Is it a personal attack to document an editor's uncivil behavior?
The following discussion is preserved as anarchive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm sorry to post this here, but neitherWP:CIVIL norWP:NPA cover the situation exclusively. I didn't want to post it on theWikipedia talk:No personal attacks then have them refer me toWikipedia talk:Civility. I realize issues like this are unpopular here, so I'll try to keep things as brief and concise as possible.
A few months agoOrsini created a a sandbox page for editors to plan aWP:RFC/U aboutJustanother's tendancy to violateWP:CIVIL when he encounters editors who disagree with him, often in the form ofWP:ICA statements. (Other policies and guidelines have been infringed as well.)
Situation
Orsini, myself, and the other editors who have contributed to it are more interested in contributing/improvingWikipedia than we are pursuing action againstJustanother. However if his attitude does not change it could impact the ability of several editors to make productive contributions. If this occurs the information gathered would be used to show a pattern of disruptive behavior going back a long time.
Summary
Since additions are made to document the ongoing negative actions and statements ofJustanother they are a record ofhis attacks againstothers and are not an attack against him. I don't mention it as a threat to him, in fact I don't even discuss it with him unless he wants to talk about it. To my knowledge none of the others involved have either.Anynobody01:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
That is a no-no. If you want to do a user RfC, do so. But these type of pages arenot acceptable. Please copy the text of that page to a local document as I it will be deleted.≈ jossi ≈(talk)01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I had considered that option as well, Jossi, however I was unable to locate anywhere in thepolicies and guidelines where it says that it is indeed against either. Would you please link me to where it says that? (If I had seen apolicy/guideline that forbade the practice I would not have posted here having already known what the situation is with these cases.)Anynobody05:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Policies and guidelines can't exhaustively enumerate everything you shouldn't do; some common sense is needed.WP:NPA does state, though, that"Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease should be resolved through the dispute resolution process." The important thing to note in the dispute resolution process is that every step of the process is supposed to be focused on either encouraging discussion or cooling down the dispute. Making a page to "get" a user and plan out your strategy to "beat" them in the RfC misses the point entirely. Yes, maybe you feel the user is totally impossible to negotiate with, but part of the point of early conflict resolution is to get people to put their cards on the table... if the other person is plainly dragging their feet and impossible to talk to, it'll become clear to everyone pretty quickly. RfC, in particular, is supposed to in part attract outside views that could help cool things down, notjust serve as a stepping-stone to ArbCom. By approaching RfC like a courtroom, you're shooting yourself in the foot. --Aquillion06:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies are frequently not written down.WP:DICK is the only important one w.r.t. user conduct. RFC's were designed to help resolve disputes. Keeping a sandbox of alleged abuse tend not to resolve anything. Just start the rfc now.Theresa Knott |Taste the Korn06:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPA, Anynobody. The way your question is formulated is itself a thinly veiled personal attack. It shouldn't have been posted here. My advice to you is to try reading policies for their spirit and intent, rather than in order to "locate" loopholes for attacking other editors.Bishonen |talk09:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC).
Furthermore, you're supposed to inform the person you discuss about it. If common sense doesn't tell you so, please see page instructions above.Bishonen |talk11:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC).
It is always the case that given enough rope, the proverbial knot will be placed around our necks by our own doing. I would argue that by creating these type of pages, the possibility of conducting a user conduct RFC has been forfeited.≈ jossi ≈(talk)17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody, I'm having a hard time accepting good faith with your post.
Your first words are: "I'm sorry to post here". That's clearly untrue, given that youdid post here and nobody forced you to. And, you posted with such ellaborate detail.
You could have asked a very simple, short, andneutral question: "Is it appropriate to keep abad conduct list about another editor, on a sandbox page." Instead, you went into elaborate details about how naughtyJustanother has been, and how important it was for you to document this behavior. You biased the entire question, attempted to justify your conduct, and provided details toinvolveJustanother here, instead of asking a completely neutral question.
You went out of your way to includeJustanother, but you decidedSmee could be left anonymous. Why? If you wanted an opinion, and it was important enough to justify your actions by detailing the problem withJustanother, why isn'tSmee's involvement significant enough to mention, given that almost 1/3 of the edits are his?
You failed to mention that there two full one month gaps with no entries on that page, from April 9 - May 11, and again from May 14 - June 17. I think that those gaps are significant, given that you are trying toestablish a pattern of bad behavior.
Your claim that you are more interested in improving wikipedia than pursuing action is .. well..a load of bovine excrement. The existence of the page itself belies your statement. You are clearly pursuing action againstJustanother. You simply don't have enough evidenceyet, so you are collecting itIN ADVANCE, in anticipation of pursuing action in the future.
It's clear that you want toget him, as you aren't simply collecting information about encouters you have with him, but are watching what he does and are documentinganything he does wrong.
You claim toneed the list to establish a pattern. That is alsoabsurd. If there is a pattern of bad behavior, it will be obvious and easy to document at the time of an RfC.
The fact that the page exists and has been updated by multiple users, indicates that editors werewatching andmonitoringJustanother.
Justanother's request that it be deleted, toOrsini (not Anynobody), indicates thatJustanother has known about the page for some time and did not raise an objection (though he could have).
There was no activity on the page, twice, for a full month each time. This indicates that even editors who were"out to get him" could not find anything significant and shows there is no "long term pattern of abusive conduct" on the part ofJustanother. Itdoes, however, show a long term pattern ofBad Faith on the part ofAnynobody,Orsini, andSmee's.
Justanother tried to handle this situationquietly andprivately withOrsini. It's unfortunate thatAnynobody insists on keeping things stirred up at AN/I.
Is it a personal attack to document an editor's uncivil behavior? I've seen many non-admins banned for it and some admins scolded for making lists documenting it. But some people can just do it all the time and actually get praised for it.SakotGrimshine17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Jossi,Bishonen,Lsi john, andJustanother I mean no offense, but I'm actually much more interested in the opinions of editors who are uninvolved with our past. I'm not saying you can't post here, of course, but just as you have difficulty assuming my neutrality I must unfortunately reciprocate those feelings.
Aquillion,Theresa Knott |Taste the Korn, andSakotGrimshine I appreciate your taking the time to comment on this issue. Your posts all reflect the general idea I understandWP:RFC/U to be, in fact with the info I've provided so far were I in your situation(s) I would probably have said something similar. I should explain there is a bit more to the history of this issue you should know. I did set up a RFC/U onJustanother's behavior around March 8th. I don't want to editorialize, so I'll just say the following diffs give an idea of what occured:
What are you hoping to achieve here? Do you want the editors you regard as uninvolved to repeat the advice they gave you above? The last RFC seems to have been deleted on the grounds that insufficient attempts had been made to settle the dispute before the RFC was started; if you still have a problem with Justanother, then that would look to be a good place to start.Yomanganitalk00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You should have taken the hint and accept the advise given to you. Instead, you are just digging a bigger hole for yourself. I would advise you to stop using this board to make these type of remarks as it isdisruptive. If you want to pursue an user conduct RfC, do so. I am closing this discussion as of now.≈ jossi ≈(talk)00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Justanother's (only) reply
I will not bore you'all with the counter-attacks, especially as I promised Bish that I would not be a party to such use of this board. Suffice it to say that Sandbox3 is a collection of out-of-context remarks on my part, many of them after considerable provocation and, the most important thing, I vowed months ago to not rise to bait in that fashion any longer and posted apublic apology for doing so in the past on my user page and on my talk page and left it up forone month. In the rare instance that I have slipped since that vow, I have promptly apologized to involved parties. --Justanother14:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as anarchive.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 page.
Zelda Classic deletion review
The wiki page on Zelda Classic was deleted earlier this week for lack of notability; to address this complaint, one of my fellow developers (Dark Nation) edited the article, and added citations to third party sources, including at least one in the media (TechTV). He also started a deletion review of the page.
That deletion review is now listed as "closed," with no real explanation given: the requester having "no other edits" strikes me as a highly spurious reason to ignore a review request.
Is it possible to start a calm discussion of the page's deletion and review? I believe that it is possible to create a page on this topic which meets Wikipedia's notability requirement, and would like to find out what I need to do to do so.— Precedingunsigned comment added byEvouga (talk •contribs)
Do you have any links, or diffs? It's kind of hard for me to hunt down what you're talking about without some direction. --Haemo04:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm - it looks to me like the closing admin's rationale was just a little terse, and his actual justification was that the re-created article did not substantially differ from the original content. Perhaps he could stop by and comment? --Haemo04:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm a wikipedia newbie and am not sure how to post diffs or even access the old page; when I go to the Zelda Classic wiki page I just get a "deleted and protected" page.— Precedingunsigned comment added byEvouga (talk •contribs)
That's okay, another editor helped you on this one. I left Guy a message on his talk, so hopefully he will show up soon. Also, pleasesign your posts so they are easier to read. --Haemo06:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
In particular, I would like to request that the old Zelda Classic page be undeleted and unprotected, to allow for revision leading to the article meeting the notability guidelines. According to Wikipedia's notability policy, an article should be deleted "if appropriate sources cannot be found"; in this case such a claim is absurd, since after a few minutes of searching I found:
In short, I do not understand why this article was deleted (and then had its undeletion review summarily closed without discussion) when the only problem with the article was lack of secondary source citations - which could be easily added if editors are given the chance. Evouga09:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The deletion discussion ran for five days, which is the appropriate length of time for such discussions, and once a deletion discussion is closed, it should not be added to. If you disagree with the deletion, you can list the deleted article atWP:DRV, but you need to come up with new reasons for why you think the deletion was incorrect, as there was a strong consensus for deletion, and DRV is to discuss improper closures, not to re-debate the notability of the subject matter.Corvus cornix15:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, I do believe deletion was incorrect. The notability guidelines say that articles should be deleted if sufficient secondary sources cannot be found. Though perhaps the original author, and the people who voted in the deletion discussion, were not willing to do so, I am and have done so. I now wish to clean up the article so that its adherence to Wikipedia policy may be reconsidered. What should I do?
Thank you, I will do so. I wasn't sure if that would be appropriate, since the first deletion review was closed for the requester having no other edits, and I am in the same situation.Evouga18:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an admin and at least half of his edits seem on the level. A three seemed appropriate. Anything above a two is basically the equivalent of 'Stop screwing about or we'll lock you' anyway.HalfShadow19:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
They are not "on the level" at all- they are all either rambling nonsense about red hair and apart from that adding derogatory racially and sexually offensive material to biographies of living people. Oh and I just found this one to add to it[11]. This person is contributing nothing of value to this project.Gustav von Humpelschmumpel20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I've seen enough, between the above cited diffs andthis one,this one, andthis one, which I found by randomly picking from the contrib history. To make matters worse, these diffs deal withliving people. I've indefinitely blocked the account to prevent more such edits; comments?MastCellTalk20:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you did the right thing. Those were awful edits. We will not miss contributions like these. --John20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou. What I find hard to understand is why noone posted a message warning him for his behaviour before in which case he might well have been blocked much earlier. Would it be possible in the future to automatically warn or "mark" an account when reverting then we might avoid something like this happening?Gustav von Humpelschmumpel20:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't seen anything before now, or he'd have been warned by me (and possibly banned already). And my point was that they weren't derogatory trash like what got him banned, not necessarily that they were anything of value.HalfShadow20:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
So you are saying as long as an editor doesn't make edits that are solely offensive you then will then allow that editor to "get away" with edits such as those above?Gustav von Humpelschmumpel22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Nobody 'gets away' with anything here. If an admin decides a warning isn't enough, they are free to do what needs to be done. I will remind you again that I am not an admin and that I have to follow procedure as I see it. To me that means warning andthen reporting. If that isn't good enough for you, you'd be surprised how little that bothers me.HalfShadow22:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, lay off and leaveUser:HalfShadow alone. He's a volunteer, like we all are, and he's doing his best. It's not his fault that it took a few days to catch this particular vandal, and his warning was erring on the side ofassuming good faith, which is hard to criticize. Situation's resolved, we'll all keep our eyes peeled in the future, and no hard feelings, right?MastCellTalk22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but I think we should make it clear to people that make edits like this person did above that they are not welcome to edit here- I don't think the message that HalfShadow left really reflected the seriousness of those edits- and yes it does matter because if HalfShadow think like that then other people who come to this site will think it's OK and just post a little minor warning and most other people will just forget anyway (remember no one actually posted ANY warnings till I brought this up). I assume (or hope) that "assuming good faith" doesn't extend to encouraging editors that call people "disgusting niggers" and call women who dare to show their faces "prostitutes"- if we do encourage them, they will only make improving the encyclopedia harder.Gustav von Humpelschmumpel00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Admin protects POV version
AdminUser:CBM declines to insert new updates or news links to this article[12][13] citing this is a Wikipedia policy. Can someone explain if its a correct interpretation? He refused to move the protection to last known stable version until consensus is arrived... effectively endorsing a POV version. More importantly, he refuses to update the page with even minor edits until the ArbCom case of Bakasuprman is resolved (which is totally irrelevant to this article). Let us suppose Bakasuprman is indefinitely blocked as a result of the ArbCom. Does that imply this article too would be indefinitely protected? I am more worried that the article would reachrigor mortis if minor edits are refused.Anwar16:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought page protection was explicitly not an endorsement of the version that happens to coincidentally be protected.Sancho16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
User:CBM wasn't even the one who protected that page. Not only that, butUser:Rama's Arrow protected it after aten-hour lull in the edit-warring, without making any change (it looks like it was a slow-burn edit war, so it's not so odd.) It doesn't make any sense to allege that it was deliberately protected on a particular POV under such circumstances. Now, granted,{{editprotected}} can be used to request changes, and it would be a little odd if CBM was refusing to make minor typo or spelling corrections... but controversial edits aren't usually made via that, since it would defeat the purpose of protection. Protection in a content dispute is supposed to be blind, not endorsingany version; you're asking CBM to endorse your favored one, which is exactly what the protection policy is supposed to prevent. Finally, protectiondoesn't usually last that long. Does it really matter if the page says one thing or the other for the next 24 hours? You should be using this time to try and hammer out an agreement on what it will say after that... even if CBM edited it to your favored version, it wouldn't stay protected for ever, so you'll still have to negotiate eventually. --Aquillion18:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
On following up aHelp Desk post, I reviewed the contributions of212.219.203.115 (talk·contribs). This IP first posted on December 16, 2005, last posted on January 24, 2007, and only made five posts total. However, those five posts all were reverted, for a variety of reasons. The Golspie post seemed to raise some tension. (SeeGolspie Help Desk post.) 212.219.203.115 does not seem to be using 212.219.203.115’s account for proper purposes. Please review. Thanks. --18:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
WHOIS says it's registered to Highland Council Education Department, Scotland. With that in mind, it's possible it's a shared IP address. If we could safely assume it was all the same user, a string of disruptive edits over a long period might be worth a block -- I'm not sure if we can make that assumption in this case, though, so I'd hesitate to block at this point in time. If problems persist, we could revisit that. Happily invite another opinion. –Luna Santin (talk)20:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Probably not worth getting too worked up about. Yes, it's probably safe to assume it's a proxy, but you're also pretty much guaranteed it's the same person. A block is pointless unless it's going to be of sufficient time to still be in force the next time they're sufficiently bored. They need to get some real news up the Highlands! Ta/wangi20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is preserved as anarchive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
User:The way, the truth, and the light, who was recently blocked for 48 hours due to edit warring/3RR, is continuing this behaviour on theAnal sex article. He seems to think that his version is the only acceptable one, that his words are the only valid choices, and that wholesale reversion to correct typos is permissible. The is herehere. See alsoTalk:Anal sex andUser talk: The way, the truth, and the light. He refuses to discuss constructively, instead insisting on his own preferred version via reverting. It seems he needs another warning.Exploding Boy19:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Outrageous. EB is lying about my reason for reverting, which I have explained[16][17] is not due to his typos. He has reverted as many times as I have on this issue, and he apparently[18] wants to order me not to change any substantive part of his edits.The way, the truth, and the light19:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
That is not, in fact, true, as can be easily seen by checking the page history. The user has employed an apparent strategy of reversion to keep his preferred version of the page online. The one sentence he persists in reverting (concerning "appendages"), for example, is laughably unencyclopaedic.Exploding Boy19:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest that the original block for edit warring clearly didn't have the desired effect (ie: stopping the behaviour)? The user needs to loosen his grip on theAnal sex article. Look at his pattern: he jumps in with "revert" or "cleanup and revert" after nearly every change by another editor, and some of his changes are inexplicable. For example, he insists that the following paragraph:
Besides penile insertion, anal sexual behavior includesfingering,fisting, andrimming (the manipulation of the anus by the mouth and tongue). Some individuals usesex toys such asdildos orbutt plugs.
Anal sex need not involve penile insertion. The active partner (male or female) may use appendages other than a penis, such asthe fingers anda fist. The use of the mouth and tongue on the anus, calledrimming is also common, often in conjuction with other sexual acts.
Such individuals might also use an artificial device, often a phallic reproduction (dildo) or one that is generally engineered specifically for anal penetration (butt plug). When a female using astrap-on dildo) anally penetrates a receptive male, it is referred to aspegging.[2]
I disagree. Given that the content of the paragraphs is exactly the same (just better written in the first case), the user's insistence on his own version, and persistence in reverting to it without explanation, is a clear example of edit warring. I think a warning is in order.Exploding Boy19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that your version is better written than the current one. I have explained my edits on the talk page, as you know, and you have refused to acknowledge that you used the word 'forced' incorrectly.The way, the truth, and the light20:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, you both seem to be edit-warring. We could block you both, I suppose, but you might not like that. I suggest dispute resolution - third opinion, requests for comment - as an alternative.MoreschiTalk20:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Besides, involved discussion of what gets shoved up the arses of various, and how this is done, and at what time, is is not really what ANI is intended for. That's the job of IRC.MoreschiTalk20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with H, that this is not an admin issue. Discuss it on the projects talk page, if needed request page protection or other forms of dispute resolution, however arguing about whose version is right on ANI is going to get you nowhere at all.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)20:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as anarchive.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 page.
A week seems a bit harsh for a single incident of personal attacks, particularly without a warning. I've left a note for Myles, and I'd actually advocate unblockingUser:Govvy if he would be willing to tone it down and discuss things civilly.MastCellTalk22:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Resurgent insurgent keeps vandalizing my user page User:Anber. My user page contains details about me. He should not be changing it. If he sees a problem he should develop consensus from the community asking me to change it by convention. I need assistance because I don't know how to properly report this.Anber01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Mark Kim (talk·contribs) As I previously pointed out this user feels no one is allowed to disagree with him, and he should be allowed to threaten users and attack them if its for a really good reason, like getting his way in an article. He owns his talk page, and removes reminders not to make personal attacks with personal attacks. Most recently he's now Made a comment like this[20]. On his talk page, which is neither appropriate or civil. Here is the pre-archive version which you can compare to my talk page for the conversation that takes place[21]. Where he admits that he thinks he should be allowed to attack people to defend his view point. His threat against another user[22] as well as an article talk page where he's had some civility issuesTalk:Bose (company). While passionate he refuses to acknowledge that he's bound by the policies and guidelines here and thinks he can act however he wants as long as he's doing the "right" thing. This is a situation which is just going to result in more personal attacks and threats unless its dealt with.--Crossmr15:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I warned him a year ago when he was involved in some similar tension of an Apprentice Season 4 article. He continually sanitizes his talk page so you have to dig for it. I will dig it up, but also bear in mind I had that long conversation with him about his behaviour and he's still making uncivil comments and attempting to own his talk page which shows an unwillingness to change his behaviour.--Crossmr16:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Previous warnings and behaviour:
Here he was previously warned for making threats against other users and trying to control content he put on wikipedia (the same behaviour which bore the recent personal attacks)[23].
here is a previous warning over another article he got too passionate about[24].
Even a year ago he was demonstrating this behaviour of taking every comment on his behaviour as a personal and painful insult.
Here radiokirk reminds him to assume good faith, and its again suggested he shouldn't act so abrasively.[25] by theresa.
There is quite a bit more in there as far as warnings and previous examples of behaviour go. Plenty of examples of him ignoring policy and acting uncivily towards others.--Crossmr16:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Further examples of behaviour and warnings, I did some more looking and this is just from what is picked up on his talk page. He's had numerous examples of this behaviour, and in fact several individuals have spoken to him about it previously. This is a recap up to 1 year ago. There should be a very clear pattern established.
[28] - attempts to exert further control over his talk page and what people may say to him. He's warned aboutWP:NOT and to not censor things. He is also informed ofWP:CIVIL andWP:NPA.
Here he states any perceived insult is essentially a life long vendetta[29].
Here he refers to a criticism of his behaviour as "an insult"[30].
Here he makes a threat towards users in general if they criticize him[31].
He is reminded again to step back and check his behaviour[32].
Which he dismisses by again calling it an insult[33].
Here its pointed out that he started the debate which this surrounded, and he again reiterates the life the long hatred[34].
Here he moderates someone for "blatant incivility" (warranted) so it demonstrates that he's aware of what type of behaviour is inappropriate in wikipedia[35].
He threatens to moderate a user for any comments they make if they contain words he doesn't like[36].
He's reminded about owning content on wikipedia and about working with others.[38].
modifies his control message of his talk page, and in process of those edits, removes theresa's previous reminder as an "insult"[39].
Here he makes a complaint about Theresa on AN/I. Which again demonstrates that he is aware of what kind of behaviour is unnacceptable[40].
This is where I first met the individual, over some uncivil exchanges at the apprentice season 4 article. I reminded him to act civily and edit politely.[41]. He claimed to always try to be a diplomat.
Reviewing the situation, this user appears to be significantly uncivil when provoked, but is otherwise not a disruptive presence. Blocking him at this point would do more harm to Wikipedia than good, but someone might want to help him understand why stalwart civility in the face of provocation is necessary. He is otherwise a productive contributor. As for his "threats" and "attacks", in all cases I've seen they be be construed as good faith warnings or simply more uncivil smack talk. –Gunslinger4718:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
And do NOT give me any harsh criticism anymore because if you do, then you will pay I'm not sure how that could be seen as anything other than a threat? People have been trying for a very long time to help him understand why his behaviour is inappropriate. He dismisses any such conversation as a personal insult of the highest kind and wipes it from his talk page. He's been doing that almost since his arrival here back in 2005 if you go back through his contrib and talk page history. Any good faith assumptions are long gone on this. Several editors made a heroic effort to try and get through to him a year ago, and he's gotten bent out of shape for far less than what he's hurled at other users. Good edits don't give you license to stomp all over other users and treat them like garbage because you think you're right. Wikipedia doesn't and will never need that kind of editor.--Crossmr20:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there are two problems at work here. The user seems to believe thatany disagreement with his positions is a personal attack or "abrasive criticism". This makes it difficult for him to engage in any kind of content dispute without it quickly degenerating into a unilateral broadside of warnings and threats.
Second, I think the user's skills in English are at a somewhat less-than-native speaking level, at least in formal writing. In order to get a message across to him, one must repeat it over and over and over again, each time attempting to make it clearer and simpler. This is exasperating, of course. Perhaps we should encourage the user to find a Wikipedia that more closely matches his formal writing skills.—ptk✰fgs21:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, that does make sense. If you notice the discussion I had with him (using my provided link and my talk page) I noticed once or twice he seemed to clearly miss the point. I wasn't sure if he was doing it intentionally, or if he was lacking complete comprehension. Even after several exchanges of my explaining his behaviour was inappropriate, he then draws the conclusion that I was taking some stance on the article dispute, which I had never brought up other than to say that he shouldn't have behaved as he did in that dispute. Either way, if you edit on wikipedia, you're going to eventually (and usually frequently) not see eye to eye with someone and this user clearly cannot handle that type of situation.--Crossmr00:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
His user page states he's from Illinois and that English is his native language, so that's not the issue. Maybe his comprehensive reading ability is somewhat lacking, or he reads all the messages with a "he's against me" mindset and therefore misinterprets what is being said.--Atlan (talk)12:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Which is another possibility. However I don't know if finding the reason he behaves as such is really key here. There is no obvious trigger other than the fact that if he does something wrong and someone corrects him, he lashes out and holds a permanent grudge. The two articles I've seen him lash out over are completely unrelated (apprentice season 4 and bose) so its not like there is a specific subject that we could have him avoid editing. From what I've seen so far, no one is being unfair to him when they correct his behaviour.--Crossmr12:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it's not a coincidence his archived "heated debates" were deleted shortly after you filed this report. That tells me he's well aware of the fact his behavior is sometimes unacceptable, since he would rather delete evidence of it than refute your claims. Anyway, I've asked on his talk page if he (and some other guy that was there) would like to tell his side of the story.--Atlan (talk)16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that he's told me exactly how he feels and why he acts like he does on my talk page. The diffs show that this is a long term issuing going back 2 years, and that plenty of effort has been made to correct it. There needs to be some serious adjustment and turn around here. because there is no evidence this is going to stop, and after 2 years, its just too well established to assume it will just pass on its own.--Crossmr19:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see that this likely won't stop. I noticed he applies a peculiar double standard for what can and cannot be said on Wikipedia. He considers he's allowed to arbitrarily call people "untrusted editors", but if someone else so much as frowns at him for that, it's harassment worthy of a lifelong vendetta. It's really strange.
That said, I can't see any remedy other than keeping an eye on him. A block doesn't seem right at the moment, since he's been relatively quiet the past few days. I seems best to me, that other people also start setting him straight, as he clearly won't take any advice from you.--Atlan (talk)16:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to agree with that if this was behaviour which just started within the last week for the first time after 2 years of good behaviour. He's shown that even if its quiet for a time, it will come back and be directed at anyone who he perceives as getting in his way. I think the only likely course here is to file an RfC (which will very likely be ignored) and then go to arbcom, the RfC is more for process because even at this point with this evidence I think arbcom would deny it unless other dispute methods were tried. There has certainly been a few editors try to get through to him and he's ignored them all so I don't think waiting for someone else to take a crack at it would really benefit us at this point.--Crossmr16:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Venetian albania-montenegro
An article byUser:Brunodam has been made that is known asVenetian albania-montenegro, however the article is highly controversial as it both failedWP:N and violated (and still violates)WP:NOR. The article seemed to be research of a University Professor (who's the Wikipedian that created this). We have managed to find a sourced name for the article, moving it toVenetian Albania. However the problems regarding the fact that over 70% of the article's content haveabsolutely no relevance to the article remains. The whole situation can be observedhere. The author accuses me andUser:Sideshow Bob, who are opposing the majority of this article's content, for nationalism, and considers that we as Montenegrins/Yugoslavs/whatever-from-former-Yugoslavia are not capable to judge the facts properly, demanding/insistingI REQUEST AN IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATOR TO STOP THE VANDALISMS ! for quite several times.Here, at the article's talk page the current discussion can be observed.
As per this user's demands for an administrator that does not originate from former Yugoslavia and refusal to discuss with Wikipedians who do, I am asking anyone free to oversee the situation and put his opinion on the talk page. Thanks in advance and sorry for the buggin'. Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
One or more anons are repeatedly vandalizing theMike Koplove page. Approx 1-2 times a day for the last week. They are deleting sourced reference to the fact that the ballplayer is Jewish. Despite several RVs, by me and other non-anons, and discussion of the issue with others on the talk page. They are also often inserting all-cap drivel in place of the deleted language. I requested semi-protection, but was told 1-2 deletes a day does not qualify for that, and that I should come here. I do not want to engage in more RVs, given the 3RR. --Epeefleche23:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I declined the protection, but also declined to block, the user that is removing content (I would not class it as pure vandalism) has done so around 5 times on 2 different IP's over a period of 4 days, a block seems a little punitive here - I suggest just keep on reverting until they get bored.Ryan Postlethwaite23:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, I had first put this up for semiprotection on the 15th. The admin then declined it, but told me "Different admins have higher levels of activity that they require for protection, there is no set standard. ... It might be better to try WP:ANI or possibly WP:AIV something for a persistent yet slow vandal." So I tried again on page protection first, and just rcvd your response. AS to your suggestion that I just keep on reverting until they get bored, I wonder whether that is really the best use of my time and that of the others who have RVd the vandal all week. Also, as to whether it is pure vandalism, I question whether the incluson of the following, not even in the comments but in the body of the article, isn't vandalism: " DO YOU THINK ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL MIKE KOPLOVE WOULD DEVOTE THIS MUCH ATTENTION TO MY PAGE? I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU. STOP WRITING THAT. IT IS IRRELEVANT IN ADDITION TO BEING INACCURATE.; Koplove is not Jewish. I know this because I AM HIM. ; I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I AM HALF JEWISH ON MY FATHERS SIDE BUT I AM TECHNICALLY A PRACTICING CATHOLIC.; I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I AM NOT JEWISH.; I AM SERIOUS. STOP WRITING THIS!!!! ; ACTUALLY MY RELIGION IS IRRELEVANT, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF CORRECTNESS, MY DAD IS JEWISH, MY MOM IS CATHOLIC, AND I AM CATHOLIC. ; Koplove is Jewish. NO I AM NOT! I DO READ THIS. I AM NOT JEWISH." Also, these go back nearly a month in all. Is it really the best use of our time to keep on RVing him? For how long? Thanks.--Epeefleche23:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a simple solution. Next time you revert him, use your edit summary to refer him to the Wikimedia foundation offices, and ask him or his agent to directly contact them about this. If it's REALLY him (and we know it's 99.9% NOT), then he can handle it that way. If there's no Office action, then a block is even easier to substantiate.ThuranX04:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Problem started withMike18xx (talk·contribs) taking personally my attempt to have the articleThe Intelligence Summit deleted, as it had been the previous time the article was up for deletion. The article survived the deletion attempt, so I have been adding well sourced and legitimate material to the article. Every small change I made also included an explanation of the change in the edit summary (seethe change history to see the changes). Rather than discuss changes,Mike18xx (talk·contribs) began a revert war, reverting everything without explanation even though I pressed for one in talk. Much of what he did was delete well-sourced and relevant content without discussion -- basically the equivalent of vandalism (though it is obvious he sees it as a content dispute). Then he stalked me onto another article that I have been involved in,Operation Sarindar,reverting my last edit twice,explaining in talk that his action was purely a case ofdisrupting Wikipedia to make a point.Biophys (talk·contribs) then clearly took a cue from Mike18xx, and stalked me back to the Intelligence Summit page,reverting my last changes there (in order to team up with Mike18xx). Biophys has done this before, showing up on the Bill Oreilly pageto revert my changes after we had an earlier conflict on the Sarindar page. After that incident I warned him to stop stalking me (both in myedit summary on Oreilly and theSarindar talk page) but he has done it again today. He also keepsrenaming the Sarindar page in order to avoid content problems or notability problems -- again disrupting Wikipedia to make his point. I will add that I am not the first to have noticed Biophys's stalking behavior (see his talk page for other instances; I believe it has come up on WP:ANI previously).
I think both of these users are taking every edit personally and starting edit wars over large amounts of material based on a disagreement with small portions of the material changed. This sort of thing should be sorted out in talk but instead of responding to talk they stalk me to other pages and do other disruptive things to make their points. In addition,User:Mike18xx has engaged in several BLP violations, which I warned him about and then an admin warned him about (including a "Final Warning"; see the relevant discussionhere,here, andhere), yet his stalking comment to the talk page on Sarindar (commenthere) included another such violation.
I'd like to work constructively with these users but they have shown again and again that they will only edit in a very one-sided manner and will disrupt Wikipedia and break the rules here in order to get their way. I believe some concrete action by admins is warranted here.csloat23:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
This is incorrect. I went toThe Intelligence Summit because it is closely related toOperation Sarindar that I edited today (one article is internally linked to another). I have also explained my position at theThe Intelligence Summit talk page[44]. Cslot simply does not want to work in collaborative fashion; he does a lot of changes on contentious issues, without trying to explain anything and find a common ground, as should be clear from today's history ofThe Intelligence Summit. I have made a single edit in this article today and tried to talk with other users.Biophys01:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Two articles is notWP:STALKing yet, although I would recommend participants not to follow the other party's list of contributions (unless simple vandalism is there). Please followWP:DR.Alex Bakharev01:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Honestly, I "met"csloat only three times. First time, I created articleOperation Sarindar, and he nominated it for deletion twice. Second time, I tried to edit an article about Bill O'Relly, and cslot promised to report me here for "wikistalking" (so I decided not to edit it anymore). Third time, I editedThe Intelligence Summit today, and he reported me here. Sorry, but it is Csloat who deserved a warning for intimidating other users.Biophys01:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not intimidating anyone. Your account above is false; as you well know, we had a long-standing dispute on Sarindar, which you were wrong about. An RfC quickly showed that. But after you saw me having trouble with another user, you joined forces with him. In any case I'd like an admin to review not only the stalking charge but also the BLP violations and theWP:POINT violations, which are still ongoing on the Intelligence Summit page.csloat15:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I was not aware of that. But I'm sure this IP will be back to edit warring once the block expires. Please watch it. Thanks.Grandmaster09:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
He continues to create new user accounts after three edits in an article (see contributions ofProgressoriser,Llangowen,Dyspareunia,User:RealismIncorporated) . Hence I cannot file aWP:3RR report. Filing checkuser report is useless because, he leave his old accounts after some edits. For example seeIslam and children histroy[49]. I know check user will confirm my allegation but what the use when he will create another account in a second. Do we have some more useful and long-term solution? I suggest make creating account difficult may be? ---A. L. M.15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
We can't make account creation any more difficult, there's nothing in the software to let us. I suggest you file a checkuser request, and also ask the checkuser to block and underlying IP addresses ACB. --Deskana(talk)15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, we can't make account creation any more difficult. If you want new features, ask the developers at Bugzilla. None of us can make creating accounts more difficult. You need to try to relax a bit and not be so confrontational; I suggested checkuser because you never mentioned it had already been done. Make sure you state the situation clearly to get the best feedback, otherwise people will just suggest things you've done before. --Deskana(talk)15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I sympathise with ALM's frustration - it seems he's been stalked by DY71 socks, as have I on obscure articles I'm working on. There's nothing that can be done really, but to just revert, revert and revert - one day he will get bored, and he's already had bored patches. The point is, that his edits are actually not on wikipedia that long at all before they get removed. Perhaps we can get a list together of people who are aware of DY71 and notify everyone when he comes on. The systems worked reasonably well tonight. There is also a suggestion onWP:3RR of an exemption to the rule of 3RR if it is to revert a banned user, but it is not clear. I suggest we seek to have that clarified for continuous reverts of DY71. I don't know, I'm open to suggestions too. There are some good admins who have been great in keeping him in check. It's like some illnesses you can't eradicate, you just need to manage.
It's a sad and pathetic case, i really wonder what motivates him to do it. Something is sadly wrong.Merbabu16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign - this about 15 mins late).
For the record, reverting edits of banned users is not covered under 3RR. You can revert edits of banned users as often as you want and not get blocked for 3RR. --Deskana(talk)15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In addition to a standard checkuser, you can go to the bottom ofWP:RFCU and file a "Request for IP check" - this is an attempt to identify and block the underlying IP's DavidYork is using. Maybe this has also already been done - these IP checks are not archiving for the long-term - but if not, it might be worth a shot. Otherwise, you could consider semi-protection of the target pages, rapid reporting of the socks, reverting their edits, anddenying them the satisfaction of getting everyone worked up. Many, if not all, of these strategies are probably already being used here. Eventually, the torrent will subside.MastCellTalk15:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
rapid reporting of socks? Where too? Normally, it takes a while to wait for a checkuser or an admin who knows the situation. Is there a place you can suggest to rapid report? thanks. --Merbabu15:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
ALM, ask that these pages be semi-protected. That will stop both IPs and newly-generated throwaway accounts from editing. -Merzbow15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
For the record (although it sounds like this goes beyond simplyWP:3RR), the three-revert rule applies tousers, not accounts. If you can credibly show that two accounts belong to the same user, their edits count together for the 3RR, and, as noted above, edits made by a blocked user may then be reverted freely. A checkuser isn't necessary when it is trivially clear to any observer that someone is using a series of socks. --Aquillion18:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps is needed is a place likeWP:AIV to report ongoing transparent sockpuppetry of known sockpuppeteers. The system now is only (vaguely) effective against puppeteers who have trouble accessing another IP or who invest in their new usernames. For a case like this, RfCU isn't the right venue - we already know it's DavidYork71, why wait a day and waste checkuser time confirming it - and it would be bothersome to post every new puppet on this board. Yet it seems that some administrators now see the existence of RfCU as an excuse not to block obvious socks on sight, despite the clear language of RfCU: "Obvious, disruptive sock puppet: Block. No checkuser is necessary."Proabivouac18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Several reports there appear to be several days old, and unlike AIV, they are often treated as matters requiring the careful investigation of an administrator.Proabivouac18:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Proabivouac, i like your suggestions, which let editors take on the issue themselves. Combined with the earlier suggestion above that revertingobvious disruptive socks exempts good faith editors from WP:3RR, this should see us getting around our tiresome and frustrating hamstringing in red tape that has been playing into DY71's hands. Thanks all.Merbabu22:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Well... it's considered bad form to remove other people's comments. Even ifUser:Parsecboy went a bit too far there, though, there's a difference between removing extensive off-topic arguments, like he did in the link you provided, and removing relevant discussions related to an ongoing content dispute, as happened in the other links you provided. I probably would've speedy-archived the off-topic argument myself, rather than just delete it, butUser:Parsecboy can hardly be blamed for not wanting it there; it's hard to have coherent discussion on an article when people are just throwing blind invective at each other. --Aquillion19:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a clear difference between the text being removed, and the text being restored -- specifically, the text being removed is of little (if any) apparent usefulness to the goals of this project. Contrary to what some might have you believe, talk pages are not open forums for any purpose, but are intended specifically to coordinate the improvement of the encyclopedia. Comments and sections which do not further those goals can be subject to removal; that the user is or isn't an administrator (I haven't checked) doesn't seem to factor into this, either way, unless I'm missing something. –Luna Santin (talk)20:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for finally addressing part of the problem here. I have attempted to remove accusations of theft made by several Wiki users against another user. Those sorts of statements are pure personal attacks and as you point out, have nothing to do with any usefullness to the article. YetUser:Parsecboy keeps reverting the text each time I try to remove the useless and false personal attack statements. What can be done about that? Thank you.161.55.204.15720:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the text I removed was a tangential discussion, rife with personal attacks and incivility against those who disagreed with this anon, (who wasLabyrinth13 (talk·contribs), until he was indef blocked for said gross incivility) that did not belong on the talk page. The text this user is trying to delete is relevant discussions on links to external youtube videos. I have done nothing wrong here.Parsecboy20:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the text that I removed were also personal attacks, especially the ones that wrongly accused another user of theft. I would like to see ALL personal attacks removed, not just the ones thatUser:Parsecboy has posted. ALL personal attacks should be removed. What is the difference between one attack and another?161.55.204.15721:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Anon, lets stop pretending you're anyone other than Labyrinth13. Falsely accusing someone of theft is not a personal attack. The difference between what you deleted and what I deleted is that your comments, as Labyrinth13, were deliberately malicious and incivil, with no connection to the article itself. You were just telling everyone who disagreed with you to "fuck off" because you couldn't have your way. The discussions you deleted were relevant to the article.Parsecboy21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
One cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you, to show where WP:NPA states that accusing someone of theft (falsly or otherwise) constitutes a personal attack.Parsecboy21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, which I why I would like an admin to render an opinion here. Are there any actual admins around who can look at this dispute? I'd love to have this settled and will abide by an admin's word.161.55.204.15721:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You can disagree all you want. But you're wrong. I can't say "Here'sWP:NPA, and it says right here, that accusations of theft do not constitute personal attacks". You can, however, do the opposite. Show where it says accusations of theft do constitute personal attacks, or drop your pointless crusade. And unless it's hidden somewhere at the bottom of the page, in legal print, it doesn't exist anywhere on WP:NPA.Parsecboy21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed your rantings because they were just that, rantings. You were pissed because you couldn't have your way, and were being extremely incivil, which has no place in Wikipedia anywhere. Regardless, just because someone accused you of being a thief doesn't mean you get to blank all sections of a talk page relating to the dispute. The reason I have reverted you is because you apparently have this desire to whitewash the talk page, so there's no obvious record of the dispute. If you're going to make claims and argue your point, be a man about it and leave it for all to see. If you're ashamed of it, then you probably shouldn't have written it in the first place.Parsecboy01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
FromWP:NPAThere is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion . . .
So, the way I read that statement above, what is or isn't a personal attack isopen to interpretation, hence the reason why I have been trying so hard to get a seasoned admin who is familiar with the subject of personal attacks to answer my main question: Is accusing someone of theft on a Wikipedia talk page a personal attack?
If the answer is yes, then the statements in question should be removed. If the answer is no, then does that opens the door to being allowed to accuse people of all sorts of things, so long as it takes place within a relevant discussion?161.55.204.15722:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
If an admin does decide that accusations of theft are personal attacks, remove them. But use a scalpel, not a hatchet. My comments (and those of others who made no such accusations) should remain untouched. Or better yet, put a strike through the comments.Parsecboy01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Marking this as resolved -- I think we've gotten as much closure as we're going to, for the moment. I count two or more IPs blocked, apparently related to this in some way or another. Any chance of sock/meatpuppets, I guess? –Luna Santin (talk)19:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Luna Santin. This guy's been a bit of an annoyance. I wouldn't exactly call them socks/meats; the original username,Labyrinth13 (talk·contribs) was blocked a few days ago for gross incivility, personal attacks, and removing relevant discussions from the talk page accusing him of thievery. The first IP, the one who started this vengeful post, was blocked for 3RR, and the other two were used to evade the block, and have apparently also been blocked. Again, thanks for your help in the matter.Parsecboy00:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Virgile1991(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) This young user keeps replacing the current flags of the French regions with the old provincial flags from before the French Revolution. You can find an example of this here:Île-de-France (region) (check the page's history). The same is repeated across a majority of the 26 regions of France articles. This user was warned several times on his talk page that he should stop doing this. A discussion was also opened atTalk:Nord-Pas de Calais but he has refused to take part in it so far. It seems there's no way to discuss things with him, and I don't know what to do. This user's behvior forces me and others to watch and correct these articles on a daily base now, which is time consuming. Also note that this user's misbehavior is not limited to the French regions articles. I noticed he has also vandalized theMaine article by adding French as an official language in that US state infobox.Godefroy14:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Why do you say "they"? It's just Virgile1991 who refuses to discuss things and revert all these articles, despite having been asked to provide references for his changes by other users such as Kiwipete, ThePromenader, and myself. Anyway, if he continues to revert (which he'll probably do I'm afraid, given his past behavior), I'll report him here again.Godefroy23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
"They" is simply a gender-free way to avoid using awkward constructions such as "he or she", "he/she", or artificial abominations such as "xir". --Calton |Talk23:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I might have blocked, if I'd spotted this at the time; however, it seems they've stopped for now, and we don't know if they're even still on that same IP, so a block may not have much use, by now. –Luna Santin (talk)19:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
His attention is focussed on two pages:Mark Bourrie andWarren Kinsella, who once had a legal dispute over libelous statements of Bourrie's that Kinsella sued (or threatened to sue) over. Ellis' socks often try to insert links to a blog attacking Kinsella (see[52]) or insert negative material (some of which was the subject of the threatened lawsuit) into the Kinsella article[53]). (There are serious BLP concerns with this material.)
He will also attack or harass editors who revert him (e.g.[54]).
If a few admins can watch these pages, revert, and block, it would be greatly helpful. Eventually, I suspect, he'll get bored and move on.15:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I have a similar case pertaining toFalun Gong withUser:Samuel Luo socks.. What has been decided is to followWP:DENY. Revert, notify an adminstrator by putting the suspected sock in the proper category, and then it's blocked. No recignition anymore whatsoever.15:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not anyone's sock. I am concerned about errors in the Kinsella article and rerverted to a properly-sourced entry.Bucketsofg is a friend and political colleague of kinsella who has a vested interest in keeping an inaccurate entry.Nortel Survivor15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the version I reverted to is accurately sourced, and is amply footnoted. The links are tr5o articles in Canada's mainstream media and from sites such as the Government of Canada's Gomery Inquiry report. Nor is any of it a matter of litigation. In fact, the version that Buckets reverts to contains information that is subject to a pending lawsuit, Earnscliffe v. Kinsella. Buckets is lying when he suggests otherwise. I hope someone in authority will check my claims.Nortel Survivor23:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The article version reverted - slowly - to is the favourite of Arthur Ellis. Checkuserjpgordon (talk·contribs) statedhere that this editor can be identified bythe duck test. Now, Nortel Survivor has gone aroundTropicNord (talk·contribs)'s user and user talk page and tagged them with sockpuppet tags, stating that TropicNord - who was the last editor to deal with Ellis socks, and who clashed with them - is the subject of the article, and has been blocked indefinitely (false). There's a lot of quacking going on here. This is almost certainly Ellis, and needs a block.Tony Fox(arf!)review?00:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem isthis picture and the comment under it.Anonimu(talk·contribs·count·logs·page moves·block log) has been involved in a series of disputes and edit wars with several editors, and has [in my oppinion at least] vandalized several articles. A couple messages have been exchanged (by 3 people who question whether formal action should be taken next time User:Anonimu vandalizes) in the talk page of the latest article he kept vandalizing,Fântâna Albă massacre (the article is now pretected). I suspect that as a result of this open exchanges of oppinion, the user Anonimu has placed this photo and the comment underneath it.
Why is this image and comment offensive and inappropriate: Anonimu uses explicite Nazi symbols and symbols of a pro-fascist Romanian party during 1930s (green shirt, and the three-bars-by-three-bars cross) to imply that the people who want formal action against Anonimu's behavior in WP would be pro-fascist and Holocaust deniars. It is a disguised form of personal attack, especially offensive since the users that seek Anonimu to stop bad behavior are anti-fascist, and have contributed in WP in particular to telling the truth about the Holocaust, in both its size and horibility. Anonimu has been told many times that although some users have anti-communist views, while he is openly communist, his personal political views are not a problem for dialog with other users, and only the content of the edit can theoretically be, and if the later is a case, only the content of the edit can and must be judged, not the declarative political views, whatever extreme they could be.
Requested action: the user should remove the image and the comment from his user page, and should be warned that such actions on his part constitue a serios breach of civilized behavior on WP. :Dc7618:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
In essence,Anonimu is trying to convey the idea that whoever disagrees with him does it because he's a proud Communist, and is thus a Nazi-minded bully. This is only one -- so far, the most pictographic -- episode of a long series of accusations of Nazi-mindedness.
Everybody knows the long series of Nazi crimes.Anonimu's attempts to compare his editorial opponents with genocidal mass murderers over disagreements over tagging are extremely inappropriate, and lead towardshostile editing environment. UnderWP:CIV, I support the request to remove this image, and express my general condemnation of throwing lightly around accusations of Nazism.Digwuren
Nothing but nonsense, WHOIS doesn't suggest it's shared, and it all looks similar enough that I might venture it's the same person, anyway. Either way, it's a drain on resources better spent elsewhere; blocked. If anybody disagrees, feel free to let me know or release the block. –Luna Santin (talk)19:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Slovenian football clubs
All of the articles inCategory:Slovenian football clubs are being hit by vandals, both anons and registered. Since I have no clue as to which of the seemingly nonsensical edits may or may not be true, could somebody with some knowledge take a look, or are we going to have to semi-protect all of the articles in the category?Corvus cornix19:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to bring this user attention. Even though this user has made only a few contributions so far, all of them have been made to a hoax article calledSkipper: The Great One. Why am I reporting this user now? Well because Skipper: The Great One seems to fit the pattern and format of the many hoaxes created byUser:Danny Daniel and his sockpuppets. It mentionsRobert Cait, a person which was mentioned in some of the Danny Daniel hoaxes (User:Poppapop, a Danny Daniel sockpuppet confirmed by checkuser,edited Robert Cait). It also mentions a parody ofCode Lyoko. The final point I want to bring up is JupyMelon's username. If you compare that username to the the sockpuppet usernames listed atUser:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel, you can see that they are similar, especially when you compare it toUser:Jugglemuggler. Anyways, do not block this user unless I find more evidence that this user may be a likely sockpuppet, which will be when JupyMelon makes more edits. I just wanted admins to be aware of this user.Pants(T)21:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please take into consideration Ned Scott's editing ofWikipedia? I noticed that another editor is complaining about him above, I don't know the substance of that issue. I can say that he's been reverting work without going to talk. Perhaps a warning from an uninvolved admin might help here? -Ta bu shi da yu21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
MagicalPhats(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has just been blocked by myself for a week. He was blocked yesterday (also by me) due to vandalism after a final warning. The user claimed he was just making test edits and another admin unblocked him after MagicalPhats promised to only edit in his own user space. He did this and created a bunch of user subpages that consisted of a bunch of redirects (1 redirected to 2 which redirected to 3, etc.). Another user tagged these for speedy deletion today (since they were popping up on a list of active double redirects I presume). MagicalPhats went on to blank the user's user page and replaced it with a "Please don't edit other people's pages" message (seethis edit). I then blocked him, reinstating the orignial 48 hour block I had put in yesterday. After some personal attacks against me and a warning about those attacks by me, he was disruptive again so I extended it to a week. In response to that he addedthis to his talk page.
I haven't locked his talk page or anything, but could some other admins review this and weigh in to make sure I was acting appropriately and not "biting the noobs"? Thanks,Metros22:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems pretty clear-cut to me. It's the time-honored vandalize-block-personal attack circle. I'd even lengthen the block for the "piece of shit admin" remark right after.--Atlan (talk)22:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
"Fuck you. I'll just make another account" - sounds like it escalated and the editor has no desire to refrain from being disruptive. Endorsed block, however you should probably not have extended the block with "Congratulations" - that's just rubbing it in and precipitated the quoted comment here -Alison☺22:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
He had more than a fair share of patience yesterday, and given the history I think the block is reasonable. Based on his non-stellar debut here, starting a new account would be a good way to blank his slate. I'll encourage him to do so, and I'll also counsel the person who did the tagging that one should be cautious when tagging other users' pages for deletion. — Carl(CBM · talk)22:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Block review of Skipsievert
I have blockedSkipsievert (talk·contribs) for 31 hours forthis edit. He later went on to give his retort a a header for some reason.[55] I've been trying to mediate over atTalk:Technocratic movement for a while, and Skip has already been blocked once for provoking another user by mass-quotingWP:CIVIL- I assume the fact that he did this implies that he has read through the policy. He's been very aggressive on the Technocratic Movement page, and I feel this was a tipping point. Since I've been quasi-involved in the article (mostly grammar and source advice though), I feel someone should check what I've done. Thanks.--Wafulz23:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Continued vandalism by another Arthur Ellis sockpuppet
Resolved
It would seem that that after a a short hiatus, Arthur Ellis has returned...sigh...
The sockpuppet which is currently under investigation for the 13th time,[56]this time as Nortel Survivor[57].
has without any authority placed a block on my discussion page and suggested for a 2nd time that I am a sockpuppet[58].
Words fail me at this point in time to try and explain the actions of such a person(s).
Could the admins remove (or permit me to remove) the illegal block and allegation of sock puppet which by the way was dealt with sometime ago.
ThanksTropicNord
I've indefinitely blocked this user both as a likely sockpuppet and for vandalizing your userpages. You can just revert the edits to your user page and user talk page; this user doesn't have the ability to block you from editing. Just remove the templates - seeWP:REVERT for technical help if you need it.MastCellTalk03:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It's on a dynamic DSL service (i.e. not really blockable). An admin could block the entire IP block being 88.108.0.0/ 14 but that would block quite a few addresses. Just be patient and monitor the pages. Request semi-protection if necessary.Sasquatcht|c01:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
If they've targeted a specific page or set of pages, semi-protection might be helpful. I usually find this more effective than chasing dynamic IP sockpuppets.MastCellTalk03:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see[59], it should probably be semi-protected. In fact all the controversial Islam-related articles should be.Arrow740 01:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)AlsoIbn Khaldun. Someone might be wikistalking me.Arrow74001:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
(1) The first edit on May 15 by the anon IP (diff here) and the follow-up re-insertion of material 4 days later on May 19, (diff here, scroll down a little).
(2) On the talk page more evidence they are the same user is in this section (here) of the talk page, where Raphaelaarchon picks up the discussion on May 19 where it was left off (initiated) by anon 68.84.254.176 four days earlier. This indicates that the account is a meatpuppet at the very least, and most probably a sock.
(3) Finally, the edits are from an account in Florida, similar to the locations of at least two other socks used (in the U.S., other open-proxy socks have been used internationally).
(4) Some (list not inclusive) of the other socks used by Raphaela to avoid blocks are listedhere.
Based on other evidence in this user's contribution logs than what is listed here, they are a clear sockpuppet of Raphaelarchon, and is editing not logged in to evade their block. This IP is now blocked for a long, long time.Nandesuka03:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it dynamic? She's been editing from that address for over a month now (though not very many edits, my examples were from mid-May).R. Baley03:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It is. It's just a comcast high-speed pool IP from Florida with a long DHCP lease. All she has to do is ... um ...well -Alison☺05:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ganesham used edit summaries for personal attacks
The following discussion is preserved as anarchive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
SeeGanesham. This user continued to make personal attacks in edit summaries, refused mediation, called myself and a fellow editor "thugs" who were "ruining Wikipedia"here. Now he is erasing is talk page, and continues to refuse to discuss these matters civilly. Seehere. I've informed them of this noticehere.TheRingess (talk)03:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Then why have they refused attempts to discuss their accusations in mediation? Wouldn't an apology for breaking one of Wikipedia's primary guidelines been a better call for peace? Also see this mediation page, that was created 3 months ago, their only edit was a personal attackWikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-28 Guru Gita.TheRingess (talk)03:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to punish users, or drag them by their ears and force an apology. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. The editor in question hasn't made trouble for 10 days since it appears that he has already been chased off.[60] –Gunslinger4704:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as anarchive.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 page.
Pam55
Can someone of admins block the sock accountUser:Pam55, established by checkuser, see:
Minor serial spammerAndman8 (talk·contribs), apparent business partner of bigger serial spammerUser:MyWikiBiz, seems to have a problem with followingWP:NPAhere. Was warned, and respondedthusly. Between implicit admission of using Wikipedia to line his own pockets and the explicit incivility, perhaps someone could have a word with him? --Calton |Talk05:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I blocked the guy for a short while. It's not so much the incivility but the fact that he sees nothing wrong with it. -Alison☺05:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
CSD G4 opinions please
YDoneThisImage:Dorus-1-.jpg was again delete on the 16th June because the licensing of PD-old wasnt possiblediff, after being tagged on the 8th June. Checking the logs it was also deleted on 2nd June after a series of challenges to licensing starting on the 17th April.
In this case couldWP:CSD#G4 actually be applied or does it again need to be listed for 7 days. In each instance the uploader has been the same editor.Gnangarra16:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
G4, people think if they copy something they can release it as PD, but not so. He needs to demonstrate that the artist died X years ago to make it public domain. Owning a painting necessarily does not mean you own the rights to it.(H)16:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Sefringle has three times reverted an edit of mine to Anti-Zionism and then immediately slapped an edit war warning on my user page without any attempt to discuss the point aty issue. He has not posted to the discussion page despite my invitation to him to do so.
The change he is reverting has been discussed inTalk:Anti-Zionism and supported by the two people who commented on it. Sefringle has not commented there. Because I had reverted one change by one of the two people who supported my change before we agreed on this change, I cannot revert Sefringle's third change.
Could an Administrator please revert his change to my agreed text and direct him to discuss changes in the talk page. --Peter cohen01:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, I'll stay out of this. I read the talk page discussion, and I'm still having trouble to see the difference between Peter Cohen's version and Sefringle's version. I prefer Sefringle's as a matter ofstyle, but I believe they are equivalent in theircontent. My advice: wait long enough to avoid 3RR technically, and revert per consensus on the talk page. Better yet, rewrite the paragraph from scratch if possible.YechielMan08:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
User:FatherTree Knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and Canvasing
User:FatherTree is making false accusations of my being a sockpuppet. see diff: [[61]] Heis knowingly make false accusations of my being a sockpuppet, while we are in a mediation ([[62]]) Evidence of not being a sockpuppet:
I don't see how we can mediate these issues at this time with this behavior. He is clearly an SPA on this article. I'd like him to stop making false accusations. Administrative action is required.DPetersontalk01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You're definitely correct. I'm not sure he's active enough for a block to have an effect, but a short-term block (24 hours) might send a message to FatherTree that we takeWP:CIVIL seriously.YechielMan03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
He is now engaged inWP:CANVAS, which is not ok as I read the statement. See diff: [[65]] Should I file another incident here about this or can you include this here and interevene?DPetersontalk18:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Administrator abuse/harassment
Crossmr(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is conducting a harrassment spree against me. Every time I edit, he then "porks" me for something, and I am forced to defend myself. I am fed up with Crossmr's harassment spree. Here are the four comments I was forced to defend myself on:Comment 1Comment 2Comment 3Comment 4Once Crossmr finds someone to warn, he tends to harass every chance he gets. This is considered to be harassment as I speak. I condone Crossmr's actions as he engaged in harassment. —Mark Kim (U *T/R *CTD) 05:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Addendum: Crossmr also assumes thatthis edit which he removed an unneeded sentence was my idea—it wasnever my idea as I really never intended the sentence to be there in the first place—someone else placed the sentence first. I was accused of doing something that I never did in the first place. —Mark Kim (U *T/R *CTD)05:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I should have taken this a bit more seriously. Just that I giggled a bit there :) As for the editor above, I'm not really seeing a campaign of harassment there. Can you provide more evidence? -Alison☺05:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The perks of editing must be getting better if some editors can get porked for it. As for the 'horrible harassment'...there is none. You're turning a discussion in which you're in the wrong into an AN/I report based on the fact that your'e wrong, and don't like it?ThuranX05:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
For the curious, the full details of Mark Kim's behaviour is aboveWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive261#Mark_Kim_continues_uncivil_behaviour. Every time he continues to behave uncivily he is reminded not to. It is behaviour that has gone on for 2 years and shows no indication of stopping even though numerous editors have tried to help him. He believes himself to be above the policies guidelines (often complaining others break the same rules he's breaking). His position is well documented in my talk page archiveUser_talk:Crossmr/Archive/Archive_06#RE:_Bose_corporation. (starting with that section and several more). Mark Kim has a long history of calling even the politest reminders to follow the rules "harassment" or "personally damaging to his persona".--Crossmr12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with Crossmr's actions. Mark Kim was the first to be at fault here by bashing on an anon user and Crossmr simply warned him... His whole claim is ludicrous to me...Sasquatcht|c16:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Even Mark Kim says, in his post above, that he condones Crossmr's porking. Though perhaps he meant to "condemn" it. That would make somewhat more sense. Anyhow,I condone Crossmr's actions. Could an imperfect command of English be an exacerbating factor here?MastCellTalk17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Such a thing would make sense for an initial misunderstanding, but the inappropriateness of his behaviour has been explained to him in many ways by many editors. If his english were that bad for that long, I wouldn't really see him capable of making any quality edits here. Plus he maintains on his user page that he is a native speaker. This is more an issue of the fact that Mark Kim sees even the smallest question of his behaviour as a hardcore personal assault of the worst nature. He's demonstrated that repeatedly, and he's flat out stated he feels that he is right and if he needs to defend his position in an article he should be able to do it any way he sees fit.--Crossmr18:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody be warned for taking aWP:POINT too far?
Hmm, I didn't think any further action was warranted here. After a number of others jumped into the discussion, he may have given up (he hasn't posted to FUR since TCC's "this is the way it is" post). He's new and the NFCC are probably the most arcane portion of Wikipedia's policies (outside the GFDL, which I don't really get either), so I'm not surprised he would put up a fuss. I would have waited to see what he did with his future image uploads before potentially pissing him off with the Reichstag thing.howcheng{chat}16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The sockpuppet thing was really a meat puppet and cleared up immediately when the problem was pointed out to me; although the sockpuppet charge remains (Kviki indef-blocked) based on false information. I've since read the sockpuppet policy information more carefully, and found that - even if supporting facts were true (which they are not) - there was no basis for the block. It's even more clear now that I see this discussion, thatUser:N was using as many warnings and charges as he could find to disrupt the discussion because he did not agree with my position. He then used his own sockpuppet accusation with the intent of embarrassing me and causing further problems (like here). --Rogerfgay13:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This is an archived discussion. Please do not continue to add to it. If you have an issue with me take it to my talk page. -N19:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
A persistent vandal on a dynamic IP is blanking userpages and user talk pages at an alarming rate (see[67] for a small sampling). This vandal picks victims in an arbitrary fashion: almost every user who has warned or blocked the offending IP has had their userpage blanked. Whois data for the IPs reveal them to originate from Modesto, California, via Southwestern Bell Internet Services. All IPs start with 69.225.x.x or 69.110.x.x. Is there any way to identify the person behind these edits and get the ISP to do something about it? Alternately, would instituting a range block be an appropriate measure? ˉˉanetode╦╩10:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's really that severe to require a range block. Blanking of a page is obvious vandalism, and a bot will probably revert it - as will several users. On the other hand, I think contacting the ISP is a good idea.OdMishehu10:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism itself is not that severe, it was the persistence that was troublesome. Things seem to have quited down for now. ˉˉanetode╦╩11:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
IP disrupting page
I'm about to go out so cannot keep reverting edits by this vandal[68]. Can someone put a block on the IP. They appear to have moved to here now[69].Darrenhusted13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
They haven't vandalised since I warned them, so it's probably ok, I don't think any action needs to be taken at the moment.John Hayestalk14:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
AFD needing univolved participation
Could some folks take a look atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Going, about a you-tube user. We've got off-wiki links to the AFD, accusations (some justified, IMO) of puppetry, and an extremely argumentative discussion. While it has had long enough of a run to be closed, I think it would be best if some established and emotionally uninvolved Wikipedians chimed in first. And tone cautions to some of the existing participants may also be in order.GRBerry15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Crickey - that's one big puppetshow, it seems that people are linking to it all over the place, so I expect the situation to get worse. --Fredrick day15:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I think you wanted the established users to vote "keep" but I just don't like that article. PS:Block all the puppets. -N15:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I was watching this last night. I'd suggest blocking the puppets, but it's confusing to figure out who are the puppets and who is the puppeteer.--Ispy198115:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked the following accounts as strikingly obvious, disruptive throwaway accounts created specifically to participate in this AfD:
There are several more accounts which are highly suspicious but which I elected not to block without digging a little deeper. I'd recommend a checkuser at the conclusion of the AfD discussion to mop up the remaining socks, assuming they've affected the decision by virtue of their sheer number if nothing else.MastCellTalk15:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
(Reply to N). Nope, I didn't have any particular desire for what the AFD established users did. I just thought the closer should have the benefit of some opinions from established user. If you look through the AFD, a couple days ago I put{{afd-anons}} on it and commented while explicitly declining to opine on the merits, because for this subject I can't bring myself to actually care about whether we have an article. As a closer of a prior DRV, I could be seen by some as too involved to be handing out any warnings/cautions.GRBerry16:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Give me a few minutes, I'm going to close the AfD which should solve the issue, or at least foist it off on DRV...--Isotope2316:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Closed as no consensus. I somehow suspect this will end up in another DRV, but as an uninvolved party who has never heard of this chap before, I didn't see any consensus/policy reason to delete. I didn't take any adminstrative actions against the participants; MastCell got the obvious socks and I'm hoping the established users will all cool off now that the AFD is closed.--Isotope2317:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is preserved as anarchive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Yesterday I wasindef blocked byRyulong with the 3-word summary in the block log "Abusing multiple accounts", despite the fact that I had engaged in no disruptive or abusive behavior. Apparently he objected to my tagging of an image as needing a fair use rationale when it actually didn't. (This was my mistake and I would gladly have corrected it myself, given the opportunity.) No message was left on my talk page regarding the reason for the indefinite block.
I spent the day, on and off, attempting to resolve the issue by e-mail and IRC. The indefinite block was endorsed bySlimVirgin; I finally contacted Ryulong on#wikipedia-en-unblock; his behavior there toward me was incivil and he terminated the conversation after a brief time. That said, shortly afterward he unblocked me.
I twice attempted to post the log of our IRC conversation in my userspace as a temporary reference for this report (per the unblock channel notices, those logs may be published); but Ryulongdeleted them as quickly as I could upload them.
I have no desire to beat a dead horse, or to get into a long discussion here. I just felt that Ryulong's behavior should be called to the attention ofsomeone.Videmus Omnia04:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, even though you may not be able to post the logs, could you explain what transpired in the channel, to the best of your recollection, and let Ryulong reply to it, and explain himself? --Haemo04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Long story short, he wouldn't tell me how I deserved an indef block, and when I requested a review here atWP:ANI or atWP:AN, he said my request was "irrelevant", then said "I'm done with this" and terminated the conversation.Videmus Omnia04:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, that doesn't sound verycivil; people who have problems with a block deserve to be treated with respect, especially when their concerns surround the block rationale being incorrect. However, let's wait for Ryulong's reponse. --Haemo04:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a case of mistaken identity, for which Ryūlóng appologized.[70]
As for the the heavy-handed treatment Videmus endured in the IRC channel, I'm unclear on if Wikipedia policies extend to cover off-site conduct. –Gunslinger4704:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I felt that the user in question was a sockpuppet of someone due to his immediate edits concerning{{nrd}} on various images. I blocked, and sought out a checkuser to see if this sort of sockpuppet was permitted. I was not able to procure one until this evening. Anyway, when Videmus Omnia made contact with Slim Virgin through unblock-en-l, he had said that he changed accounts as per his right to vanish. When I asked him if he could give me the name of his former account through a private message so I can confirm that the account did not violate policy, he did not comply, and simply continued to ask why I had blocked him. I left the channel at that point. Based on some of the information my IRC client gave me, I did some digging on Wikipedia, found what I believed was the account he was talking about, and unblocked him and removed the autoblock on his IP. His only actions in the past two hours have been posting the log in that subpage, and then making various complaints about my actions in the deletion, and the tone I had in the channel.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)04:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a case of mistaken identity, coupled with some raised hackles all around. However, SlimVirgin's comments are odd; they claim he admitted to using multiple accounts. I guess this is just another part of the misunderstanding going on here. Videmus, I think Ryulong understands that you were upset by what happened, and he apologized. You've also brought it up here, and I understand where you're coming from -- being accidentally blocked can be a real heart-stopper. However, as NewYorkBrad said on your talk page, it's probably best if you move on. In my opinion, I think it was borderline incivil what went on there, but it's understandable given what he explained. This is a real gray area, and I think you would do well to just put it behind you -- I don't think you're really going to get a lot more out of this process than the account you just got. Just remember that we're all friends here, and no one's out to get anyone - just smile, and move on. --Haemo04:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
WHy can't IRC chats be publishd here like Videmus tried? That smacks of the IRC elitism often brought up (and quashed) here on AN/I. What's the deal?ThuranX05:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Freenode doesn't let anyone publish logs, for privacy reasons. We try to keep up our end of that bargain. --Haemo05:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Ugh. I'm sorry, but that just sounds like 'hey all, let's go talk in this place where no one can prove we ever said anything' and smacks of cabalism. Now that I understand this, count me among the masses opposed to IRC use by Admins to create 'consensus' for things on Wiki. Without transparency, there's no accountability.ThuranX05:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
In general, the Wikimedia Freenode channels do not permit the posting of logs publically. Now,#wikipedia-en-unblock is a grey area, in that public logging is permitted, but discouraged. Administrators can see the content of the discussion atSpecial:Undelete/User:Videmus Omnia/Ryulong. #wikipedia-en-unblock is a public channel, and anyone that was in there knew what went on, as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)05:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
This wasn't an attempt to create "consensus" - it is a useful service, to help contact admins in real-time. It's aservice. And if you've ever spent time on IRC, you knowthere is no cabal. --Haemo05:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that there is 'no cabal', however, the secrecy protecting IRC from review doesn't help to dissuade those who feel that Admins gang up on them from having those feelings. My point is that IRC decisions cannot be reviewed like a Wikipedia Talk apge can, nor like a WP: page can, like this one. That's it. There are a few areas in which IRC has merit, but it's not universally great.ThuranX05:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the problem here, this was the unblock channel, the editor in question joined that channel and discussed with the blocking admin, and the logs aren't published. That is no different to the normal practice of encouraging users to email the blocking admin (Indeed it's only a couple of years back that this was your only option), we don't allow publishing of private email correspondance either. --pgk06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK, #wikipedia-en-unblock channel expressly permits public logging of what transpires in the channel. —{C}10:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You may post IRC logs if you wish, James F's "IRC rules" (what you may (and may not) do) don't apply to Wikipedia. I'd also advise that you may start a request for comment into Ryulong's misuse of administrative powers, due to the nature of this being an on-going habbit (but, of course, Ryulong has cascade protected hisRfC already -- irony, or what).Matthew10:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I like how we constantly get told that IRC is nothing to do with wikipedia and thus any problems with admins using it are nothing to do with Wikipedia. However if someone wants to publish logs, well that's against the rules of Freenode and should be removed. So what if it's against freenodes regs? That'sfreenodes business to enforce not wikipedia because (as we keep being told) the two are unconnected. --Fredrick day10:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Public logging of Wikimedia channels is expressly prohibited on Meta and should not be done. Regular posting of logs is a blockable offence. There are legal issues with this as well. —{C}10:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The policy on Meta seems to consist of "logging is prohibited because we've said that logging is prohibited". --Fredrick day11:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Then challenge policy, we have already have had these discussions a lot many times before on this very page. One of the major reasons of prohibiting public logging is that material becomes libel once published, and that is not one of the conditions with which users engage in multi-partite discussions. —{C}11:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone point me to a page that says Meta policy trumps (local) wikipedia policy - because I cannot find such a thing either here or there - our own policy page doesn't even seem to mention Meta's involvement in the development of policy. --Fredrick day11:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Further checking seems to reveal that there is infact no policy against logging on META - there is 1) a guideline page which states that maybe it's not a good idea and 2)Because the Wikimedia IRC channels are not officially WMF material, this page could never be deemed any form of official policy. However, those who do "unofficially officially" run the channels have stated that they are official, and so, within #wikipedia at least, these rules are binding :-) - so as far as I can see - the state that "Meta prohibits logging" does not seem to be true or is badly worded - unless there is another policy page there I cannot find? --Fredrick day11:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure where the no-public-logging rule comes from; it's in the topic of every Wikipedia-related IRC channel I've visited, but I'm not sure about the original source. I feel the lack of logging interferes with my ability to do anthing substantive on IRC (which I hardly ever use, by the way); if something isn't logged and you can't see where a decision was made, the decision may as well not have been made at all because you'll have to make it again to demonstrate where the consensus is (although this is preferable in my view to a situation in which private decisionscould sensibly be binding, except in OFFICE and similar cases). Other channels on Freenode are logged; for instance, sometimes something on Esolang (another wiki) is discussed on #esoteric on Freenode, but there are two logging bots there constantly so that something can be referred to if necessary (Esolang doesn't get enough traffic for this to have been necessary, yet, and discussing the wiki isn't the prime purpose of the channel). I would like a logged channel to be available, possibly as an alternative to the current unlogged channel, but I'd be interested to hear where the no-public-logging rule (which I respect; I don't even have private logs of Wikipedia channels) comes from, and I'm interested as to what its rationale is. (Presumably it was discussed in an unlogged channel somewhere, so nobody can now find the original discussion...) --ais523 16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Well it appears that ais523's work proves that the logs can be shown, so editors should not be blocked for sharing them with us.Hypnosadist09:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I kind of think the topic of discussion has changed somewhat. If you have an issue with IRC or anything else, I'd really prefer it to be taken elsewhere, as it isn't very relevant to Ryulong specifically. -Zero1328Talk?09:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict, thank you, Zero, for bringing some intelligence here)
What the hell went on here? Logging is discouraged with the unblock channel. I blocked him before he signed on there, and he was merely in there to get unblocked. I unblocked him after finding out what I asked him to begin with. Again, this is not an issue for WP:ANI. If I was slightly incivil in dealing with Videmus through the IRC channel, that was because he was:
Requesting that I ask for review of the block I made on a 4 day old account (his) here at ANI or at AN.
Asking why I blocked him (which I told him and I explained further up)
and I was getting exasperated trying to get the information I wanted out of him. The only administrative actions I performed in dealing with him were deleting of the log he took, because I was not aware of #wikipedia-en-unblock's permitance of such a fact. But honestly, anything beyond my unblock is beating a dead horse (damn I've used that term a lot this morning). If Videmus contributes, I'll have nothing else to do with him. If he disrupts, I'll block him. And the only reasonWikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong is cascade protected is because during the early days of my adminship, I was dealing with sockpuppets who repeatedly recreated that page because of a proper block I made on vandalism accounts (seeUser:CBDrunkerson). It can be taken off at any time, although I see no basis for any RfC with this situation (Matthew doesn't feel I'm an administrator anyway). Also, the guidelines are currently atmeta:IRC guidelines: "Don't post public logs of any channels without prior permission from all persons quoted. This is a good rule of thumb, but some channels do not have this restriction - if in doubt, check." If someone wants to restore the logs of that channel in his subspace, then they can, but nothing will come out of it being published or not.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)10:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok just as long as we now know there is no policy to stop publishing logs and therefore no-one should be blocked for publishing them.Hypnosadist10:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not what this block was about, anyway. I had suspicions of sockpuppetry, and my "incivility" was after he would not reveal to me information I requested to unblock him, which I did in the long run. And per comments below this, I'll be unsalting the RfC page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)20:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Protecting against the creation of an RfC on yourself is the sort of thing that, regardless of the actual reasons behind it, certainly gives anappearance that you're making yourself immune to criticism, like the "untouchable caste" I've been lambasted for hypothesizing the existence of before.*Dan T.*12:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Since the RfC page has been protected against creation since February as a temporary measure, I'm going to un-salt it. Any problem with that?MastCellTalk19:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Ryulong needs to face up to responsibility. He admits to incivility. He also admits a block was not right. He soiled someone else's record. He should pay compensation in the form of being blocked himself, say 2 hours minimum. This is only fair.Vectorsap23:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as anarchive.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 page.
I'm sick of this. Consensus was reached about removing the Russian name ofPodilsko-Voskresenska Line from the article (seehist). ThenKuban kazak(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) showed up and decided to add Russian without discussion (diff). He only started discussing it after he was reverted. However, consensus on his version was not reached and he kept reverting back to his version. I had the article protected, and started aMedCab case about it. The user, not waiting for consensus to be reached at MedCab, decides to add Russian yet again (diff). Now I don't know, he's starting another edit war. Maybe the article needs to be protected, but I'm also sick of that user's behavior. —Alex(U|C|E)06:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
LookinghereI wonder why the position of one user (Akhristov's) is considered consensus. Another user (dima) wrote he[doesn't] mind if there is only Ukrainian name or both.Alæxis¿question?07:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
My point there was that Kuban kazak was free to discuss it on the talk page, he chose not to. He only discussed it after he got reverted. I believe it could have been considered consensus since DDima and I were the only editors to the article at that time. If it was Kuban kazak's edit I would have been discussing originally, I'd wait for his input. —Alex(U|C|E)07:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Forum shopping. P.S. The last time I visited Kiev I heard Russian spoken as often as in Moscow. I can't see a reason for discriminating against one of the languages of this bilingual city. --Ghirla-трёп-08:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the language issue, go toMedCab. I am talking about behavior here, starting a revert war while a discussion is going on is unacceptable, especially editing towards a disputed revision. —Alex(U|C|E)08:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Then you should move your request toWP:RFP. I would support protection until the dispute is resolved. The matter does appear to be trivial, however. --Ghirla-трёп-08:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I will not move this discussion over there. I will, however, add a request for protection. This conversation stays here, it is about a user's behavior. I don't see others revert warring on that article while the MedCab discussion is taking place. Especially people who are involved in the MedCab case. —Alex(U|C|E)08:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well let's see who actually reverted first[71], not just the lead, but numerous factual corrections and grammatical mistakes (the so calledlow quality edits in the summary). Can I just also add that Akhristov actuallyleft the medcab to find consensus, yet that did not prevent him from a total revert. Why should I not report this as a blatant violation ofWP:HAR? After all I have the right for my work not to be reverted senselessly. --Kuban Cossack16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I consider the edits low-quality, they introduced lots of run-on sentences that were easier to correct by reverting. Also stuff like "radius", which doesn't make any sense (at least to the common reader). If an admin feels that I'm not right, he/she is free to tell me that I'm not. —Alex(U|C|E)01:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually radius is a term that is used officially, when describing complete segments, also is "low qulity" an alibi to avoid sensilessly purging the Russian from the lead? --Kuban Cossack17:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Consensus was reachedearlier, prior to Kuban kazak showing up. I said it before and I'll say it again, if you want to revert something, discuss it first. That is exactly what I did. However, Kuban kazak decided to revert without discussing first. Don't make me restate everything I stated in my first comment, please. —Alex(U|C|E)01:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Will any administrators please comment on this? This is an administrators' noticeboard, and the only people that seem to try to resolve this particular dispute are regular users. Soon this will turn into a discussion board for something that was straightforward at first, and will be hard for administrators to follow. Administrators, please comment ASAP. —Alex(U|C|E)02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I supportUser:Akhristov's claims about Kuban kazak. But this page is nothing more than a chatroom for people who don't have admin rights, so Alex, don't take it so serious.AlexPU07:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It wasall parties at the time. You showed up a day later. You don't own all Metro articles perWP:OWN so please quit acting like you do. —Alex(U|C|E)21:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You don't own articles in the same way, so please quit acting like you do.[72], You don't call the shots, and that goes irrespective of where the line is located, the Ukraine, Kiev, Zanzibar or in a pomoika. Although I would not object removing Russian from the latter ;) --Kuban Cossack22:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't act like I own all articles. So you want Russian names everywhere they don't belong, including Zanzibar? My revert was valid, I believe it is one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines to agree on something without edit warring, and leave the version that consensus was reached on until discussion is over. —Alex(U|C|E)22:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
As the mediator in the medcom case, I feel I should probably say something here. Kuban's behavior has indeed been unacceptable, he has blatantly refused to see compromise, and instead stuck to his firm views in relation to this case. I askedJossi to upgrade thearticle protection at fear of an event such as this one taking place, but this was rejected. I firmly believe that Kuban must be stopped in one way or another, and urge an administrator reading this to take appropriate actions./Contribs22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Article full-protected for 2 weeks, or until some kind of consensus on this pressing issue can be reached on the talk page.MastCellTalk22:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh, that is pretty bizarre. If they want to keep a hit list, they can do so just fine, off-wiki. Their current method seems to serve mainly to agitate other users, and should probably stop. –Luna Santin (talk)20:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Crap, I really need to check the contribs first. But still, give him a slap on the wrist for those notices, it's just not on.Will(talk)20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This is so-oo out of control. This is what we feared in mid `03 during the debate that created the Admin position-- that we'd get a bunch of people who hung around all day looking for petty ways to use their petty powers. Especially ways to simply shut people up, as you are doing to me, under the guise of policy. And I actually voted to go ahead and create you! (smacks head, twice)JDG22:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a "cease and desist" order seems a bit harsh, but they have a point. What is that "deletionist ahoy" message supposed to tell people?--Atlan (talk)22:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Plus, I think it's fair to say you guys and gals are deletionists. You should be aware that things are about to get very active between you and us, the Inclusionists[76] If we squawk aboutWP:CIVIL andWP:POINT the whole way, it's going to be a very boring exchange, you know? Allow a little passion-- it won't hurt you or W.JDG
Still at it - I suggest a short block, cannot say I'm impressed with the tone of the last message here - seems to be a veiled threat and an attempt to drive a wedge in the community. --Fredrick day23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
An admin who blocks me for speaking my mind, politely but emphatically, and for tagging user pages for later bot processing, will be brought up on charges of abuse of admin powers.JDG23:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No time for great detail at the moment, but the bot will simply harvest these usernames and then, in the fullness of time, send out a concise explanation of why the old policies regarding image use and retention are no longer in force, with directions on how best to reverse the thousands of mistakes that have been made. In instances where images have been blown away without even keeping old histories, the most strident deletionists will be given the job of tracing the original uploaders, apologizing to them for the period of paranoia just passed, and asking them if they still have a copy of the image. It will be slow, dull work abd it's only fit that the most voracious deletionists be the ones to do it.JDG23:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think my warienss about Admins has been established here, but damn, dude. That's jsutdickish intimidation attempts. I support a reasonable (72hour to one week ban) by the admins against this user for hostility. His anger about image deletions is far less understandable than the big spoiler row, because image policy's been established for a long time, though only recently enforced. There's no sea change in policy here to find conflict in.ThuranX23:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Jumpin Jehosophat! My language has been nowhere near yours in "intimidation" and "anger", and you think you have a right to call for a 72h to one-week ban! Then you'd better ban yourself for a month or else the universe ain't right! I'm telling you, we've got to find a way to control these children.JDG23:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure it is. You're insisting other editors cease and desist, else they face your justice. That's your intimidation tactic. You promise revenge to those who offended you by their enforcement of policy. Further, I'm NOT an admin, I'm just a nosy editor who gets involved here sometimes. As for calling for a block, I'm just supporting the implementation of one. As for your condescending tone, it's not appreciated.ThuranX02:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
OMFG, after this discussion has been opened here, AND after you've participated in it, you're still going to persist in this ridiculous campaign of yours? You certainly deserve to be smacked with theWP:POINT fish now.howcheng{chat}00:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, like I said, this is just trolling. These messages are misleading and ridiculous. JDG is clearly unimpressed by this report, seeing as he continues posting the messages. I'd still like to know what's gotten into him, but whatever. I guess a block is justified if he keeps this up.--Atlan (talk)00:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
JDG has been here forever and is entitled to some respect by virtue of his experience. The fastest way to forfeit that respect is by expressing a condescending, back-when-I-joined-Wikipedia, you-newbies-just-don't-get-it attitude. Which is what seems to be happening here. Personally, I think a block is overkill - just remove the talk-page messages if they annoy you, and ignore him.MastCellTalk03:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, an ANI thread concerning me that isn't complaining about my actions... I must be dreaming :)Will(talk)21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
People here keepsaying he deserves to be blocked, but no one wasdoing it, so I did. I know I'm not supposed to block when I'm personally involved, but the discussion here shows there's community consensus and I'm not just being a hothead. I blocked him for 96 hours (24 for each editor harassed), but if anyone thinks that's excessive, feel free to reduce it. —Angr06:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Your comment makes it sound as if you implemented the block as a punishment. Back-when-I-joined-Wikipedia, blocks were preventative, not punitive, so please unblock him after he cools down, not after the block he "deserves" expires. --PhilosophusT09:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with an unblock, once he agrees to stop the disruptive behhavior. But if he has no plans to do so, and thinks that there is going to some regime change in the future which is going to "get" the admins who are doings things he doesn't like, then the block should stay in place.Corvus cornix17:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The block was intended to be preventive, not punitive. For the next four days (well, three and a half by now) he is prevented from harassing people whose wikiphilosophies differ from his own. But if another admin thinks my block is out of line, I won't wheelwar if the block is lifted or shortened. —Angr19:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The comments he has addedto his talk page since the block do not sound like he is planning on stopping the disruptive behavior any time soon. Now it seems I'm being warned that what happened toJtkiefer may happen to me next. —Angr19:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Eh? Jtkiefer was desysopped for being a puppetmaster and using his puppets to vote in different RFAs etc. I don't see how that's applicable here.howcheng{chat}20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying it makes sense, but his comment suggests he believes there is a direct line from Jtkiefer's blocking him for violating copyright policy to Jtkiefer's departure under a cloud from the project more than six months later. Anyway, JDG's threats themselves are all justpaper tigers and not worth worrying about, but so far I don't see any reason to believe he'll stop the harassment when the block expires. —Angr20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
JackLumber (talk·contribs) is making many edits to articles about musicians, changing references to "second album" to "sophomore album", based on a bogus justification of British usage and ignoring appeals on his talk page to desist. From his comment, this seems to be a response to some perceived slight or dispute in the past, so may bePOINT.Andy Mabbett20:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Violetriga started it all---he engaged in a crusade to wipe the wordsophomore out of Wikipedia.[77] I just reverted to the *original versions*. A lot of those "sophomores" were written by Dutch, German, Scandinavian, French, Latin American, and even English editors; they used the word quite naturally, so why change? I didn't, however, revert to sophomore where it wasn't appropriate, that is, in articles on British, Irish, Australian, South African, etc. musicians. U.S.-related articles should use American English;sophomore is idiomatic and ubiquitous in music jargon. The English lexicon is made up of 500,000 words; you can't possibly know them all. UK-related articles are filled with Briticisms---and I'm plenty happy with it. This is not simple.wikipedia.org. Furthermore, Violetriga doesn't seem to practice what he preaches.Here, he substituted the British termpetrol station for the region-freefilling station. —/tɔk/21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The use of "sophomore" is discouraged as it's a peculiarly american term, and wikipedia is written to be of use to as wide a range of english speaking users as possible. This is especially true when considering those who for which english is not their first language. "Second" is much more widely used and comprehendable than the more esoteric "sophomore".exolon21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I thoroughly agree. Sophomore is narrowly American in usage, and may not even be understood elsewhere. It is also rather pretentious; as Djbrianuk says above, "second" is readily understood by anyone, worldwide, and so to be preferred. --John22:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
OK there are literally 100s of those edits performed today by this single edit - if we agree that Second is more suitable for our audience is there a quicker way than manual revert? --Fredrick day22:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm British, and I had to look up the word sophomore when I saw those edits. It meant nothing to me. It reminded me of American universities. --Deskana(talk)22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
What about all thosewhilsts,amongsts,different tos,petrol stations, and all the other Briticisms Wikipedia teems with? According to your logic, they should disappear. 22:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
maybe they should. Please feel free to remove them and replace them with clearer english where you find them. --Fredrick day22:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
In the real world I have never heard "sophomore" refer to anything other than a second-year student, except in the form "sophomoric" which is used as an insult of one's maturity. Let's avoid colloquialisms like this wherever possible. —freak(talk)23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that they are easy to understand to non-British-English users. From an international perspective, "sophomore" is not, and is a needless substitute for its synonym "second". Secondly, I used to write for Nouse, which you quote as justification for your edits. It is quite clear to me that the title was just playful. Sophomore is most certainly not in common usage in British English - I have no idea for South African/NZ/Australian and other types English, but suspect the same. I have seen the term, am aware that it concerns a year in the American college system, but I did not know for certain that it was the second one - although I may have guessed. Having to guess at the meaning of words when other, more commonly known ones are perfectly suitable, is not a good situation to be in.Parmesan23:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't change British, South African, New Zealand, or Australian articles. 23:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
When I come across an unfamiliar word, I usually look it up in a dictionary. 23:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in music reviews, I often hear "sophomore" in reference to a second album, usually in the context of a musical artist wishing to avoid a "sophomore slump" (meaning, having a poor-selling second album after a breakout debut album).howcheng{chat}00:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Howcheng, I'm not familiar with that usage (and I'm as "narrowly American" as one can get). Does the term apply even if the second album is released the same year as the first album, or postponed until two or more years later? —freak(talk)00:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I know it is none of my business to comment here, but I tried to help you guys revert some of JackLumber's edits (only because I saw other user doing it also), so this is how the problem will be resolved right? By reverting his edits? Because if so, I will try and help some more maybe tomorrow if you guys aren't finished by then. ---Efil4tselaer: Resurrected01:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I gotta say, I find sophomore album to be a commonly used term in regards to second albums. (no matter what the timing: just the 2nd album released).Denny Crane.02:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
As would manyamericans - the point is that it means nothing to an international audience (I thought it was to do with university students) and that as an encyclopedia, that yes we tend to use american english for american articles and british english for british albums that if a term is confusing to thewider audience we should settle on a more netural or more widely used term - or is anyone willing to make the case that sophomore is better known that second? --Fredrick day04:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, since a lot of those were written by Dutch, German, Scandinavian, French, Latin American, etc. editors, I though the phrase was familiar enough---even to non-native speakers of English. Never mind. Forgive me. 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
BDORT article taggs
Resolved
There is a problem with the article[78].There is a long time problem. There was an arbitraton case about it. Thereis four edtiors involved now in it (one is myself I am second from mostnew). I read arbitraton notices, and one editor has personal involvementwith person of the article. Other editor also made personal opinion aboutthis technology in the article. The problem is now that these editors doesnot allow tagging of article - which I do not think is OK, as there isexplained disagreement of content of this article. One editor:[79] make the samediscussion as myself about this article and way it is written to 'make apoint' and say what I see also that it is, "seeking to discreditsomething, as certain editors seem intent ondoing"[80].These two editors also in past made BLP problems in the article for had tobe deleted by Administrator - it is in the archives I read it. There ismajor disagreement and I try for many weeks to argue these points. Thereis not neutral position in this article. I aks that at least article mustbe tagged until disagreement is finished or it is hierarchy who decidesthis. But two editors make reversions of all tagging by me and othereditor GDallimore and say there is not problem with the article. I thinkit is basic right in WP to declare that there is disagreement in publicforum and use tagging. Please help with this. My thank you for help.— Precedingunsigned comment added by1garden (talk •contribs)
According tothis, a certain editor is banned from editing the article, and it also bans other accounts showing the same editing pattern, saying they may be reverted without limit. Is what you are saying that you are being reverted because you are displaying a similar pattern of edits, or is this something else? I'm assuming that you have limited English proficiency, but you need to make every effort to be as clear as possible so that administrators and other users here won't have to guess at what you want done or looked at.06:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
BDORT is completely bogus, but the lack of independent sources makes it hard to document that. It is promoted by Yoshiaki Omura, and in Richard Gorringe was censured fur using it, which is I guess where theWP:BLP component comes in.Guy(Help!)06:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I saw that, but I noticed that the editor at whose behest1garden was acting is not blocked.Richardmalter was banned from editing that article or any other articles having to do with its subject matter by Arbcom. He was briefly blocked bySlimVirgin for allegedly trying to evade that ban, but as of now he continues to be free of any restrictions other than having standing orders not to interfere inBDORT-related articles. I'm just concerned that one (none too savvy) editor may have had to take a severe fall for another editor, who got away scot free.14:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
WHEELER (talk·contribs)I'm not involved in a content dispute with WHEELER, but I did recently try to mediate a solution between him/her and some other editors over at theTalk:Republic. WHEELER's tone quickly became unhelpful and, I think, uncivil, especially in the last few posts on that talk page. I posted a warning atUser_talk:WHEELER#Wikipedia:Civility_Warning. I need to step away from this though (I think my last few replies to WHEELER might not have been the most constructive), so could somebody else keep an eye on this?Sancho06:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This person has become very, very disruptive. I don't know if there's a template for this, but we could put up a loud notice onTalk:Republic sayingDo not feed the trolls. Try to ignore him, and pray that he makes good on his threat to leave Wikipedia.YechielMan08:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
WHEELER has been posting his complaints on the Village Pump pages, as well, and I've asked him on more than one occasion to take it to Dispute Resolution.Corvus cornix17:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
WHEELER is an old editor. He has an very strong PoV, and spent some time imposing it on articles on Greek history and political theory. (He contributed much of the long archives ofTalk:Republic). He has always been like this, and it was a relief when he left forWikinfo; but hesays he's going back there, so his peculiar views on the unmanliness of civility (see the diff) probably won't require admin attention.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson18:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
User:SeiteNichtGefunden feels thatimprovised explosive devices should not be associated directly withterrorism. I suppose this is a fair enough viewpoint. He also feels that current attacks by such weapons in Iraq should not be referred to as aninsurgency, due to a lack of authority to, errr, insurge against, though he also feels that those carrying out those attacks should be referred to asfreedom fighters. Possibly contradictory, but what the hey. However, the insistence that anyone who argues with these changes is anAmerican pig-dog and should berevertedimmediatelyasvandalism is annoying and unproductive. Yet it isn't really vandalism in itself (just a poorly carried-out content dispute). Such "correction" appears to be the sole use of this account and it's happened over a fair few articles in the last month, though it's not breaking 3RR. However, I'm not sure if it's worth the time raising an RfC for it. Is that the recommended route, or is there a quicker way?Chris Cunningham07:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, by my count there were 4 reverts within 24h:[82][83][84][85].
And I justadded a 6th revert to the 3RR report. Admins, please take appropriate action. Protecting the article might not be out of line but something needs to be done to end the edit war. --ElKevbo19:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and 3RR violation - the user has been previously warned and blocked for 3RR violations, and has tended to refer to edits restoring the consensus version as "vandalism".MastCellTalk20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
OnWikipedia:WikiProject New Hampshire I removed the imageImage:New Hampshire state seal.png as violatingWikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #9[86], it being tagged as a fair use image. Item #9 forbids the use of fair use tagged images outside of the main article namespace. Some hours later,User:YellowTapedR reverted the removal, labelling it "teetering on vandalism"[87]. I removed the image again[88] and informed this editor of our policy and that this is most definitely not vandalism[89], and offering to answer any questions he may have regarding this policy. Without responding to my comments on his talk page, he again placed the image in violation of policy[90], further indicating that I was attempting to run Wikipedia. Earlier, he reverted a removal of album covers from a discography also accusing me of attempting to run Wikipedia[91]. In the last re-installment of the fair use image toWikipedia:WikiProject New Hampshire, he claimed that the image is public domain. This is actually up for debate at the moment on Commons regarding all state seals (see[92]). Regardless, the image remains tagged as fair use. This editor was aware of the policy and chose to willfully violate the policy. I have removed the image yet again[93], and request this editor be blocked to prevent him from willfully violating the policy again. I recognize that I have been reverting this several times today, but based on discussion atWikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Recommended_additional_exception it is rather clear this can not be construed as a 3RR violation, despite YellowTapedR's claims otherwise. Thank you, --Durin17:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added my two cents on his talk page, and I've also issued a warning that he may be blocked for future reversions.Nishkid64 (talk)17:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, you've done nothing wrong, but he has. He's been given a final warning, and if he reverts again to violate the fair use rules Iwill drop the banhammer. Cheers,MoreschiTalk17:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the state seal is public domain; I'm not the one who tagged it. It is tagged as public domain on Wiki Commons. The fact that Durin claims it's up for debate doesn't change the fact that it's public domain. It either is or it isn't. --YellowTapedR17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, we presume things are copyrighted until proven otherwise. It's not been proven that these images are public domain. It's currently under debate. Until that debate resolves in favor of them being public domain, then this image is fair use. It can not be used outside of the main article namespace. --Durin17:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
YellowTapedR, what's the rush? If it's cleared on Commons, you're fine, use it, print car stickers with it, use it as wallpaper... and if it's not, use a different symbol of New Hampshire. I don't understand what the fuss is. Durin is merely trying to enforce one of the simpler aspects ofWP:NFCC.Riana17:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The point is it's a fictional debate that was started by Durin himself. The "debate" on Commons is just Durin on one side and several others on the other. It's the manner in which he does things that is annoying and could put him in violation ofWP:POINT. --YellowTapedR18:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, so far you've managed to accuse me of teetering on vandalism[94], potentially violatingWP:3RR[95], and now verging on violatingWP:POINT. Anything else you'd like to accuse me of? Maybe you should simply request I be banned from the project. If I could muster so many violations on the removal of a single image, certainly I'm a prime candidate for being banned, don't you think? Enough of this already.
The image is tagged as fair use. Fair use images aren't allowed outside of the main article namespace. I removed it in accordance with policy, pure and simple. If you're able to ascertain that it is in fact in the public domain, then great. Include it on anything relevant that you want to have it. Paint it on the trash can in your kitchen if you like. I wouldn't care what you did with it. But, so long as it is fair use, it will not be on non-main namespace articles. If that is vandalism, if enforcing it is 3RR, if holding the line on this is violating being disruptive enough to warrant threatening me with WP:POINT, then get on with it and have me banned. --Durin19:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
What's the problem? If you have proof that it's public domain, then that settles the matter. If you have no such proof, then you need to find it before the seal can be used in the manner in which you wish to use it.Corvus cornix19:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This AfD just opened this afternoon, and all of the keep votes have come from unsigned SPAs. Just doing some research on the contrib history, it appears all three account have made similar edits on numerous article. I'm wondering if there is a bit of sock/meatpuppetry going on here.Wildthing6147617:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. One of those articles which would be OK if the sourcing extended beyond blogs...well, I'm sure the closing admin will take this into account when he sees the numerous SPA tags now decorating the AfD. Best,MoreschiTalk19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It would also help if the authors had read their sources better than they do; Paul Krugman has been cited because he used the phrase "the First World's problems". Google cannot write articles.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
incorrect, Krugman uses the phrase "first world problems" in his article. read it again. I don't even know what "google cannot write articles" is supposed to mean.Imperialism_cola
Your last sentence seems clear: you have written an article by stringing together a set of google hits on a random phrase. I do not deny that Krugman was one of the hits; I deny that you have correctly represented what his article says. (But this does belong on the deletion discussion, while it lasts.)SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
no puppetry here, the people just know what they want. also, there are a number of peer-reviewed academic works cited as well, which hardly fall under the category of "blogs."Imperialism_cola
Imperialism cola: Isthisyour sock? I can't help but notice the common interest in theMcGriddle sandwich and its ... folds. If so you seem to have voted in the AfD twice in succession.19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Misou did technically violate 3rr, but has now gone to the article's talk page, so I'm inclined to wait and see on this one. Incidentally, there's a pending checkuser request for RookZERO and another account involved in the dispute.--Chaser -T01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
He has been blocked for three hours byNick for "being aDICK"; the block, which surely prevents Gurch's continued disruption and may serve ancillarily to discourage him from resuming disruptive editing, is, IMHO, in order, although one might have been a bit more reserved in his blocking reasoning.Joe20:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
What a shame, Gurch was a well-respected editor and admin, who has grown bitter over the last several months. It's a shame that we lost such a good contributor. :(Corvus cornix21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
For the record,CharlotteWebb is not banned. An arbitration committee member left a standing offer to unblock her if she is blocked, and I am sure other admins would also unblock her if she is blocked and requests it. — Carl(CBM · talk)22:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some revert-warring on Otto4711's (a user who has been blocked three times before for reverting and deletionist trolling) talk page and accusations of incivility as well. It might be good for a third party to step in before things get more heated. --172.168.147.21521:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is going on here? I was asked to look at something, I did, I noticed one of the links was to this, which had launched the previous day and made no assertion of notability, so I deleted it. I watched the debate I was asked to look at, after a relisting it hadsnowballed delete, so I closed it about 6 hours early, as I had told another admin I'd deal with it and didn't want to forget.
WARNING - The scammer came in and edited my comments to point the blame at the wrong editor and to change my user name... we need to be all over this guy right now.DreamGuy22:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Since the text was moved, i have restored the fork forGFDL complaiance, and protected it as a redirect to the original. It may also be useful so that diffs iof its creation work as evidence if this is taken farther.DES(talk)23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I apoligise right off the bat for posting to the archives for the last incident. I hadn't realised it was archived, and should have checked the page title. The vandal has been trying to change the archives too, which is how I found them. To repost from there, he's using the usernameUser:PeterJames2 to make edits and impersonating DreamGuy asUser:DreamGuy·.Polenth23:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Let me see if I get this right. The source that the white dragon is a symbol of Anglo-Saxon England comes from a jeweller, whose name we don't even know? Now, that's a reliable source.Corvus cornix23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Another list of unrelated topics, POV of pastor of non-notable church, previous AfDs on similar listcruft from J. Ratzinger, Username Benedict16. Does not cite to any recognized source "Assoc Press" or alt. "Assok Press" not found in Google search of publishers, possible hoax.
Also AfDs proposed for deletion: "Ten Commandments" (purely opinion oriented list) and "Luther's 95 Theses" (Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for speculative ideas). WP:NOT
AfD closed as speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination. I've indefinitely blockedJoe Rat (talk·contribs) - jumping in to AfD right away, citingWP:NOT, etc suggest this is not a genuine newbie, and the account is clearly being used for trolling.MastCellTalk22:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I and an admin are having a time with this abusive individual, who has now taken to posting nasty accusations on my talk page and on the [3RR page]. He was blocked for 12 hours yesterday, he was asked by an admin atUser talk:TheManWhoLaughs to try and listen to/work with me, and he is getting more and more incensed. His accusations are untrue. He is behaving fanatically. I ask for help. --Tenebrae23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
That is just a untrue claim. I ask you to look at our talk pages. HE constantly is calling me names and making accusations that he is doing.I have done nothing wrong.TheManWhoLaughs23:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You two have both been edit-warring over that page and the civility level is already pretty low, so there are no guiltless parties here. Let's try to get down to business. What's the content dispute about (not the behavioral dispute; I won't deal with that unless I have to and I don't think either of you will like it).--Chaser -T00:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Jut to let you know, I have blanked this user's User page and have let them know that it was not appropriate for Wikipedia.Corvus cornix23:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. In the future, you can tag that with a speedy G11 or a prod (your discretion). You don't need to inform the noticeboard.YechielMan23:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I was just wondering if any one else had opinions onBugs-Bunny Bunny(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)? The account is used to, basically, spam talk pages of other user's about a survey that the account's operator's group is taking about the web community of Wikipedia. Is this kind of account appropriate for Wikipedia? It seems to exist only to fulfill a purpose independent of the Wikipedia project.Metros23:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I remember another user doing almost the exact same thing not so long ago, and even offered compensation in the form of a gift card or donation to Wikipedia. That user was allowed to continue, but I can't recall the exact details of the survey or the user. -talk00:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat recently, an admin reverted a vote. This is vandalism. If an admin does not like a vote, the most she should do is to make a comment under the vote. For example, in AFD, she may put the warning that canvassed voters do not count and votes are merely to advise an admin of what to do in an AFD. In an RFA, people sometimes write comments against someone's oppose vote. They do NOT revert the vote.
I do not seek punishment for the guilty admin or even try to embarrass her. I only want feedback that it is vote fraud to revert a vote.Vectorsap00:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Voting is evil - there's no such thing as a vote. On a serious note, it's legitimate to remove comments of sockpuppets, banned users, purely disruptive votes or ad hominem/personal attacks, et cetera.WilyD00:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no voting - they are only discussions; disruptive actions by banned users, or sockpuppets, can be removed since it pollutes the debate. --Haemo00:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
One Two misguided complaints by a new user does not a troll make. There's no need for a block in response to asingle couple of fairly civil complaint from a new user.WilyD01:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This IP range has been vandalising userpages today, one of them in this range was blocked as an open proxy. Since it traces back to an ISP (AT&T Internet Services), i'm not sure what should be done here. I reported it to the open proxy section too here -->[98]. Any input would be appreciated.Momusufan02:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Was on AIV a bit ago (permalink) but more discussion seemed to be in order. If it's not too much trouble, could you provide some diff links (or even history links) to demonstrate the trend? –Luna Santin (talk)02:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I received a friendly email from the National Library of Australia pointing out that IP192.102.239.195, which I had previously blocked as a sockpuppet, was one of theirs. I have unblocked, and the mattershould be closed. However, the email is phrased in such a way as to suggest that the NLA have been, or at least think they have been, rangeblocked. Could someone who knows a bit about range blocking please check whether this is the case, and overturn if necessary.Hesperian04:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The range appears to be 192.102.239.0/24. I'll check if the range is indeed blocked, and unblock it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
For the last two month I have been the largest foreign contributor (I am Finnish) to Estonia related articles. During this time Ihave created 11 new Estonia related articles (one inDYK) and significantly contributed to one In-the-News article. For my contributions I have been under constant attack by the ringleader and his puppets. Most of my contributions to Estonia related articles have been summarily reverted, usually in under ten minutes.
The only solution I see, is that the ringleader is indefinitely blocked for total disregard ofWP:NPOV, or given a community ban. I have been advised, that this issue will have to go toArbCom, for this I have beencollecting evidence.
From the talk pages, it will be extremely difficult to see which side is the vandal and POV-pusher. Digwuren has an excellent command of the English language. In his comments he manages to convey an impression ofhonesty. To understand the issue, one has to look deep into each party's edit histories. It will be easy to see, that Digwuren has contributed absolutely nothing of permanent value to Wikipedia. He has not created a single article, not even a stub or a redirect. Worst of all, he has utterly failed to accept and understand Wikipedia's basic principle ofneutral point of view.
After I first announced my intentions byasking for advise fromUser:Neil, Digwuren and his group of "volunteers" have beenpreparing to counterattack, by filing aWP:RFC/U against me. I find this action to be yet an other indication of bad faith. My edit history is clean from most, if not all wrongdoing. I have not reverted any of Digwuren's original contributions. In the "edit wars" I have defended my own edits from what I see as disruption and POV-pushing by him and his followers.
I interrupt this tirade to point out thatPetri Krohn is lying about the timeline. TheWP:RFC/U was first mentioned in[99], more than eight hours before this "asking for advice":[100]. I'm calling it a lie this boldly because this first mention happened onPetri Krohn's very own user talk page; in all reasonability, he must have known it.
I come here to ask for advice. Does this issue need to go to ArbCom? Do we have to wait for Digwuren to file his WP:RFC/U. Will somerouge admin just block him indefinitely? More important, if he is indefinitely blocked, is there some administrator around that would revert the decision? --Petri Krohn11:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have to repeat it here. Digwuren is obviously not a single-purpose account. He has created at leastKukly (not very insightful stub as of now, but really necessary),June deportation,March deportation, tagged articles forWikipedia:WikiProject Estonia, wikified internal links etc. Yes, there are some problems with edit-warring, but obviously, one cannot be engaged in edit-warring by oneself. Another party is needed. The behavior of Petri during the last two months looks like harassment. Could you both please stop? Blaming people for their place of study is something.Colchicum12:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Kudos! This shows real improvement. All three articles are created in the last four days. Two of them clearly serve his single purpose. On the balace of things, they hardly change the picture. --Petri Krohn12:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to change a picture in your mind, but I don't understand why the Wikipedia community should bother with it. The accusationsHe has not created a single article, not even a stub or a redirect are clearly false, the rest of the story has also very limited credibility. Petri, you are a good editor (at least when it doesn't concern Soviet-East European relationships), but I don't appreciate your efforts to eliminate the Estonian community from en-Wiki. POV policy requires different significant points of view to be represented rather than the only "true" one.Colchicum12:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I will change that toHe has not created a single article, not even a stub or a redirect before June 15. I have not beenstalking, like he is. --Petri Krohn13:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Bothering to verify your facts before making claims is not stalking. And since when there is a deadline on how long can someone be a member before creating a new article?--Alexia Death13:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I would classify this as harrasment based on nationality: As far as I know, none of the accused have never even seen eachother, and only relation between them is estonian nationality. Although you have contributed a lot to Estonian related articles, most of the edits are heavily biased Soviet POV. I do also agree that editwars is not a solution, but your smart manipulations are hard to fight on legal grounds aswell, specially counting the fact that you refuse of any normal cooperation and throw baseless accusations of trolling and puppetry instead.Suva12:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This looks like an attempt to get opposition banned before "S*it hits the fan"... First on Alex Bakharevs and Neils talkpages and now here. I hope the admin making a decision on this takes a deep hard look into the matters before making a decision. Just a note tho. The RFC/U is not a retaliation for anything. It just has become inevitable at this point. Even without Digwurren(should sanity be having a day off), it is going to happen.--Alexia Death12:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to distance myself a bit during last few days, but it seems to be inevitable that I must get involved again.
While Digwuren has not been perhaps a paragon of a perfect Wikipedian, he has not done anything that would require blocking. In many cases he has just reacted to Petri's edits and edit summaries - that seem to be inserted in many cases just to provoke or insult other editors. My own first contact with Petri was when he reverted my removal of unsourced (and incorrect) claimhere with edit summaryreverted drive-by deletionist with POV agenda. Until lately - undoubtedly because of the upcomingWP:RFC/U - his edit summaries were often likeYes - but it also proves that Estonians are racists, if not Nazis.
Current claim ofKorp! Estonia on wheels is clearly meant to intimidate his opponents - and get rid of Digwuren. Like it has been repeatedly shown, we are not sockpuppets, we do not know each other and do not communicate outside of Wikipedia (I did have one email from Digwuren while he was blocked, but I replied on his talk page - exactly because I wanted to avoid basis all such accusations). We are not from same class/university course (whole claim is silly - I finished biology, as far as I know, Digwuren and Alexia IT, but on different years. Suva is a musician, I think 3 Lövi has something to do with law and I suspect Erik Jesse is still in the university, studying law or philosophy. I have no idea about Staberinde).
To summarize this, accusations are clearly baseless and only meant to intimidate and hide Petri's own misjudgments.
Well, lets look at facts for a moment. Petri is currently trying to push for block of Digwuren but also tries to get some admin to do it without Arbcom. Reason is simple, in ArbCom Petri's open racism aganist Estonians would be unavoidably be part of discussion. Also he would be actualy required to prove his numerous accusations(of course I do not deny that some of them may have some truth in them, but from my personal experience, Petri seems to be make quite serious accusations oftenly with practically non-existant evidence). I say, if Petri wants Arbcom, go for it.--Staberinde17:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I've actually said it before, prety please make this ArbCom happen, This sword tangling over someones head is nerve wrecking and starts to look more and more like intimidation.--Alexia Death17:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Independent view
I have nothing to do with any of these articles.User:Petri Krohn has a high edit count, and a long history of constructive editing. I think Alexia Death deserves a 24 block forthis rude comment posted above.User:Digwuren has a checkered history, at best, and should worry about himself before worrying about other users. This isn't the place to litigate a content dispute. Come here with specific complaints about user conduct and show diffs, and please don't make long winded arguments.JehochmanTalk13:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
My jaw dropped when I read this... I cant believe it. Ive been called a meatpuppet, a sockpuppet and a national extremist by this user without any finger pointing directed at him and now I'm being rude by simply stating that this constant and persistent claim is WRONG?--Alexia Death14:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You should apologize for calling the other editor insane. Feel free to refute him as strongly as you like, but maintain civility or you will be blocked.JehochmanTalk14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Since when hasdelusion been a banned word? Is saying that one is mistaking also an insult? The text above is indeed a long-time belief of Petri (repeated twice today in different places). Claiming that it is false is not a crime, regardless of its holder's edit count.Colchicum13:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
As to checkered history, both contributors have experienced blocks for edit-warring, no reason for preferences here.Colchicum13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
One block versus 21,000 edits over 23 months is very different from two blocks against 2500 edits in two months, and calling somebody insane is out of bounds.JehochmanTalk14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
If you are interested in the complaint, you can take a look atthis. I think this is way too much for a RfC, indeed, it would even make for an Arbitration, due to seriousness of the issues. And please do note, that someone's high edit count is not a justification for misbehaviour.E.J.13:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The complaint is not a good example of an investigation. There's no chance of this going to arbitration, in my opinion, because it's a simple content dispute. Arbcom generally doesn't hear content disputes. If you want help with investigations, leave a message on my talk page.JehochmanTalk14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Having seen your way of responding to complaints here (e.gremoving others' comments), I doubt if any of us would need your 'help' with investigations (an offer which in itself is most kind of course).E.J.14:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
E.J. - that was a simple edit conflict, not an intentional deletion. I was copying my comments from the lower box to the top box and accidentally womped something. Your response is a fine example of tenditious editing.JehochmanTalk15:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did write something in some of these articles. As far as the Bronze Soldier is concerned, any attempt of mine to keep the words "fight against fascism" in the text (which is relevant, since the last "German" defenders of Estonia were in fact an SS Walloonia detachment (checkLeon Degrelle, hewas a fascist), and among the defenders of the Narva there were SS regiments composed of fascists from Flanders, the Netherlands and the Nordic countries) was summarily reverted within minutes. OnLydia Koidula I not only tried to keep Livonia as part of the denomination of her birth place (which is in fact a compromise already, some people would argue that according to wiki conventions we should say that she was born in Russia) but tried to improve the general makeup of the text. I quickly noticed that a whole bunch of editors devoted much more energy to keeping out this one mention of Livonia than to the pertinent question whether about half of the second paragraph refers to Koidula or to Kreuzwald. But of course, I am still naive enough to believe that this is an encyclopedia, and not a repository of political pamphlets.--Pan Gerwazy14:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I approve the community ban of Digwuren on account of his mind-boggling history of disruption, revert-warring, and trolling that destabilize a large segment of Wikipedia.[102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113] His meatpuppets (Alexia Death, DLX, Staberinde, Suva) should be placed on one-revert parole. Martintg, 3 Löwi and Colchicum should be cautioned and their activities closely scrutinized, as they routinely lend their support to disruption and trolling on the part of the Tartu accounts. --Ghirla-трёп-14:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Any proofs for the accusations? If there is no specific piece of evidence, Ghirlandajo as an involved party should be subject to scrutiny as well.Colchicum14:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the diffs of Digwuren you have just provided? Content dispute mostly. In one case you erased a comment by Digwuren on Alexia Death's talk page and Digwuren reverted it. I understand that you feel disrupted, but let's stop this.Colchicum15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The root cause of the problem is Petri Krohn. Despite his otherwise high edit count, he still regularly manages to insult Estonia and Estonians (see, just, e.g., this accusation of "terrorism"[114]. Put it simply, without Petri Krohn's regular insults there would be no "problem" with Digwuren and other Estonian editors' alleged "edit-warring" (and, of course, there have not been any, and will never be nowhere near the same amount of insults flying the other way against "leftist pro-Soviet Finns"). Just my 2 cents, and please save your time by not accusing me of being one of Digwuren's meatpuppets. Cheers, --3 Löwi15:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
without Petri Krohn's regular insults there would be no "problem" with Digwuren and other Estonian editors' alleged "edit-warring" I disagree. Digwuren started edit war onMonument of Lihula, repeatedly deleting referenced materials and denying link between Holocaust Denial and building monuments to Nazi collaborators and got 48 hr. ban for3RR violation. After that he responded on comment about veryPOV error made in the source he provided with personal attack.RJ CG16:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
None of the Estonian Wiki-editors and real life Estonians I know support or openly engage in Holocaust denial. Nobody has built any monuments in Estonia to commemorate collaboration with the Nazis. Insinuating so is not only blatantly wrong, but also extremely (and personally) offensive. What you, RJ CG, are doing (see above) is the same kind of offensive word play which Digwuren, perhaps a bit less diplomatically and a bit more painfully, reacted to in the first place. By saying this, I have no intention to insult you or anyone. However, I am not, and the other Estonian and Estophile editors also are not, obligated to prove over and over again something that is rather obvious: we do not support Holocaust denial and we do not see collaboration with the Nazis as something deserving monuments. Over and out, --3 Löwi16:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You have to familiarize yourself withMonument of Lihula page, it's edit history and talk page before chiming in. There was never any wholesale accusation of Estonians in Nazi sympaties or Holocaust denialism. There was, however, referenced data about Mayor being Holocaust denier (he actually published book about it). Memorial honoured those who fought in the army of Nazi Germany or the Waffen SS, this was never disputed in any of reference materials too (materials include article from Estonian newspaper translated by Digwuren). In any European country those who fought in the German Army or the Waffen SS are called collaborators, even if they had very valid reasons to do it. Digwuren started edit war trying to deny links of Holocaust denial and building monument to Nazi collaborators, even if both acts are from the same person.RJ CG17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the opinion of Petri Krohn and Ghirla. I am also independant and arrived while surfing at a heavily biased page about an Estonian politician. An attempt to unbias it failed on revert warring and insults from Digwuren. See[115]. I don't approve indefinite community bans, but a year is ok.Otto19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are obviously involved:[116]. So far the only non-involved party here has been Jahochman.
I became involved after experiencing revert warring and rudeness as I just stated above. At the time I neutralized the POV lemma I was not involved. Anyone who takes the freedom to add a Soviet point of view to Baltic history is brutalized. That is hijacking of lemma's and destructive antisocial behavior.Otto18:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I assure you that I can tell a troll from a reasonable user. You won't find many wikipedians who exposed more trolls than I did. I am also the only user holding thishumorous award :) --Ghirla-трёп-18:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not care about your assurances. When someone accuses me in meatpuppetry and demands some kind of sanctions I expect them to put some serious evidence on table. Oh, and I also can tell Stalinist-POV-pusher from reasonable user, still for some reason I do not make any personal attacks on them.--Staberinde18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree withPetri Krohn andGhirla. An example ofDigwuren's "work" in the Wikipedia is unilateralrewriting the article, that involved removal of existing references to multiple sources. It could be understandable, if Digwuren rewrote it on their own, using multiple sources and incorporating existing references, but for their long article they just translated excerpts from one source. When I began reverting the article to the previous stateDigwuren wasaccompanied byAlexia Death to avoidWP:3RR. Since then they stick to that "wikitranslation", satisfied with the fact, that they can always avoid 3RR using meatpuppets, while I can't.Cmapm22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Note also this[117] my edit which was reverted by Digwuren. He also placed a message in my talk page insisting on "Soviet yoke" terminology.--Dojarca06:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to point out that not only complaints from number of different users are almost identical, but accounts listed in those complaints are almost identical too. Aggressive use of meatpuppeting, POV pushing etc. Moreover, all opponents of Petri Krohn's complaint are the members of group another wikipedians are complaining about. I guess admins have a choice between believing many unconnected users who complain about identical destructive behaviour of same group on very different topics and believing this very group, as nobody came forward to clear them.RJ CG16:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Attack pages
I'm afraid this matter is too complex to evaluate fully without spending a lot of time looking through page histories, but I tend to trust Ghirla's judgement. He might be casting his troll net a bit too widely, but there's definitely some objectionable coordination of POV editing going on here. As an example we might look at the contributions toUser:Digwuren/Petri Krohn; if that page does not result in an actualuser conduct RfC in short order, I suggest that it be deleted as an attack page, because right now it seems like a forum for a group of editors to complain about Petri Krohn.--Akhilleus (talk)18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The page is a preparation of aWP:RFC/U case. The actual page of the case is already up; I'm expecting to consider it complete and ripe for listing in the appropriate list by around midnight local time, or around 21:00 UTC tonight. There's less than two hours left to that time.Digwuren19:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
What makes your page objectionable is not that it exist, nor its format, but that it clearly was created in bad faith in order to disrupt Wikipedia. --Petri Krohn19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Dispute resolution does not exist for creating disruption. It exists for preventing it. This page is preparation for dispute resolution.--Alexia Death19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that this incident is totally devoid of evidence? This case seems to be yet another phase in Petri Krohn's ongoing vendetta against a group of editors for no other reason than they happen to be ethnic Estonian, as tellingly revealed in the title of the case "Korp! Estonia". First he attempted to get this whole group perma blocked as sock puppets, that failed, now this. In my view, this is harrassment bordering on ethnic vilification. I say this because I have been closely involved in edit disputes with Petri Krohn as much as these other editors, often siding with these editors against Petri, yet I don't seem to be a part of Petri's complaints. The only difference between me and the others is that I am Australian, while the others are Estonian. In my view, if Petri had a real case, he could have brought it against an individual, however this case is rather sordid example of ethnic vilification. What next? A case called Korp! Jew ?Martintg20:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I notice a load of evidence. It is hard to find a single article about Baltic history which has not been vandalized by suggestive terms likepuppet regime. These articles are hijacked. There is no attempt made to keep distance and be objective.Otto18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Resolved
Semi-protected for a period of1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - some of those on first glance look like open proxies -Alison☺01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Resolvedvandalism subsided
