edit. TG has tentatively agreed to follow me around and edit some Indian articles. It would be so much more useful to have both of them editing rather than interacting with each other and dragging the rest of us into the mess.Pseudofusulina (talk)06:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I think this is the need of the hour, in order to prevent further escalation of the damage that's already been done. I have observed that all of the content disputes between TopGun and Darkness Shines are based on Pakistan-related articles. An interaction ban is a good way to go, but I think perhaps atopic ban on Darkness Shines for all Pakistan-related articles may also be necessary. A topic ban on Darkness Shines means TopGun can be able to freely edit Pakistan articles (his area of expertise) without having Darkness Shines follow him everywhere.Mar4d (talk)04:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
So you think a person who researches and uses academic source for his edits ought to be topic banned but the one who uses letters to the editor and Op-Eds should carry on as normal? And I do not follow him every were. A quick look at the last 50 or so of his article contributions show that I have not edited all the articles he has.Darkness Shines (talk)08:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Adding up to 50 cherry picked sources to content and then terming it as you like is POV pushing. I'm getting used to your deviation of such discussion about neutrality to sources. Some one please do check out the last 50 articles I contributed too... DS is onto most of them, hence my previous comment. Clear misleading everywhere. --lTopGunl (talk)09:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
So, DS, in all this time hounding TG about his sources, demanding he use only on-line sources you have access to, AfDing articles on notable topics because of TG editing and sourcing them, have you managed to change the way TG sources his articles? No. So, you established you have no impact, then it was not time to make pointy AfD nominations, and contribute to an atmosphere of incivility around both of you on wikipedia, it was time to back off. I know that TG has problems with sourcing, but you overstate them to make your points. I also know TG's very knowledgeable on the topics he edits, he is willing to try to communicate with people who aren't so heavy handed, and I will be able to help him with better sourcing for articles on notable topics. But no one can work with TG with you around. And vice versa.
So, stop discussing TG's sources. You can't work with him on the issue, so now you're just trying to provoke him. You overstate your case to make your point, and he has no respect for you, none of the type of respect you need in order to learn from someone.Pseudofusulina (talk)20:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I also want to dispute Mar4d's comments above. I have been directly involved in this on TopGun's and Mar4d's side as far as content disputes and despite the sometimes battlefield behavior of Darkness Shines, my overall impression is that theydo use proper sources and theydo attempt to meet NPOV and theydo try to edit collaboratively. I have the same impression of TopGun. Both editors are good editors when kept apart and it is when they are together that the statistical probability of battlefield behavior approaches 1.--v/r -TP21:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Strong Support This is a good proposal and in fact with this imposed I see no need for 1RR restriction. However there is still some space left for this kind of editing ([123],[124],[125]), which resulted when Darkness Shines came to this page hounding TopGun, which is the root cause. If topic ban is also imposed on Darkness Shines as suggested above, it will certainly help the project. --SMSTalk21:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Support - I have worked with both editors extensively, and I believe that TopGun's accusations of wikihounding are 100% correct. I don't think either should go neear the other. And, for the record, I don't like the proposal of the expiry[126]; I think it should be indefinite until such a time when one of the editors has shown progress at not editing with a battleground mentality, and can prove it by asking the community or ArbCom for a revocation.Magog the Ogre (talk)00:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
It's only a proposal. You are welcome to change it to how you see fit as stated.— ()()
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.
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.
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.
User:پارسا آملی was recently temporarily blocked for sockpuppetry. The block is currently active. The user had a history of removing maintenance tags and deletion tags from articles he created. For example, one of the socksremoved the AfD template from Tower Tomb Sayyed Se Ton. Virtually all of the user's edits were related to landmarks inAmol.
It's pretty clear the IPs are the same user. I haven't taken this to SPI, because I'm not sure SPI can do anything when there is only a single edit to each IP address. However, givenWP:DUCK, it's pretty clear that the user is evading his block.Singularity42 (talk)19:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
But if they keep hopping, then blocking them won't do much good. I'll semi-protect the article for as long as the AfD runs. If other articles start suffering from the same, then maybe a range block would be appropriate?Drmies (talk)19:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking in relation to the user account itself. If he's block evading during the temporary block, wouldn't that result in increasing the block (perWP:EVADE)? (Although a range block also makes sense if the issue continues.)Singularity42 (talk)19:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I can get to پارسا آملی's account now, and see what's happening. I will block, indefinitely, for persistent socking via those IPs--that seems obvious, per Ducky. BTW, a nice SPI, rubber-stamped by Tnxman for instance, is always a good thing to have.Drmies (talk)19:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
They had a nice record already. I've blocked the most recent IP for 72 hours to help prevent further disruption elsewhere (including the probably obligatory FUCK YOU SINGULARITY), though that may not be as efficacious as I'd like it to be. Let's wait and see. In the meantime, consider filing an SPI to which new IPs (and socks) could be simply added. Thanks,Drmies (talk)19:19, 22 February 2012 (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.
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.
Looks like no one else has stepped in yet, so I've requested an SPI. We'll see where that takes us (I also reverted the one contribution of theirs that no one else had as of yet, if anyone disagrees they can revert me).Calabe199202:12, 23 February 2012 (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.
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.
IP user86.10.11.16 seems to be obsessed with ruining theWelsh Development Agency article. Continually adding unencylopedic, unsourced POV content, reverting whenever these inane edits are undone etc. Discussions on the talk page of the article and the IP user concerned have had no effect (other than being referenced in one of his/her edits about how his changes are being "censored").
The IP is an SPA concerned with an individual called Chris David, who seems to have tried to set up his own non-notable company called the Welsh Development Agency and received a legal threat from the Welsh government for his trouble. There are obvious potential COI issues.
I've tried to clean up the article as best I can, but the user is back here every day edit warring and engaging in what now looks like persistent vandalism. Any assistance or advice would be gratefully received.Fosse8 (talk)23:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I've just been having a look at the page history ofWelsh Development Agency. This is a relatively long-term problem, with the disputed content first beinginserted in May 2011 by86.25.144.89 (talk). It has been added and removed in various forms since then, and the first edit warring over the whole section started on the 21st February withthis removal by84.92.8.221 (talk) andthis revert by86.10.11.16 (talk). 86.10.11.16 hasn't broken thethree-revert rule, but they have continued to revert[130][131] after Iwarned them, and they haven't made any attempt to discuss the issues raised on the talk page by the other editors involved. I think a short-ish block is necessary to show 86.10.11.16 that we are serious about ouredit warring policy. —Mr. Stradivarius♫00:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Semi-protection doesn't appear to be the answer, but then blocking probably won't work either. Three out of the eight reversions have been performed by editors without accounts, and semi-protection would prevent those people from helping here. Unfortunately, the IP address is part of a dynamically-assigned range. The ISP concerned provides location information in its published name for that IP address. That name iscpc13-ely05-2-0-cust15.5-1.cable.virginmedia.com here, which indicates that this person is connected to aUBR located inEly, Cardiff. The same holds for the previous IP address. This makes it likely that this personis the person being named in the edits. Unfortunately, blocking every possible IP address that this person could use is not feasible. If an administrator were to block the single address, alternatively, it seems likely that the person would simply obtain a new one from the ISP's pool, given that xe has already changed address once. This person has, moreover,edited fromanother IP address —195.27.12.230 (talk·contribs) — which appears to be supplied by Siemens to theWelsh Assembly.Uncle G (talk)08:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the article for three months and blocked 86.10.11.16 for one week. If the anon editor is hopping IPs then protection is unfortunately the only sure way of preventing disruption to the article. It's regrettable that we have to put obstacles in the way of productive anon contributors, but{{Edit semi-protected}} is always available (and without disruption there should be no need for reversions anyway).EyeSerenetalk11:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with this, everyone - I think this can be safely marked as resolved now. Fosse8, let us know if there are any more problems at the article. Best —Mr. Stradivarius♫15:06, 23 February 2012 (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.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
We have well discussed and there were no conclusion to remove the "Civil War" section permanently from theSri Lanka page which was unilaterally removed byUser:Blackknight12. I have re-added the section with the content inserted by an non-involved editor. But nowUser:Blackknight12 removes the discussion section on the talk page of Sri Lanka which is an extension of the Dispute Resolution and Rfc andUser:Astronomyinertia pushing POV on the talk page that the "Civil War" section doesn't meet the flow rather than coming out with how to keep an important section in the recent Sri Lanka's history.User:Blackknight12 also pushing POV denying fact that there was aJaffna kingdom in 13th Century quoting a Sri Lankan Government's Propaganda news media while there are enough books by foreign scholars on 13th century Jaffna Kingdom. He is also adding irrelevant information to Jaffna kingdom. All his edits are nothing to do with the expansion of a neutral encyclopedia but pushing POV that Sinhalese rule Sri Lanka historically and Tamil are nowhere.HudsonBreeze (talk)01:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a bit more to the story than that. You can get a lot of it from the edit comments on the talk page history, just look for the 100K+ add/delete actions.Ravensfire (talk)03:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
What a mess.Sri_lanka#Civil_War is a prime example of what Wikipedia shouldn't be. While it seems evident that contributors may not have English as their first language, and allowances need to be made accordingly, there is almost nothing in the section that belongs in an encyclopaedia. This isn't a description of a (rather horrific) civil war, it is instead a collection of random assertions about causes and effects, with no real indication as to whether anyone takes them seriously.AndyTheGrump (talk)06:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been handing out blocks and semiprotections like candy to tamp it down; if I did it anywhere else, I'd probably be accused of being way too heavy-handed, but there it's necessary. The very few editors who are out there trying to bludgeon those articles into encyclopedia-worthy states have my deepest respect.The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)07:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
HudsonBreeze is correct to say the issue has been well discussed previously, but he is trying to imply that I have argued for the complete removal of the section, with no alterations made to the other relevant sections. This is not true. For example, the origin, evolution, effects and aftermath of the civil war has been included in the "Sri Lanka under the British rule" and "Post independence Sri Lanka" sections. Concerns about human rights has been dealt under the "Human rights and media" section. Except for a personal commentary, there is nothing new in the section with respect to the rest of the article.Astronomyinertia (talk)11:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
That is your mistake or POV that you have systematically included what should be under the section "Civil War" under the sections of "Sri Lanka under the British rule" and "Post independence Sri Lanka". Following Countries have Sub Sections on "Civil War", "Genocide" or "War" under "History" Section.
Why Sri Lanka can't have a separate section on "Civil War"? The title matters a lot. Otherwise we are trying hide something in real world and on Wikipedia.HudsonBreeze (talk)12:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we need to start discussing the same material that we discussed4 months ago. As I've stated, the case of Sri Lanka is entirely different from the instances you've mentioned, and does not involve a regieme change nor a significant change in the political landscape. Most importantly, the war was largely confined to 2 out of the 9 provinces in the country. Your assertion "we are trying hide something in real world and on Wikipedia" failes to take into account the fact that all important details are already there in the article. Your sole isuue is the lack of a heading named "Civil War". Therefore don't go to the extreme of saying that we are trying to hide the war from the readers.Astronomyinertia (talk)16:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It only takes a few seconds to Google "Sri Lankan civil war", and find that a multitude of external reliable sources (e.g. the BBC) refer to the events in exactly those terms.AndyTheGrump (talk)16:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Would you like to clarify why Sri Lanka is "entirely" different from those other countries listed. Clearly your pushing POV and that section should remain (no under other sections). On the other handAndyTheGrump is right that the section needs a rewrite.Intoronto1125TalkContributions16:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Why it is a different case is a very long explanation that doesn't belong here (regardless, I still think a mention of it should be in the article); nonetheless, you're otherwise correct. I've been trying to keep myself as uninvolved as possible in this area so I can use my admin tools, but I might just try to do a bit of rewriting myself.The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)19:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The key issue here is, whether you can split theSri Lankan Civil War as a separate era in Sri Lankan history. It has roots in the period when Sri Lanka was under the British rule, and continued throughout the modern period of history. Thus it needs to be described with other events in the 20th century, in parallel. Seems like Intoronto has not bothered to read my first comment in the previousDRN thread where I elaborated the key differences between the wars mentioned above, and the civil war in Sri Lanka. Besides, I also pointed out why the history section should be divided into Pre-historic, Ancient, Medieval, Early modern and Modern eras, as it had been prior to the arbitrary addition of a Civil War section by HudsonBreeze. Moreover, I discussed, providing with examples, where country articles have avoided putting a civil war/insurgency into a separate section and the reasons behind that. Dispersing separate issues, like the root causes, evolution, start of an armed struggle, full scale war, post-war issues and human rights concerns to separate sections that are already in place, provides us with the greatest versatility in writing and expanding the article. Otherwise, if you create a separate section labelled "Civil War", it restricts us to the period between 1983-2009, since the article is written in a manner which each section deals with the incidents pertaining to that era. After the DRN discussion, an RfC was opened with the initiative ofAdamrce, and almost all the non-involved editors seemed to be of the opinion that a separate section is not necessary. After a 3 month respite, the issue is surfaced again with the addition done by Hudson. He isnow making blatant accusations that these editors have been "canvassed" by me, or by an other editor who was of the opinion that a separate section was not necessary. This is where we need more 3rd party input to clear the path forward.Astronomyinertia (talk)20:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The explanation of the war is needed in a separatearticle section, because it was a huge chunk of the island`s history, a genocide of the minority population occurred and the event received media attention throughout the western world. By limiting it to a history section would not do it justice at all. Astronomyinertia, what don`t you understand about the many countries which have the civil war sections included in their article?Intoronto1125TalkContributions23:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Separate article? There is already one (Sri Lankan Civil War). I have no doubt that it is a huge chunk of the "Modern" Sri Lankan history. That is why the war needs coverage in separate sections, on its distinct aspects. The key obstacle encountered, when you try to bring all these details into a separate section is that it is not possible to describe all the aspects of the war, within the time frame 1983 to 2009. Otherwise I don't mind whether there is a separate section on the civil war or not. It clearly makes no difference as all key details are included within the Modern Sri Lanka section, and there is room for expansion. If you introduce a separate section for that period, there should also be sections for periods 1948 to 1983 and post war (after 2009). That messes up everything, combined with the facts that war was largely confined to 2 out of the 9 provinces and there are other major incidents during the post independence era, that should never be missed. Genocide is a quite subjective claim, made mostly by the pro-LTTE diaspora groups, and has not gained any approval within Sri Lanka. This is in contrast to the human rights violations I should mention. Btw, I clearly understand that some country articles have included civil wars/insurgencies in separate sections, but even more articles have not included them for reasons I've discussed previously.Astronomyinertia (talk)06:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
A section summarizing the Sri Lankan civil war in theSri Lanka page is essential because it is a major part of Sri Lankan and South Asian history. Moreover, the Sri Lankan civil war section should be apart of this article because it affects all of the Sri Lankan communities in the country and it affected the country's economic growth and international relations etc. The civil war is the main reason why their is a major Sri Lankan Tamil and Sinhalese diaspora in countries such as Canada, U.S.A, and the United Kingdom. The Sri Lankan government has been also accused of genocide, and the assassination of journalists. A wikipedia user who knows nothing about the Sri Lankan Civil war would find a section on the civil war on theSri Lanka page essential because it would provide some information and knowledge before moving on to the actualSri Lankan Civil War page. The events prior to the war such asBlack July, and post war accusations of human rights abuses are all apart of Sri Lanka the nation as a whole because it involves two of the largest ethnic groups in the country.(Tamilan101 (talk)06:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC))
Such accusations of genocide is a subjective claim made by pro-LTTE and pro-elarm elements, a inclusion of subsection on the civil war would distort the current time line of events by taking certain events out of context and negate others. Mind you that during the civil war there was a second insurrection which claimed the lives of many. This insurrection was caused due to the civil war (presence of Indian troops in Sri Lanka) and yet politically separate therefore some may say that it should be in the civil war section while others may say it should be out side it. Therefore to maintain a summarized yet extensive coverage of Sri Lankan history the current structure is ideal. Adding a sub section on a complected and protracted series of events will result in its extensive growth beyond a summery and replication of information already in theSri Lankan Civil War page.Cossde (talk)13:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Clearly denying something the UN has claimed as having "credible evidence" shows that Cossde is pushing his/her POV on articles. By removing an alleged genocide an important aspect of the islands's history would not to the article justice. Up to 100,000 people died in the war, and reducing it to a single sub section in history does not show what truly happened. If a country is going to commit a an alleged genocide against its people it should have its own section. Moreover, the civil war is what the reader is most likely to associate Sri Lanka with after all, and thus to allow for smooth reading a separate section would make sense. Astronomyinertia, I meant section not article and I have fixed that accordingly.Intoronto1125TalkContributions17:37, 24 February 2012 (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.
Please, the user:Bracodbk, in the pageRepublic of Ragusa, was violation the rules of the 3RR, without any source, change the coats of arms of the republic, he start a edit war, please see[132],some administrator protect the page, thanks and good day. --201.236.166.87 (talk)14:33, 23 February 2012 (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.
Could someone please revert[133] -- thread was resolved/closed by Floequenbeam hours before post. The edit has already been reverted by Doc9871[134] ,[135]and myself[136] but it keeps being reinserted.Nobody Ent16:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:NLT makes it clear "A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat". However it should be analyzed whether the complaint is legitimate or not. --SupernovaExplosionTalk17:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
NLT makes an effort to distinguish whatis permissible from whatis not permissible in this area, saying that while legal threats are not permissible: "A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat".--Epeefleche (talk)00:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Administrator Article Name Change Reverting Over Consensus?
Resolved
Hello Wikipedia administrators. What should one do when an administrator reverts a name change over discussion consensus and reverts to their preferred version against consensus? That's exactly what is going on atFrijjō. Please do see the talk page and article history.:bloodofox: (talk)17:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
From what I see it was moved without a discussion, and an editor is entitled to revert a controversial page move. Since there doesn't seem to a discussion proposing the move, there can hardly be a consensus for it. I suggest you propose a page move and follow the correct protocols; if there is a consensus for a move then it will become obvious.Betty Logan (talk)17:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
What immediate Administrative action are you looking for? I believe you are incorrect that an administrator moved the article. Soundofmusicals is not an adminstrator.Hasteur (talk)17:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think the point is thatDbachmannreverted the move thatSoundofmusicals previouslymade. Dbachmann's reversion is whatBloodofox is complaining about. This article and its content has been slowly boiling for some months (years), particularly between these two users. That said, i agree that there is no immediate Admin action required. Cheers,LindsayHello17:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Now this is strange... When I looked at the logs for the page I didn't see Dbachmann's move listed in thepage log. Could someone please enlighten me as to where I errored in my assessment?Hasteur (talk)17:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know; i just looked in the history (i'm simple that way), plus i'd already had a look at the page a few minutes earlier as it's on my watchlist. But you're right, your log link doesn't show the second move. Cheers,LindsayHello17:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The history is the better way of viewing moves, if they have happened recently. The reason you don't see the move back is because it is in the log for the page it was moved from.here.Syrthiss (talk)18:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Since there's some confusion as to what's going on here; I'll summarize, which the talk page and history will back up. Essentially what's going on here is that Dbachmann, an administrator, wrote a very poor article (by any objective sense, Wikipedia-objective or otherwise) about a subject he wasn't very familiar with. Myself and some other editors came around and notified him that the article was terrible, and talked it out that the article needed to be moved toFrigg and Freyja origin hypothesis based on the scholarship on the matter. Dab, however, would have none of that, and simply reverted it back to its current title. Again, myself and some other editors came around again and discussed that the Dab's version still consisted of nonsense. A few editors got together and cleaned it up to something remotely acceptable as something to work off of. Dab came around and moved it back to its current title again despite consensus. Note that non-admins cannot do this sort of moving around; this is an abuse of admin tools, folks.
I don't see any need of administrator action here, and no admin tool abuse, but I do see a dispute between editors (one of which happens to be an administrator, but that shouldn't matter in these cases). You might be looking fordispute resolution, ANI is the wrong venue. I propose to leave it at that for ANI.Martijn Hoekstra (talk)20:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I cannot revert a move because I am not an administrator. Dab can revert a move—and here twice has—to his preferred version against consensus because he is an administrator. This is not an abuse of an admin tool?:bloodofox: (talk)20:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The talk page has made it clear that Dab has been the lone voice against the consensus of all other users involved. Consensus should be pretty clear by now, but I guess I could establish itagain. However, you're saying that this is a perfectly acceptable use of admin tools?:bloodofox: (talk)22:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I believe you can revert the move - if the target of a move is 1) a redirect to the page you're on, and 2) has only one edit (to create the redirect), then you can move the page back over that redirect. --Golbez (talk)22:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't seem to be able to move it back, nor could Dab have moved it back the second time without admin tools. Note also that Dab's edit summary reads "umoved Frigg and Freyja origin hypothesis to Frijjō over redirect: undiscussed move" ([138]), which is obviously not the case from the talk page. Is this an acceptable use of admin tools?:bloodofox: (talk)22:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Dab hasnot used admin tools when he renamed the article, witness the "over redirect" inthis edit summary. If you cannot move the article to one of the current redirects, it's because the redirect has been edited since creation.Favonian (talk)22:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Did you take into account that this is the second time he has done this,this instance being the first? As I understand, without copying and pasting, admin tools are required to move an article over a redirect when a move has already once occurred. Exactly what moving advantages does an administrator have? Some clarity over this murky process would be helpful before I move forward with this issue. Further, if an administrator uses administrator-specific tools against strong consensus, is this not considered an issue for this board, or is that considered a content dispute?:bloodofox: (talk)22:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm pretty sure that's not the case; admin tools are only needed if a redirect has been edited since creation; i.e. if its edit history has any content beyond a single creation edit. The only "advantage" an admin has over regular users when it comes to page moving is that they can delete (perWP:G6) redirects with an edit history to make room for a page move. -The BushrangerOne ping only22:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
For over a year now, a user's been persistently vandalizing multiple pages, primarily involving the addition of voice credits related to nonexistent games and television series such as "Angel Combat", "The Furry Warriors", and "Charizard the Dragon". The problem is that he very frequently changes IPs, making it very difficult to keep him blocked or banned for any extended period of time. The most recent IP he's used is90.201.40.135, but you can see a list of many of his previous IPs and the pages he most frequently targets in the archives of the relatedSPI case. Is there any way to enact a more permanent solution? --Cyberlink420 (talk)20:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
He's still going at it, and there's still not a response on the filter page. At the very least, can someone block him to keep him from editing until this gets sorted out? --Cyberlink420 (talk)06:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Help please (Result: Both blocked)
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.
Somebody PLEASE help. IPs are VANDALISING the Qana airstrike article. The same IP VANDALISED the 1996 shelling of Qana article too. Somebody please help.— Precedingunsigned comment added byNassiriya (talk •contribs)22:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Both this use and the IP have made multiple reverts to theQana airstrike article. I was going to add 3RR warnings to both, but noticed that this article is under 1RR restrictions so was not sure of the appropriate template.JanetteDoe (talk)22:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The article's under 1RR restrictions? I can't locate anything saying that. While both editors clearly need to be warned about edit warring, I don't think they can be blocked for violating 1RR if there's nothing clearly indicating the article is under such a restriction...Singularity42 (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Never mind. Obviously the article falls under ArbCom's sanctions and 1RR restrictions for I-P articles. The OPwas warned in January. The IP has not been warned yet.Singularity42 (talk)23:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Okay, I've reviewed this in more detail (as well as warning the IP about 1RR). However, it looks like there are problems with both editors:
Nassiriya, who has previously been blocked for violating 1RR in relation to I-P articles, has clearly violated 1RR again:[139],[140],[141]. Calling it "vandalism", when it is not clearly vandalism, does not get this editor out of 1RR violation territory - especially given the previous block.
The IP, after beingwarned about 3RR, made two reverts (afterone previous revert that led to the 3RR warning):[142],[143]. Although, not a violation of 3RR, the IP is clearly not willing to listen to advice to discuss the issue rather than edit war.
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.
Mass rollback request - EdwardsBot and Ichthus: January 2012
Bot unblocked, discussion about the scope of the mailing list to ensue before delivery of these newsletters is resumed.28bytes (talk)05:32, 24 February 2012 (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.
The bot wasn't malfunctioning; it was performing an approved task and that particular run was started byLionelt (talk·contribs). Might want to talk to him. And if you wanted all the deliveries rolled back, there seem to be about 75 (guesstimation) that haven't been rolled back (delivered after the bot was unblocked?).The whole run is here. Also, obviously deliveries that created a user talk page weren't rolled back; there's nothing to roll back to and they don't meet any speedy deletion criteria. —madman01:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Right, the bot was delivering the newsletter to all members of WikiProject Christianity and its subprojects/workgroups, as the newsletter clearly indicates. Please undo the mass rollback as well. Thank you,AnupamTalk02:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
It's pretty simple, really: A bot was delivering a lot of mail, with no obvious rational for doing so. For bots we block if they actat all unusual. If MZMcBride cannot either A) Vet bot-runners better, or B) Deal with criticism better, they should not be performing this function. Aaron Brenneman (talk)03:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
No, that's incorrect. The newsletter was sent to members of WikiProject Christianity and its subprojects/workgroups, which includes the Bible project you signed up for. If you were following the discussions on the newsletter, the new newsletter encompasses all of these. Individuals who wish not to receive the newsletter (which will probably number less than ten) can add their name to the talkpage if they wish to be unsubscribed. User:MZMcBride was correct in saying that this is the simplest approach. Anyways, after the bot was blocked some letters of the alphabet were skipped. User:Aaron Brenneman, since you blocked the bot in the first place, could you ensure that the rest of the newsletters are delivered? Thanks,AnupamTalk04:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Lets not make it sound like the option not to recieve the newsletter existed before the mass delivery which assumes everyone within the subprojects wished to be included in such all encompassing delivery to begin with. I have never recieved a news letter from Project Catholicism so was surprised to see what I thought was something from them. It took me a while to figure out who I was supposed to request the unsubscribe from and I am not at all sure this was done within project guidelines or with the approval of the other projects. It's not a huge matter that upsets me, but it did put me in a position of researching who sent it, why it was sent and why it was delivered to me. Seems to be too broad a list in my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk)04:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Frankly...if this was just the project I am a member of it wouldn't at all bother me. I would love to hear more from that project to know what's up. But not from other projects just because of my memberships there. That just doesn't seem right to me.--Amadscientist (talk)04:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting User:Amadscientist. I understand that it was difficult for you to find the location in which to unsubscribe. Before we send the newsletters to the missing letters of the alphabet, I'll post a note on the talk page for the Outreach department at WikiProject Christianity to add a note at the bottom of the newsletter indicating where to post one's name if one desires to opt out. I hope you have a nice night! With regards,AnupamTalk04:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome! I've left a notehere, which will appear in the newsletter, allowing those who wish to unsubscribe by adding their namehere. Thanks for helping to improve the project! With regards,AnupamTalk04:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Trying to make the timeline a little bit neater
Ichthus: January 2012 arrived on my page.
It says on it "For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom"
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Outreach has a nice subscription list that I'm not on. I check another random name from the bot's recent contributions, that person also not on the list.
Proposed and approved within ten minutes, I note. I don't know how things work normally w.r.t. bot approvals, but that seems quick.
Also, this has clearly gone beyond the initial approval: "Estimated number of pages affected: About thirty on any given run."
The bot has (at this time) already mailed a lot of people, and is only part-way through the alphabet. I block it.I'm sticking by this as a good block: The onus is on the Bot-operators to provide clear, concise information. If I can't tell quickly if it's doing the right thing, than it's not doing the right thing.
This then requires that I go and look at several people's contributions (and go look at the pages themselves) to find out where the inclusion criterion came from.
About this time I start getting lemon-face on my talk page from the bot operator.
I don't think you got lemon-face from any bot operator. I think someone pointed out that shooting the mailman really isn't an appropriate response to getting mail that you didn't want. And given that you signed up for the project and that this was the first delivery of this kind, I don't think it's all too radical to suggest that you overreacted here.
The bot has an opt-out list (Wikipedia:Bots/Opt-out/EdwardsBot). You're also free to remove yourself from any WikiProjects or indicate to them that you don't wish to receive their newsletters. (They're good Christian folk; they'll respect your delivery wishes.) What you're not free to do is make a bad block and then attempt to justify it with a laundry list of excuses (oh my goodness, you had to look through multiple users' contributions! I hope you're not sore from the clicking).
Anyway, don't make idle, petty threats about what you are and aren't going to do regarding the delivery bot. Please grow the hell up. --MZMcBride (talk)04:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Aaron Brenneman, I think the misunderstanding lies in the fact that you are not aware of the fact that the new newsletter goes toWikiProject Christianity and its subprojects/workgroups (you are a member of the Bible project). If you look at the discussion between User:Amadscientist and I above, we came to an agreement on how individuals who do not wish to receive the newsletter can easily unsubscribe. Now, I would appreciate if you will kindly activate the bot to deliver the newsletters to the segment of the alphabet it missed after you blocked it. I hope this helps. With regards,AnupamTalk04:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
You don't even appear to be reading what I'm writing?User:Lionelt/test is not an acceptble way for you to decide who gets this newsletter. I've re-blocked the bot, by the way, having done over 300 in this run it's wildly exceeded it's remit. -Aaron Brenneman (talk)04:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Aaron, what on earth are you doing? You're really wheel-warring to re-block a bot that'sdoing exactly what it's designed to? WTF? You should be apologizing to MZMcBride, not blocking his bot because Wikiproject Christianity's mailing list is too broad. It's a message delivery bot; it delivers messages.28bytes (talk)04:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd encourage you to look again atWP:WHEEL. Did the unblocking admin talk to me? No. Has the unblocking admin adressed my concerns? No. Has the bot operator engaged in any real discussion? No. Is the bot doing something other than what it was approved for? Yes. ("Estimated number of pages affected: About thirty on any given run.") And bot operators have to take responsibility for the actions that the bot makes. No good MZMcBride shifting blame to Lionel. -Aaron Brenneman (talk)04:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
It'd be awfully silly for me to blame Lionel for your stupidity.
I was going ask (generally) what the hell you're doing, but it seems rather clear that you have no idea. But, sure, keep on digging that hole. --MZMcBride (talk)05:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Aaron Brenneman, both User:Amadscientist and I came up with a great compromise on how users can easily unsubscribe themselves from the newsletter. The newsletter targetsWikiProject Christianity and its subprojects/workgroups and you are clearly a member of the Bible project, which is why you received the newsletter in the first place. Now, please, unblock the bot and configure it to deliver the newsletters to the segment it missed after you blocked it. Thank you,AnupamTalk05:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I can easily understand how Aaron would have suspected the bot had run amuck. The membership rosters could use updating. We all need to understand it's been many years since this newsletter was sent out. Restarting it is going to be bumpy. But the Christianity projects are in deserate need of some kind of injection of interest. This newsletter can facilitate that. I'd like to invite interested parties tothe Ichthus Newsroom where we can figure out a way to make this work. –Lionel(talk)05:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Aaron, please unblock the bot. Anupam, Aaron is not a bot op, please ask someone comfortable with bots to help you set up a delivery for the remaining newsletters. I strongly recommend you wait until everyone, including Aaron, is on the same page on the wikiproject talk page about the size of the list, how to unsubscribe, etc., before doing that.28bytes (talk)05:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
User:28bytes, thanks for your comment! Sure, that sounds great! I understand that User:Lionelt is familiar with operating the bot so he can send the newsletter to the remaining members after we're all on the same page. I hope you have a nice evening! With regards,AnupamTalk05:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Since you asked nicely, and are a reasonable person whose opinion I listen to, it's already done. Can we agree that
This doesn't get re-run until the inclusion list is refined? This iscreating talk pages, for example: What thought was given to that, how likely are people w/o talk pages to contribute?
Bots can do a lot of damage in a short time. The documentation needs to be there so that random admins can make informed decisions.
The documentation wasn't up to scratch here.
Bot operators are held to a standard when dealing with "members of the public," re the recent ArbComDelta3.
Aaron do you not believe this was a good faith delivery of a simple news letter? Because I am certainly convinced that is all it is. Is it necessary to block a bot from deliverying messages just because you didn't want to recieve it. Is it possible...just possible you cannot see the forest through the trees. Please release the bot. It almost seems like like you are holding politcal prisoners. LOL! (that was a joke...smile).--Amadscientist (talk)05:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Jesus wept. I didn't block the bot because I don't like the newsletter. I blocked it becuase it was not delivering accorind to the subscription list linked from the newsletter, and thus the bot appeared to be malfunctioning. -Aaron Brenneman (talk)05:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
It's just a misunderstanding. Once Aaron unblocks the bot, they can have a nice leisurely conversation about the mailing list before the delivery is re-run and everything will be fine.28bytes (talk)05:26, 24 February 2012 (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.
Educational insight, please
Not necessarily a matter for intervention, but I need some help withSociological theory. Last week (I think) I found a half a dozen or more brand-new editors on this and other articles, and suspected an educational assignment. I left welcome messages all over and a note on one of the new editors' talk page, asking if it were such an assignment and who was running it, but to no avail. Now, I find a whole nother bunch of new editors on the article and others (such asSociology). I am signing off, but I am hoping that one of you will be either acquainted with the project that this hails from, or can maybe figure out if there is a teacher to be found. The articles probably need "educational assignment" templates, users need to be welcome, etc. Thanks,Drmies (talk)00:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
One of the new editors helpfully replied on the talkpage with: "It became a small project in an introductory sociology course in University of Toronto, Mississauga, to edit wikipedia pages related to sociological theory. If we make changes, we get uo to 5 bonus marks".
I left a comment for one of the editors before I saw this. I said, , "It is not really helpful adding yet another textbook to the long lists of cites for basic concepts in major articles. If it's a standard textbook, you could more appropriately add it to Additional Readings. Nor does it help to make minimal articles for topics already well covered in larger articles." I suggested instead adding references to minimal stubs, suggested one & explained how to find others.
Thanks DGG, Bob--do we have any idea who the instructor is? I looked at a bunch of edits and found them to be typical of educational stuff (which is one of the things that tips me off)--as DGG indicated, textbook citations, for instance.Drmies (talk)03:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Kitchen Knife
Resolved
This user has just come off a 31-hour block imposedhere for edit warring, compounded by an abusive email sent to me off-wiki (and reported at that time). He is continuing to crusade for his point of view, in edits atFlag Institute, over his perception that that organisation is biased against the recognition ofmetropolitan counties. I have no idea if that is the case or not, but he has provided no evidence in support. I have asked for his comments on the article talk page - unanswered - and templated him for edit warring, which he has now removed from his talk page (obviously, I don't deny his right to do that). Further action is clearly needed.Ghmyrtle (talk)12:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I have blocked Kitchen Knife for 72 hours for returning to the same behaviour which lead to his last block. Ghmyrtle, it takes two to edit war, you need not have reverted a second time - you should know better. I'm minded to block you too, but you did attempt to start conversation on the talk page and take the issue here, which I believe are reasonable actions. As I said to Kitchen Knife, worth keeping to 1RR.· (talk)13:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, but my understanding of edit warring was that it is repeatedly revertingwithout attempting to discuss the matter - which is precisely what I was trying to do (and I was well aware ofWP:3RR). However, I have clearly had difficulties with this editor over the past few days (never having encountered him before), and no doubt acted with some degree of frustration. It happens, unfortunately.Ghmyrtle (talk)15:13, 24 February 2012 (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.
Resolved
The action needis againGhmyrtle he is a bully. The additions are clearly justified, by the rules of the society, but he reverts them anyway. In the past he has been active in trying to use Wikipedia to entrench the views of theAssociation of British Counties, he is extremely manipulative. His use of warning templates, without justification if bullying. --Kitchen Knife (talk)12:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Having looked into this, Ghmyrtle's actions do not appear to be bullying - templates, whilst perhaps not the best option, were justified.· (talk)13:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Define "bullying" -none of Ghmyrtle's actions constitute the dictionary definition of "bullying" --13:40, 24 February 2012 (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 account is indefinitely blocked, not forever, just until discussions can occur. The problem is sneaky vandalism. The account has damaged multiple articles by altering the meaning of well-referenced sections. It appears that the account is pushing an anti-Semitic world view. This is not at all an acceptable use of Wikipedia. I suspect that the account may be a sock puppet of a banned user as well. This block is preventative: to stop further damage to articles until the matter is sorted out. Do not unblock until the discussions have concluded.JehochmanTalk12:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with that assessment. All the edits I reverted from this user seemed to be of a sneaky, POV-pushing attitude.,13:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Discussion of what? Sneaky vandalism is clear evidence ofwp:NOTHERE, so what on earth could they say that would lead to an unblock?Yoenit (talk)13:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a combination of wiki gnome edits mixed with POV vandalism. This is a common pattern for returning editors who want to mask their activities. The account started editing dis ambiguities pages in its first few edits and proficiently used the{{POV}} template. These are signs of somebody with media wiki experience.JehochmanTalk13:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
That's the problem. We have quite a few banned editors who fit the profile. One of the reasons I posted here is the hope that somebody might chime in with better information than I am able to provide.JehochmanTalk15:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
An IP has been using the talkpages atSlavery,Atlantic slave trade andSlavery in the United States as a soapbox for their views on the benign and voluntary nature of slavery ([144] and present revision). While their individual points aren't necessarily at issue, their insistence that the article should present slavery as a beneficial institution for the enslaved and should treat the subject as a voluntary migration beggars belief. Several people including myself have removed the soapboxing and have been rewarded with abuse[145]et seq. The IP started two inappropriate threads at DRV[146], and their dynamic IP requires more time and patience than I possess today. Warnings on soapboxing here[147] and here[148], notified here[149].Acroterion(talk)13:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not feeling very patient right now. Feel free to engage the editor if you wish. For more of the editor's views on Africans, see the next post[150]. I don't see much reasoning available here ("cannibalism by biting"??).Acroterion(talk)13:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, apparently I made some huge faux pas by moving the draft to a sandbox,User:Jayblackcar/sandbox, and attempting to close the discussion since I thought that the MfD argument didn't apply here. SeeWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jayblackcar. If I broke the wiki (gasp), someone can move the thing back to the user page, you know, the very page thatsomeone could have told them was not the best place for a draft. Floquenbeam, thank you for adding a real note to a page that had previously only been decorated with automated or semi-automated tags and templates.Drmies (talk)17:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Administrators, I hope I am addressing this in the right spot as I am not all too familiar with procedural issues on the en:wp. Please point me in the right direction if need be. I did considerWikipedia:Wikiquette assistance but thought this too severe for that.
I have been involved in long standing disputes withUser:Whaledad concerning Israeli-Palestinian related articles. this dispute occurs over different projects, in particular nl: simple: and en: discussions between Whaledad and myself often devolve into unpleasantries and can indeed be conducted harshly from both sides. I do not pretend to be a saint in this matter nor do I hold myself blameless. Recently, the issue has become more and more intolerable though with remarks made by Whaledad that, in my opinion, deserve a rebuke from an administrator or some other appropriate intervention.
The latest straw that broke the camel's back so to say was Whaledad's commentshere. In this edit whaledad specifically excludes me from "decent people", accuses me of being on a "witch-hunt" and "censorship". My actions are, apparently, "deplorable". Now, I don't mind a debate being conducted fiercely but these sort of comments, directly attacking your interlocutor's character and integrity, poison the debate to the point that the real issues no longer matter. It is a tried and true method of closing a debate, usually when you are (imho) on the "losing" side.
This behaviour of Whaledad's is nothing new and not only directed at me.Here, fellow editors who disagree with him are part of a "lobby" while inthis contribution he again uses accusations of "censor"ship and users acting "shamelessly".
Personal contact between us is counterproductive and I also do not wish to contact someone who regards his fellow editors in the manner that he does. Strong debating is one thing, attacking the other person's character and integrity crosses the line in my opinion. Some appropriate form of admin intervention would be appreciated.--Kalsermar (talk)17:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
That is, of course, a false representation of the facts. I myself initiated that action of the nl arbcom because of the many personal attacks against me. POV pushing was never mentioned, in fact, the arbcom over there noted in its ruling that overall the articles had benefited from editing by users with different viewpoints. The one and only reason for the ruling was personal attacks against me by two completely different users that are not that active here. The only encyclopaedic content-related restriction that exists is that on certain articles reverts have to be pre announced. A perfectly reasonable decision by the nl arbcom in light of the many reverts that occurred each and every day. It is, it has to be said, more liberal than the restrictions everyone is under on this particular project where there is a 1rr rule for all related articles regardless of editor. You knew all that of course but hey... who here actually knows Dutch well enough to check the facts? You are right though, also on the Dutch and even the simple projects, this user, Whaledad, has been engaging in a multitude of personal attacks, not just against me but against anyone who disagrees with him. Glad you didn't miss an opportunity to dilute the issue at hand here though. Well done to that! --Kalsermar (talk)20:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Kalsermar, I had decided to not respond to this unreasonable ANI, expecting that any Admin interested would follow the discussion threads and would easily find the truth, but when you state: "also on the Dutch and even the simple projects, this user, Whaledad, has been engaging in a multitude of personal attacks, not just against me but against anyone who disagrees with him", I have to respond, because - as you so eloquently voice above: "who here actually knows Dutch well enough to check the facts". If we examine blocklists in the Netherlands it is easy to seewho here has a long list of WP violations, andwho doesn't. 'Nough said.W\|/haledad (Talk to me)20:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you brought that up Whaledad. I invite you to translate the incidents for everyone to see, including the multitude of reversed blocks that were given in error and the blocks that resulted in Dutch admins accusing each other of improper conduct. O yeah, and of course the block for using the word "perverse" to describe the placing of disputed content for a second time in the same article by someone who called my edit reversing such nonsense "destructive". The validity of that last block is even now being debated by the Dutch Arbcom. One question though, dear Whaledad... how does any of that pertain to your conduct here against a multitude of users, not just me? Are you of the "two wrongs make a right" mindset? Does me having been blocked on nl:wp excuse your labelling users as "indecent" or "shameless"? --Kalsermar (talk)21:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Both of you, Knock it off. You had your say and any further sniping will only hurt your own case.Yoenit (talk)21:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I should note that whatever happened in the Dutch Wikipedia should have no bearing here as we do have different policies/guidelines on this project. —Dark05:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
User:7 suggested I bring this problem here for possible administrative intervention. The IP has been disruptively editing various articles. The two principal problems I've seen are removal of maintenance templates and additions of unsourced material (some factual and someopinion). The IP has been blocked before and received warnings since, but when taken toWP:AIV, 7 rejected a block as stale. That then triggered the discussion at 7's Talk page. The sock puppetry is better documented byUser:Shearonink.--Bbb23 (talk)01:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Help with rangeblock
We've got an antisemitic troll hitting religion articles and user talk pages through multiple IPs. I have it all documented on the sockmaster's original account's talk pageUser talk:Manson48. The user has threatened to "teach us a lesson" by continuing to use multiple accounts to disrupt Wikipedia. I've hardblocked the IPs since no one else has been using them. But I'm not familiar with how to request a CU for the collateral damage a rangeblock might cause. If you've got wack-a-mole experience, let me know what you think.Rklawton (talk)04:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I've blocked 50.51.0.0/17 for a few days as AO. If that doesn't improve the problem, feel free to being it to SPI, or e-mail me.Courcelles04:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
This user keeps editing the Star Cinema page and adding movies that are either not confirmed or fake. They use unrealiable sources and sometimes even steal the reference link of another upcoming movie. They have been warned several times but still keep doing so. I am requesting thatUser talk:37.104.134.202,User talk:112.205.77.2 andUser talk:120.28.125.171 to be banned from editing the Star Cinema page or any page at all.Ifightback (talk)06:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
You MUST notify any user who is the subject of a discussion; I have done so for you. I do see that you did leave a message immediately previous about their edits.Dru of Id (talk)06:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Serial copyright violator
On several Indian TV show articles, two of them beingKya Huaa Tera Vaada(edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs), andPyaar Kii Ye Ek Kahaani(edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs), there has been one person/several people hopping IPs, in the same range (180.234.0.0/16) adding copyright violations over and over. I'm not sure if blocking >65k IPs would exactly be a good idea, but it does seem to be a mobile broadband provider. There was also a sockpuppet editing the first one in the same time range, so it seems kind ofducky to me. The main reason I'm reporting this here is because I'm sure there are other pages by the same editor(s) who have added copyright violations, and I'd like some help reporting, cleaning, and taking action against the people who add them. I didn't notify the users in question, because frankly, a 1/65536 chance of getting the right IP is pretty slim, and seeing as how they hop IPs quite often, there's probably no use in even trying to warn the most recent person.Frood!OhaiWhat did I break now?07:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Dickmojo is topic banned by community consensus from editing articles and talk pages within the broad scope of alternative medicine, and specifically (but not limited to) the article onAcupuncture. This ban will last until the 1st of June 2012. Articles and talk pages in other topic areas, as well as WP pages such as AfD, ANI etc may be edited, but Dickmojo is exhorted to edit in a restrained and measured way even here, as there will undoubtedly be many eyes on xir edits.
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.
There is an ongoing dispute onTalk:Acupuncture regarding sourcing. Dickmojo has recently been delving into less than productive behavior, including personal attacks (1,2,3) and tendentious editing (seeIDHT behavior on talk page). I believe this is leading to the discussion being unnecessarily heated, and after repeated warnings (PA,EW,blanking,notforum,TE,CIVIL,PA), is unlikely to improve. I think a short block or topic ban is in order to prevent future disruption. See alsoDRN for more info, particularly the first post by Famousdog. Notifying involved users now. Thanks. —Jess·Δ♥06:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Rubbish Jess, you are trying to suppress dissent. I am simply trying to inject the appropriate perspective into the debate at that page, which is dominated by sceptics who want to make the article sound like its a carbon copy of one of those "Quackbuster" websites, and that POV would NOT be suitable for an encyclopedia on a topic of such monumental historical and cultural significance as acupuncture.Dickmojo (talk)06:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I have blocked Dickmojo for 36 hours for repeated personal attacks.[151] was so blatant that retracted or not I feel it was blockable, especially given the pattern shown with the other two diffsUser:Mann jess provided.Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)06:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I notice that Dickmojo has posted an unblock request on his talk page. As I'm headed to bed here in a few minutes I'll delegate to the community as to whether to grant the unblock request or not...I've got no problem with him being released from his block early if consensus is to unblock.Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)07:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I support to unblock him earlier. Seems to me he learned his lesson (about the personal attacks. Not sure if he entirely understood the concept of reliable sources). --Mallexikon (talk)08:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
His understanding of WP policy seems to have significantly improved of late. He has made good suggestions and is still being treated like a leper.
However, in spite of the recent DRN, he crossed the line again. Will the ban help him maintain a helpful disposition on the talk page? I do not know and 18 hours isn't an unreasonably long time.
I suspect mediation would work a lot better than a big stick and preferably mediation on equal terms.
Is this the right place for it? Promises are needed from both sides, not just because of the hostility but there are a few editors who show an equal CoI to Dickmojo and who are collectively more disruptive than him.Mindjuicer (talk)17:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
While Dickmojo claims he will refrain from further personal attacks, he obviously still intends to continue his advocacy. That's been a large part of the problem, not just the attacks. The advocacy, minus the attacks, would still be wrong. He's here to right great wrongs, and that's not our purpose here. I think the block should run its course, and a reblock be effected at the slightest hint of renewed advocacy, or continuation of beating the poor dead horse (that one poor source MUST be included). The horse needs rest, and the source doesn't need to be included. --Brangifer (talk)08:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The following is resposted from DR in response tothis comment by DM:
Above in Dickmojo's first statement he writes "Here I am, trying to vigoursly defend my passion and my profession, which is a part of me, which I have devoted 10 years intimate study to." DM, are you aware of ourconflict of interest guidelines thatstrongly discourage you from being involved with acupuncture articles? Your statement indicates to me that your goal at WP is not overall improvement of the pedia, but rather to push a POV that is dear to you. It also indicates that you cannot edit the article dispassionately. Wikipedia is not aplace to defend your profession nor a venue in which toWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I think that the crux of the issue here is that you see things from a POV that is not mainstream, and so to you the mainstream sounds extreme.NoformationTalk09:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The following is DM's response. I am going to sleep so I will comment upon it tomorrow, but I wanted to give uninvolved ediotrs a channge to weigh in.
I would be glad to, Noformation. A conflict of interest is defined as "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia". The aims of Wikipedia is to produce a "neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia". My position is that editors from the rational-skeptic wikiproject and their ilk are NOT neutral in this subject, and in fact are incapable of being neutral because they do not have any hands on empirical experience with acupuncture, no specialist dedicated learning in it, have not taken the time to grapple with the unique and complex conceptual paradigm that contextualizes it, and thus their knowledge of it is incomplete and immature, and they are ill-equiped to provide a full, rounded, mature and neutral synthesis of the information available on this topic.
Now, as for myself, I will tell it straight, I work 12~15 hours per week in acupuncture practice, earning $35 per hour. Acupuncture practice is not my main source of income, in fact my only purpose for practicing acupuncture is to deepen my understanding of the art and sharpen my skills in it. It requires 10,000 hours of purposeful practice to become a master of any discipline, and one day I aim to achieve mastery in this discipline.
I refute the suggestion that those people who are most qualified, have the most experience, have done the most study, and are most knowledgeable and passionate about this subject should be excluded from editing on the grounds of COI. In fact these are the ones whose input is most valuable, far more valuable than the input of ivory-tower rational skeptics who only bother to attempt to understand acupuncture through a theoretical, critical and dismissive point of view. In fact, considering the tone of most editors on the acupuncture talk page, which emulates the tone of those "Quackwatch" websites that proliferate on the web these days, and considering their devoted following of Edzard Ernst and their elevation of his work as the number 1 source on the page (literally), and their transparent agenda of "de-bunking" the "pseudo-science" they consider acupuncture to be, it rather seems to an objective observer that is those editors who are "advancing outside interests" rather than being neutral, and thus they in breach of COI, as opposed to I.Dickmojo (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I tried to read about the problems with the article and the editors at DR, and I found it to be less than illuminating. However, my sense there and here is that Dick should not be editing the article. Simplistically, there are two kinds of expert editors at Wikipedia, those whose expertise and understanding of Wikipedia policies improve articles, and those whose expertise and lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies disrupt articles. Dick appears to be one of the latter. All that said, I realize the block is not for his edits per se but for his personal attacks, so my judgment as to hisWP:COMPETENCE may not be relevant to whether he should be unblocked. But even if he can restrain himself from personally attacking other editors (which, unfortunately, comes from his "passion"), I fear his edits will continue to be problematic. One last thing. So-called experts in a particular field often disagree, thus, whatever Dick's knowledge of acupuncture gained from his practice and studies, he doesn't necessarily speak for all acupuncturists.--Bbb23 (talk)15:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a comment about a broader issue here. I think it is absolutely the wrong thing to discourage editors with extensive real life experience of the subject from editing based on COI. They should be considered an asset due to their (presumed) access and approach to finding good sources. Conversely, such editors should also avoid voicing their expertise in the course of disputes about content. A good middle ground is to outline the extent of their knowledge-base on their talk page, but letother editors point to their knowledge of a subject, when appropriate, as something to consider, rather than bringing it up themselves. Doing so only adds heat to discussions, and gives the (granted, sometimes unintentional) impression that they somehow have more of a right to decide content that other editors. In a nutshell,use your expertise, but don'tflaunt it. (Is [[SHOWDONTTELL]] an essay? It should be.)Quinn░RAIN19:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been absent from WP for over 24 hours and I'm disappointed to see that Dickmojo has managed to call me a racist and a xenophobeagain in the meantime (at this point, I'd just like to clarify that the comment I made - "put up or shut up" - that so enraged Dickmojo was an attempt to explain thescientific method and wikipedia policy, not tell Dickmojo to shut up). I have been appalled and hurt by Dick's incessant attacks, accusations andabsolute intransigence (to date the worst I have ever seen on WP - and I was involved in theSeeyou debacle back in 2009). I have to say that I'm happy that a block has finally been instated and I see no reason to cancel the block earlier than the (IMHO) rather lenient 36 hours. In other news, I too disagree with Noformation's focus on conflict-of-interest (sorry) and would much rather that practicing acupuncturists contributed a bit more to this article (gosh, I'm such a "zealot" and I'm so "closed-minded") however, Dickmojo simply has not done so in a constructive, collaborative and civil fashion. He has turned the talk page into a warzone because his edits have been reverted on entirely reasonable grounds (WP:OR,WP:SYN,WP:RS,WP:MEDRS,WP:V, and many others...)
I would also like to express my concern about Mindjuicer's support of Dickmojo throughout this process since I have found him (Mindjuicer) to be guilty of many of the same breaches of policy and the same sort of intransigence and citation-free editing that has got Dickmojo blocked... and now it seems he's addingpersonal attacks to his repertoire over on theEmotional Freedom Techniques article. Much of his language ("zealots", etc) is very similar to Dickmojo's, he frequently makesad hominen accusations without backing them up with evidence or diffs (see his comments on COI and disruptive editing by "a few editors"above. Really? Which editors? When? How?) and I have been harbouring a suspicion that I'm just going to flatly state now that they are a sharing the samesock-drawer orshelf in the fridge. Can we have a Checkuser please?Famousdog (talk)23:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, investigate away. You'll noticeFamousdog did not justify any of his accusations except my response to being trolled by him on the EFT talkpage. His example on this topic of an ad hominem is laughable, as is his interpretation of my comment as "support of Dickmojo". --Mindjuicer (talk)00:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I second the concerns about Mindjuicer. I see very little difference between the two, both as to POV, blatant advocacy, and personal attacks. The main difference at the moment is that Mindjuicer isn't blocked and is carrying on the battleground mentality that they both had before Dickmojo's block, and is thus acting as an enabler and encourager of Dickmojo's behavior. Actually I'm not even sure who is copying whom, since Mindjuicer has been doing this for some time before I became aware of Dickmojo. We need aCU/SPI, a lengthening of Dickmojo's block, and a block for Mindjuicer. When they get off their blocks, we need topic bans based on Discretionary Sanctions. --Brangifer (talk)23:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess anyone who doesn't share your point of view looks the same huh? Again no justification of accusations. This is harassment now. Do your SPI -- they will continue to use this ad homimen against me if you don't.
I have no problems with acupuncturists editing the articleper se, the problem starts when an acupuncturist puts hisaims above those of the project. Clearly there is an argument to be made that someone who has studied acupuncture would be well equipped to edit the article, I just don't think that DM and MJ fit into that category because they are clearlyhere to push an agenda. MJ's edits in 2007 were broad but since 2008 almost all edits have been on either acupuncture orEmotional Freedom Techniques, which is related. DM exclusively edits acupuncture. Both editors engage in personal attacks; MJ yesterday posted a personal attack on FamousDoghere (not sure if this had been posted already) and should be blocked on that alone. Both editors carry aWP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and both suffer from some severeWP:IDHT syndrome. I concur with the need for a topic ban but I'm not sure if an SPI is necessary and I don't think it's going to turn up anything.NoformationTalk00:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree and have stricken the request for a CU/SPI. Otherwise their behavior is enough for compliance with the other requests. --Brangifer (talk)00:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Once again, no justification for accusations bar the exact same one I already explained. Pure harrassment. And you wonder why I stand up for Dickmojo.
There is one other editor who would like me banned fromacupuncture purely because I oppose their POV. Had I not posted this, I would have little doubt he'd turn up and call for a topic ban. --Mindjuicer (talk)00:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Dickmojo's comment is a rather absurd one indicative of the problem since it would require aradical reinterpretation of the conclusions of nearly every study on acupuncture. For instance, hiscomment of:
Acupuncture HAS been proven effective in every single study ever conducted. The criticism that fanatic skeptics extremists have of it is that, while the difference between acupuncture and no treatment is very very large in every case, the difference between acupuncture and so-called "sham" acupuncture is small, sometimes even clinically insignificant.
But this phenomenon makes total sense when we take into account the fact that this "sham" acupuncture is not analogous to placebo at all, but in fact is strikingly similar to a very authentic traditional style of Japanese acupuncture (shallow needle insertion/non-penetration, alternate acupoint and meridian location, etc) that has been in common use for centuries are is still widely practiced to this very day.
The fact is, acupuncture is effective, and its silly to even try to test it against a placebo in the first place, because its not a pill or a drug or a substance that lends itself to such methodology.
would suggest that the following conclusion:
“
A nested two-stage trial found that traditional Chinese acupuncture (TCA) was not superior to sham acupuncture, but that the providers' style affected both pain reduction and satisfaction with treatment, suggesting that the analgesic benefits of acupuncture may be partially mediated by the acupuncturists' behavior
”
would be used to claim acupuncture is an effective treatment for osteoarthritis. I think this is pretty clearly against ourpolicy on original research. The statement is so incredibly at odds to what is considered an acceptable use of references, that I would indeed question whether Dickmojo could effectively edit the acupuncture page in line with our core content policies.WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex19:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
When his ignorance is revealed, Dickmojomoves the goalposts and continues to accuse editors ofdiscrimination. I would like to request aindefinite ban on Dickmojo. He is POV-pushing on the article, trolling and foruming on the talk page, hurling unfounded accusations at other editors in EXTREME bad faith and generally showing complete and utter contempt for Wikipedia and his fellow editors.Famousdog (talk)14:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I have blocked Dickmojo for two weeks for continuing to argue that other users are either racist or deliberately using a racist term. When they are not. Not even a little bit. If someone talks some sense into him before the two weeks is up, please feel free to unblock, unless the community has decided to ban him in the meantime.Elen of the Roads (talk)16:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Topic ban discussion - Dickmojo
Support a topic ban for Dickmojo, similar to the one for Mindjuicer (see thread below for Mindjuicer's topic ban). Dickmojo is guilty of similar and much worse behavior. It would be totally unfair to only topic ban Mindjuicer. The topic ban can be effectuated immediately while the 2 week block is in place. --Brangifer (talk)03:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban. DM is still indicating on his talk page that he doesn't understand the reason for his block, and plans to continue his problematic behavior. He needs to edit constructively in non-contentious areas first, before he's able to contribute collaboratively to a tricky subject with which he shares a serious COI. —Jess·Δ♥04:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban There are neutral editors on the page who edit without disruption,User:Mallexikon for instance has done a lot of work over the past day or so. DM is here for advocacy and advocacy alone and doesn't seem to be able to fit into the collaborative WP culture. Severe persecution complex, inability to get the point, etc.NoformationTalk05:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
While I see little or no support for Dickmojo's editing style, and nobody opposing a topic ban, I don't see sufficient numberssupporting a topic ban for the will of the community to be clear. I'm going to leave this 24 hours and if there's little or no change, will close this discussion but leave a strong and final warning on Dickmojo's talk page. I'm leaving a similar post on the Mindjuicer discussion below.23:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban. Dick's edits, substantively and stylistically, are far more disruptive than constructive. He needs to learn how to contribute in a less aggressive, less holier-than-thou manner. If he wishes, after a ban is in place, he can demonstrate that he can contribute productively in other areas of Wikipedia rather than ones where his non-neutrality causes him to thumb his nose at Wikpedia policies and guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk)23:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban. At some point we have to limit the amount of damage any one user is doing, not only to articles, but to the attitude and energy of good editors trying to edit and improve the project.Yobol (talk)23:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban ScanningTalk:Acupuncture shows that Dickmojo does not understand the procedures that apply to articles or talk pages. For example, standard comments are described as showing a "closed-minded, arrogoant, hate-filled attitude" (diff). An expert on acupuncture might bring useful information to the article, but they need to be capable of understanding advice from experienced editors about the standard practices of Wikipedia (V, NPOV). Time spent in other topics would be useful to aid an understanding of those standard practices.Johnuniq (talk)10:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban:WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. "Assume good faith" does not, contrary to the curious belief of some, automatically include "... even when bad faith is conclusively and repeatedly demonstrated." Passionate advocacy in defense of a COI should always be a red flag on Wikipedia, and Dick is a poster child for why it needs to be. Ravenswing16:50, 26 February 2012 (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.
Personal attacks/Mindjuicer
Mindjuicer is topic banned by community consensus from editing articles and talk pages within the broad scope of alternative medicine, and specifically (but not limited to) the articles onAcupuncture,Neuro-linguistic programming andEmotional Freedom Technique. This ban will last until the 1st of June 2012. Articles and talk pages in other topic areas, as well as WP pages such as AfD, ANI etc may be edited, but Mindjuicer is exhorted to edit in a restrained and measured way even here, as there will undoubtedly be many eyes on xir edits.
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.
While it is clear that passions are inflamed, personal attacks are not acceptable. Starting with numerous edits discussing editors rather than edits, it soon progressed to outright personal attacks.[153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164]
A final NPA warning was not well received,[165] but it seemed to have helped some. Then back to discussing editors and personal attacks.[166][167][168][169][170] Don't add warnings, ze doesn't want them.[171][172]
Gee, though, it's nice that ze noted that Famousdog, as it turns out, isn't "one of the much less polite zealots"[173] and that many of the attacks aren't naming names.[174] Additionally, I guess it's nice to allow that rather than being paranoid, an editor might simply be "deliberately creating this noise to achieve his own ends".[175] -SummerPhD (talk)02:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh I forgot one. This is now the full list of people who want me banned fromacupuncture purely because I oppose their POV.
First list, first one is not a personal attack!?
Neither is the second one.
Third one is from two months ago and is frankly accurate.
Fourth, guess you could describe that as a very weak personal attack if you're desperate.
Fifth, sixth and seventh is my own talk page where I was being harrassed by the guy who started this section.
Eight is where I returned the compliment.
Ninth is meant to be what exactly?!?
Tenth and eleventh are again my own talk page.
Twelth was a case of mistaken identity which I apologised for.
Notice how all of these are from months ago when I was getting much worse thrown at me. How desperate are they to :get me removed?
From the second list, first one is my own talk page!?
Second one isn't a personal attack
Third one is the one I explained earlier.
Fourth one is not a personal attack but a genuine concern at another editor who I've formally warned.
Just a note here. Mindjuicer, you do nottotally "own" your talk page. Every single part of Wikipedia requires the promotion and preservation of a collaborative atmosphere."No personal attacks" applies to all of Wikipedia, including your talk page and your edit summaries (some of them are real doozies!). You have no right to treat other editors like shit, just because it's your talk page. Your battlefield attitude really shines clearest there, and reveals that your basicmodus operandi and motivation here is to defend your profession and acupuncture, and somewhere beyond the far distant horizon (we haven't seen much of it at all) to improve Wikipedia. Your attitude isn't the least bit constructive.
Your persecution complex also demonstrates an extreme degree of"I didn't hear that". You keep saying that others are "attacking" you because they don't like your POV. That's BS. Somehow everyone else is wrong and you are "neutral"?!! Any negative responses you get are only because of the way youwave, promote, distastefully defend, and advocate your POV. The responses are about your violations of myriad policies, guidelines, and behavioral codes we have here. If you edited and made comments using RS and in a collaborative and friendly manner, we wouldn't be here at all. The fact we are even here reveals there's something dreadfully wrong with your attitude. Get real. Yourmodus operandi is what's gotten you here, not your POV. (We've had other editors who were pro-quackery, pro-acupuncture, pro-chiropractic, who did quite well here, and were welcomed. They actually did their cause good and contributed much good content.) You simply aren't suited to this environment and it's about time your disruption was stopped. A topic ban is probably the only way that can be accomplished. --Brangifer (talk)06:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
And still no evidence to back up your accusations.
Yes you would love that topic ban wouldn't you. Not a block or a permanent ban, but a topic ban. No surprises there then.
But aren't you a hypocrite after the way you threatened me and another user if we didn't behave in some mostly unspecified way you demanded?[176] --Mindjuicer (talk)07:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
No evidence? That's not my reading of the lists of diffs up there. And I'd like to put my hand up in favour of a block or a permanent ban. You are dragging WP into the gutter and should not be allowed to continue to do so onany page.Famousdog (talk)21:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The first set of links spans 13 December 2011 to 3 February 2012. Yes, 13 December is (barely) months ago. Your personal attacks are part of roughly 2.5 months of editing.
Yes, the first one on the second list[177] is an edit to your user page. Immediately after removing two of my warnings to you (for unsourced additions and a personal attack) along with your replies (where I am a "smug, Republican anti-scientist", a "dumbass", "a smug Republican control freak" and "pathetic")[178] you decided to update your user page with a screed against "petty zealotry. Zealots who spend the most time driving away competing editors,threatening them on their user pages, instareverting edits, recruiting other zealots and studying the arcane WP guideline structure & misrepresenting it". Even withmy I.Q., I "got" it.
The second one[179] "isn't a personal attack". Interesting that you single out one example out of 23. Are you agreeing the other 22 are? :) Yeah, another attack at the "zealots" who "instareverted" your edit is mild compared to the others, but it's part of the pattern.
You explained the third one?[180] Really? You explained how our I.Q.s have something to do with the disputed content? I must admit, with my I.Q., I missed it.
"You take a lot of space and barely comprehensible language to state pretty much nothing. Oh and a strawman at the end." is "genuine concern"?!?!Please don't show your concern for me.
Yes, you "apologized" for saying the editor was "purposefully trying to derail the debate" by allowing that the editor was not "one of the much less polite zealots". You're too kind!
Again, "months ago"? Yeah, 4 of the personal attacks were from mid-December 2011 (just barely "months ago") 1 was from 31 January 2012. The remaining 18 are from this month. Don't believe me? (Why should you, I'm a petty zealot, dumbass and control freak.) Go ahead and check. -SummerPhD (talk)04:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
If you are claiming you did not make personal attacks, you'll need to explain to me how calling me a petty zealot, dumbass, control freak is not a personal attack.
How did I find this discussion? I'm watching your talk page, saw your latest attacks, came here to report the attacks and found this discussion. A real petty zealot, dumbass, control freak kinda move, right?
I'm suggesting a brief block (for starters) and/or a topic ban for Mindjuicer. If, however, Mindjuicerreally doesn't the edits as personal attacks, we're going to need something more. How about it, Mindjuicer: do you think calling me a "smug, Republican anti-scientist", a "dumbass", "a smug Republican control freak" and "pathetic" constitute personal attacks? -SummerPhD (talk)07:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Related to that last diff, as I say in a comment[181] I am not threatening to block MindJuicer, I'm not an admin. I'm pointing out that continuing to POV-push, drop insults and demand sweeping changes could result in a block (and also pointing out, again, that the lead already includes the indications for which acupuncture has been found effective).WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex02:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Ad hominem? Yeah, I guess discussing charges against you would be against you. Yeah, um, we're trying to dispute your claim that you didn't make personal attacks by, um, pointing out that you made personal attacks. -SummerPhD (talk)04:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Gosh, this is moving much too quickly for someone of my meagre IQ... It's nice to hear that MJ thinks I'm one of the more polite extremist-militant-users-of-logic. However, reading his other frankly outrageous comments (above, and linked above) I can't help but feel that he's digging an enormous hole for himself. For somebody who has edited on a virtually evidence-free basis for some time now, to go stomping around here asking for evidence of his own preposterous behaviour - and to then argue that the masses of evidence, once presented (thank you SummerPhD), is patently wrong and all counts as harassment really does beggar belief. Keep hoisting yourself by your own petard, MJ. I thought that I had been one of the main targets for your ire, but reading some of the ignorant, abusive tripe that you have launched in SummerPhD's direction makes me all the more determined that you should have no future on Wikipedia.Famousdog (talk)20:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The question is what to do about it. Topic ban? Block? What do we want done? I wouldsupport a topic ban from acupuncture, broadly construed, for 3 months to give him/her some time to reflect on their behavior, with a swift rebanning ifWP:TE continued after expiration.NoformationTalk22:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I would say a short block (say 24-48 hours) would be sensible if the bad behaviour continues. I've just given them a warning - and I'm not involved - so hopefully that will be taken seriously, otherwise I'll be requesting a block. --Eraserhead1 <talk>22:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Just FYI, I looked at your warning and it appears to be directed at Famousdog because of the placement. I didn't want to refactor it so I'm just letting you know.NoformationTalk22:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Why the heck is it taking so long toban Mindjuicer??? - he's surely demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that he's a disruptive and unconstructive influence on WP and isstill treatingTalk:Acupuncture and nowTalk:Neuro-linguistic programming like aWP:BATTLEGROUND going over the same dead horse arguments that we've had with him time and time again. Comeon. Can we please have a ruling???Famousdog (talk)10:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I'dsupport some kind of intervention, but I'm not sure what's best (and what exactly is being proposed here?). Have taken the EFT article off my watchlist because it became too toxic and stressful when mindjuicer arrived. Can't we all just get along?bobrayner (talk)22:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I'dsupport a long-term (3 months +) topic ban on acupuncture and associated articles, or indeed,all alternative medicine and psychotherapy articles. More accusations of "stalking" against myself and Brangifer and groundless accusations of "CoI" against me, the reasons for which are frankly opaque, have appeared in the last 24 hours. Anotheraccusation of stalking and CoI on my talk page - no evidence provided short of a link to this thread. COME ON! This editor is a persistent nuisance who has demonstrated a total lack of respect for Wikipedia or other editors. This issurely a no-brainer.Famousdog (talk)09:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
(As an involved admin/editor...) I think there's more than enough evidence of combativeness, disregard for site policy, and generally poor conduct to ban Mindjuicer from alternative-medicine-related articles, at a bare minimum. But let's recognize that Wikipedia's processes aren't particularly effective at dealing with abrasive single-purpose agenda accounts and assume that's not going to happen. I think the best way to go here is summarized inWP:SHUN.MastCellTalk18:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban applying to all alternatives to medicine articles. As an involved petty zealot, dumbass, control freak, I'd suggest that a topic ban allows for the chance (though it may be slim) that some of that "juice" might be put to productive use elsewhere. If Mindjuicer decides to simply leave or later requires a full-blown stoning, well, them's the breaks. Mindjuicer for hir part, apparently labors under the notion that ze has done nothing wrong. A topic ban allows for thechance of correctable confusion. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. -SummerPhD (talk)02:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban on alternative medicine, broadly construed. I've been having similar problems with MJ as the editors above, and have already taken toshunning most of hisWP:IDHT behavior; I assume I'm not alone. MJ recently responded by invokingWP:SILENCE andenacting his changes anyway. I think a topic ban is best here. —Jess·Δ♥02:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Well we have 5 supports for some kind of action and no opposes, can an admin please close this and impose what ever sanctions have gained consensus?NoformationTalk00:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Support a topic ban. I think the relevant points have been made quite well, and I concur. This seems to be the right direction to go, and it should stop the worst disruption. When MJ has gotten more experience editing other articles and learning the culture here, maybe the ban can be lifted in the future. --Brangifer (talk)03:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
While this isn't the right thread, Isupport a similar topic ban for Dickmojo because of similar, and much worse behavior. That topic ban can be effectuated immediately while the 2 week block is in place. It would be totally unfair to only topic ban Mindjuicer. --Brangifer (talk)03:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
While I see little or no support for Mindjuicer's editing style, and nobody opposing a topic ban, I don't see sufficient numberssupporting a topic ban for the will of the community to be clear. I'm going to leave this 24 hours and if there's little or no change, will close this discussion but leave a strong and final warning on Mindjuicer's talk page. I'm leaving a similar post on the Dickmojo discussion above.23:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I've definitely seen topic bans enforced with this much support in the past. The problem with situations like this is that theWP:TE and disregard for policy takes place over many months and so it's a lot to expect for editors at AN/I to go through thousands of words of discussion to make a decision. When 8 editors believe in good faith and report that there are serious POV andWP:DE concerns (9 if Mastcell is counted, but he didn't explicitly !vote) at a page and no one bothers opposing the topic ban it's probably a good indicator that intervention is necessary. There really is no set number of people needed to topic ban someone because, as you know, consensus is not a vote. The arguments presented against MJ and DM should be evaluated on their merits and these users topic banned if it's good for the encyclopedia; the number of "votes" should be a far secondary consideration.NoformationTalk23:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project. I understand that sometimes we say things we shouldn't out of frustration or tiredness or whatever, but repetitive behavior of that kind should not be tolerated.--Bbb23 (talk)23:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban. It is time that we make it clear that tendentious editing is not appropriate, and that we value the time, energy, and contributions of good editors, rather than trying to coddle tendentious ones, and in the process, suck up the time and resources from good editors that could be used to improve the project.Yobol (talk)23:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban on alternative medicine topics. Many of the above diffs do not show extreme atacks, but they do show an inappropriate battleground attitude that is confirmed by reviewing the history ofUser talk:Mindjuicer. The article talk pages show a non-collaborative attitude with pointed commentary that cannot help NPOV article development.Johnuniq (talk)10:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban (at least): I am desperately unimpressed with Mindjuicer's assertion that his repeated and gratuitous insults are somehow okay if they're on his talk page ... which of course they're not, what with edit summaries such as "I'm done with those cretins" or "Thought I would come and spam your talk page like you did mine - Not gonna waste my time saying anything of interest to you. Just cretinous irrelevent WP:political controlfreakery like you did." Paired with his open and repeated contempt for warnings about his behavior, it is plain that he is no asset to the encyclopedia, and it is my longstanding experience that editors like him very, very seldom have "OMG I've been so horribly mean to everyone!" epiphanies. Ravenswing17:05, 26 February 2012 (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.
NPOV and administrator abuse: Stanislaw Burzynski
It was unclear what admin action was being requested by the OP, although a reprimand of an admin was asked for. The request met with no support.23:37, 25 February 2012 (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.
For some reason there has been some bickering wrt theStanislaw Burzynski article. The article as it stands is not particularly NPOV and that is a significant problem given that it is a BLP. I recently tried to make one revision in the lead for neutrality, specifically changing
which is a very sweeping generalization and borders on a condemnation of the subject. I modified it to read
According to the National Institutes of Health, there is no convincing evidence fromrandomized controlled trials in thescientific literature that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer ...
which is a necessary qualification. For whatever reason a couple of users continue to revert this claiming that, because more than one authority has stated this, no qualification is necessary (mind you the source cited in the ref actually only mentions the NIH; no other RS citations have even been provided). Regardless, because the whole matter is controversial and because this is a BLP, it is essential that any such criticisms be attributed to specific sources in the text. Not providing a source, regardless of the refs, asserts that the statement is absolute fact accepted by all experts on the subject (seeWikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing and specifying biased statements). When criticizing a person it is almost never appropriate to make such an absolute statement, and certainly not when the criticisms themselves are a subject of controversy. For whatever reason administratorNuclearWarfare has chosen to abuse his/her privileges to lock down the page to prevent the addition of the qualification. I don't know if this is aclique thing or what the reason for that might be. Regardless the changes are necessary and NuclearWarfare should be reprimanded.
Mind you, this one sentence is not the only problem with the article. I was simply trying to make a trivial improvement to try to bring it at least slightly closer to NPOV. Frankly it needs a rewrite.
P.S. An additional observation: the change I made was quite harmless regardless of your particular position on the subject matter. The only logical reason to object to the qualification clause would be if one was intentionally trying to attack the subject.
Given the content of the rest of that paragraph, I don't think your claim of admin abuse stands up. The American Cancer Society has stated since 1983 that there is no evidence that antineoplastons have any beneficial effects in cancer.... A 2004 medical review described antioneoplaston treatment as a "disproven therapy". Oncologists have described Burzynski's research on antineoplastons as "flawed" and "scientific nonsense", and independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)23:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Did you try to talk to them about it? Also - I noticed you didn't notify NW of this post - I have done so. —Ched :23:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
How is this admin abuse, exactly? There's a whole stack of controversial editing coming from an IP hopping user, with lots of reverting going on. Seems likeexactly the sort of thing that needs semi-protection. NuclearWarfare is uninvolved: no admin abuse there. And there's a discussion thread on the talk page about the issue. But IP hopping user doesn't seem interested in discussing it on the talk page, nor discussing it with NW, but rather jumps to ANI with an accusation of admin abuse. I can't help but think there's a reason for that... —Tom Morris (talk)23:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
This is the latest block-evading sock of an indef-blocked registered account with an axe to grind against Fauci and NIH. Blocked 31 hours by Tcanens. They were previously harassing MastCell over HIV issues. See[183] on my talkpage.Acroterion(talk)13:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's clear that this discussion is going to be sidelined for various reasons. I'll simply state for the record:
Tom Morris asserts that NuclearWarfare was uninvolved and simply locked the page. First, this is untrue. NuclearWarfare did edit the text and did not stay neutral. Second, locking the page is only appropriate if there is an actual problem with abusive editing. Locking the page simply because of a disagreement is abuse of authority.
Acroterion attempted to associate this discussion with some arbitrary discussion MastCell was having with somebody else. I see no connection between the IP address Acroterion is referring to and any IP address I have submitted from. So this was very obvious slander (a straw-man of sorts) to side-step the discussion.
I looked back a little over the IP addresses that I have submitted from (shared IPs) and I don't see any indication of recent unscrupulous activity by any of the other users who have submitted from these IPs (certainly no indication of sockpuppetry). So NuclearWarfare's assertions would appear to be self-serving at best.
In a broader scope, I have noticed that some administrators are increasingly using "sockpuppetry" and numerous other fabricated excuses to impose opinions contrary to WP policy. I realize that sockpuppetry is a real problem that WP has but it's a slippery slope when you start to use a common problem as an excuse for defamation.
SarekOfVulcan's comments, in and of themselves, demonstrate a violation of NPOV. It is not for Wikipedia's editors (or adminstrators) to decide which viewpoint is correct. Quoting theNPOV policies:
Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves.
Particularly with BLP articles, the text must avoid making assertions on anything where there is even a slight controversy. Rather they should simply state clearly the opinions of the experts and be clear about which experts those are (and again, simply attaching a ref does not meet that criterion). When dealing with BLPs anything less is unethical.
I agree that I could have gone another step and tried to plead my case with NW before coming here. But with all due respect, given that NW was so quick to violate policy in more than one way I honestly had no reason to think that would accomplish anything. But if anyone wants to say I should have given him/her a chance to reverse his/her actions before registering a complaint, I'll acknowledge that this would have been kinder. I'll point out, though, that NW made no effort to start any sort of discussion on the matter.
In general, though, this whole thread demonstrates why WP increasingly has difficulty attracting the quality editors that it once did. What's obvious here is that there is more interest here in protecting the interests of friends than actually trying to continue improving Wikipedia. And that sadly will be the encyclopedia's undoing.
Or, perhaps, Wikipedia has difficulty attracting and retaining quality editors because they get tired of dealing with single-purpose accounts interested in using this site's visibility to promote their agenda, rather than in creating a serious, respectable reference work.MastCellTalk19:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess it's block-a-mole time. I think the block evasion clause applies, and it it doesn't because I misread the times, it's blatant POV pushing. Both are blockable.NW(Talk)14:16, 24 February 2012 (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.
Malicious code again
Needs a quick block. This edit[184] to ourWikileaks article cause a click anywhere on the page to open a page at 'milanova.com'.
I already have blocked the puppet, blacklisted the site, hidden the edits, and updated the abusefilters (which, by the way, stopped further attempts of this nature).Reaper Eternal (talk)21:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
We need a technical fix to stop attacks like this. The edit filter and blacklists are not enough, if new instances keep appearing. It should be impossible to make an external link in WP other than as visible text clearly marked as a link. I'll put some thought into how to do this.67.117.145.9 (talk)22:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
To allow for a setup that wiki-markup doesn't support. My userspace has quite a few div tags.— ()()
To respond to Frank — RevDel is needed here for the safety of editors going through page histories, since someone might not realise that this was different from simple spamming or vandalism and end up going to that page by accident. If we had a way to make it accessible to all but only via a clickthrough, I'd call that appropriate, but since RevDel is the only way of requiring a clickthrough, I think it's the least-bad option.Nyttend (talk)23:54, 23 February 2012 (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.
Last week, a veryWP:LAME edit war broke out atWP:V over whether the lead paragraph should or should not be tagged with an {{tl:under discussion}} tag. I protected the article for a few days. When the protection expired, an IP reverted the last edit to the tag[185].User:S Marshall then reverted the IP[186]. Since I could see the edit war starting up again (it has been going on for months), and I believe that edit warring on policy pages is very unhelpful, and edit warring over inline tags is extremely lame...and since S Marshall had been involved in the previous edit war, I have blocked him for 24hrs. He is of the opinion that this is not fair. If this is the majority view, I will consider myself admonished and any admin can unblock him. It is probably worth looking at[187] and[188] as well, as the same edit war has spilled onto my talkpage. --Elen of the Roads (talk)13:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Bad block. Obviously an error. It should be removed immediately. The user had a clean block log, and made only one revert. He was attempting to restore the status quo after a disruptive user logged out to edit as an IP. The block was applied late and without warning. It is just plain stinky in all ways.JehochmanTalk13:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Unblock- I agree with the Worm. In my opinion S Marshall's edit was not problematic and, even if it had been, blocking someone 24 hours afterward with no other dud edits in the meantime just comes across as punitive.ReykYO!13:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
There was a clear edit war going on, S Marshall should've really known better than to keep on reverting (especially on such a frivolous issue). That being said, I don't particularly think that a block was the best option; a warning would probably have sufficed. —Dark13:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Unblock - His last revert was over 24 hours before the block, and the one before was over 7 days before the block. Additionally, he was restoring the consensus version of the page.Reaper Eternal (talk)13:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Unblock per Reaper Eternal. I do not think this block is to "prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia" asWP:BLOCK clearly states. It is clearly punitive, per Reyk. I believe this block is a huge mistake, and should be undone asap. --13:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
This block has no support whatsoever, so I have undone it. being a short block, we do not have the liberty to discuss it for six or twelve hours while the user is subjected to an injustice.JehochmanTalk13:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
It's certainly true that some injustices are more unjust than others. This particular injustice wasn't a big deal, although I admit I was a bit upset about it at the time. But a small, mistaken injustice is still an injustice. There's no need to take Jehochman to task over his choice of words there.—S MarshallT/C00:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Things are either fair or they're not. The size of the stakes involved don't have anything to do with that.ReykYO!00:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes archive this away. There is one thing to note. User:Jehochman, who unblocked user:S Marshall, has made the comment above
thata disruptive user logged out to edit as an IP. That is ABF, checkuser resolved the ip address to Prague? So user:Jehochman's grasp of this matter is defective and based on a false and prejudicial premise.
Did they assume what they wanted to assume, and then find themself in aggreeance? User S Marshall has edit warred for months, so this is not the consensus version of the page (8-1 correction 2 against per edits to the project page) so userS Marshall is being aided here in disruptive activity.
User:Elen of the roads warned against edit warring and hadno option but to block userS Marshall. No reverts were made for a week? the page was protected! For complete clarity , *i* have made one (1) only edit to the section in question, and do not appreciate being classed as engaging in the edit war, when user S Marshall has reverted there countless times to protect the tag which is objected to by a consensus of users. And, thereis no on-going discussionas such. NewbyG ( talk)09:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
No, actually, please don't archive this yet. I should like to see Newbyguesses' evidence for his allegations first. Specifically, Newbyguesses, please link the consensus of users to remove the tag which you say exists. Any user visiting WT:V will, of course, be able to find the ongoing discussion.—S MarshallT/C10:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
This now appears to be a content dispute, over whether the tag should be included on the project page, in perpetuity. There are arguments that the tag has consensus and arguments that the tag has no consensus. Evidently talk page discussion has failed to resolve the issue. There is definitely consensus that no one should be edit warring over it. I would suggest one of you file a case atWP:DR/N naming all involved parties. And stop edit warring.Alanscottwalker (talk)15:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: There is a discussion now open atWP:DR/N hopefully to address the content issue but this may need the future good offices of admins, if it goes off the rails (there has already been a mention of moving part of it back here under the pointy editing policy.)Alanscottwalker (talk)10:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Evidence? For user:S Marshall, who never postsdiffs or evidence of any kind :[189]--If editors insist on repeatedly and disruptively removing the tag because they don't like it, or because they wish to pretend that VNT is a mainstream view, then my response will be torepeatedly remove VNT from the policy and encourage others to do so as well.—User:S Marshall 21:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC). Ample evidence of user:S Marshall's battlefield mentality and intention to continue a program of disruption atWP:V andWT:V. Unblocked? NewbyG ( talk)22:41, 26 February 2012 (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.
Without having looked at anything but that "insulting" message, I do have to say that the messageper se is not very insulting. Sorry.Drmies (talk)17:05, 24 February 2012 (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.
Heh, had I taken a good look at the actual history of the page I would have seen that. Whoever's operating those accounts needs to be straightened out regarding policy here.Calabe199223:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Aside from the fact they're making up a federal agency (There is no such agency as "United States Cyber Terrorism Office"), is it possible there're more sockpuppets under there? —Jeremyv^_^vBori!04:09, 25 February 2012 (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 suspect that this account may have been compromised. Can someone take a look? (See the most recent activity after inactivity for a few months.) Thanks.wctaiwan (talk)08:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Bahrani people was recently protected for a month, and continues to be subject to edit warring between registered accounts and anonymous IPs in the 89 range over unsourced content. I don't even want toknow how far back this one goes, but page protection alone appears insufficient to produce resolution. See also Bahranis infobox for more of same[190].99.136.255.180 (talk)17:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Requests for page protection would have been a useful place to raise this. I have semi-protected for another week and if edit-warring flares up then a week's full protection might help. It would be worth trying a discussion about options on the article talk page if folks working on the article wish to try a formalDispute resolution process. --Fæ (talk)18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Dispute resolution sounds like a good idea, but I came here because I'm dubious as to the warring parties' willingness, given the lengthy entrenchment and lack of discussion.99.136.255.180 (talk)18:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused about one thing - did you actually email him? I also note that he's put his emaila address and phone number on his talk page.Dougweller (talk)18:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Just looked atKayak roll - it seems to be just what an article shouldn't be, a page teaching people how do do various types of rolls, and stuff like " GOOGLE "shoulder dislocation" for details" and ". Persons with Uncles, Cousins or Dads who experience causeless shoulder-dislocation while sleeping ... probably should never experiment with Eskimo Roll activity." Oh, and "YOU ARE PERFORMING THE KAYAK ROLL...you are replicating where "a paddle" gets it's advantage". Not one single reference.Dougweller (talk)19:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I worry about people in this day and age who still think it's a good idea to put their telephone numbers, addresses, etc. on public websites.Night Ranger (talk)19:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I know he hasn't edited in a while, but he should still be notified of this discussion; I've done it for you.--Bbb23 (talk)19:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
If Legolas does not return, there's no need. If he does return, then if he does not immediately address these issues, then there will be no need to remove the permissions because the account will be blocked indefinitely. If he returns and does immediately begin to address these issues, then permission removal might not be needed; that's a bridge we can cross later. --Floquenbeam (talk)22:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Block user from creating Indian College Pages
The userUser:Soumitrahazra has been creating many unnecessary Indian College pages on the Wikipedia. As I use "Twinkle" a Indian College comes up every so often, so I typed in the User Name and there were about 75 of them that he created and we patrolled. It would be in the best intrest to delete all pages he has created, and block him indefinite from creating more.DreamFieldArts (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2012 EDT)
MostWP pages are "unnecessary", as there is norequirement for pretty much anything to be created. Are these pages inappropriate? Would they be deleted at AfD?WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't enough, and colleges (where at all verifiable) are generally considered to be notable, thus appropriate pages.Andy Dingley (talk)21:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
A quick look at recent activity shows the creation of stub articles for colleges affiliated with theUniversity of Calcutta (which are legion). They seem to have some degree of independent existence, but I suppose they could be proposed for merger into the parent institution. However blocking creation doesn't seem to me to be the way to go.Mangoe (talk)21:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
As colleges are notable by definition, I see little reason the articles could not be created. The major problem is that the editor creates them all with unsourced information and repeating the same grammar and citation errors over and over, in essence, causing much work to other editors. This is compounded by their complete refusal to discuss any issues. If you look at his their talk page you will see numerous attempts by myself to communicate, with no response. I think the editor has good intentions, but is a bit misguided about the need to communication and cooperate. If someone will leave them a polite note regarding the need to cooperate and communicate it may help. --Muhandes (talk)22:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately (in my view), it's way too easy to create messy articles on WP. As to your suggestion for a polite note (unlike the one you left after you became understandably frustrated), I'm not sure how much good it will do. I think he's too busy creating articles to respond. Won't he run out of colleges eventually?--Bbb23 (talk)22:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree it is too easy to create messy articles, but that's the price we pay for being an open encyclopedia. When saying "polite" I did not mean it should not be firm, and some editors look differently at notes coming from an administrator and ending with "or you may be blocked". I agree 99% it will help as much as the 20 polite notes (and two less polite ones) I left, but I don't think a block without warning is apropriate. If they continue to ignore attempts at communication, a 24hr block may help. --Muhandes (talk)22:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
He's also creating categories and templates, all to fit into his spreading structure of colleges. I'm not well-versed in when certain kinds of templates may be created (and retained). With respect to{{Vidyasagar University}}, would anyone care to comment on whether it should exist?--Bbb23 (talk)22:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Is the user just making common mistakes or is there a more serious problem? No one should ever be blocked because they haven't responded to a talkpage comment, that would be punitive. However there is the issue of copyright I see may need to be addressed and that may need a block ....and maybe longer than just 24 hrs.--Amadscientist (talk)22:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Soumitrahazra blocked until he begins to respond to the multiple talk page comments left by Muhandes in the last few weeks. Discussion of copyright problems is not optional, and they've consistently ignored all attempts to discuss this. --Floquenbeam (talk)22:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Even if it wasn't something as serious as copyright issues (there appear to be more problems too), you can't just ignore other people raising problems about your work.
Far be it from me to dispute how blocks are made, but I would certainly hope before such a block is ever made over JUST not responding to talk page comment that it be over something serious and not just spelling, grammer or other common mistakes being noted. As I said, that seems punitive and not just discouraging bad behavior...here however it is clearly warrented.--Amadscientist (talk)22:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
This is merely one small piece of a much larger, endemic problem in this area. We need to do everything we possibly can to try to keep it under control, and mass creation of pretty much useless articles isn't helping us. Though I admit I'd love an excuse to use the nuke button again, I think a few people do need to go over these articles and figure out what to do with them; I'm happy to assist with anything that requires admin tools. In the meantime, should Soumitrahazra get unblocked, I'd push for a ban on creating these kinds of articlesat least until people have finished going through the ones he's already created. When that's done, we can talk about whether it should be a temporary or permanent ban.The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)00:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
BoDu (talk·contribs) has constantly POV edit warred as a means to remove referenced material which he personally dislikes in defiance of three different users at various articles and templates:Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism,Chetniks, andDraža Mihailović. There are too many diffs to list his behavior so have I linked his contribs. When he was asked to provide sources backing his claims he either brushes it off or flat out lies and provides references that do not say what he claims. I request admin attention to this issue. --◅PRODUCER(TALK)12:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, my attempts at cleaning up this article and adding sources are being reverted byUser:Invisiblemaniac with claims that I'm engaging in "Persistent vandalism" in his edit summaries see exactly what he is doinghere reverting my cleanup and a lot of sources I added and filled out and restoring POV like "BEST Diabetes hospital" and dead sources like the Indian railways one. He has now broken the 3RR rule with4 reverts in just a couple of minutes most of which took place as I was working on the article and finding further sources and was initially unaware of his reverts. The offender decided to split unsourced information into many articles likeMedia in Gobichettipalayam (even though it is a small town with no media of its own), all unsourced and currently at AFD. Now he has persisted in creating further disruption by removing AFD notices in the articles, see[191],[192],[193],[194] Can somebody have a word to him that I'm not a vandal and that my advice to him is in good faith? I'm trying to clear up the mess but he keeps reverting me to the poorer version. I don't have time to waste on such articles and having people revert it back to the unsourced badly structured state it was in before.. An admin please step in here.♦Dr. Blofeld13:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I cleaned up the article and added like 11 sources and removed POV like "BEST diabetes hospital" and poorly structured sections and have been patiently waiting 40 minutes for somebody to revert back. Why is nobody doing anything aboutthis? ♦Dr. Blofeld14:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I waited nearly an hour for somebody to revert so I took the initiative. Why is there never an admin around when you need one?♦Dr. Blofeld14:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
No admin action required. Possible misunderstanding of figure of speech is the most likely explanation, rather than a personal attack.23:04, 26 February 2012 (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.
Dear all, I do not know how you deal with personal defamations. Today I wasediting an information about a case of manipulation on de:WP (seedocumentation). After some hoursUser:Estlandia made thefollowing contribution. I went to the discussion page of this User and wrote the following, but receivedthis reaction. This user wrote about me:‘DE-wiki watchdogs like the ardent political POV pusher KarlV’. Is this the normal communication on en:WP? Would someone be so kind to advise this user for a better behavior? Thanks and regards. --KarlV12:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Estlandia, your comment made is inappropriate and reads as a personal attack on the talk page of the German Wikipedia page. You're not welcoming German editors to your page which would personally offend me being German myself and considering opening up myself to translating pages. Can you provide diffs to support your accusations?— ()()
There's a bit of a challenge with that interpretation. That said, let me start by saying "keep your filthy battles on other Wikipedia projects off of this one. Period". Now, back to the topic: it's ironic that one party says they don't want to hear from editors from the German Wikipedia (not Germans as a whole), but then wants to link to situations from the German Wikipedia ... can't have it both ways! (talk→BWilkins←track)14:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Is some of that statement referring to me?— ()()
My comment was a response to the long diatribe against my person posted byUser:Toter Alter Mann - a statement in which he claimed[195] that
Most of his [i.e. mine] “translated” articles here are highly selective collections of claims thatmostly feature viewpoints of the German far right or even right-wing extremists
and that I promote “ultra right-wing and right-wing extremist POV”. This is blatantlie. I've written80 articles here (compared with 1 (!) article by this user) and none of them include anything remotely far-right! It's no surprise 'Toter Alter Mann' would come to attack me - I've added a number of times a section summarising the recent criticism onGerman Wikipedia[196]. This was removed numerous times not because there was anything wrong with it, but because main editors of German Wikipedia won't tolerate any criticism of the project at all. One of the articles concerned has been written by DoctorJean-Paul Picaper[197], and the other article by the newspaperdocuments in detail what they regard as political manipulations inGerman Wikipedia, advanced by anonymous users, including this 'Toter Alter Mann' andde:Benutzer:KarlV. The dominating hard-left majority (in the political topics) of contributors to the German Wikipedia cannot stand any criticism. In their Wiki, they will simply block you, here they will erase whatever critical is said of the situation in the project and call you a Nazi in turn(see above).Estlandia(dialogue)14:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
PS. Where did I say that I don't want to hear anything from Germans? There are many constructive German editors active here. Please don't misinterpret.Estlandia(dialogue)14:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hence, me interpreting your hostility against German editors. I would suggest that Estlandia, not respond to any remarks on public talk pages and respond patiently and in a non-bitey way on their own page instead of removing with summaries like "you're not welcome here".— ()()
Interesting here. Just yesterday there was an edit on the arbcom page by someone frome here (EN), saying, that we on DE are discussing in a way that wouldn't be possible on EN. And now, I read words like watchdogs, you are not welcome here ... Do you have some explanation for that , Estlandia? Regards-jkb- (talk)15:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
He didn't say that. KarlV named this section "watchdogs", as he likes to be called. Others name it conspiracy theorists.-- Talk 15:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The main problem is that KarlV has apparently a conflict of interest as he is one of the antagonists in the described passage about German Wikipedia. -- Talk 15:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a recent posting on the German Administrators notice board about the conflict you brought from de:WP to en:WP. If someone would try to discredit the en:WP on de:WP - be sure - you would read a similar posting here.--♥ KarlV15:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
No-one is discrediting the German wiki apart from you and some of your pals doing this with this kind of behaviour. Accepting critical views is a normal part of life, and we here have learned to live with criticism, cf relevant parts of the articleWikipedia. There are numerous critical newspaper articles referred to and everyone can live with that.Estlandia(dialogue)16:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
So - as I can read - I cannot expect an apologize from your side - which would be a first step to enter in a normal cooperative communication.--♥ KarlV16:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Really? Are you seven years old? You cannot "force" an apology, and thus issuing an ultimatum that you won't cooperate unless you get one is pretty rampantly ridiculous. Wise people take the higher road than that (talk→BWilkins←track)17:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I dont read it as a demand for an apology. I read it as "If you want to be mature about this, let's talk, if not then I don't want to waste my time." Personally, I think de:Wiki issues should stay on de:Wiki and KarlV is right to say he shouldnt be slandered here.--v/r -TP21:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I do not know this Estlandia guy, but as he refers to thePreussische Allgemeine Zeitung-Affair, I can testify that a group of right-wing-activists is trying to whitewash articles about their organisations or media, like thePreussische Allgemeine Zeitung. We have had many problems with these people, I would advise the local administrators to ban activists like Estlandia on sight due to their disturbing activities. --Liberaler Humanist (talk)23:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I knowLiberaler Humanist. He is famous on German wikipedia for his arbitrary proposels and he belongs to the inglorious Diddl-Club, a host for trolls. He and KarlV try to whitewash German wikipedia from everything which fits not into their left-wing to pretended humanistic point of view. Please stop this and let it stay in German wikipedia.--Humanistic liberal (talk)07:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Quod erat demonstrandum: “I would advise the local administrators to ban activists like Estlandia on sight due to their disturbing activities” Exactly, who disagrees with us shall be banned on sight, just the way the comrades are used to in the project controlled by them. Only that it's not gonna be that way here, Genossinnen und Genossen! Otherwise, agree with the comment byHumanistic liberal.Estlandia(dialogue)14:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The german Wikipedia is object to far-right-wing-extremists. A lot of users with left-liberal-modest point of views are banned for political reasons in the german Wikipedia. Some of the right-wing-Studentenverbindung-people made even career in the foundation likeFrankS. People, who openly disagree with some of this right opinion-leaders are mobbed and banned. Information within the german Wikipedia about right-wing-activities is deleted immediately,f.e. POV-Information about Nazi Herwig Nachtmann by KarlV.. Herwig Nachtmann is member of the german Nazi-Party, member of the Schlagende-Burschenschaften (students organisation), and is to be assumed to have a lot of wikipedia-accounts in the german Wikipedia. The CEO of the german chapter PavelR. is famous for his critics-zensorship-activities in right-wing articles about persons like the nazi-philosopher (der Führer schützt das Recht)de:Carl Schmitt1),2),3),4) (but only before his career in the german chapter). This people are in no way representing the scientific community, even they are claiming to be students or part of the "traditions" of german schlagende-students-verbindungen. To make a documentation about the far-right-and-antisemitic-activities in the german Wikipedia, I started my thomas7-Blog outside of the german wikipedia:http://thomas7.bloggles.info/.HabenDruck (talk)16:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC) aka Thomas7
It is not a conspiracy theory, FrankS. is member of a Schlagende-Studentenverbindung, and PavelR. could be seen in the article-history. I do and will document it on my blog.
This is the Administrators' noticeboard for the English language Wikipedia. I am a bit confused: what incident has occurred in the English Wikipedia?jmcw (talk)16:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a content dispute with some edit warring and personal attacks thrown in. Stop edit warring and personal attacks. They are not allowed and maybe cause for a ban. Take the content dispute toWP:Dispute Resolution, and act like mature encyclopedia builders, while there. You will need reliable sources.Alanscottwalker (talk)17:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
No one should be mobbed but there is little that an be done about a content dispute here. I'm unclear on who the parties are but I understand some want to add or change content on the German Wikipedia article, and others oppose that change. If that is the case, and you cannot settle it on your own. One of you should file atWP:DR/N. Identifying all involved parties. I understand there maybe language issues but they also maybe able to find a German speaker to assist them. They can also help you make sure conversations stay civil.Alanscottwalker (talk)23:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that we can move this issue forward here in the English Wikipedia. We certainly have sympathy with someone being mobbed but we cannot add to your arguments. I wish you well!jmcw (talk)21:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand why the discussion are going far away of the main incident in en:WP (see the first post in this thread). The incident was the personal attack fromUser:Estlandia naming me e.g. awatchdog.--♥ KarlV14:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
You are right; it could be construed as a personal attack, if the user actually meant to call you a "dog." On the other hand, it could be a poor attempt to describe your behavior, as an over-eager "watcher." Estlandia should more carefully choose his words, if the latter, and should stop it, now, if the former.Alanscottwalker (talk)15:22, 25 February 2012 (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.
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 I sawKabir article I found a part of the article is badly messed up, with unnecessary bold letters in a whole paragraph, no space after a sentence etc. I did not change any content of the article, only worked on formatting and following Guidelines mentioned about the edit in article's talk page. Later I found they not only deletededit from the article, he has deletedmy talk page entry too. I can understand about the article. The whole section was not very good written with some formatting errors, that's why I tried to fix it there. But,I strongly object the way my talk page entry has been deleted too. I am not mentioning the editor's name here, since I am mainly talking against the act, and not the person, but, once again,I strongly object the way my talk page entry has been deleted--Tito Dutta(Send me a message)04:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, the editor had a point in undoing your edits to the article, since the information you added was unverified and the tone far from neutral. I don't know if such editing was the reason for the article protection. But while I don't rightly see the merit of the talk page edit, I don't understand the reason for its removal either and will revert. Now, this is not a matter requiring administrative intervention: you could have reverted the talk page entry yourself.Drmies (talk)05:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
You're correct. Let me just say that on the wholethe edit in question by Sarabseth is mostly fine, but the edit summary is misleading. Titodutta, my apologies, there was nothing intrinsically wrong with your edit; I should have looked farther back in the history. We do have, then, a misleading edit summary by Sarabseth (it speaks of "edit", singular, when it reverts maybe two dozen of them) with an incorrect use of the word "disruptive". This is ironic, given that the editor earlier blasted someone else foran unclear edit summary.Drmies (talk)17:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Removing your talkpage post is a definite violation ofwp:TPO I will warn the editor of this. Don't think administrative action is required at this point.Yoenit (talk)12:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
First for the Talk page edit. I just didn't think it was necessary to post an entry on the Talk page just to say that an edit has been made to the article (and nothing more than that) since that's already recorded on the History page. But Titodutta could have just reverted my edit instead of bringing it to the ANI noticeboard.
Also, my apologies for the inaccurate edit summary. The background is that on Feb 19, there were repeated attempts by an anonymous editor to keep adding the same material, although it was repeatedly reverted by 5 different editors. This culminated in the page being protected, with the explanation "persistent disruption". It appears thatalong the way what was intended to be an edit reverting the disputed material accidentally left it in. And subsequent reversion edits reverted to this version, so the disputed material was still incorporated in the article.
My edit to the article that is in question was just correcting this situation. Substantively, I was just restoring the version that existed before the edits by the anonymous editor that were labeled disruptive not by me, but by an admin. Titodutta's edits were modifying the disputed, disruptive material; consequently, they were reverted too in restoring the last clean version. I realize that I didn't dot all my i's and cross all my t's when I put down "reverted the disruptive edit that sneaked through before the page was protected" as my edit summary. But to call that summarymisleading sounds a little extreme. --Sarabseth (talk)02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I just didn't think it was necessary to post an entry on the Talk page just to say that an edit has been.......
Reply: It is sometimes highly helpful.For example, you could simply clear everything by writing in my same talk page entry something like, :Hi, Tito, I have made some changes and reverted last few edits. Unfortunately your this edit where you have made some formatting correction has been reverted too..... It is not possible in Page History. So, I feel talk page entry is sometimes very helpful.
But Titodutta could have just reverted my edit instead of bringing it to the ANI noticeboard.
Reply: Yes, I could revert your edit (but, I generally don't to avoidwp:editwar), but deleting a talk page entry was something very surprising for me. I have never seen anyone deleting a valid talk page entry. I was highly puzzled.
The background is that on Feb 19...
Reply: Yes, I noticed the recent incidents and edits there, and that was the main reason, I added the talk page entry. See the starting of theentrySince it seems to be a sensitive article to edit, I thought of this talk page entry - it'll make sense, I hope.
Titodutta's edits were modifying the disputed, disruptive material......
Still don't see how it's helpful to post an entry on the Talk page just to say that an edit has been made to the article (and nothing more than that). --Sarabseth (talk)04:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It is reasonably common to post such to the talk page, including adiff is good too, in just these sorts of situations where confusion may occur. It is not common to remove talk page posts, unless they contribute to disruption for instance. Both editors have acted here in good faith. NewbyG ( talk)21:21, 26 February 2012 (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.
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.
Votestacking-I read the article after I stumbled across this discussion[199]
[editor1] has referred above to a past problem with the article Origin of the Eucharist. The problem is again as acute as ever. Only two editors are active in opposing the lone editor about whose apparent aims I say nothing. I would be grateful if editors with greater knowledge than I have about Wikipedia rules would give advice. One solution with which I am toying is to let the lone editor have free rein, so that nobody then reading the article would take it seriously. [Editor2] (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
One thing I am not sure about is this. Does Eschoir have a possible WP:COI issue there? That may be one way to resolve it. As I said before, I have 1,500 pages on my watchlist, so I can not get involved in details there right now, and that is whywe need a general 9-1-1 call system or a Mayday button (perhaps built into the WikiProject Christianity banner) as [editor3] suggested so editors can be called for help. [editor1] (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
What an interesting idea: add it to the banner. Well, if you like the "Click here in case of emergency" button I just added to the top of this talk page, it should be relatively easy toadd the button to the banner. It would take a consensus, of course, and we'd want to coordinate with John's redesign of the banner. – [editor3] (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
[editor3] has helped very much, and I express my appreciation. As for Eschoir, I think he just enjoys stirring others up. In the past, another favourite target of his was Free Republic (see the archived talk pages). [editor2] (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The button looks good, I hadn't realised that's what you meant. [editor4] (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
In response to [editor1],we could, maybe, have some sort of dedicated section to this page, or some other page, in which we could list subjects which would seem to require immediate concern. There is material in the banner which allows us to indicate that an article needs immediate attention, but all it does is add the article to a category of such articles, and I'm not sure how many people watch that category. Personally, I would have no objections to seeing such a section added to this page, maybe at the top? [editor5] (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2012(UTC)
The 9-1-1 button adds a section on the talk page with a standard section title and all those dark, home of a big red warning sign. It also adds a standard edit sum to the history which is easily seen if you watchlist the page. A seperate section on this talk page for time-sensitive items is a good idea, but it won't generate a pre-formatted edit sum. That means you'll actually have to read this page to check for critical items. WPConservatism is setup to use the banner paramenter for "Needs attention", and our To-do list displays a little message that there are articles that need attention. It is largely ignored. I think a better solution would be to put the 9-1-1button we use here on the banner: it would be availab e at articles and when clicked it would create a preformatted section on this talk page. A 9-1-1 button only works if people are watching for it, andknow what to do when they go to the page. I'd like to propose that we create the position of Seargeant-at-arms. They would have to study WP:DR and how to close discussions. Their duties would entail watching for 9-1-1s on the noticeboard and responding as appropriate.– [editor3] (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
and it seemed germane. But I r eally don't know what to do. The idea of creating an officer to learn how to close down discussion is chilling to me.Eschoir (talk)04:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Complete outside opinion here. I have no interest whtat-so-ever in this subject...I'll let others make the philosophical argument...but this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work.Quinn░RAIN04:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Germane to what? I don't see how this is vote stacking, or where your officer comes from. Are you perhaps not on the winning side of a conflict?Drmies (talk)04:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
This notional 9-1-1 button is exactly the sort of votestacking concern that has repeatedly been expressed regarding the Conservatism Project. "Help me, I need a yes-man."Binksternet (talk)05:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems pretty obvious to me that the very last thing that should happen is that any so called 'Seargeant-at-arms'(sic) should do is close a discussion. In fact, in any situation where the 9-1-1 button was used, I'd be dubious about anyone from Wikiproject Conservatism closing it.Dougweller (talk)06:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
FYI this is not about WPConservatism. It is about a proposal atWPChristianity. I am the editor who came up with the "Sgt-at-arms" idea. The idea was that a neutral, uninvolved editor could act as a mediator at contentious articles, and formally close discussions that had run their course. Sort of "admin-lite". Nothing remotely resembling vote-stacking here. –Lionel(talk)07:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Although it was a remark by me that occasioned the "red button" proposal, I have been in no way involved in discussing it. I would make a few observations here:
I fail to see anything wrong with drawing attention on the Christianity noticeboard to a Wikipedia discussion on a topic concerning Christianity.
I presume that the sergeant-at-arms proposal was not meant to confer extraordinary dictatorial powers on a single editor. In any case, it remained a proposal of a single editor that received no support from other editors. The place to discuss that proposal was where it was put forward. Proposals made by just one editor and accepted by no group of editorsand not even by one other editor must be in their hundreds each day; they don't qualify as "incidents" to be discussed on this noticeboard.
Even the red-button proposal itself (on which I express no opinion) is still under discussion on the page where it was made and has reached no precise conclusion.
I should add that the comment by me that occasioned the red-button proposal did not come out of the blue. It was a follow-up to another editor's remark: "I have seen good and knowledgeable users just stop. ConsiderUser:Jpacobb. He was knowledgeable and nice. When he first started, I tried to encourage him to edit, alas a short time later, disaster struck onOrigin of the Eucharist (where some user may have aWP:COI) and Jpacobb has not edited since February 6th. That is called a 'loss'. He could have been a good editor, but was probably too nice to deal with that situation. Had there been more support for him, he may have stayed. The editor he (and myself) argued against was blocked for a day, but then continued on and on again. My guess is that that was too much for Jpacobb who wanted to do 'cooperative development' but realized that is not how Wikipedia works, despite the smiles shown on banner ads at fundraising." My comment should have been placed in its context. The text of my comment is given above as that of Editor2: not a request for others to stack up, but for advice on what I myself should do.Esoglou (talk)07:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for mentioning the wrong Wikiproject. My comments still stand, any 'sergeant-at-arms' appointed by any wikiproject should not be closing any discussions raised by a '9-1-1' call at the wikiproject, nor should anyone from that wikiproject. I agree Eschoir is a problem but that doesn't affect whether this is a problem or not.Dougweller (talk)08:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The sergeant-at-arms proposal, made by one editor only, has won support neither here nor on the page where it was put forward, and can be considered dismissed. The complaint here was instead about alleged "institutional votestacking- '9-1-1 button'".Esoglou (talk)09:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I mean, that mfd I linked to was about a votestacking squad. There have been a few other such incidents (i.e. other wikiprojects of various sorts turning into canvassing operations) too.67.117.145.9 (talk)09:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Thestill on-goingdiscussion on the page where the red-button proposal was raised shows that it is not aimed at vote-stacking but at "ask(ing) for comments from those people who know the topic, because the basic idea was to get input based on knowledge of the topic, rather than just general ideas". So what is the alleged "incident" that is being discussed here?Esoglou (talk)10:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
What would qualify as an incident for discussion on this noticeboard is instead the behaviour of an editor who, as well as (in good faith, we must presume) misleading others here into thinking that a project (of which I am not a member) was vote-stacking, insistently edits certain articles in a way that utterly ignores the consensus of all other editors (cf.the discussion on the question).Esoglou (talk)17:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
FYI: This kind of Alerting, with the exception of the Article Alerts system, is the exact thingWP:CANVAS warns about. I would like to draw a parallel from this set of proposals to the way that the Rescue tag was used to solicit action from a set of editors who had a specific viewpoint about deleting articles from Wikipedia (The [[WP:ARS|Article Rescue Squad). In 90% of the cases, the intention is to provide a good notification system, but almost always gets abused and becomes a vehicle for canvassing.Hasteur (talk)22:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
And after an ever-so-brief pause in his incessant disruption after being hit with a report at 3RR[200], Eschoir has resumed edit warring against multiple editors[201]. Indef anyone? –Lionel(talk)06:46, 27 February 2012 (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.
Bullied
A lot of users on Wikipedia re bullying me. I evem told them I face real life harassment and they reverted me. I have no girlfriend. I'm ugly. No one ever responds to me or tries to help me. I wish somethign would go right in my life :(. Please help me. Are any of you women on Wikipedia single?SKeptical of Love (talk)07:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
That's not the issue. The issue is my whole entire life no one has cared about me. No one. No one loves me. I call for help and no ones hear me. I have no heart because the heart I have was broken. Do you understand this or are you lacking in any human compassion? Do you not care if everyone hates me?SKeptical of Love (talk)07:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
To put it bluntly, Wikipedia isn't a website to help people who are suffering of depression ot to give emotional support. Nor is it a place to meet a person to fall in love with. While we can sympathize, we still have rules. Rules that you broke. You're more than welcome to contribute of course, once you don't break anymore rules. However, you have not been bullied. If anything, your statement of telling another user to shut up, could be considered bullying.Gorlack36 (talk)07:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Or even more bluntly. Wikipedia is not for you, given your current sentiment expressed in your messages above. You need to seek something in real life to do to aid your problems.S.G.(GH)ping!07:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this new user knows the acronym"AN/I". I'm also surprised that this user is not blocked after committing anegregious BLP violation, something no good faith new user would stoop to. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a troll—no one goes on ANI to complain about his deficient love life. Recommend indefinite block perWP:NOTHERE.Goodvac (talk)08:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
100% agree Doc9871. There are only good faith edits by this user. A quick google for "Lela Star" "Peter North" overturns the worst of the accusations. This is a lonely person who is sitting at their computer because they have nothing RL to do. What part of this is unusual ?Penyulap talk08:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for my actions on here. I will try to be better from now on. I'm not gonna lie, you guys surprised me in a good way. I will do what I can to be better. I do have a lot to offer. On Wikipedia and in love.SKeptical of Love (talk)09:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
All the accounts are blocked except for the main. In the future, I do urge Skeptical to keep to one account to avoid unnecessary complications. Also, while involvement and collaboration within the community is encouraged for the purposes of encyclopedia-building, Wikipedia is neither a social networking or a dating site. —Dark14:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I saw he had done somegood editing, and didn't see him showing a preference for social networking, but I didn't (and can't) check the lot. Either way, if he is moremore interested in editing I say ban him as an act of humanity.and me tooPenyulap talk16:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Some people think this editor is for real?? From his user page:
All I want is love, But love isn't for me. I'd do anything to find love. That is my downfall- that I care too much. I am too good to be evil and too evil to be good. I am the ghost in the night, the shadow of all life. Hatred and lies is all I know. Judge me and label me. For I have judged and labeled you. Hate me. For I hate you. Together let's show the world its folly: Hope and faith. Belief. Love. Eradicate it and show all who live that love does not exist and only evil can survive.
Sorry, but you can't "translate" his user page for him, at least not without his permission. I reverted your change.--Bbb23 (talk)18:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree, Bbb23. I'm very perplexed that some can still show good faith to this user. "I'm not gonna lie, you guys surprised me in a good way." confirms he was just trolling us, as does looking at his contributions under theothersocks.Goodvac (talk)18:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed this phenomenon before. It's a judgment call, and it depends on the editor as to where they finally give up on another editor. I draw the line earlier than some.--Bbb23 (talk)18:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not trying to troll you guys after the fact you showed kindness. It sounds corny, but its true. I sincerely was bad on Wikipedia, because I actually thought you guys were heartless. I'm not saying I deserve to be thought of as good or evil. I'm not your average user. I have a lot of emotional issues. I do want to contribute and I have made good edits in the past. I understand that I have created many accounts. I have been a major troll in the past. Back to when I was 13 years old in 2006. It is mainly because I really don't have the happiest life. I troll people. In real life, I cause a lot of problems too. But I'm trying to help myself and I have been seeking counseling. In my honest opinion, it is irrelevant to me, what becomes of this. i want to be a good user. I really do. I just wish there was a way I could be a good user and forget about my past. if you think those are the only accounts I have created on Wikipedia throughout the years, you are mistaken. I have created a lot of accounts. I am not a saint when it comes to using one account. I'll be the first to admit that. But I can do a lot of good things. I know a lot about sports. I believe I can edit sports articles and make them better. The thing is, I'm not good at the actual formatting of articles. I'm not good at creating tables and charts and graphs. I'm not good at making headlines to articles. heck, I don't even know how to format and create a userbox. If I am determined to be of good faith and I agree to use just one account. I request the Technogreek43 account. That is the one I have the most history with, and the one with the fondest memories. Call me good or evil. I am both. But If people help me, I will be of great value to Wikipedia. I truly believe I am one who can help. All these years I just never believed anyone would really want to help me because of my past. I apologize to all I have hurt. But as for now, I have a duty. And that is to make the sports articles on Wikipedia better.SKeptical of Love (talk)06:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
'I actually thought you guys were heartless' really ? here on wikipedia ? NO! (<-epitome of sarcasm). I expect this editor can use his experience and skill to write about his experiences as he has done here, to help other young editors to be better writers. We need this editor on wikipedia to help translate policy guides into ENG:VAR 'teen rebel', using firsthand experience.
This editor as he is now sets a perfect example of RL and WP civility and honesty with his recent apologies and openness. Too many editors here could learn from his mature example, rather than playing hide and seek with pedantic adherence to misinterpretation of policy. I think he could make a fine leader until he is inevitably burned at the stake in the inevitable drive-by judgment, or not.Penyulap talk08:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest the previous blocksno longer apply and ask SKeptical of Love to choose a new name, rather than an old one, so someone can assist him according to the relevantpolicy. I'd suggest the current one is fine, but whatever.Penyulap talk12:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys, I;ve justdropped a note over on this user's talk page. I think it'spossible that what this guy/gal needs is a tolerant, patient, understanding small group of mentors with similar interests (sports, probably) who can make him/her feel useful and welcome, and encourage him/her to get into some productive stuff. If, as a community, we can find a way to work with, and bring out the best in, this editor, we may find ourselves with a real asset to the 'pedia. I don't share similar interests myself but I'm happy to offer advice and a friendly ear to listen / shoulder to cry on, as and when it's needed. Are there a few kind folks out there who might be able to offer some support and education? Some consideration ofthis thread on Jimbo's page might be in order here; so if anyone with similar interests has any particular skills or experience relevant to this, I think that might be particularly helpful. I don;t think this user is "evil at heart", just similar to a young colt with an odd kick in its gallop, or a high-spirited and boisterous pup which needs careful and sensitive training. Any offers? Go visit the guy / gal's talk page, and see if we can find a niche to slot this editor into, where he/she will feel useful and welcome.Pesky (talk)08:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I personally would welcome the opportunity to clone my special style, which is so adored by the masses. A mini me. Oh yeah ! Tooth fairy lookout ! (oops! I have to be more careful what I type)Penyulap talk10:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Year-long pattern of disruptive editing byUser:Lung salad needs to be addressed.
Admin attention is needed with respect to the ongoing pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing byUser:Lung_salad. I have come into contact with the editor atTalk:Josephus on Jesus, where his engagement has been fractious, leading to an earlier block for a 3RR (in fact 11RR) violation. But it appears as if this is simply the latest irruption of a larger trend of difficult and disruptive editing. The mounting frustrations of many editors who have responded in good faith at the above page mirrors the experience of editors elsewhere, including discussions from the following articles:
And there are no doubt others. AFAICT the editor is bringing a curious POV to certain pages that may reflect some elaborate theory that he has developed. In the case ofTalk:Josephus on Jesus, the user is insistent that leading academic sources should be discredited and is insistent on editing the article to contest an academic consensus with which he disagrees. Attempts to engage the editor on his talk page have not been successful (examples:[205],[206],[207],[208],[209]). This, it appears, is a recurring theme. So we have wasted a lot of time with this, and there is clearly a major problem here as editors at one after another article have had to expend a great deal of effort pushing back against what comes across as the editor's single-minded POV. I will notify other editors who have been involved in these disputes to weigh in as they may be able to provide more insight. Whatever the case, something needs to be done.Eusebeus (talk)10:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Let me just say thatin this discussion 4 editors commented, and 2 of them stated that Lung Salad's edits and explanations are "bizzare". I would also use the term bizzare, so that makes it 3 out of 4. And the 4th editor said it was likeWP:TE. The problem is that these cyclic discussions are eating up time likePac-man as I said on that page. As stated there, he again asked for references which he had previously modified to diverge from the source. I called that "puzzling" but it should really be called bizzare. At one point I counted that he had been told to readWP:V 21 times, now it is about 30 times. It was borderng on comedy, so I joked that he needed to call theWP:RS expert he was disagreeing with (based on facts) and get the expert to write another book, for the expert's current book was against Lung Salad's unsourced edit. And he just said that the expert "has been dismissed". This needs to stop.History2007 (talk)11:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Fine. I do not know how to start that type of process, and I am just out of breath repeating "please read WP:V" so I hope someone will start that process. But it really needs to be done. In the meantime, can we get a temporary help on the talk page by virtue of theWP:TE that is stopping everyone. After 30 mentions of WP:V we are now getting long repeated arguments based on facts and primaries. If a temporary restraining order can be issued, we can at least have a few days of calm. Thanks.History2007 (talk)13:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I have providedUser:Lung salad with a very detailedfinal warning. I have been watching his page since he was first blocked a couple of weeks ago - he is likely to merely remove the warning, and ignore it. Should he be blocked again, I will warn you: he will bombard you with e-mails, so be prepared to remove e-mail access. (talk→BWilkins←track)14:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
...and how aboutWP:CONSENSUS? How's your score on that? It is, after all, number 1 around here ... you seem to think it's somewhere beneath you to acknowledge it and back off, even when reached ... consensus does not mean unanimous (talk→BWilkins←track)15:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
This might be a good time to point out thatUser:Jayjg, who is a highly accomplished mediator, has offered to mediate the content dispute onJosephus on Jesus. Maybe everyone could just step back for a few days until the mediator shows up and give mediation a chance to work. I think this problem can be solved pretty easily if the disputants would just calm down. With respect to the user conduct issue, many of the interventions could also be described as aggressiveWP:Wikilawyering. I agree with the earlier suggestion thatWP:RFC/U is the better way to go than some kind of summary judgement byWP:AN/I. This will also allow people to take a step back and have a more measured perspective.Ignocrates (talk)16:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Ignocrates. On this issue, let's let Jayjg mediate. An RfCU is the way to go for Lung salad. There are problems with his editing but ANI isn't the place to try to fix them.Dougweller (talk)19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, let an RFC/U get started in any case, but I would recommend some action in any case just based on "the current activities" which are pertinent to WP:ANI. And in response to the attempt at a positive depiction of the situation, I should say that we have a user here who:
Is aware of what a source says, for he has used that source himself.
Goes to the page and modifies the quote from that source as well quotes from other sources, to make themdeviate from what the sources say.
Is notified about it, and asked to correct himself, but refuses.
So the term "bizzare editing behavior" clearly applies here, and attempting to portray it in a positive light is just taking up time that would have gone to productive use elsewhere. How does one mediate the disruption of sources and a request for them again - that is not a content issue, is a "behavior issue". We have clearly disruptive editing behavior here that is taking up productive time. This needs to stop.History2007 (talk)19:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Basic information that can be easily cited from verified published sources relating to Origen about Josephus is being blocked from the article. In a nutshell.Lung salad (talk)20:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Verifiability is not, however, and never has been, the only basis upon which material is added.WP:FT,WP:WEIGHT, and other policies and guidelines exist as well. There does seem to be some reason to suspect that this editor has a limited ability to grasp those other criteria, or, possibly, he might be driven by some form of POV. I request input from others about the propriety of sharing information this editor shared with me via e-mail, which I think might also perhaps be relevant to this discussion.John Carter (talk)20:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Please be open about it and let us know. We are all getting to be 95 years old by the time this discussion is over. I see no reason to not let us have the "facts" now that facts have been the issue again and again. Thanks.History2007 (talk)21:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
No, no, no.I'm not aware of a consensus on whether unsolicited email is private or not; lacking such consensus basic respect would mean keeping it private.Nobody Ent21:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought I remembered something like that. That being the case, however, it should be noted that the editor's own user talk page history may well indicate that he has a perhaps less than good grasp of things like FT and WEIGHT, and, also, perhaps, less than an outstanding grasp of some religion related reference materials.John Carter (talk)21:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I any case, as you stated there are clear indications that there may be various root causes for the bizzare editing behavior we have seen. However, the bizzare behavior can not be allowed to eat up the life of other Wikipedians, and slow down the progress of other pages. And I would also note that Lung Salad did not dispute that he haddeliberately edited quotes to make them deviate from sources, and that he had asked about the same sources again yesterday as though he did not know about them, but just changed the subject.History2007 (talk)21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The longer this commentary goes on, the more I wonder ifWP:AN/I is being asked to look in the right place. The few statementsUser:Lung salad has made here seem to be, for the most part, focused on improving article content (as she/he sees it). By contrast, the counter-parties to this dispute have made numerous non-specific statements about "bizarre editing behavior" that could be construed as escalating the edit conflict andWP:PAs. Maybe it's time to end this deliberation.Ignocrates (talk)23:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I must tell you very frankly Ignocrates that I think the sideline coaching you have provided to this user all along has wasted significant amounts of my time in dealing with this. We have "clear diffs" that show edits that deliberately distort content, do not stay focused on a topic, ask about the same issue again, etc. etc. And apart from you others seem to think we have a problem on our hands. After you advised the user to stay quiet until this thread gets archived there has been some calm, but we can all read, as you know. And as John Carter said, it is not clear if theWP:Truth-related issues will go away. There have been no page improvements after all this mayhem, none. Just wasted time. Just wasted time. You spend very little time on it yourself, but are putting a driver on the road whose driving behavior has been just bizzare. The term "bizzare" was used by 2 out of 3 other users on that talk page, as you know. And from what I hear, he has bombarded people with emails. Just tell me with a straight face that is not bizzare behavior. Just tell me it is not. Do you think I want to spend time on this answering the same questions about WP:V again and again? We have a problem on our hands here. Just accept it. There is no need for wearing rose colored glasses here.History2007 (talk)04:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Although I don't have the time or energy to engage in this debate, I speak honestly from personal experience when I say that User:Lung salad is one of the most obtuse and disruptive editors I've come across in my 7 years and 10 months contributing to Wikipedia. On several occasions, I've seriously considered initiating the procedure to get him indefinitely banned from Wikipedia but he would always give up arguing with me and temporarily disappear before I reached the breaking point. This is why I think he needs to be neutralized once and for all. --Loremaster (talk)05:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
While I have great respect for Loremaster and his opinions, I think his concerns, and yours, are best handled atWP:RFC/U, as several people have suggested. With respect to your comments about me, I think this whole line of argumentation is off-topic and highly inappropriate. If you have a problem with me, you can take it up with me personally on my talk page.Ignocrates (talk)16:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually I do not know you, and do not need to pursue matters on your talk page. My problem is "wasted time" based on the current brouhaha caused by the edits which started this thread. I do not see the logic in your comments made here, hence I will comment here. You have seen the edits that distort sources, etc. Then did I read that they are for "page improvement"? I suggest you need to read those diffs again and retract the statement they are for page improvement. And I do not see the logic in just dismissing Loremaster's comments or those of Eusebeus, etc. If you have respect for Loremaster, please respect his statements. Today, because there was no brouhaha and because I did not have to use myread WP:V mantra I actually managed to write a few articles. The problem is that having to repeat that mantra next week will be counterproductive to Wikipedia. That is why something needs to be done.History2007 (talk)18:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
In any case, given that as another editor commented on the talk page there, calm seems to have returned, and constructive development can resume, I will stop here as well so we can move on. I do not really want to spend the time doing an RFC/U now, nor do I want to spend the rest of my life on that article or Lung Salad. So I will just move on now, and if calm does not persist, we will just have to restart here again based on the material above. But I hope not...I hope not...History2007 (talk)11:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This looks suspiciously like attempted retaliation by BoDu due to his recent blocking for repeated unsourced edits on the Draza Mihailovic and Chetniks articles. Thought it was worth mentioning.Peacemaker67 (talk)20:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't help but note thatUser:FkpCascais, who has been previously contacted by BoDu[215] regarding this, and has a history on the articles BoDu was edit-warring on, is simultaneously lobbying to have his topic ban removed on grounds of "admin abuse" (seeabove). I speculate they've concluded that had they acted together, they could have gotten away with enforcing their changes by edit-warring.
I want to state for the record I'm fairly certain User:FkpCascais will resume his edit-warring very quickly upon the expiration of his topic ban.22:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, I've noticed you're being constantly contacted by FkpCascais and BoDu. I'm not implying they've impeded your objectivity in this matter, but I feel its kind of irregular - we're not talking to anyone. I'm sure you realize there's a bit more to this?
BoDu decided to start about a half-dozen intensive edit wars simultaneously, against three other editors. The edits were simply outrageous in that they deleted well referenced info (and succeed in keeping it deleted through incessant reverting). BoDu had thegall to actually citeWP:BRDin support of his edit-warring, in the sense that when this sourced info was added at some point (years ago when the template was created), it was done without a talkpage consensus and therefore he has the "right" to revert it indefinitely unless there is a consensus on the talkpage ("WP:BRD has no time limit"). Great stuff, right? With that "logic" one could justify reverting every single piece of information on Wikipedia. Of course, he did not consider three other opposing users sufficient to satisfy his perceptions of a "consensus". When asked to provide a source for his changes he actually falsified references, listing random page numbers and apparently hoping noone would check[216].
He finally got blocked for this, and now that he was unblocked "on parole" (a grave error imo), his first order of business is to harass me and others by posting these sort of reports. He probably thinks "I got him blocked", just like User:FkpCascais holds others responsible for his topic ban ("they got me topic-banned").10:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Pardon my outburst above, its my last post on this thread. I certainly agree to move away from the article in question. In fact I edit it very rarely anyway.10:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman, this is aboutWP:OR:"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research.". In my opinion, administrators should remove the original research byUser:DIREKTOR, and then warn him that a block will be applied, if he again returns the unsourced material.BoDu (talk)10:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Admins don't make content decisions in articles. If you have a content disagreement with another editor you should discuss it with them, and if necessary follow the steps outlined atWP:DR. I see nothing requiring admin attention here.EyeSerenetalk11:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Direktor - no, you HAVE implied that my objectivity has been influenced and I'd like an apology please. I've advised you BOTH to edit elsewhere, and I reiterate that.
@GiantSnowman. That was certainly not my intention, and if it was perceived as such I dosincerely apologize. As you've pointed out very accurately, you've in no way displayed any sort of bias, and I am (and was) aware of that. Why would I make such an implication?16:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Through some discussions on my talk page about FkpCascais's topic ban I became aware of this case here.BoDu (talk·contribs) was recently blocked per ARBMAC for a dispute on other articles and as a condition of his unblocking he agreed to follow theDR process. Diving right back into an edit war may have violated that so I havenotified the blocking admin to chime in. My take on the case it it seemsboth parties are at fault here: the article has no references but changing unreferenced material with further unreferenced material is de factobattlegrounding and subject toARBMAC sanctions. --WGFinley (talk)16:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for the link here, Wgfinley! Personally, I do think BoDu has violated his unblocking agreement – he was unblocked on the 28.02 and agreed to followWP:DR; instead, he escalated one of the content disputes he was involved here, by starting a thread here.
That said, I agree with Wgfinley that both parties are at fault here, however. I don't know what the best approach to this issue would be, frankly. In my opinion, a topic ban on both BoDu and Direktor does not appear unwarranted...SalvioLet's talk about it!17:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
@Salvio giuliano, I did not violate the unblocking agreement because:
1. I did not revert any edits at all
2. there is no time limit when should I open discussion onWP:DR
Salvio, I don't want to seem like I am persistently supporting Direktor, I barely know the guy and I forget which dispute I started getting involved with him another another editor I won't name. However, this seems to me a case of someone drowning and pulling whomever they can down with them.--v/r -TP18:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Direktor is a good user and he's often right policywise, but sometimes he shows a problematicbattleground mentality. When I blocked BoDu, I was about to also impose a revert restriction on Direktor, because he had been edit warring just as much as BoDu, but, in the end, I opted not to... Direktor and BoDu edit in a very difficult area; I believe they'd both profit from a short break...SalvioLet's talk about it!21:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Um.. the edit war is long over and done with, at least for my part. I withdrew abouta week ago (well before you blocked BoDu)[217], and I certainly have no intention of playing BoDu's game again. Punitive sanctions? And no I don't think I would particularly benefit from being effectively blocked. Interestingly, though, as I stated on my talkpage two days ago[218], I'm going on Wikibreak anyway (I've only postponed it because one of the smaller articles I mostly wrote has an afd, and because of this thread).00:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Possible connection between Il223334234 and all the Fresh Beat Band socks, on both behavioral and technical evidence. --MuZemike01:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Resolved
bobrayner (talk)12:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm --Guerillero |My Talk05:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Like :) —Ched :21:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed as each other: