Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive759
Interaction ban between Flyer22 and me
User:Flyer22's talk page that there be an interaction ban between Flyer22 and me because he feels I am bothering her. Should there be one, and what should the scope of it be, should there be exceptions to it, and would I be topic banned from articles she edits? --RJR3333 (talk
) 02:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, somewhat rude refusal to type someone's username aside, you can't figure that out without running to ANI? Is an administrator needed for this? You can't sort out a problem on your own? OohBunnies! (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec x 3) Hi, nice to see you.
- I propose;
- That RJR3333 be barred from opening any new discussion about, or related to, Flyer22, on any page on which Flyer22 has not already commented.
- That Flyer22 be barred from opening any new discussion about, or related to, RJR3333, on any page on which RJR3333 has not already commented.
- Slightly unfair to Flyer22, but I think this would be a step in the right direction and would avoid a lot of wasted typing.
- I'm happy to add lots of context (diffs and such), if commenters feel that's needed. --talk) 02:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- (The username problem was basically my fault, since I used a similar formulation on a user talk page. --talk) 02:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC) )
- (The username problem was basically my fault, since I used a similar formulation on a user talk page. --
Aha, thanks Bbb23. :) Maybe we should get some diffs, and maybe some opinions from RJR3333? RJR3333, do you feel that an interaction ban is needed? OohBunnies! (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'll look into what's going on here once my Yankees finish beating the shit out of Boston, but a preliminary look doesn't really cast you in a good light. I think an interaction ban would be a good start, but I'm not sure something else shouldn't be done as well. Incidentally, for future reference Flyer22 has identified as a she, so anyone happening across this would do well to watch their pronouns. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh. The last thing I wanted was to be dragged into yet another discussion with this disruptive user. I am tired of debating with him. As I just got through stating on my talk page, see here for what was stated at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard to see what the deal is. I included diffs there. The To Catch a Predator talk page is full of diffs with User:RJR3333 acting inappropriately. His current contributions show him going from talk page to talk page to discuss me with other editors, usually with a twist on what I or others stated. He has been advised by others to stop posting about me on talk pages, but he continues to do so, spamming any and every talk he can about our disputes. This is sometimes partly in an attempt to get me to comment because I banned him from my talk page.
- A little back story: RJR3333 first showed up to Wikipedia, I think, last year. He was a fairly new editor and, as such, made mistakes that new editors are prone to making. Eventually, I started correcting his mistakes, only dealing with the articles we both edit, and advising him on the appropriate ways to edit. After some time of having to continuously aid his editing, he became hostile, asserting that I was out to get him. At one point, this led to him stating how much he hates me on the "To Catch a Predator" article talk page before leaving Wikipedia for a few months. Since he's been back, he has reentered the same topic space that led to our unpleasant interactions last time -- that topic space has mostly concerned the To Catch a Predator article and Pedophilia article. I've mainly stopped editing the age of consent articles, which he also edits, but he has also edited inappropriately in those places.
- Basically, RJR3333's editing and conduct on Wikipedia is generally problematic, even though he is well-meaning. He is often combative, deciding to repeatedly revert instead of taking matters to the talk page, and often adds POV-laced edits or WP:TALK. Very recently, he continuously violated WP:TALK by posting to my talk page. And again by repeatedly removing a comment of his (the one where he stated that he hates me) from the To Catch a Predator talk page. This is a violation because I've already replied to it and his removing it takes it out of context. When I legitimately archived the talk page as a way of removing the comment, so that he doesn't have to worry about the text being out in the open anymore, and so the original text is left intact, he unarchived and removed the comment again, stating that it was inappropriate that I archived the old and settled discussions.
- Basically, RJR3333's editing and conduct on Wikipedia is generally problematic, even though he is well-meaning. He is often combative, deciding to repeatedly revert instead of taking matters to the talk page, and often adds POV-laced edits or
- Like I stated, the editor is repeatedly focusing on me, commenting about me across various talk pages and often twisting my words (and I believe that part of that "twisting" is due to him not being able to properly digest what I've stated). I don't know whether to report him, pursue a topic ban for him while reporting him, or ask for some type of interaction ban. It will prove difficult not to interact with him since we edit a few of the same articles and I am often having to correct him/asking him to defer to any one particular guideline or policy (which he ignores until I inform him that I will be reporting his misconduct).
- The problem with reporting him is that it will result in an extensive debate with him, with him twisting my or others' words. And I've been through that so much these last few days that it's horror to think about it happening again, like it is now happening here. He's additionally started another discussion concerning me at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I am not interested in interacting with him, but I will revert him and criticize his edits when they need reverting and/or criticism. The editor needs a mentor more than anything, but there has been no one to properly mentor him. talk) 02:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I feel that there should be a temporary one, but not a permanent one. I realize that I am at fault for being rude to Flyer22 and making hateful comments, but I think it is true that she has disliked me as an editor from the beginning and been very opinionated against me. She has made claims against me that were false and she has talked incessantly about the possibility of getting me topic banned, although never proceeding to nominate me for a topic ban. This interaction ban eliminates the possibility of her doing it, and it makes it easier for me to edit the articles. Also Flyer22 has claimed that I have a bias in favor of the age of consent being 18, that is false and anyone who sees my earlier editing would notice that I was biased in the opposite direction, of it being 16 or lower, and at least two editors criticized me for constantly putting that position in the articles. Also I have even reworded some of the articles that expressed a pov against adults having sex with adolescents, for example in the pedophilia article I changed the wording that pedophilia could mean "any sexual abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent minors" to "any sexual contact with pubescent or post-pubescent minors" to make the wording more npov. I believe that now I have been editing more neutrally but perhaps there is still bias in my edits. Some of the criticisms Flyer22 made of me also were not ones that were very valid. She says the vast majority of my editing is "sloppy" and "unsourced" although she admits I have rarely made good edits. However lately there has been no issue with unsourced editing. And I do believe that she had a focus on me and not on other users because, for example, in the age of consent and age of majority articles at least half of the statements in the first place were unsourced, but she only criticized me when I added unsourced content, but not other users who did. Also my editing has improved lately, and in some articles, particularly the marriageable age article, I have a lot of citations for previously unsourced statements, and removed uncited statements.--RJR3333 (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Flyer22, and RJR3333, do you support or oppose, the proposal that I made above? --talk) 02:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- How about for six months, eh? What do you say to that? --talk) 02:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Again, read what I have stated on the matter. RJR3333's take on what has been happening is a spin game (for example, stating that I disliked him from the beginning, as if I dislike editors automatically for making mistakes, that I have talked "incessantly about the possibility of getting [him] topic banned," or that I never criticized any other users for making unsourced edits...especially as if I am supposed to remove already-existing unsourced material before reverting his), and I am not going to debate that spin game with him any longer. All of my criticisms of RJR3333's editing have been valid and have been echoed by others. Demiurge1000, I oppose the interaction ban you proposed because there is no way that I cannot open a discussion about, or related to, RJR3333...seeing as we edit a few of the same articles and it is always a matter of time before he makes an edit that needs reverting or violates a policy or guideline. The only thing I support is that he stop inappropriately posting about me across various talk pages and stays off my talk page. I am not posting about him everywhere, and have no problem staying away from his talk page. talk) 02:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Again, read what I have stated on the matter. RJR3333's take on what has been happening is a spin game (for example, stating that I disliked him from the beginning, as if I dislike editors automatically for making mistakes, that I have talked "incessantly about the possibility of getting [him] topic banned," or that I never criticized any other users for making unsourced edits...especially as if I am supposed to remove already-existing unsourced material before reverting his), and I am not going to debate that spin game with him any longer. All of my criticisms of RJR3333's editing have been valid and have been echoed by others. Demiurge1000, I oppose the interaction ban you proposed because there is no way that I cannot open a discussion about, or related to, RJR3333...seeing as we edit a few of the same articles and it is always a matter of time before he makes an edit that needs reverting or violates a policy or guideline. The only thing I support is that he stop inappropriately posting about me across various talk pages and stays off my talk page. I am not posting about him everywhere, and have no problem staying away from his talk page.
- How about for six months, eh? What do you say to that? --
- Flyer22, and RJR3333, do you support or oppose, the proposal that I made above? --
- I could settle for a compromise where we are only allowed to criticize each other on talk pages and revert each others edits where an edit or incident has taken place which was so bad that it has to be commented, i.e., a case where no reasonable person could possibly disagree. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- The only articles where my editing caused real problems were the Chris Hansen article and the To Catch a Predator article. But in my edits to the age of consent and age of majority articles the articles were actually improved in many ways. So I think I should just be banned from the Chris Hansen and To Catch a Predator articles. --RJR3333 (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I feel that there should be a temporary one, but not a permanent one. I realize that I am at fault for being rude to Flyer22 and making hateful comments, but I think it is true that she has disliked me as an editor from the beginning and been very opinionated against me. She has made claims against me that were false and she has talked incessantly about the possibility of getting me topic banned, although never proceeding to nominate me for a topic ban. This interaction ban eliminates the possibility of her doing it, and it makes it easier for me to edit the articles. Also Flyer22 has claimed that I have a bias in favor of the age of consent being 18, that is false and anyone who sees my earlier editing would notice that I was biased in the opposite direction, of it being 16 or lower, and at least two editors criticized me for constantly putting that position in the articles. Also I have even reworded some of the articles that expressed a pov against adults having sex with adolescents, for example in the pedophilia article I changed the wording that pedophilia could mean "any sexual abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent minors" to "any sexual contact with pubescent or post-pubescent minors" to make the wording more npov. I believe that now I have been editing more neutrally but perhaps there is still bias in my edits. Some of the criticisms Flyer22 made of me also were not ones that were very valid. She says the vast majority of my editing is "sloppy" and "unsourced" although she admits I have rarely made good edits. However lately there has been no issue with unsourced editing. And I do believe that she had a focus on me and not on other users because, for example, in the age of consent and age of majority articles at least half of the statements in the first place were unsourced, but she only criticized me when I added unsourced content, but not other users who did. Also my editing has improved lately, and in some articles, particularly the marriageable age article, I have a lot of citations for previously unsourced statements, and removed uncited statements.--RJR3333 (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with reporting him is that it will result in an extensive debate with him, with him twisting my or others' words. And I've been through that so much these last few days that it's horror to think about it happening again, like it is now happening here. He's additionally started another discussion concerning me at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I am not interested in interacting with him, but I will revert him and criticize his edits when they need reverting and/or criticism. The editor needs a mentor more than anything, but there has been no one to properly mentor him.
- No need to see AN ... it's being discussed here, so I closed that one. Ridiculous for anyone to have split the discussion across multiple boards/threads (BWilkins←✎) 11:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- No need to see AN ... it's being discussed here, so I closed that one. Ridiculous for anyone to have split the discussion across multiple boards/threads (
- An interaction ban should only be necessary when two editors are incapable of playing nicely with each other. In this case, I don't see any disruptive behaviour whatsoever from User:Flyer22 (indeed, the major issue appears to be that RJR is disruptive across a number of articles), so I can't see that a two-way ban is fair or necessary. Any enforcement here should be focused on User:RJR3333. Black Kite (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Flyer22 has been uncivil to me. She made comments such as telling me to "go play". I also feel like she has been trying to WP:Own a lot of the articles. And she has constantly been attacking my editing and talking about getting me topic banned, without allowing me to even discuss the issue with her, I only started talking to other users about it because she banned me from communicating with her and I don't want to get a topic ban. She has also accused me of having biased views thinking that people have to be over 18 to have sex which I don't have, as my post to the Polanski talk page, and my previous editing from 2011, make obvious. --RJR3333 (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Like I stated at talk) 18:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Like I stated at
- Flyer22 has been uncivil to me. She made comments such as telling me to "go play". I also feel like she has been trying to WP:Own a lot of the articles. And she has constantly been attacking my editing and talking about getting me topic banned, without allowing me to even discuss the issue with her, I only started talking to other users about it because she banned me from communicating with her and I don't want to get a topic ban. She has also accused me of having biased views thinking that people have to be over 18 to have sex which I don't have, as my post to the Polanski talk page, and my previous editing from 2011, make obvious. --RJR3333 (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- While I view Flyer22 as more sinned against than sinning, I find the following, posted above, troubling: but I will revert him and criticize his edits when they need reverting and/or criticism. Those words reflect a choice on Flyer22's part that keep her in the line of fire. She goes on to make additional statements to the effect that she feels she must edit RJR3333 when edits are needed. I don't agree that she must (emphasis added); that can be left to other editors, and reduce Flyer's problem considerably. If you keep putting your head in the lion's mouth, the lion will eventually bite it off. I think that's part of the point RJR3333 is attempting to make. Consequently, I believe any solution to this issue should include at least a voluntary cessation of editing RJR3333's work by Flyer22. Otherwise, we're creating a situation where she has what is effectively license to continue to poke at him with a stick, even if that isn't her intention, without his having any reasonable recourse. --Drmargi (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you and others for weighing in, Drmargi. As has been made clear, RJR3333 and I only edit on a few of the same articles. And if his edits require reverting or need discussion, I shouldn't have to wait for another editor to revert him or bring the matter to the talk page, especially on such a contentious topic as talk) 18:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you and others for weighing in, Drmargi. As has been made clear, RJR3333 and I only edit on a few of the same articles. And if his edits require reverting or need discussion, I shouldn't have to wait for another editor to revert him or bring the matter to the talk page, especially on such a contentious topic as
Extended recommendations
- This is ridiculous, and RJR's message above shows it clearly. RJR does not appear to have the maturity to edit Wikipedia. They do not show the maturity of self-reflection to see where they may have created issues, but then want someone else to "fix" them. What I see is the "that's not fair" attitude of a 7 year old. Recommend the following:
- RJR3333 may not discuss Flyer22 on any talkpage or user talkpage anywhere on Wikipedia
- RJR3333 should be immediately subjected to a 6 months topic ban on To Catch A Predator, Chris Hansen, and any related articles broadly construed
- RJR3333 should be placed on a complete civility parole for 6 months
- RJR3333 should obtain a mentor, to assist in learning how to interact with others in a mature manner on this project
- RJR3333 may not edit any page that has previously been edited by Flyer22 without that edit being approved by their mentor for a period of 3 months
- Support as proposer (BWilkins←✎) 13:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Seems a bit severe - what do you mean by, and any related articles broadly construed ? - This user has been editing controversial issues/content for over six months and has never been blocked or reported to the edit warring noticeboard - Why a six month civility parole - have they been reported for civility? There are issues but only imo limited and any control of the user should also be limited - Youreallycan 13:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support - 13:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Partial Support: I support the restriction on discussing Flyer22 and the topic ban. Civility parole rarely works, I've heard, but if it worked it would be a good idea in this case, so I'm neutral on that. On the mentoring part, if you change the wording to say "RJR3333 is recommended to obtain a mentor," taking out the compulsion aspect, I'd be in favor. And on the last one, I'd set a time limit on time between Flyer22's edits and RJR3333's, for example "any page that has been edited in the past month by Flyer22." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 13:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also, I'd support a modified ) 14:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I opppose anything this bureaucratic. Good intentions, but way too complicated, which means we will be back here every week debating whether or not he has violated the terms. Same reason I oppose ibans, as the odds of success are too low and the disruption of policing it is as bad as the disruption that led to it. (See DS and TG's iban for a demonstration...) And it isn't like we have people lining up to be mentors anyway. I think I would Support Jorgath's interpretation of the standard offer if we are forced to take strong action. This is a little more generous than the regular standard offer for good faith, and we can hope that this disruption break will lead to better behavior in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I accepted some responsibility I said I feel that there should be a temporary one, but not a permanent one. "I realize that I am at fault for being rude to Flyer22 and making hateful comments, but I think it is true that she has disliked me as an editor from the beginning and been very opinionated against me."--RJR3333 (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- The evidence doesn't support your allegations, although at least you understand one of your faults. The other one is that you just aren't dropping the stick with Flyer22, even though you've requested an interaction ban. Have you considered that you may be misinterpreting her actions towards you? To us, it looks like she's trying to be helpful, although she eventually got exasperated. Also, why do you even need an interaction ban with her? Just voluntarily stop interacting with her. If she then starts causing you problems, we'll have real evidence that she's part of the problem too. If she doesn't, then you have real evidence that you're wrong in your evaluation of her actions towards you. Simple, eh? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- In the end, it doesn't matter RJR. Wikipedians have to get along with each other, even those that they don't like. You don't get that, and the fact that you don't get that is why you need to not be here for a while to prevent more disruption. The fact that you will at least admit some culpability helps your chances at coming back eventually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- The evidence doesn't support your allegations, although at least you understand one of your faults. The other one is that you just aren't
- I accepted some responsibility I said I feel that there should be a temporary one, but not a permanent one. "I realize that I am at fault for being rude to Flyer22 and making hateful comments, but I think it is true that she has disliked me as an editor from the beginning and been very opinionated against me."--RJR3333 (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: If anyone told me I had to go through the complete edit history of any article I sought to edit, just to make sure a particular editor hadn't edited it first, I'd tell him back to stick it in his ear, only I'd likely be a good deal more obscene. Whatever RJR's sins, that's a ridiculously onerous clause. Ravenswing 15:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's not uncommon ... but as suggested above, it can be amended to "within 30 days" or whatever. Of course, you've only commented on one of the possible restrictions ... don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (BWilkins←✎) 16:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's not uncommon ... but as suggested above, it can be amended to "within 30 days" or whatever. Of course, you've only commented on one of the possible restrictions ... don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (
- Support Bwilkins's proposal (and I've commented further above). I've stated before that RJR3333 truly does need a mentor. And if he got that, learning the ropes for several months, I'd be open to seeing him edit these contentious areas again...to see how his editing has improved. With the exception of some age of consent issues, he doesn't understand the topic of pedophilia and its related topics extremely well. But that's no reason to bar him from editing the topics if he can work better with editors who understand those topics better than he does. And by that, I of course mean taking things that are likely to be contested to the talk page first...and not immediately reverting (especially when two or three editors have reverted him). talk) 18:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support I really regret ever editing wikipedia so I think this is a good thing. I now have to live with knowledge that I posted content a large portion of which I no longer agree with for the rest of my life. The biggest mistake I ever made was editing wikipedia. --RJR3333 (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment, and up front I will say I'm slightly partial to Flyer22 after helping her with some entirely unrelated issues. That being said, I largely agree with the comments of Bwilkins and Drmargi above, although I'll say that occasionally I can understand the perception that Flyer comes off as demanding two shrubberies of different heights for the terrace effect (I don't agree with the perception, but after it was explained I at least saw where it was coming from). I think RJR3333 is a particular kind of editor whose frustration can't be neatly packaged in diffs, so although I'm fine with RJR having a mentor I'll admit I'm expecting to see another thread here within a few months culminating in either an indef block or ban. I acknowledge that I'm generally very cynical about things both on-wiki and IRL, but I've seen this scenario play out many times before and I don't see any evidence this will turn out any different. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I've had a look over this, and it's clear that RJR3333 needs some help here, and Flyer22 really does seem to be wanting to help steer them in the right direction. I'd strongly support the idea of mentorship for RJR3333 - I share some of the reservations voiced by Blade and others, but I do hope someone can offer mentorship, and I'd urge RJR3333 to take it if offered. (I can't myself, sorry, because my time here is too limited and erratic at the moment.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- PS: Just want to add that if Flyer22 lost her cool a little, it's entirely understandable after RJR3333's apparent obsession with her, repeated misrepresentation of her actions, forum shopping, and serious IDHT problem. After having re-thought some of the things I read last night, I've changed my comment to a support for BWilkins' proposal. It might seem over-harsh to some, but I think RJR3333's only chance of remaining a Wikipedia editor is the prevention of any further harassment of Flyer22, prevention from editing the problematic article, and mentorship - RJR3333 means well, but doesn't play well. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- PS: Just want to add that if Flyer22 lost her cool a little, it's entirely understandable after RJR3333's apparent obsession with her, repeated misrepresentation of her actions, forum shopping, and serious
- Just one thought, Flyer22 as part of her proposal for topic banning me, has said I have a fanatical bias against underage sex, my editing history suggests the opposite. I can provide evidence for this. Would an editor more neutral than Flyer22 please review my editing history because it DOES NOT support her contention? --RJR3333 (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- My editing history seems to disagree with Flyer22's contention, here have some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski#Sexual_abuse_npov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malke_2010/Archive_3#Age_of_Consent_Chris_Hansen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Hansen#.22Age_of_consent..22 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=16_(number)&diff=prev&oldid=446877490 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_consent_reform&diff=prev&oldid=446744492 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incest&diff=prev&oldid=446477923 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_consent_reform&diff=prev&oldid=446598204 --RJR3333 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I never said that a person should have to be 18 and not 16 to diagnosed with pedophilia, I said that the proposal that this be made the definition should be added to the wikipedia article, that is not the same thing as endorsing the proposal. --RJR3333 (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Like I stated at your sockpuppet investigation: No matter what you state, talk) 23:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- And I have already said that my view on the marriage age, age of consent, and age of majority is that it should be 16 across the board, not 18. So Flyer22 is lying when she accuses me of this bias. I acknowledged my fault with the other account messing with the age of sexual majority in North America article and admitted it was a joke, I won't do it again. It was just vandalism, I should not have done it, but to read a bias into that would be like reading a bias into my vandalism of the 2004 election article where I said Freud ran against Bush, it was just a joke. --RJR3333 (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- The only time FDR displayed the bias "you claim you don't have" was when I used that account to vandalize the age of sexual majority in North America article to say that the age of consent in most states was 17 not 16, I already admitted that was a joke. Can you find any serious edits I made there, that were not obvious vandalism, that suggest such a bias? And what about the debate I had with Malke where I insisted that the age of consent was in fact 16 in some states, if I am so biased in favor of the age of consent being 18, then why did I debate Malke so extensively? Not to mention the fact that I'm the person who originally edited the article the number sixteen to point out that sixteen was the age of consent in most jurisdictions at the beginning of my editing history, and at the end I'm the one who criticized the Polanski article for calling Polanksi's sexual affairs with girls under the age of sixteen "child sexual molestation" and changed it to "sexual relations" to make it more npov. And I changed the pedophilia article's definition of pedophilia from being "any sexual abuse of minors" to "any sexual contact with minors" to make it more npov. --RJR3333 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- And I have already said that my view on the marriage age, age of consent, and age of majority is that it should be 16 across the board, not 18. So Flyer22 is lying when she accuses me of this bias. I acknowledged my fault with the other account messing with the age of sexual majority in North America article and admitted it was a joke, I won't do it again. It was just vandalism, I should not have done it, but to read a bias into that would be like reading a bias into my vandalism of the 2004 election article where I said Freud ran against Bush, it was just a joke. --RJR3333 (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Like I stated at your sockpuppet investigation: No matter what you state,
- Just one thought, Flyer22 as part of her proposal for topic banning me, has said I have a fanatical bias against underage sex, my editing history suggests the opposite. I can provide evidence for this. Would an editor more neutral than Flyer22 please review my editing history because it DOES NOT support her contention? --RJR3333 (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- The content you changed in the Pedophilia article is about a misuse of the pedophilia term anyway. When referring to prepubescents, adult-child sexual contact is always termed child sexual abuse or child molestation (and our Wikipedia article on the topic is titled talk) 23:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- The content you changed in the Pedophilia article is about a misuse of the pedophilia term anyway. When referring to prepubescents, adult-child sexual contact is always termed child sexual abuse or child molestation (and our Wikipedia article on the topic is titled
- Ok, you DID say that I had a bias in favor of the age of sexual consent and age of majority being 18, do you deny that, I can show you edits where you stated that. And my point is that the edits from my history that I have shown argue that your accusation is false. So that is not a good reason to block. Since you are trying to topic ban me I think I have a right to point out that some of your accusations against me are false. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- And I have already said that my viewpoint is that the age of consent and age of majority should both be 16 or lower, not as high as 18. So that disproves your accusation of bias, when combined with my earlier editing which was clearly biased in favor of a lower age of consent, if anything. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose on the ridiculous bureaucratic requirements this would impose. The requirement to check and see if someone previously edited an article is purely inane, especially given the long revision history of many articles. Mentorship is a nice thought, but to require it seems purely obstructionist in nature and, therefore, serves no beneficial purpose. The WP:OFFER suggestion is nothing more than unmerited grandstanding at this point unless there is a confirmed sockpuppetry case against the editor. If sockpuppetry is confirmed, then proceed as per status quo in any normal such case, which would not, ironically, require mentorship et all for reinstatement. (This is all purely my opinion and based upon my understanding. It is not meant to offend.) --Nouniquenames (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose I was joking when I said support. I also strongly oppose. Bwilkins says I am acting like an eight year old, but I did take full responsibility for my inapropriate actions. The ban bwilkins proposed would forbid me from criticizing her, but allow her to criticize me, what recourse would I have then if she "poked me with a stick". I also think Flyer22 should state the reasons she wants me topic banned, so that I can reply to them. I think that its only fair that I get to give my case for why I should be able to stay. --RJR3333 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, since you so desperately want my attention all the time, I'll respond once again: Joking, were you? Another lie. Just like all your past promises to behave. And your interpretation of Bwilkins's proposal is, as stated, way off base. The reasons you should be topic banned, or simply blocked at this point (per the section below), have already been made clear. And by this, I mean that my reasons have already been included. talk) 21:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I acknowledge that it was wrong of me to be rude to Flyer22. I have acknowledged the sockpuppetry was wrong and the jokes were wrong. What I do object to is that even when I made good, well sourced edits Flyer22 attacked me for them. She has been biased against me from the beginning and even before I started being rude to her she asked me to stop editing the site and threatened to report me if I didn't. If you are only banning me because of my interaction with her that is not a good reason to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=To_Catch_a_Predator&diff=448708311&oldid=448707411. --RJR3333 (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- More twisting and lies regarding my conduct. Sigh. talk) 21:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- More twisting and lies regarding my conduct. Sigh.
- I acknowledge that it was wrong of me to be rude to Flyer22. I have acknowledged the sockpuppetry was wrong and the jokes were wrong. What I do object to is that even when I made good, well sourced edits Flyer22 attacked me for them. She has been biased against me from the beginning and even before I started being rude to her she asked me to stop editing the site and threatened to report me if I didn't. If you are only banning me because of my interaction with her that is not a good reason to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=To_Catch_a_Predator&diff=448708311&oldid=448707411. --RJR3333 (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, since you so desperately want my attention all the time, I'll respond once again: Joking, were you? Another lie. Just like all your past promises to behave. And your interpretation of Bwilkins's proposal is, as stated, way off base. The reasons you should be topic banned, or simply blocked at this point (per the section below), have already been made clear. And by this, I mean that my reasons have already been included.
- Strongly Oppose I was joking when I said support. I also strongly oppose. Bwilkins says I am acting like an eight year old, but I did take full responsibility for my inapropriate actions. The ban bwilkins proposed would forbid me from criticizing her, but allow her to criticize me, what recourse would I have then if she "poked me with a stick". I also think Flyer22 should state the reasons she wants me topic banned, so that I can reply to them. I think that its only fair that I get to give my case for why I should be able to stay. --RJR3333 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hold your horses, probable sockpuppetry
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJR3333 (renamed from SqueakBox) has been filed due to the likelihood that RJR3333 isn't a new editor at all. 2 lines of K303 08:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, SqueakBox was a good editor. One who, if talking about the same SqueakBox, was wrongly reported as being pro-pedophilia by talk) 08:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- YMMV on whether SqueakBox was a good editor or not. Even so, there are significant similarities in editing interests between the two account, and not just age of consent/pedophilia related articles. 2 lines of K303 08:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, yes, SqueakBox has an extensive blocklog. But I am stating that I worked with SqueakBox for years on pedophilia and child sexual abuse articles, and that I therefore know the personalities of these two editors. They are very different, especially seeing that SqueakBox, unlike RJR3333, understands Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and how to appropriately edit Wikipedia. SqueakBox and RJR3333's editing and personalities are not similar. And there will be no match in that regard. There will be when comparing FDR and RJR3333. talk) 08:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking over the history, is it just me, or did FDR have a relationship with SqueakBox that's a less-intense version of the one RJR3333 has been having with Flyer22? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Never mind, I was completely wrong. I guess I'm tireder than I thought. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)- Incidentally Flyer22 acts like I pretending to be new, I actually said a couple of times before my sock puppet was out that I've been editing this site since I was sixteen, which was eight years ago. --RJR3333 (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- You were pretending to be a new editor, as in a registered account-editor. That's the very definition of sockpuppeting. Editing this site since you were 16 does not mean that you were editing under a registered account, which is why I questioned you about it. And did you answer? No. Stop pretending that you were open about your sockpuppeting. You weren't. talk) 21:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- You were pretending to be a new editor, as in a registered account-editor. That's the very definition of sockpuppeting. Editing this site since you were 16 does not mean that you were editing under a registered account, which is why I questioned you about it. And did you answer? No. Stop pretending that you were open about your sockpuppeting. You weren't.
- Incidentally Flyer22 acts like I pretending to be new, I actually said a couple of times before my sock puppet was out that I've been editing this site since I was sixteen, which was eight years ago. --RJR3333 (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, yes, SqueakBox has an extensive blocklog. But I am stating that I worked with SqueakBox for years on pedophilia and child sexual abuse articles, and that I therefore know the personalities of these two editors. They are very different, especially seeing that SqueakBox, unlike RJR3333, understands Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and how to appropriately edit Wikipedia. SqueakBox and RJR3333's editing and personalities are not similar. And there will be no match in that regard. There will be when comparing FDR and RJR3333.
- YMMV on whether SqueakBox was a good editor or not. Even so, there are significant similarities in editing interests between the two account, and not just age of consent/pedophilia related articles. 2 lines of K303 08:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, the CU finding is that this is not Squeakbox, but RJR3333 did have 3 socks:
- LordKitchener16 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- KingLeopold'sGhost (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- FDR (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Currently these 3 are indef'd and RJR is not yet blocked. Looking at the contribution history, though, it looks like technically FDR is the master here, since FDR has been editing since 2005 and RJR only since 2011. The CU recommended also blocking RJR, but left the matter up to other admins, and since this is open here, I think it should come back to the community. The two questions are: should all of the accounts be indeff'd? And, if not, who should be considered the master, and what should be done with them? While at first I was inclined to accept the suggestion above for a 6 month block (like others, I think the more tailored suggestions will just lead to more drama), but seeing that this is not a particularly young user (i.e., this isn't just a maturity issue), I instead think this should be an indefinite block, overturnable once RJR starts to show a clue about how to behave on WP (recognizes what was wrong, and ideally does work on another project). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Indef all, consider RJR3333 master. I know that FDR is the technical master, but let's consider RJR the master from now on, on the basis that their behavior isn't completely incorrigible. I suggest an indef ban on all the accounts, but that the one on RJR3333 is overturnable in six months if they show the clue has been taken per Qwyrxian. That six-month minimum gets reset if RJR3333 is found to evade by a new sock, and a discussion on whether to permanently community-ban gets started if more socking occurs. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Indef all with WP:Standard offer. There is article overlap on most of them, and at two have commented in this incident. This is clear cut abusive sockpuppetry. AniMate 22:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- So this is the timeline of the events of six months ago in a new light, then:
- 2011-12-09: Flyer22 fixes a link and comments at User talk:RJR3333
- 2011-12-22: FDR requests that the indefinite block of FDR is lifted
- 2011-12-23: FDR unblocked by Causa sui
- 2011-12-24: RJR3333 does the whole flouncing out blaming someone else routine
- 2011-12-24: FDR marks RJR3333 as a sockpuppet of someone else
- 2011-12-24: Ten minutes later, thinks better of it
- 2011-12-25: RJR3333 does the whole flouncing out blaming someone else routine, but this time in Irish Gaelic
- 2011-12-25: FDR editing merrily away back at Ages of consent in North America
- 2011-12-27: FDR marks RJR3333 as a sockpuppet of someone else, once again
- 2011-12-27: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#User:FDR at the Ages of consent in North America article and in general
- 2012-01-03: After a discussion at User talk:FDR#Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:FDR at the Ages of consent in North America article and in general, FDR goes quiet
- The dramatic "never again" in this case turned out to be roughly 25 minutes. Uncle G (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Nenpog
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This contributor has focussed exclusively on our
WP:MEDRS, but to no avail. Having edit-warred and forum-shopped over the issue, and run out of other options, Nenpog started a thread on Jimbo's talk page: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 109#Alert !. Cutting through all the off-topic waffle about 'logic' and about selling poisons to children, we are seemingly faced with an utter inability from Nenpog to comprehend why he/she is wasting everyone's time through endless repetition of the same nonsensical blather. Given that Nenpog shows no interest whatsoever in even attempting to comprehend Wikipedia policy, and given his/her insistance on endless soapboxing over an issue which he/she seemingly has some rather strange views on - in complete disregard for any pretence at objectivity - I can see no logical course but to request a permanant block on this 'contributor', per Wikipedia:Competence is required, before we waste any more time on this matter. For those interested in further details, Nenpog's contribution history is of course available, but I think the thread on Jimbo's page (including the section collapsed by Jimbo, presumably in the vain hope that this might make Nenpog put and end to this nonsense) is sufficient in itself to demonstrate that Nenpog is suffering from what might best be described as Chronic Clue Difficiency Syndrome, and needs to be shown the door lest it proves to be infectious... AndyTheGrump (talk
) 22:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with your analysis but unless these problems are spread around I would recommend a topic ban as our first step. 63.234.136.9 (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I completely support a topic ban of Nenpog, of infinite duration, from any article or discussion related to X-ray computed tomography. I can live with an editor who has a different interpretation of policy, but the lengths he has gone to to argue his position has become disruptive. I don't mind if someone on the wrong side of consensus takes the issue up at a second or maybe even third forum, but eighteen is just beyond the pale. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Given that Nenpog has only been involved with Wikipedia in regard to this issue, and give his/her demonstrable lack of basic competence, I can see no advantage in permitting a repetition of such behaviour in regard to other articles, should Nenpeg wish to continue on unrelated topics. Nothing in his/her behaviour suggests any hope of making any useful contributions elsewhere, and I think that we have wasted more than enough time on this already. Also, I have grave doubts that Nenpog is capable of understanding what we would mean by a 'topic ban' and anything less than a permanent block is likely to encourage even more tendentious behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump has made threats to ban me at Jimbo Wales talk page. Later Jimbo Wales saw these threats and commented due to that, that it seems that I am about to be banned on a completely unrelated topic.
- Now AndyTheGrump want that I will be banned, because Jimbo Wales noticed AndyTheGrump's ban threats, and mentioned seeing these threats. That doesn't make sense.
- I have searched the archive here for AndyTheGrump, and found this complaint against him, where someone complained that AndyTheGrump resorts to personal attacks instead of discussing on topic.
- I didn't read the whole case, which didn't turned out well for the one who raised the complaint, but I do share the impression, which the complainer voiced in his complaint, as in my case too, instead of staying on topic in that discussion at Jimbo Wales talk page, AndyTheGrump chose to diverge into completely unrelated topics from my history, to make ban threats, and now this complaint.
- I am new to Wikipedia, and I am learning the written rules, and the unwritten rules, and perhaps I have done some mistakes in the past month, which for practical purposes is my first month in Wikipedia's collaborative process. However, my interactions with AndyTheGrump were completely confined to Jimbo Wales talk page, and there the discussion was on a completely unrelated topic, and thus does not merit or warrent any action.
- I would like you to review that discussion at Jimbo Wales talk page and share your opinion about people who have commented off topic negative comments about me, and people who tracked me and commented off topic negative comments about me. On one of them I have already complained because of that at the WQA see here and here. --Nenpog (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- The above provides further evidence of why Nenpog is entirely unsuitable as a Wikipedia contributor - but read the thread on Jimbo's page, and see for yourself what the 'other topic' was supposed to be: nonsense about poisoning children as some sort of 'proof by analogy' that Nenpeg's attempts to spin the CT article were 'logical'. A monumental waste of time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- No it wasn't about that. It was about a much more fundamental problem in Wikipedia WP:NOR policy, which I used the example as an illustration of, and of the possible consequences of. Shame that you were too eager to diverge to other topics, that you couldn't notice the actual topic that was being discussed. --Nenpog (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- ROFL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Best response to ) 09:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- ROFL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- No it wasn't about that. It was about a much more fundamental problem in Wikipedia
- This "New to Wikipedia" user first edited Wikipedia over four months ago on 7 March 2012 using IP 79.179.222.172 (Same ISP: Bezeq International [bezeqint.net], and same city: Tel Aviv Israel as the three IPs he lists on his user page.) By April 2012 he was actively editing ) 04:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have encountered editors that challenged my edits only in the last month, before that happened, I wasn't aware of the rules and policies. --Nenpog (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I changed my mind, Andy. Nenpog should be sitebanned indefinitely. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Someguy1221, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 00:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Because you don't know when to stop. You don't get your way on one article, so you try at another. You don't get your way there, so you take it up on one noticeboard after another. When that doesn't work, you take it up on the policy pages themselves to change them or their interpretation to suit your needs. That doesn't work so you pester the man himself. This is not how Wikipedia works. You don't get to just keep arguing and arguing until you get your way. The consensus is against you time after time. But as Andy suggested, I'm not sure you even realize that. And until you do, no one should be made to suffer your endless complaints. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't modify any policy page. I have just joined one discussion at the NPOV talk page, and asked a question at the NOR talk page about the general problem. From both of these interactions I have learned. At the NPOV, I learned that the other editors were wrong about the interpretation of the policy, and at the NOR I have learned that I was wrong about the interpretation of the policy.
- Yes, I think that the consensus interpretation of the NOR policy is bad for the Wikipedia users. I received a suggestion to take it to an RfC at the NOR, but I don't know much about RfCs, because I am new, I know about talk pages, so I went and talked about it with Jimbo Wales. It is a new topic, at the NOR talk page I asked about the consensus interpretation of it, at Jimbo Wales talk page I requested to change the consensus interpretation, because I think that it is bad. You should consider the possibility that I might be correct, and that I might be bringing a good change to Wikipedia, that will contribute to it. Do you think that I would have been better of right now if I have opened an RfC? Because I am new, I really don't know.
- About the DRN noticeboard, I was advised to go there by an experienced editor. Isn't going to the DRN a standard procedure?
- About the other articles, I was told that some of the sources were rejected due to not mentioning CT, or not being on in vivo humans. Ionizing radiation is a general article, that can benefit from sources that don't mention CT or that are not only about in vivo humans. I think that contributing the material there was appropriate. The other editor there didn't want to include it because he wanted that section to be shorter. We agreed that we will attempt to make a shorter version that will include my contribution.
- About arguing again and again about the same thing, I am not. I have raised different issues at every place, except the DRN, which is normal.
- Please bear in mind that I am new, and learning, and that some of the editors at the CT page didn't explain their actions, and seemed to me biased against mentioning adverse effects to CT. One of them, after rejecting every addition, have even took the whole adverse effects section and moved it from the top to the bottom of the article. What should I think about that? I found out later, that the same editor rejected some things due to incorrect interpretation of the ) 02:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Because you don't know when to stop. You don't get your way on one article, so you try at another. You don't get your way there, so you take it up on one noticeboard after another. When that doesn't work, you take it up on the policy pages themselves to change them or their interpretation to suit your needs. That doesn't work so you pester the man himself. This is not how Wikipedia works. You don't get to just keep arguing and arguing until you get your way. The consensus is against you time after time. But as Andy suggested, I'm not sure you even realize that. And until you do, no one should be made to suffer your endless complaints. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Someguy1221, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 00:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I changed my mind, Andy. Nenpog should be sitebanned indefinitely. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have encountered editors that challenged my edits only in the last month, before that happened, I wasn't aware of the rules and policies. --Nenpog (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- The above provides further evidence of why Nenpog is entirely unsuitable as a Wikipedia contributor - but read the thread on Jimbo's page, and see for yourself what the 'other topic' was supposed to be: nonsense about poisoning children as some sort of 'proof by analogy' that Nenpeg's attempts to spin the CT article were 'logical'. A monumental waste of time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Please do read the entry on Jimbo's talk page. This is a clear case of
tendentious editing. Nenpog has taken his "complaints" to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Talk:Ionizing radiation, Wikipedia talk:No original research (twice), Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance, At least one IRC channel, User talk:Elen of the Roads, User talk:S Marshall, User talk:Jaeljojo, User talk:Avanu, User talk:Paul Siebert, User talk:RexxS, and finally User talk:Jimbo Wales. In every one of those many forums he has been told that what he is trying to do is against Wikipedia's policies, and his only response has been personal attacks, wikilawyering, and more forum shopping. I received a private email (which I will be glad to forward to anyone who is an admin) from a medical doctor who has done a wonderful job of improving a large number of our medical articles. He told me that Nenpog's behavior has made him seriously consider quitting Wikipedia. Nenpog needs to be indefinitely blocked. You can try lesser remedies if you like wasting time and effort, but that will just mean the indefinite block comes later rather than sooner. Nenpog has never shown the slightest willingness to conform to our behavioral standards. Enough is enough. --Guy Macon (talk
) 00:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have talked in a lot of talk pages about different topics, that may be related, but are not the same. This is because I am new to Wikipedia, and what people said didn't make sense, and was not supported by what the policy page say, and no one provided me with quotes from the policy page for a very long time. During these discussions I have learned a lot, including that the due weight policy is misunderstood by some people (see NPOV talk page). Due to that some of the rejections I have got at CT were not justified. After learning that, have I tried to insert it back to the article, no, I have talked at the talk page, and have waited for a response, just to get an off topic reply from you that sounded like 'you are wrong because I am biased against you'. I also helped an other editor to insert matter that was rejected due to misunderstanding of the due weight policy, and a third editor came in and supported my interpretation of the due weight policy, and the new matter was accepted because of my assistance. Have I made personal attacks, I don't think I did. I have acted according to the guidelines that I read, and according to advices that I received from experienced editors. You on the other hand have even admitted that you posted one of your post against me without actual assessment of the situation here, I think that was the case in all of them. --Nenpog (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- If, as you claim, you did not engage in personal attacks, how do you account for arbcom member Elen of the Roads telling you that you did? (User_talk:Elen of the Roads#personal attacks and allegations) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am not Elen of the Roads, so I don't know why she wrote that. But hey, everyone are humans, and sometimes make mistakes. Even Elen of the Roads e.g. she wrote about me that I demanded that people will discuss how much they are paid. I didn't make that demand. I asked her to specify what was the personal attack that she think I have done, she didn't explain. Maybe she couldn't find it. Maybe you couldn't find it, and because of that you now hang on Elen of the Roads word, instead of providing by yourself a link to what you think is my attack. --Nenpog (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- You said it here and here. BTW, we can add editing other peoples comments to the list. (Nobody important; just an arbcom member...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- These are not personal attacks. First, that edit was done in good faith. I have just changed to bold the error she wrote, and then I have asked about that part "where did you come up with that?". If she wanted to, she could have changed it back. Second, in the first two links, I have only requested two things from everyone. A request is not an attack, and asking from everyone is not personal.
- Do you know what a personal attack is?
- A personal attack is what you did to me when you wikihounded me (here, here and elsewhere, see also) in every place I went, and posted there your FALSE off topic accusations against me, and brought in your friends, until some people believed your misleading information and got me in here. That is a personal attack.
- Now you probably wonder what isn't a personal attack. That is when someone knows that you are a biased mediator, because the other party didn't show up at all at the DRN (here), and you have elected to argue in the role of the other side of the dispute. And that someone say nothing. And that is when someone knows that you work in the field that you pretend to unbiasedly mediate (here and here), and think that you have a COI, because damage to the field at any place would shrink the field, and damage you or your employer, or other companies in the field, thus making their employees compete with you on your job. And that someone say nothing. And that is when someone civilly ask people to disclose their COIs at an other discussion at the DRN, in accordance with the instructions at the WP:COI guideline, after thinking that the discussion is highly biased, and you get angry and refuse to declare having or not having a COI, and write hostile things (here), and yet all that someone write is that your outrage appear suspicious, as if you try to avoid declaring your COIs, and suggest you to declare them. And it does look suspicious, even without knowing anything about your work. And then that someone is told to discuss COIs at the COIN instead of at the DRN (here), and that someone goes to the COIN for a discussion, and doesn't accuse anyone of anything, but ask everyone to act in good faith and disclose their COIs in the matter, and you lash at that someone (here). And that someone still say nothing. And then the COIN case get closed because no specific accusation was made, and you talk with a friend in joy saying "Whew! That was a close one!!" (here). And that someone still not say anything. And then that someone ask at the COIN talk page, why was the discussion closed, and you get angry, and write off topic negative response at the COIN talk page (here). And that someone still say nothing. And then you wikihound that someone, and all that someone does is civilly take it to the WQA (here and here) in order that perhaps you would get some sense into your head, see that you are in err, that it has gone long enough, and change your way. That is how someone who wasn't making any personal attack against you looked like.
- Are you able to see the difference? It might be a bit tricky for you to notice, but the someone who made personal attacks, was very active in making abusive comments against the subject of his attack. The someone who didn't make a personal attack, has tried to avoid making abusive comments against the aggressor, for as long as that someone could. That is the difference. --Nenpog (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- You said it here and here. BTW, we can add editing other peoples comments to the list. (Nobody important; just an arbcom member...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am not Elen of the Roads, so I don't know why she wrote that. But hey, everyone are humans, and sometimes make mistakes. Even Elen of the Roads e.g. she wrote about me that I demanded that people will discuss how much they are paid. I didn't make that demand. I asked her to specify what was the personal attack that she think I have done, she didn't explain. Maybe she couldn't find it. Maybe you couldn't find it, and because of that you now hang on Elen of the Roads word, instead of providing by yourself a link to what you think is my attack. --Nenpog (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- If, as you claim, you did not engage in personal attacks, how do you account for arbcom member Elen of the Roads telling you that you did? (User_talk:Elen of the Roads#personal attacks and allegations) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support site ban. Nobody Ent02:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support indefinite block. Even while trying to ignore this case, it keeps popping up on my watchlist, and even a quick look shows that Nenpog interprets anyone can edit to mean anyone can argue the point until they get their way. Not here to improve the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was informed about this discussion by is not democracy. Sadly, but majority happens to be wrong too frequently, and that leads to dramatic bias of some Wikipedia pages. Therefore, I do not support the idea to ban Nenpog for going against majority.
- However, by writing that, I do not imply no actions are required. I do see a problem with Nenpog, and the problem in as follows. Nenpog seems to have a strong belief that CT is a dangerous technique, and that the WP readers must be informed about that. To do so he tries to add the following syllogism into the articles about CT:
- CT leads to formation of double strand breaks of DNA in human body;
- It is known that double strand breaks are very dangerous and may cause cancer;
- Therefore, CT is dangerous and may cause cancer.
- The problem is, however, that the clause 3 is not a universally accepted mainstream viewpoint. No direct connection between CT and the onset of cancer have been demonstrated so far. The most probable explanation for that is as follows. Contrary to the belief of ordinary public, DNA damages are not something outstanding, and they happen very frequently in living cells. Therefore, small amount of damages are easily and efficiently repaired, and cause no harm to cells. Therefore, by writing about the damages and by omitting the fact that they are easily repaired we would mislead an ordinary reader. In other words, not only that will be SYNTH, it will be a misleading synthesis. I explained that to Nenpog on my talk page, and Jimbo seems to explain the same in much simpler words on his talk page. I do not understand how this explanations cannot satisfy a good faith user. In connection to that, I agree that we are dealing with a civil POV pusher here, so something should be done with that. In my opinion, Nenpog must concede his mistake, and never return to this behaviour again, otherwise the site ban is warranted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Um, no. We don't decide whether synthesis is 'misleading' or not before rejecting it. As for 'civil' POV-pushing, there is nothing remotely civil in accusing everyone who disagrees with you of having a COI, and then making this ridiculous sort of 'demand' [6]. The correct response to such offensive bollocks is a boot up the backside. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- To engage in synthesis and to engage in misleading synthesis are two quite different things. Whereas both the former and the latter can and should be rejected, the latter is a more severe violation. Regarding the diff provided by you, I didn't know about that. Obviously, that is ridiculous, and the only reasonable explanation for that may be Nenpog's unfamiliarity with our policy. However, if he hadn't retracted this statement after his mistake was explained to him, he should be sanctioned for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Um, no. We don't decide whether synthesis is 'misleading' or not before rejecting it. As for 'civil' POV-pushing, there is nothing remotely civil in accusing everyone who disagrees with you of having a COI, and then making this ridiculous sort of 'demand' [6]. The correct response to such offensive bollocks is a boot up the backside. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Paul Siebert, thank you for your objection to a site ban on me.
- Regarding technical matters about CT, I think that such matters can be discussed technically at the article talk page and can be decided according to the sources.
- Currently I have many sources supporting clause 3 (stating directly that CT cause cancer), you can see them here like source no.1 and no.5. And that DNA DSB are misrepaired sometimes and lead to cancer. If you think that these are not a "universally accepted mainstream viewpoint" surely you can accept that they are an "accepted mainstream viewpoint" that should be voiced. If other "accepted mainstream viewpoints" exist, I accept that they should be voiced too. That is what NPOV is all about. --Nenpog (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Listen
, you halfwit. We aren't the slightest bit interested in your POV-pushing drivel about CT scans - the only question is as to whether we topic-ban you from the subject (if you agree to stay away from it, as Paul Siebert is asking) or block you from editing Wikipedia entirely, as seems to be the developing consensus here. You aren't going to get your nonsense into the article either way - this isn't open to negotiation. Are you willing to accept a topic ban from the subject of CT scans, and their possible harmful effects (broadly construed - which means that trying to weasel-word around the ban isn't allowed, even if you think you are right), or not. Unless you can give an unequivocal 'yes' to a topic ban, there is only likely to be one possible outcome. Make your mind up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)- Nenpog, I objected not against your site ban, but against a reason for this ban. I respect your attempts to persuade others, however, when you put forward your arguments, you must be open to the arguments from others. In actuality, you reject explanations that cannot be questioned by any reasonable person. Please, stop that, otherwise you will be banned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't an appropriate place to try to 'persuade others' regarding questions as to the risks of CT scans. We leave scientific research to scientists, and then make use of their results - in particular, per WP:MEDRS, we don't engage in cherry-picking and synthesis to 'persuade' anyone about the merits or otherwise of medical procedures - that isn't what Wikipedia is for. It isn't a debating society - or at least, it isn't supposed to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Andy, Wikipedia is an appropriate place to try to persuade others in your vision of what reliable sources say. If you believe the sources A, B, and C say "X", and I believe the sources B, C, and D say "Y", we need to discuss together how to reconcile our vision of the subject, and which sources to use. However, both you and I must be prepared to a situation when opponent's arguments appear to be stronger. In that case, the only choice will be to accept other's point of view. That is what I meant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't an appropriate place to try to 'persuade others' regarding questions as to the risks of CT scans. We leave scientific research to scientists, and then make use of their results - in particular, per
- (personal attack? Or possibly change it to "incompetent," since that's only an attack on Nenpong's ability to do anything useful. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. On reflection, the epithet applied was clearly an exaggeration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nenpog, I objected not against your site ban, but against a reason for this ban. I respect your attempts to persuade others, however, when you put forward your arguments, you must be open to the arguments from others. In actuality, you reject explanations that cannot be questioned by any reasonable person. Please, stop that, otherwise you will be banned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Listen
- Stickler for detail here: it is a universally accepted mainstream viewpoint that CT scans cause cancer, and the editors at X-ray computed tomography have long been in agreement about that. Nenpog's problematic syntheses have to do with cataracts and cognitive decline, not cancer. Paul Siebert is making some technical claims here that would not be accepted in the articles. However, he is making sense about Wikipedia policy, which is more relevant to this discussion.--Yannick (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was informed about this discussion by
Nenpog, I think you can avoid a topic ban or site ban if you agree to stop discussing anything on Wikipedia that is directly related to medical imaging, radiation, or those little logic puzzles that you use in lieu of the others, and if you can promise to avoid anything with any pretense of even coming close to those. If you can commit to do that at this time, for 3 months, you might be able to avoid your fellow editors taking action here. If after three months, you've kept your word and seem to be adjusting to a better understanding of the expectations, this could be revisited, and they might consider a topic ban then or just letting you go your way. I'm suggesting this as an alternative to you being required to be banned, and probably being blocked soon after. -- Avanu (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Avanu, naturally I will respect whatever decision that will be made in this subject. However, I think that I can contribute and play by the rules, and thus a decision of sanction would be counter productive to Wikipedia, and I speak against it. I hope that honest people will not fear to say the truth here. Otherwise, this will be the form that will dominate Wikipedia, and that is bad for everyone. --Nenpog (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I hope that honest people will not fear to say the truth here.
- Please review WP:NOT and take your pick of which one of the must not items you would like to violate next. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nenpog, I think your patience and willingness to try to contribute is why people have been willing to talk this out with you and give you a chance rather than immediately take action against you. I think you will find it easier if you look for the solution that is being offered to you by the other editors' words here, and volunteer to live by that 'sanction', before something goes to the point of it being forced upon you. I think it is admirable that you will respect the decision made here, and I believe that implies you would honor a ban placed on you. A ban is not a block, and so you would be honoring the ban by your own willingness to abide in it. I think you could find a better solution by offering one now, but I wish you well, and hope you can do what is best here. -- Avanu (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is the 'patience' as in Dmcq (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is the 'patience' as in
- Nenpog, I think your patience and willingness to try to contribute is why people have been willing to talk this out with you and give you a chance rather than immediately take action against you. I think you will find it easier if you look for the solution that is being offered to you by the other editors' words here, and volunteer to live by that 'sanction', before something goes to the point of it being forced upon you. I think it is admirable that you will respect the decision made here, and I believe that implies you would honor a ban placed on you. A ban is not a block, and so you would be honoring the ban by your own willingness to abide in it. I think you could find a better solution by offering one now, but I wish you well, and hope you can do what is best here. -- Avanu (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Support an effective block/ban process (escalating if necessary)
) 09:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Support ban, preferably a full ban, at least a topic ban for anything related to CT scans in any form. Sorry, but this person is tirelessly POV pushing, twisting beyond recognition the valid complains made about his behaviour, and actively refusing to abide to basic content policies like WP:NOR. We shouldn't be letting this slide just because he is being civil about it. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am not refusing to abide by ) 10:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Support site ban, topic ban as second choice. Civil POV pushing is one of the encyclopedia's worst problems, and I'm sure it has caused the burnout and departure of countless highly qualified contributors who have to waste their best efforts trying to counter it and keep up the quality of articles. (Far more than those who, according to one quaint theory, leave because they're shocked by seeing the word "fuck" language unsuited to the best drawing rooms.) In medical articles it's intolerable. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC).
Support site ban. What has been asked was very simple. Use high quality sources that pertain to the subject matter at hand. After many weeks and thousands of words there is no indication that this has been understood.
) (please reply on my talk page) 12:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Support topic ban. Yes, Civil POV pushing is an issue, but there's no need to indef him or ban him from the site. If he vioates the ban and POV pushes again, than he should be indeffed, as it shows that he really doesn't care. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Support site ban. This editor is a sterling example of the type of editor we don't want here. The inability to understand the basics of our policies, the personal attacks about COI, the tendentious
refusal to concede they have done anything wrong are bad enough by themselves, but together the encyclopedia is better off with them somewhere else, where they are not damaging the encyclopedia and wasting the time of good editors. Yobol (talk
) 13:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Support total ban. Does not seem to be able to parse the most basic explanations of consensus, NPOV, NOR and other basic content policies. Engages in forum-shopping. Unlikely to mend his ways with a temporary block or a topic ban. JFW | T@lk 13:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Stong Oppose Not to be uncivil, but this is using a jackhammer when a ball-peen hammer is needed. There is no indication (of which I am aware) that this editor has in any way misbehaved in any area of Wikipedia except on one article and in relation to that article (albeit in relation to that article on several boards, etc). Instead, let's consider the possibility of a defined-period topic ban, then reassess. At most, an indef topic ban is all that is called for. Jumping straight to the total-ban-sledgehammer is highly inappropriate and downright insulting at this stage in my personal opinion. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Topic ban implemented
I'm going to go ahead and implement what I see as a clear consensus for a topic ban.
Arbitration Committee
.
I appreciate the concerns, voiced above, that a siteban would be more appropriate than a topic ban. I agree that, in my experience, an editor so obviously and grossly unsuited to collaborative editing on a single topic is likely to cause similar problems on other topics. However, in recognition of the (relative) inexperience of this editor, I think a topic ban is a more charitable alternative. That said, if the pronounced inability to edit productively is repeated in other topic areas, I would have a very low threshold to implement a site ban. There has to be a limit somewhere to how much we ask productive editors to put up with. MastCell Talk 17:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- And as is entirely to be expected, Nenpog has immediately violated the ban with another posting in the thread on Jimbo's talk page: [7]. Here we read that "... an unrelated discussion was used as an excuse to open an assault on me. I think that the decision is completely unjustified, and that people didn't review the evidences, because the evidences don't support their statements. People just followed the lead of one editor who wikihounded me, without checking the evidences". Not only a clear violation of the ban, but yet another personal attack. MastCell, over to you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- In lieu of the fact that Nenpog clearly isn't ) 19:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think I see the problem: Nenpog has been pursuing this content dispute by trying to change policy pages and raising general complaints about 19:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- In lieu of the fact that Nenpog clearly isn't ) 19:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly
Bad Person and removal from the pending block list
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am not sure if this is the correct area to report a problem or not. My name is XXXXXXXXX and today I received a message from Mer-C about Spamming on a domain name that I have never edited. I believe this individual got my name from an edit that I did on Medicina Mexico where I added some categories.
I was so shocked to receive this kind of message from someone at Wikipedia that I did my own investigation and learn the following:
In running a Google search for Medicina Mexico, I came across a website called WOT (mywot.com) which had nasty things to say about Medicina Mexico and they also listed other websites owned by Medicina Mexico. They also claimed that Medicina Mexico was a group of rogue websites.
In doing further research, I read their forums and saw messages from XXXXXXXXX from XXXXXXXXX in Tijuana, Mexico. Baja Datacenter is a large datacenter in Tijuana and is well known. I called the datacenter at XXXXXXXXX and I spoke to XXXXXXXXX.
XXXXXXXXX stated that Medicina Mexico was a customer of XXXXXXXXX and that the owners only spoke Spanish and one of the owners was a personal friend of his. Xe also told me he tried to talk common sense with WOT and the conversations turned ugly when xe told them that Medicina Mexico was a legit company. XXXXXXXXX told me that xe had setup website DNS for traps to see if these sites were reported by WOT as being rogue pharmacies. The two sites xe setup DNS only were tijuanarxstore.com and cheaprxmexico.com
XXXXXXXXX also said that WOT was really being run by LegitScript who has declared all pharmacies located outside of the United States to be Rogue Pharmacies even if they were licensed and regulated in their own countries. Xe told me that the owner of LegitScript had several ex felons working for him to discredit all pharmacies outside of the United States. Xe also told me that all of Medicina Mexico's websites were rated bad by WOT and Legitscript.
In order to verify what XXXXXXXXX stated, I then ran my own Google’s check and found these websites:
- http://www.chrisroubis.com/category/wot-criminals/
- http://dukeo.com/mywot-web-of-trust-review-modern-web-totalitarism/
- http://www.ripoffreport.com/directory/Web-of-Trust.aspx
- http://www.worldpharmacyverification.com/
I then called our Health Department in Mexico which regulates pharmacies (Secrtaria de Salud at +52 5063-8400) and learned that Medicina Mexico was in fact licensed and that they owned 48 pharmacies. I also learned that they have never received a citation for violating our laws.
I then checked the Wayback machine (http://archive.org/web/web.php) and discovered that tijuanarxstore.com and cheaprxmexico.com were never online as stated by XXXXXXXXX.
I then checked two other pharmacies from Mexico that are unrelated to Medicina Mexico and saw that they were also rated bad by WOT and Legitscript.
I then went back to Mer-C wilipedia page and found this webpage: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Medicina Mexico spam on Wikipedia Then I saw the websites Tijuanaexstore.com and cheaprxmexico.com listed along with all of Medicina Mexico’s other websites. The bottom of the listing for Medicina Mexico was See WikiProject Spam Item MER-C 10:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I then went to: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Medicina Mexico spam on Wikipedia and found that this same person has listed Medicina Mexico to be blocked.
The fact that two of the sites have never been online and the fact that this individual has listed them makes me believe that he is a bad apple and should not be on Wikipedia in any capacity. Further, that he is acting in the interest of others and not in the best interest of Wikipedia.
Conclusion
I believe that Medicina Mexico should be removed from the spam list and the pending blocking list and that an Administrator or Steward decide what action should be taken about Mer-C
I hope I am not out line for reporting this as my interest is always what is best for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigail.gutierrez (talk • contribs) [[User: Abigail.gutierrez|Abigail.gutierrez 00:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- USER:MER-C notified. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am unclear which of your edits MER-C was referring to as spam, however your statement above that you did a web search AFTER receiving the spam notice and in that search "discovered" a site named WOT does not add up. On July 1, you edited the WOT article - eight days before the spam notice. Please clarify, thank you. --talk) 00:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)MER-C warned you for adding a link to rxmexicoonline.com (as seen here.) Here, we see you adding a link to rxmexicoonline.com to the Medicina Mexico page.
- Your phone calls are not verifiable, and we cannot accept it as a source of information.
- Last I heard, we do not use Web of Trust, we have our own list to define spam, which you saw and have linked to.
- Wayback machine does not keep track of all sites, and would likely remove sites that are harmful to other users or dedicated only to scams and other criminal activities.
- As for the links you provide:
- chrisroubis.com is currently hosting several anti-Semitic articles, so I do not trust that site any more than a neo-Nazi site.
- dukeo.com is a scam site that tries to teach people how to make money. I don't trust thieves' opinions about the police.
- Ripoffreport.com is user-generated, and filled with complaints by people who run the websites that WoT spoke against. There's a conflict of interest there.
- worldpharmacyverification.com is full of malware, which can only mean it's run by people who either don't know what they're doing or people who profit from screwing people over.
- I don't see any reason to trust you at this point. If you are acting in good faith, you've been duped, and need to quit pressing this issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also note that the account that Abigail.gutierrez contacted has been editting the Medicina Mexico article, which really doesn't pass muster, using edit summaries quite similar to Abigail.gutierrez ("Edited by name"). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- See also quack!. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- For actual SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vanburrena JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Abigail.gutierrez assures me that she is only herself and no one else and hopes I will read her complaint here because I apparently have not done so ...despite responding to it in detail. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- For actual SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vanburrena JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- See also
- Also note that the account that Abigail.gutierrez contacted has been editting the Medicina Mexico article, which really doesn't pass muster, using edit summaries quite similar to Abigail.gutierrez ("Edited by name"). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
If an administrator or a steward wants my telephone number they are welcome to call me. I am a XXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXX is XXXXXXXXX. I am not xem and xe is not me. I do not know a joesperraza and I do not know a Ian.thomason. I did receive a message in my sandbox from Merc claiming while I writting this complaint that I was spamming which I was not. I then received a message from Ian.Thomason saying my complaint was not in reality. I am not here to have a fight. I suspect that these are the same people that I have complained about. PLEASE HAVE A STEWARD or a Administrator review the information that I have given. I am also sending notice to a steward. Abigail.gutierrez 02:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- How is it you called XXXXXXXXX working at a XXXXXXXXX when XXXXXXXXX hyperlink to real person's C.V. hasn't worked at XXXXXXXXX since XXXXXXXXX?
- And to other editors, I don't consider that WP:AGF, I don't know that user account A is user account M yet, and even if that was not the case, we have no proof that is XXXXXXXXX. Xe did not refer to user account M when xe mentioned speaking to XXXXXXXXX from XXXXXXXXX. It seems unlikely that someone trusted to be XXXXXXXXX would be involved in this kind of petty spamming. Given these two facts, I'm perfectly willing to believe XXXXXXXXX's name is being misused, or that they are two people with the same name (it does happen). I have no intention of asking if that resume is for this person, as I have no intention of outing anyone. Without that evidence, I can only assume that XXXXXXXXX (whose resume I found) is a different person from this account.
- At any rate, it's all sockpuppet accounts for a spammer, who cares? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Read this, then try again. There are no excuses for edits like [70]. For the record, I have little doubt that you and your (likely imaginary) friends are professional spammer(s) pretending to be Wikipedia newbies. Stop wasting our time. MER-C 02:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I saw this message in my sandbox. Lots of reading. First, to XXXXXXXXX thank you for the phone call of today. Now to the other nuts here from WOT and LegitScript, you have my governmental issued ID and you know I am real not sure about you but from what I have read on the internet if 1/2 of it is true then you are a group of persons that have been convicted of crimes in the U.S. courts. In short, convicted criminals. For anyone that needs to reach me, call me. And to Merc go back to WOT where you belong. I know who you are. Samuelmeza 03:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Samuelmeza, you just violated WP:OUTING, please retract your statement and apologize to User:Merc. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
For the future reference of anyone coming across this, note that that telephone number is not the one that is in the aforelinked C.V., or the telephone number of XXXXXXXXX. It's actually the company fax number of the companies being spammed. Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Quick question
If a
WP:SPA claiming to be Jesus came onto the site only to distance the historical Jesus from the Jesus/Isa found in Christianity and Islam, to portray those religions as making objectively false claims about Jesus (and not making claims of faith)... That'd be a troll right? And if such a person were to show up on the site, I could point them out here so they could be blocked, right? Ian.thomson (talk
) 03:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- That or we set up the Holy Church of Wikipedia and accept User:Jesus as our savior.--v/r - TP 03:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- So if Jesus or someone claiming to be Jesus came on, we should block them and see if they come back after three days, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's a pretty funny response, to be honest, but I have to wonder why Ian.Thompson is 1. bring a content dispute to here rather than discussing on the talk page and 2. not notifying the user [me] that he's trying to have banned on the sly as required by the rules here. Good thing wikipedia is transparent in showing edits. YourPalJesus (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think we need to get consensus on the 3 days thing. Generally folks around here like to see a full 7.--v/r - TP 04:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ecce Homo, Behold the Man. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- And the user has been notified since I have now finally mentioned him, though this was a formality as he decided to identify with the hypothetical I raised. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- So if Jesus or someone claiming to be Jesus came on, we should block them and see if they come back after three days, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I have come to the conclusion that User:YourPalJesus has been trolling Talk:List of people claimed to be Jesus and User talk:Ian.thomson. I am prepared to block the account failing some remarkable demonstration that this should not occur. Tiderolls 04:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's not the correct conclusion, since I've been presenting reasoned arguments while being called a troll and disparaged here. Why exactly do you think it's appropriate to threaten users over content disputes who don't get in line with your opinion? To me that seems like an obvious abuse of your admin flag and an attempt to silence me through intimidation. YourPalJesus (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not really involved in this at all, or an administrator, but I couldn't help but notice that on YourPalJesus' userpage, it says, "Im not yet an admin but will accept nominations". Seeing as he has had an account for only a few hours, I believe this is more evidence pointing to him being a troll. Standard04:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Trolling and making an obvious joke on a new user page are not really the same thing, I'd wager. YourPalJesus (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- You might be right, I'm just pointing it out for the people who make that call. Standard04:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think that's quite enough of that. Blocked, and should he return you'll be able to view the scars on his block log in case you're not sure. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- You might be right, I'm just pointing it out for the people who make that call.
- Trolling and making an obvious joke on a new user page are not really the same thing, I'd wager. YourPalJesus (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not really involved in this at all, or an administrator, but I couldn't help but notice that on YourPalJesus' userpage, it says, "Im not yet an admin but will accept nominations". Seeing as he has had an account for only a few hours, I believe this is more evidence pointing to him being a troll.
It's not a troll, but maybe POV pushing a bit. See m: Troll `Electriccatfish2 (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- User:Jesus was blocked on July 24, 2006. Forgive Wikipedia for they not know what they do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Looked like a classic troll to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Need help here!
I seriously need some help here in article
WP:SOCK) and again starts vandalizing. See this article history
.--Tito Dutta ✉ 04:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- NO. You stop reverting immediately or you will be blocked for edit-warring. This is a simple content dispute--I see no reason to believe that you're right and they're wrong. You are free to put edit-war notices on their talk pages, and I would suggest you start an SPI. But this is not a matter for ANI, and since there is no BLP issue here at stake that I can see, you would do well to stop immediately. Might I add that the article is in terrible shape (I just removed a couple of unacceptable sections) and that your revert restores or still includes phrasing like "Decent Hit, Completed 50 days." which is far, far from OK. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd also add that you shouldn't be using rollback in a content dispute, and perhaps using the talk page to discuss might help as well? - Ghost04:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, I have no doubt that filing an SPI would give our editor a more level playing field, but they're just going about it the wrong way, a way that might get them blocked. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I looked at the history of the article and saw Tito using rollback in this content dispute at least 4 times. This is not an acceptable use of the rollback tool and I have therefore removed the rollback flag from his account. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- What is happening here? You are warning me? You are removing my rollback features? There are multiple notices in their talk! I tried to talk to this editor multiple times, see User_talk:Abhijit_puranik#July_2012, also see here User_talk:Subhash_Chandra_Gandhi#WP:RS, here User_talk:Subhash_Chandra_Gandhi#July_2012 also see my frustration here: User_talk:Callanecc#Three_revert_rule.21, there might be one two more! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your frustration may be understandable, but it doesn't excuse what we see in that history. You are, first of all, obviously edit-warring. Second, after so many warnings you should have considered passing the buck to AIV or filing an SPI, and you wouldn't have been in hot water. Third, the best argument in there for disruptive editing is the removal of the template, but it is worth noting that in this edit you actually remove a bunch of references, some of which appear to be reliable. The "vandalism" case is so weak here that rollback is really not an acceptable tool. Besides, the article talk page is where we would have loved to see your good faith (which I don't doubt) displayed. Here's the thing: edit-warring is edit-warring even if you're right, and you should have stopped and used other means a while ago. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oh god, another mess in that topic area? As with many articles there, it'd probably be a good idea to indefinitely semiprotect it; I'm realy not seeing many useful edits from anons or new users. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- (WP:COOL, explain your position clearly, and demonstrate that you understand the correct application of tools. It will all work out.
- With regard to warnings and the like, be sure to take the time to explain why content should (or should not) be included on the article talk page, and point other editors there. In the long run, it will always go better.
- Lastly, where you're sure you're right... Go ask someone else. Don't get caught up in an edit war, they only leave victims. Above all, Happy Editing! --talk) 05:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your frustration may be understandable, but it doesn't excuse what we see in that history. You are, first of all, obviously edit-warring. Second, after so many warnings you should have considered passing the buck to AIV or filing an SPI, and you wouldn't have been in hot water. Third, the best argument in there for disruptive editing is the removal of the template, but it is worth noting that in this edit you actually remove a bunch of references, some of which appear to be reliable. The "vandalism" case is so weak here that rollback is really not an acceptable tool. Besides, the article talk page is where we would have loved to see your good faith (which I don't doubt) displayed. Here's the thing: edit-warring is edit-warring even if you're right, and you should have stopped and used other means a while ago. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- See here too User_talk:Titodutta#Please_do_not_put_any_maintenance_templates_to_the_Upendra_Page_as_the_problem_is_resolved_.21. I requested them to talk at least (you may find my tone "funny" or "desperate" there "please reply" "post below" etc), but did not get any reply. Everytime you say anything they just create a new account. This is a reliable source? Either that is a mirror of Wikipedia or Wikipedia article is that article's copyvio. I ignored it. You are warning me? --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm semiprotecting it. Hopefully that'll help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- They have registered accounts! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- It'll stave them off for a while at least (takes 10 edits and 4 days), and it makes the pattern easy to pick up on; a bunch of editors suddenly showing up on their 11th edit is pretty obvious. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that might help! But, those 4-5 accounts are already auto-confirmed I think! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- It'll stave them off for a while at least (takes 10 edits and 4 days), and it makes the pattern easy to pick up on; a bunch of editors suddenly showing up on their 11th edit is pretty obvious. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- They have registered accounts! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm semiprotecting it. Hopefully that'll help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd also add that you shouldn't be using rollback in a content dispute, and perhaps using the talk page to discuss might help as well? -
Looking for some replies! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Sorry everyone I interpreted this one incorrectly. Titodutta, as Blade said semi-protecting usually discourages editors from changing it when they have to go to quite a bit of effort to confirm their account. It also makes it quite obvious to everyone else. I would strongly suggest that you avoid the article and let other people keep an eye on it (I can tell you now that most, if not all, of the editors above will be watching the page). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Too harsh Keilana and Drmies, I think you are both being too harsh on Tito dutta here. We're dealing with a user who has no trouble socking, refuses to discuss things, and also possible copyright vios/contentious sourcing. Not that the contentious sourcing is a reason to rollback, but copyright vios certainly is. And if the user is socking, it is possible that the master might be a banned former Wikipedian which is another valid reason to use rollback. Further, this user is asking for help after trying to discuss. I think taking rollback away and the tone used are both harsh for the situation. If there are no objections by anyone, I am going to restore rollback rights.--v/r - TP 18:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'll defer to you. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that, but a better interpretation of my actions and words is found on the user's talk page, where you'll note that I also started the SPI. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Given that the article continues to be edits with the content mentioned above, could it be fully protected please (I've requested at
(etc) template appreciated. 16:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)- I apologize, I did not realize there was a consensus to stop editing the page (is there?). As of here, the article is in decent shape with the exception of one section (Directorial career). If there is a desire to hold off until this closes, I will halt here. Note - I refactored Callanecc's comment slightly to maintain the thread. --talk) 18:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the editing is ongoing, by one of the suspected socks. I'm hesitant to simply revert since it may well be that the edits themselves are helpful--I can't judge that. One could revert because of the disruptive nature of the edits (continuing edit war, unexplained, possible socking, etc) but I'm not going to touch the matter anymore, though there is still work to be done, as you noted. But this ANI thread and all the associated action should not mean that the article shouldn't be improved while this is going on, so have at it if you like! Drmies (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Checkuser note. I have indeffed a couple of socks and blocked the master, Abhijit puranik (talk · contribs), for a week. Do feel free to tweak his block. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- First, I should admit the mistake of using rollback option. Secondly, sorry for delay in reply, I was frustrated and did not come online yesterday. I can see few reverts in that article and those users have been banned. Good news, unfortunate too! Unfortunate in this sense, the first account has maximum number of edits (last time I saw 119) in that article.
- There are more issues– he has uploaded the same photo (Upendra image for that article's infobox) at least 7-8 times here and in commons. Every time the file gets deleted he changes file name and re-uploads. Some accounts have been banned I doubt he has more accounts, for example this: User_talk:Shafal1392#How_do_you_own_copyright.3F this account uploaded the same image.
- The thing you have faced in last one day, I have been facing this for last 10–12 days! I request to fully unprotect the page and then see what I faced there in last few days --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I expect that everyone here understands your frustration. There is no need to unprotect the article just to prove a point. The Semi-protect in place should allow reasonable editors to continue to develop the article, and there are now a significant number of eyes on the article and its contributors. Thanks for your work and your patience. --talk) 01:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just as a general pointer for admins unfamiliar with the mess that is most articles related to India; make liberal use of semiprotection. It's the very, very rare article there that's actually getting helpful edits from anons or new users, and there's no sense in leaving them open to drive-by copyright violations or rewrites as either an attack page or a hagiography. This is one place where using blunt force instruments can be much more effective than trying escalating measures, because using escalating measures you'll end up at exactly the same place you would have in the first place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I expect that everyone here understands your frustration. There is no need to unprotect the article just to prove a point. The Semi-protect in place should allow reasonable editors to continue to develop the article, and there are now a significant number of eyes on the article and its contributors. Thanks for your work and your patience. --
Hoax article in User sandbox
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was curious how to handle a hoax article which is in a User sandbox. Are these still subject to using {{db-hoax}}? Clearly this is a hoax: User:Windows55 (2)/sandbox The article is just a copy of Katie (talk show), with all of the original refs. The wording has just been changed. In addition, the same article was created at User:KFC2012/sandbox just 2 minutes after it appeared in Windows 22 (2)'s sandbox. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any need for action -- they're sandboxes. Nobody Ent09:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well ... there would be some that argue that to call a living person X the producer or director of a fake show might be a BLP issue ;-) (BWilkins←✎) 11:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- If he publishes it, we'll CSD tag it as a hoax. Just remind the user not to publish it onto mainspace. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Or you could take it to WP:MFD as an inappropriate use of userspace and it being used as a webhost for content which will never be an article--Jac16888 Talk13:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Probably the best idea if this is a hoax. In the meantime, I've removed the non-free KFC logo from the two sandboxes. Resolute 13:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nomination is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Windows55 (2)/sandbox, prior discussion or not, it's not what sandbox pages are for--Jac16888 Talk 13:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Probably the best idea if this is a hoax. In the meantime, I've removed the non-free KFC logo from the two sandboxes. Resolute 13:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Or you could take it to
- If he publishes it, we'll CSD tag it as a hoax. Just remind the user not to publish it onto mainspace. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well ... there would be some that argue that to call a living person X the producer or director of a fake show might be a BLP issue ;-) (
- I'm not seeing any evidence of any attempt to discuss with editor before filing the ANI. Nobody Ent13:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hoaxing isn't acceptable anywhere, including userspace. I would have speedied it too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Anton Maegerle
- This is a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard issue. Uncle G (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Personal attacks by 92.40.68.49 (talk · contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
92.40.68.49 (talk · contribs) has made personal attacks on User talk:Materialscientist ([72]) & User talk:Redvers ([73]). I then warned 4im for personal attacks ([74]). The user then put the personal attacks back: Materialscientist & Redvers. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked and revdel'd. Acroterion (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for a close to the Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) merge discussion
There was a discussion started on 24 June at
Ghost
17:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am not an admin, of course, but I'd say there's no consensus at this time. I'd also suggest that there needs to be a more general RfC about the notability of D&D (and other game) creatures. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your infoboxes also would suggest you don't exactly have a neutral opinion on this. If and until there is some general RfC about the notability of D&D creatures, the article still has to follow Ghost19:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's true, but I didn't actually tell you what I would have !voted in this, did I? I didn't want to hypothetical-supervote in my hypothetical-close. I like D&D just fine, but it seems to me that most of the creature articles are in there due to passing the old Pokemon test. Since that's no longer valid...yeah. My opinion is that most D&D creature articles don't have sufficient sourcing to be independently notable, but that omnibus articles might be a good solution. My evaluation of the RfC on the above-linked page is that it's no-consensus. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I proposed a merge on the grounds that the article wasn't supported by any independent secondary source and couldn't stand on its own. Opposition argued that sources were enough. Thus, a comment from the the Reliable Source Noticeboard was requested, and their conclusion ([75]) severely rebutted all the claims from opposers of the merge, who then refused to adress any of the issues raised by the RSN and "strength of argument" prevails over head-count, this doesn't seem to be a "no consensus" as opposers are only using proof by assertion, strength of argument is clearly on the side of merging.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I proposed a merge on the grounds that the article wasn't supported by any independent secondary source and couldn't stand on its own. Opposition argued that sources were enough. Thus, a comment from the the Reliable Source Noticeboard was requested, and their conclusion ([75]) severely rebutted all the claims from opposers of the merge, who then refused to adress any of the issues raised by the RSN and
- That's true, but I didn't actually tell you what I would have !voted in this, did I? I didn't want to hypothetical-supervote in my hypothetical-close. I like D&D just fine, but it seems to me that most of the creature articles are in there due to passing the old Pokemon test. Since that's no longer valid...yeah. My opinion is that most D&D creature articles don't have sufficient sourcing to be independently notable, but that omnibus articles might be a good solution. My evaluation of the RfC on the above-linked page is that it's no-consensus. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your infoboxes also would suggest you don't exactly have a neutral opinion on this. If and until there is some general RfC about the notability of D&D creatures, the article still has to follow
I think the discussion of the article is best confined to the talk page, as it has no bearing on this noticeboard. For future reference, this noticeboard is for reporting the behavior of other users to receive administrator attention, but the
) 16:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)- Agreed. We got sidetracked, and the original post should hae been on ) 17:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're basing that on, but that's not accurate according to the top of this page and the Ghost20:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- At the moment there are 21 requests for closure at talk) 20:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's correct. But let's just say that this is closer to a "backlog notice" than it is to an "issue or dispute," because in this context, "issue or dispute" means "behavioral issue or dispute". - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Dougweller, that is correct. The "requests for closure" page transcludes to ) 21:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- At the moment there are 21 requests for closure at
"Court order" to remove arrest info
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article
WP:FEFS. As he has not reverted and has asked for advice, I do not think an NLT block is necessary, but the situation should be watched. Anyone know what such a "court order" might be? JohnCD (talk
) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Legal threats cannot be tolerated. The editor should be indef'd until or if he fully retracts and recants the threat; and directed to the Foundation if he has any questions. My guess is he's bluffing, as with 99.9 percent of all legal threats made here. If the arrest information is public information, then it's fair game for wikipedia. It might be undue weight or something, but that's a separate issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think WP:BLPCRIME applies in this case (charges were dropped and person is not that well known) and have mentioned this on the article talk page. 72Dino (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- The 'lawyer' needs to send his 'court order' to WMF Legal. That is the correct and only course of action as far as the court order is concern. As to the rest, as 72Dino points out, we can consider the merits of the article against 18:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Seems to me that if he wishes to use a court order to compel Wikipedia to do something, he or his client need to contact the WMF's legal team. Regular editors don't, and really aren't allowed to, make decisions about legal issues such as this. While his contact with Legal is pending, the usual restrictions would apply - he may not edit war or disrupt Wikipedia in pursuit of the issue, etc. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) He's not making a legal threat. He said there's a "court order" removing the arrest from databases (I would guess removing it from police records - but would need to see it), then asking how to proceed with removing it from Wikipedia. No threat of holding any court orders over other editors were made.
- That said ... it's related to an arrest where apparently the charges were dropped - no conviction, or even a trial - charges simply dropped. Unless there's controversy surrounding why they were dropped (I haven't reviewed the sources), then what's the point of mentioning this seeming non-issue anyway? Why not just remove it? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Material removed, article taken to AFD. --NeilN talk to me 18:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think
- It is, in fact, a legal threat - namely, an attempt to invoke something legal in order to intimidate other editors. Not allowed. No compromise. Either the editor retracts, or he must be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not exactly. WP:NLT "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved." What is more resolved than a decision by the court? The policy itself starts out as "Rather than threatening to employ litigation"...litigation has already been employed and completed. All this editor needs is a poke in the right direction. They have their judgement, they need to use it properly. By contacting the WMF.--v/r - TP18:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not exactly.
- (?19:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- It still looks to me like a legalistic attempt at intimidation, but if the article gets zapped, then maybe it doesn't matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that the article has a prayer of AfD survival, the guy simply hasn't done anything at all to be particularly noteworthy. So much of this will soon be moot. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Pfft, where is the fun in that. ANI is for the drama, arguing, and back stabbing (suitable for TNT). If we let a reasonable approach like an AFD discussion sort this out, we'll be missing on precious opportunities to throw dung at each other. What about the lolz?--v/r - TP 19:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- OOK! OOK OOK EEK EEEK SKREEK OOK OOK! - The dung throwing monkeys 21:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Pfft, where is the fun in that. ANI is for the drama, arguing, and back stabbing (suitable for TNT). If we let a reasonable approach like an AFD discussion sort this out, we'll be missing on precious opportunities to throw dung at each other. What about the lolz?--v/r - TP 19:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Having been through the article's history and seen revisions like this (note the sneaky wording and contrast with what the source actually says), edits like this, and five single-purpose accounts slowly taking the article back and forth between bad and worse, I should point out how restrained RickyLow2567 was. Ask yourself: Would you have been? Don't overlook legal threats. Uncle G (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly, when a legal threat is made, it's very important to see whether it's blustering or if it has merit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I've left what I hope is useful information for RickyLow2567 on his/her talk page. It's clear that s/he isn't here to disrupt and is trying to work within our systems. No need to drag this out or create drama. Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Is there a good reason this hasn't just been speedied yet? Do others think chair of some random state level commission, which doesn't have it's own page, is a claim of notability? I don't really see it. --- Selket Talk 21:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm on it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's curious that an article would sit there for four years, and the suddenly become an emergency. The common thread across McNutt II and III and also the bakery where the fruitcake started, is the interest shown by Fdicsipc (talk · contribs), who created the now-deleted article, and also contributed to two others. He might have been a family member, or he might just have made a connection that he thought noteworthy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- At least it wasn't Boob McNutt. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a good reason this hasn't just been speedied yet? Do others think chair of some random state level commission, which doesn't have it's own page, is a claim of notability? I don't really see it. --- Selket Talk 21:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Low-level disruptive IP Wikipedia policy violations
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:MOSFLAG
. I have repeatedly warned them:
- Initial notification posted by Tgeairn.
- Second notification
- Formal warning
- Final warning - 11:02, 6th July
Despite this they have since edited a few articles where they inserted more flag icons, and whilst edits like this as far as i am aware are not in violation, this, which they did hours after their final warning at 21:32, 6th July.
Whilst they seem to have either stopped editing or have decided to lie low since the 6th July, i believe a short term block (several days?) should be imposed once they resume editing (if they do) to help encourage them to desist. Mabuska (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let us know if they return to such actions. Meanwhile, there shalt not be a block at this juncture (BWilkins←✎) 00:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extra eyes/assistance requested on Bit (horse)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been cleaning out some templates, removing some, fixing articles for others, and in several cases of unsourced content which has stood for over a year, removing the content. No problems until
WP:V. Any assistance would be appreciated. KillerChihuahua?!?
22:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- He has now sourced the content, albeit with ill grace and more insults, but this is a closed subject now so far as I am concerned. If anyone wants to give him some helpful hints about policy and civility, go for it. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're both good people - in the words of wize 'Zilla fans everwhere: talking good. fighting bad. Be nice. — ?22:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're both good people - in the words of wize 'Zilla fans everwhere: talking good. fighting bad. Be nice. —
- And remembering 23:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- DTTR is not policy; V is. I did not "bitch at other people" I removed unsourced content which had been tagged since Feb 2011. You chose to edit war and insult me for days rather than find a source for the content you, not I, wanted included in the article. The onus is on the person who wishes to include content, especially somewhat trivial content, not on someone else. I am not your secretary to find sources for content I never added to the article, which you want in it. Insulting me repeatedly has not changed the policies here regarding sourcing at all. I am now done with this subject; please try to be more polite to your fellow editors in the future. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edit summary in breach of WP:BLP
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is requested that an admin remove this edit summary [80] as a breach of the
) 01:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)- In the future, please follow the instructions in the RED box at the top of the edit page (labeled Oversight & Revision Deletion, rather than posting diffs here. --talk) 01:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unacceptable and incomplete stubs
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I am here to request that an administrator warns
talk
No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 02:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Article production is good, lack of communication not so. But what would you like an administrator to do here? I can't force them to talk, and I can't block them for not talking, certainly not as long as they're not blatantly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- This user appears to be creating legitimate content. The fact that it is not perfect content doesn't matter; Wikipedia is built on incremental improvements. You can't force people to do more than they want to do. Reyk YO! 04:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikid77 and new 'fast' citation templates
This is a ) 10:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikid77 and new 'fast' citation templates. Sure. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
This user
WP:COMPETENCE, at least until the user is willing to cooperate, but I might be too involved here. I personally hate COMPETENCE blocks, but I'm a bit stumped here. Any thoughts? --Rschen7754
07:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Will not communicate" blocks are somewhat controversial, although I have and do support them in cases like this and have found them to often be at least sometimes effective. In this case WP:DE clearly applies. If nothing else, if it gets the editor to communicate, it allows determination of CIR in general. I would strongly disagree on the indef time limit, however, and I notice you have blocked him previously for one week, which was pretty strong but sadly ineffective. Indef blocks should only be used when there is clearly no reasonable hope for the editor to contribute in good faith, and in this case, that is not a certainty (although very possible), thus might be seen as excessive. I am going to block him for two weeks, and leave a personal message. This would be strike two, and if he fails to communicate and goes back to editing in a fashion that is clearly disruptive, then we can say we have exhausted every reasonable bit of good faith to the point that an indef would be justified. Dennis Brown - 2¢ ©13:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Disruptive behaviour of GabeMc
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:GabeMc has been disruptive of the editing process in many Beatles articles. Repeatedly he has pushed the "The/the" debate in many places, at several times, despite previous consensus and compromises offere and agreed upon. He has repeated used insulting behaviour here here here here here and redacted or apologized to many editors and yet continues to use insults as a distraction technique when opposing opinions are presented. Please note this editor gets much reciprocated praise from other editors by engaging them on their talk pages first. This pseudo praise should not be a factor in opinions as he is polished at generating his surface reputation.
It should also be noted that User:GabeMc uses the misspelling of other editors names, frequently, when in disagreements with another editor, as an irritation technique.
WP:Votestacking with User:Rothorpe with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate where User:GabeMc and User:Rothorpe
agree to attempt to bias an outcome.In the end somebody needs to get this editor's behaviour under control. He is very active and capable of good work, here. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- A number of people have run across him recently - he accuses others of "trolling" at the drop of a hat, alas. And not just on Beatles pages. [84] [85] [86] he boasts of his extensive 2.5 year record on Wikipedia, which I find telling. His posts lack maturity, understanding of ) 12:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Collect, you are the only person I have ever accused of trolling at wikipedia. I redacted and apologized to you within an hour, so the fact that you are restating it here only supports my original assertion that 50% of your edits are intended to argue and stir up trouble. I won't redact that, so don't ask, ANI can punish me if that's what I need. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was recently accused by User:GabeMc of having "OCD" Obsessive–compulsive disorder. When I demanded an apology, he added it to his comment in small type: " Is this an OCD for you or something, or is it just a power struggle to get your way? you have my full apologies andrea ". I found this to be totally unacceptable.--andreasegde (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- User:GabeMc accused me of attempting to "degrade the high-quality prose" in the Paul McCartney article. After having made 3,299 edits to the article (from May 2006), taking it to GA status, and trying (but failing), an FAC, I find his attitude reprehensible.--andreasegde (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- On this very page, the same editor has claimed, "if you had been bullied by this user for several years you might not preach that to me." This is an outrageous lie.--andreasegde (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- What an enormous waste of time. We need more editors like Gabe. I don't always agree with him (I'm certainly not in favor of "the Beatles"), but he doesn't give up when he's passionate about an issue. This should not be confused with "tendentious editing". Gabe was out of line with andresegde; he apologized, repeatedly. Andreasegde has continously refused his apologies. Oh well. This is not an ANI issue! Joefromrandb (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- You have not addressed the complaints about User:GabeMc at all, and saying "What an enormous waste of time" is an insult to the editors that have complained about him.--andreasegde (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well that's convienent! You didn't seem to think I was "insulting" anyone when I chided Ankitbhatt for running to an admin to complain about you. This thread is equally pointless. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Saying this thread is "pointless" shows your complete disregard of the whole process. It is here for a reason.--andreasegde (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Saying that he has "complete disregard of the whole process" is no more insulting. Stop nitpicking. Mythpage88 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your comments on my own talk page here, and here, plainly show that you do not understand what is insulting, and what is not.--andreasegde (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- How? Mythpage88 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Having followed this argument over probably the most bizarrely trivial matter in the history of the universe, my view is that both editors are at fault: GabeMC for letting his frustration and irritation get out of hand at some unbelievably obnoxiously underhand methods of another editor to get his own way on what (I researched) was based on nothing more than a personal preference, and andreasegde for being just plain obnoxious to GabeMC (usually by throwing a quibble at the language used back in GabeMC's face, or discrediting a point made by sniping at his grammar) and then using the "waah, he started it" argument. But in the end, my view is that andreasegde is more out of order than GabeMC, and I expect he will now attack me in some way, probably by pointing out some previous posting of mine where I myself have expressed an opinion. Here it comes now ... --Matt Westwood 19:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I fully agree with Matt. Mythpage88 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your comments on my own talk page here, and here, plainly show that you do not understand what is insulting, and what is not.--andreasegde (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Saying that he has "complete disregard of the whole process" is no more insulting. Stop nitpicking. Mythpage88 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Saying this thread is "pointless" shows your complete disregard of the whole process. It is here for a reason.--andreasegde (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well that's convienent! You didn't seem to think I was "insulting" anyone when I chided Ankitbhatt for running to an admin to complain about you. This thread is equally pointless. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- You have not addressed the complaints about User:GabeMc at all, and saying "What an enormous waste of time" is an insult to the editors that have complained about him.--andreasegde (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- The accusations here will be answered by a Wikipedia administrator, because that is the process. Links to pages where negative comments were made should be included, but personal comments and attacks should be avoided.--andreasegde (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Don't count on an administrator wanting anything to do with this foolishness. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- You are now disrespecting administrators and their work here. They decide if something is foolish, or not.--andreasegde (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, that was a compliment to our administrators. I think most of them have the segacity to recognize such trivial nonsense for what it is. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Are you trying to influence an administrator's decision? Not a good idea.--andreasegde (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, that was a compliment to our administrators. I think most of them have the segacity to recognize such trivial nonsense for what it is. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- You are now disrespecting administrators and their work here. They decide if something is foolish, or not.--andreasegde (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Don't count on an administrator wanting anything to do with this foolishness. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- See harassment. Today she wrote an edit summary at Paul McCartney that was verbatum from a point on my talk page. "Ssh, but I disagree with your latest changes at McC ..." I am confident that anyone who looks into this in detail will see what I saw. Please, I am now starting to feel unsafe at wiki, we need an admin to settle this. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot.--andreasegde (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Gabe: I believe andreasegde is in fact male ("Andreas" is a man's name throughout much of Europe. It does not do to inflame matters worse by referring to him as "she". I will be corrected if I'm wrong. --Matt Westwood 21:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Good point Matt. I will use "they" until this is clarified as I do not want to fan the flames. However, they refer to me as "him", but Gabe could be short for Gabrielle. So they are also making assumptions about my gender as well. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I refer you to this comment, which can be read above: "It should also be noted that User:GabeMc uses the misspelling of other editors names, frequently, when in disagreements with another editor, as an irritation technique." At 01:47, 9 July 2012, he used "Anddreas" and at 02:08, 9 July 2012, he wrote "You got me andraes, wow, a spelling error."--andreasegde (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- WP:AGF. --Matt Westwood21:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Since diffs from my user talk page are being used in this discussion, a notification would have been greatly appreciated. Anyway...
- Just looking at the chronology of things, IP 99 was responsible for dredging this up. We had all basically shut up about it before he came along during the McCartney FAC and started insisting that we all discuss it again. It's behavior that's quite out of character for an IP (and IPs never go to AN/I... never), but right now I'm not going to accuse anyone of being a sock as I don't have any hard evidence.
- As far as Gabe goes, it looks like he and Andreas are sort of at an unpleasant impasse. Gabe has said things that weren't justified, as I see it, but Andreas has been uncivil as well. His first response at the Sgt. Pepper talk page was to correct Gabe's spelling in a rather snide manner. He's been at least a much a part of this as Gabe, and I believe as of now Gabe has been the only one to apologise. The name spelling accusation is just silly. I have no way of knowing whether your name is Andrea or Andreas (the former is much more common in the United States, so assume good faith, please).
- While the "the"/"The" thing is something I have an opinion on, it's not something I'd ever go around instigating discussions about. I just don't have the energy for it. If a consensus comes out of this nonsense, I'll abide by it. I can't comment on the Rothorpe thing as I've never had any interaction with him. For the record, the issue of album titles is separate from the issue of captialising the band name. Gabe could probably use a bit of a talking-to about civility, but judging from the discussions surrounding the Pepper straw poll, so could Andreas. This is a minor squabble, and really doesn't belong at AN/I. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't need a talking to about civility, I am well aware of what is and what isn't civil. IMO, I made one comment that deserved an apology and I gave it, within the hour I believe if not sooner. Andreas made at least 5–10 insults at the Pepper talk page alone. If anyone needs a "talking to" it's him. Though in fairness, I can't recall them actually saying they were male. I also believe that ip 99 is a sock, and I am pretty sure it will be proven in time. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, it was primarily the insinuation that Andreas was intentionally trying to degrade the quality of the article that I found objectionable and mildly uncivil. I concur with Matt, however, than Andreas is more out of line in this particular situation. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps my comment needs some clarification. Lfstevens advised against using abbreviations in the article, and then later that day (within an hour or so) Andreas went to McCartney and added an abbreviation. I took that to be an intentional introduction of an error to an article on the verge of FA. Also, several other edits they made were fixed or reverted by several editors. Maybe the introduced errors were accidental, as mine are. I would love to AGF, but if you had been bullied by this user for several years you might not preach that to me. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have a diff for this supposed abbreviation? BTW, your accusation of being "bullied by this user for several years" is most distasteful, and a very unsavoury lie.--andreasegde (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps my comment needs some clarification. Lfstevens advised against using abbreviations in the article, and then later that day (within an hour or so) Andreas went to McCartney and added an abbreviation. I took that to be an intentional introduction of an error to an article on the verge of FA. Also, several other edits they made were fixed or reverted by several editors. Maybe the introduced errors were accidental, as mine are. I would love to AGF, but if you had been bullied by this user for several years you might not preach that to me. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, it was primarily the insinuation that Andreas was intentionally trying to degrade the quality of the article that I found objectionable and mildly uncivil. I concur with Matt, however, than Andreas is more out of line in this particular situation. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't need a talking to about civility, I am well aware of what is and what isn't civil. IMO, I made one comment that deserved an apology and I gave it, within the hour I believe if not sooner. Andreas made at least 5–10 insults at the Pepper talk page alone. If anyone needs a "talking to" it's him. Though in fairness, I can't recall them actually saying they were male. I also believe that ip 99 is a sock, and I am pretty sure it will be proven in time. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- While the "the"/"The" thing is something I have an opinion on, it's not something I'd ever go around instigating discussions about. I just don't have the energy for it. If a consensus comes out of this nonsense, I'll abide by it. I can't comment on the Rothorpe thing as I've never had any interaction with him. For the record, the issue of album titles is separate from the issue of captialising the band name. Gabe could probably use a bit of a talking-to about civility, but judging from the discussions surrounding the Pepper straw poll, so could Andreas. This is a minor squabble, and really doesn't belong at AN/I. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
On a general note, I think that many contributors don't realize how stressful it can be to have an article at
featured article candidates--and the Paul McCartney FAC was more difficult than most. So it's understandable that tempers were running high there. No opinion on the/The other issues. Mark Arsten (talk
) 03:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I have had a few run-ins with GabeMc on the "the/The" dispute over several years and his persistence in reviving the dispute despite consensus. I prefer "The Beatles" for legal reasons as shown at [88]. But we agreed to avoid using the band's name in mid-sentence as a compromise like I just did with this sentence. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am going to post this here only one time.
- This report is about the behaviour of one particular editor. Disruptive bickering regarding other issues, is not the issue, and not welcome here . If contributors do not stop attempting to sidetrack the posted issue and stick to (read the section title), I will further notify serious admins. Believe me, I know some that will get the job done without any tears for ALL the offenders. I have already done the finger pointing, here. No more fingers are welcome, in this issue. Last warning! 99.251.125.65 (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Give it a rest. You're only worried because we're talking about your behavior now! Mythpage88 (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) I call your bluff 99 radio-sock, go tell on me, just stop with the threats already. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've noticed that several editors have been trying to imply that Gabe is on some kind of crusade to restart the "the"/"The" debate. This is not the case. All was quiet on the capitalisation front until IP 99 made this edit at already talked about it. The previous consensus was (and I'm quoting) "to keep mid-sentence usage of "the"/"The Beatles" minimal", which is no consensus at all since it doesn't address the actual issue of capitalisation. This disagreement involving Gabe, Andreas, and whoever the IP is, is part of a larger dispute that the community has basically taken a hands-off approach with every time it comes up. If this kind of insanity cannot be resolved by civil discussion, as is clearly the case, we need a decision from higher up. I don't care what that decision is -- I just want to be able to edit an article about ThE BeaTLeS without checking into a mental asylum shortly thereafter. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK; so it looks like not one admin has commented here. That tell anyone anything? And yes, the IP is now being clearly disruptive and should be blocked without further comment. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) Well said Evan! To clarify, I started the straw poll at Pepper because yes, I would like to bring it to FA, but also because I know Radiopathy watches that page and reverts anyone who tries to insert a small-case "t". So clearly a discussion needed to take place there, before I am going to beat my head against a wall over every small-case "t" used in the article. As I said at the Pepper talk page, this obsession with "The" is hindering the improvement of Beatles related articles and I wonder how many frustrated editors have given up completely, having been driven away by the small faction devoted to the "Big T". Also to clarify, that consensus at the Beatles was improperly implemented, as !votes were still coming in when the tally was 13 against Big T and only 10 for Big T. Also, the rationale for "The" is usually "it just looks better", or "it just seems wrong to have "the"". Forget votes, if an admin decides this issue, which is what needs to happen IMO, I think the strength of argument would be in favor of our MoS. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've noticed that several editors have been trying to imply that Gabe is on some kind of crusade to restart the "the"/"The" debate. This is not the case. All was quiet on the capitalisation front until IP 99 made this edit at
- Another example of disruption by User:GabeMc where he attempts to Canvass for support behind the scenes, by stimulating emotion from another editor here. As if the demonstration seen on this page isn't enough.99.251.125.65 (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- GabeMc doesn't seem to understand WP:CIVIL as evidenced by his demeanor with an admin person asking for comments about his own actions here 99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Attempts to disrupt, even this page, and the ANI process, by large off-topic comments unrelated tothe discussion here. Attempts to provoke emotional responses from other editors to disrupt processes that re not "going his way" are common from GabeMc. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:BOOMERANG
Yes, I said this is a trivial matter which required no administrative action, but as the OP has now taken to threatening users that are commenting here, I must ask someone to now take action. The IP is probably a sock and certainly a troll. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Per input from other users, I have opened a sockpuppetry investigation here. May G-d help us all. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm...not exactly what I was thinking. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is very bad timing to introduce further attempts to distract from the discussion raised above regarding User:GabeMc behaviour. It appears to be a poor and off-track defence of GabeMc as seen by this collusion between User:Evanh2008 and User:GabeMc.see this conversation. I hope you get this case reviewed shortly as I am confident how the findings will proceed. This is a just another fine example of the types of antics in GabeMc's behaviour as in the past. Despite many requests from other editors and warnings to cease and desist he continues this behaviour, with dirty politics, even as a further mockery of the WP:ANI process. I am requesting a one week ban, at first, in order to make this editor (with such potential) realize the seriousness of this process and his actions, on WP. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- So communication is "collusion" now? It's not like Gabe and I are longtime allies or anything. We've had rather heated disagreements in the past; we happen to agree on this topic. That's all. As I said, I am deeply sorry to you and Radio if my suspicions turn out to be misplaced, but your presence here and your behavior is absolutely, completely inexplicable. Gabe and I are not the only ones who think so. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- To the IP, from Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot aka WP:BOOMERANG:
- A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, this is about them". There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please close this nonsense? Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, closure would make me all kinds of happy. But please, please, this time, someone at ArbCom please take notice. This kind of insanity is not going to come to an end until we have a binding decision that settles the matter permanently. I'm quitting the Beatles wikiproject until that happens, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Can we please get an admin here?
This thread has been open for hours, and we have yet to hear from an administrator at the administrator's noticeboard. And yes, I mocked the whole thread, saying no admin action was necessary. That was then. Razz me, trout me, do whatever. But this is spiraling out of control, and I fear we now have a well-intentioned but misguided SPI open. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- We need an admin to settle this. Please don't ignore this issue and allow this nonsense to go on. Editors need a clear direction to move here. The quality of the project itself is at stake. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Did anyone every email a record company or the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, etc, etc?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- You want an "admin" comment? Fine. Knock it off. Now that said, why would an "OMG admin" comment mean any more than any other editors comment? See: ) 05:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wow. I really don't give a shit about the "bickering". I asked for administrator intervention because of the problematic SPI. But apparently that's unimportant. I'm sure you folks have civility blocks to issue. Sorry for the disturbance. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Would this be considered "collusion", or just hypocrisy?
- If anyone's interested in a solution to this, I recommend you close my misguided SPI immediately so we can get to the bottom of this. It should be clear by now that there is absolutely no chance that IP 99 is not a sock, given his/her level of familiarity with how this place works, and knowledge of particular edits to particular talk pages by particular users weeks before s/he showed up, as indicated above. I just want an end to the puppetry and a binding decision on capitalisation so this madness can end. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wow. I really don't give a shit about the "bickering". I asked for administrator intervention because of the problematic SPI. But apparently that's unimportant. I'm sure you folks have civility blocks to issue. Sorry for the disturbance. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bad faith claims of "lying" and "mendacity" from admin User:Nightscream
I haven't yet seen the best example of
ownership of articles to an extreme. Nightscream acts appropriately in circumstances such as dealing with blatant vandalism, but New Jersey articles appear to be his bete noire and any edit contrary to his viewpoint is treated as a challenge to his authority and ownership, too often triggering abusive responses. A stern warning regarding such behavior might do the trick, but a content ban may well be appropriate now and would seem to be necessary for further violations to deal with this problem. Alansohn (talk
) 15:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- What I've seen above is enough to satisfy me that there is a problem with Nightscream's behavior in response to this particular article. Could you provide diffs of other instances in which they have behaved problematically with regards to other New Jersey-related articles? If there's only the one instance, this should simply be at Wikiquette. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- My .02 - I feel that Dispute resolution might be the best avenue to take here. Without addressing the content of the edits, summaries or talk page discussions, it's clear that this is a dispute involving 2 editors and I think a quick deescalation and discussion there might be more productive than this. Again, pointing no fingers here at all, just two pennies. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- () 15:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- My .02 - I feel that Dispute resolution might be the best avenue to take here. Without addressing the content of the edits, summaries or talk page discussions, it's clear that this is a dispute involving 2 editors and I think a quick deescalation and discussion there might be more productive than this. Again, pointing no fingers here at all, just two pennies. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm unimpressed by the behavior I see from Nightscream on that article. Though the diffs are, indeed, hard to interpret because of paragraphs being shifted around, it appears that what happened was that Nightscream tagged many items (as well as shifting some items, and tweaking some items), Alan made many improvements to those items that Nightscream highlighted (including shifting items again, and tweaking some items again. Alan may have started his changes using a version of the page prior to Nightscream's edits, it's hard to tell), and Nightscream then wholesale-reverted Alan's changes while accusing him of blind reverting and all other manner of offenses. The paragraph/wording tweaks the editors disagree on appear to be a content dispute, but it looks to me like Alan is attempting to compromise in his edits (and doing a fairly impressive job of holding his temper) and Nightscream is unwilling to do the same, preferring personal attacks about lying, etc. To be clear, I see no blind reverting or lying in Alan's behavior. Might his edits have inadvertently restored a couple things that Nightscream thought shouldn't be there? Yeah. But it's obvious that Alan's edits were actual edits, not just reverts, and responding to genuine attempts to improve the article - including attempts to improve items Nightscream had tagged as needing improvement - with the anger I see coming out of Nightscream is decidely non-consctructive. Disagree with someone's changes? Think your changes need to be integrated with theirs better? Talk page good. Personal attacks bad.
Now, is this a WQA issue or an ANI one? As Jorgath says above, we'd need to see diffs of similar behavior in places other than this particular article to know if this is a topic-area problem or an isolated incident, as opposed to a pattern of behavior. But since we're here, I would strongly recommend that either way, Nightscream take a breather from at least this article until he has his temper under control. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I just finished stalking back through Nightscream's contribs since July 1. This is the only problematic thing I've seen in that short time; I can't say yet if there's anything further back. That said, I will concede to Alan that New Jersey is one of Nightscream's area's of interest, along with Kevin Smith, comic books, Playboy, Pawn Stars, and The Real World. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
There was no "assumption" of bad faith, much less a Wikiquette violation. The inappropriate behavior on your part, Alan, was illustrated with evidence. That's not an "assumption", it's an empirical conclusion.
WP:AGF
does not require that we never criticize or point out inappropriate behavior, in the presence of evidence; if it did, then we wouldn't be able to have discussions on any sort of policy violation. It only advises not to jump to conclusions without evidence. That you made clearly dishonest statements is, like any other empirical claim, predicated and evidence/reason, and subject to falsification. I provided the evidence on your talk page as to your false statements, and even provided the obvious avenue through which you could falsify that charge. If you really did make an attempt to retain any of my wording or other edits to that article, or the photo rearrangement, then we would expect to see some of it retained. But in fact, you undid all of my edits, and retained none of them. You can falsify this by pointing out one example of a bit of wording or photo move of mine that you retained. But instead of doing so, you stonewalled on that offer, because you knew that no such example existed, precisely because my observation to that effect was correct.
It's hard to tell, Fluffernutter? No, it's not. Just compare the version of the article prior to my edits to the version created when Alan saved his edits, and you'll see that none of my changes were retained. This included:
- Numerous fact tags that Alan ended up removing
- Substantial copyediting to passages that he undid (compare the passage on Kevin Smith in the In media section to what it looked like before, for example)
- Material that I added to the article, with sources, which Alan removed
- Addition of sources to unsourced passages that Alan ended up removing
- Fixing citation formatting that Alan undid
- Moving of images to more relevant sections
Alan's statement, therefore, he retained my work, is false, as a question of evidence-based fact. You can falsify this by pointing to one bit of wording or photo moving that he retained. If you can do this, then please do so. If none of you can do this, then please stop making inane comments about "foul language", my "temper", "bad faith" or "Wikiquette". There was no "foul language", it doesn't not require a "temper" to illustrate an accusation with evidence, and the latter two charges do not apply here. This is not the first time Alan has made deliberately false statements during an edit conflict, and now he is escalating his libelous statements with demfamatory accusations about "chronic" bad faith and OWN-type behavior on my part. That such comments by Alan go unchallenged, while my quite legitimate criticism of his behavior that I illustrated with evidence are dogmatically dismissed, is amazing.
As far as the charge of my doing a blind revert, I did no such thing. I actually did retain the work that Alan did, precisely because I saw that he added material and sources to the article. I may have missed some passages, but that doesn't make it "blind" revert. A blind revert means hitting the "Undo" button without examining the changes to retain that which was beneficial. I didn't do this; as I actually did examine Alan's changes and retained most of them. By contrast, Alan did not. That he now accuses me of doing what he himself did, is ridiculous, and further illustrates the depths to which he is willing to descend in order to avoid admitting that he's wrong.
I see now that I accidentally did not retain the passage on the ice rink, which Alan did source. I've since restored it. The only other thing I can see in the diff Alan provides above is the passage on Broad Street. It already had a citation, but that cite doesn't mention Broad Street, which is why I removed it. Nightscream (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Aaand...you're both wrong. Looking over what Nightscream provided, neither of you did a blind revert. Because the changes were so massive, each of you simply accidentally failed to retain some of what the other added. This mess is a very good argument for multiple smaller edits rather than single large ones. In any case, the rest of that is simply content. Take it to ) 16:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree that Alansohn was wrong to bring this to AN/I. Nightscream has had prior issues with civility, even leading to a block last year and a proposed topic ban this year. He needlessly escalated the situation by accusing Alansohn of mendacity and lying when Alan left a very civil response on Night's talk page. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not saying anymore that Alan shouldn't have taken this to AN/I. I'm saying that he hadn't provided any evidence of a "pattern" of "ownership" in relation to New Jersey articles. He still hasn't, although Nightscream's block log (the thing I forgot to check) is interesting. Still, one 48-hour block, unblocked at 28 hours in, one year ago, is not that concerning to me (I'm ignoring the others, which were 3RR many years ago and not relevant). While Nightscream overreacted here, I think a trout and a stern warning is all that's warranted. This is an occasional problem, not a persistant one. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree that Alansohn was wrong to bring this to AN/I. Nightscream has had prior issues with civility, even leading to a block last year and a proposed topic ban this year. He needlessly escalated the situation by accusing Alansohn of mendacity and lying when Alan left a very civil response on Night's talk page. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
<Nightscream replied before I added my update, which I have shifted below and added some responses and rewording>In real life, I'm a keeper and my wife is a thrower-outer. In Wikipedia, I'm someone who will work diligently to find a way to retain content (with appropriate sourcing, often added by me), while Nightscream is a pruner, chopping away material that is unsourced or non-encyclopedic. Just as in real life, neither of us is "wrong" and there needs to be a balance. Keep all content and we have a lot of crap passing as articles, chop everything away and there's nothing left but content-less stubs. I think that these edits clearly demonstrate where these opposing paradigms come into conflict, but conflict need not mean bad faith attacks. As I indicated in my initial reply to Nightscream, I understood where he had issues with my edits and made clear that my removal of some of his copy edits and rearrangement was inadvertent. There's ample room for difference of opinion about what should and should not be in articles, and I accept that, but claims that I'm lying or blindly reverting are not only false but corrosive to the collaborative environment needed to find the middle ground. Sadly, Nightscream's response is an effort to prove that I'm lying, whereas I think that I have been as upfront about accidental removal of his edits and made a genuine offer to develop a version of teh article we can both be happy with. I'm not looking for retribution, but I do hope that some outside input may help foster a better means of communication in finding the necessary balance, as it is apparent that Nightscream is still looking to fight a battle that need not be fought. Alansohn (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Jorgath : "Nightscream did fail to WP:AGF: asssuming good faith, Alan was not lying, but was incorrect and did not realize it." Wrong. When you hit the "Undo" button to revert everything, rather than going down the changes to discriminate between that which was beneficial and that which was not, but then claim that you actually did the latter, that's a lie. How could he "not realize" that he did this? Was he doing it while sleepwalking?
- (not hearing very well when I said, and I repeat neither of you did a blind revert. That means that neither of you used the undo button. You're actually wrong. I looked at what you posted, and Alan did not remove everything you'd put up using the undo button. Alan over-wrote some stuff you did, but not all of it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- (
- Jprg1966: "He needlessly escalated the situation by accusing Alansohn of mendacity and lying..." It is not "needless" to point out inappropriate behavior by editors, since deception makes collaboration and resolution of editorial conflicts more problematic. Again, why will you not falsify the accusation by explaining why the evidence I provided does not lead to the conclusion in question? Why do you people always stonewall when I ask you direct questions like this?
- Alan: "In Wikipedia, I'm someone who will work diligently to find a way to retain content (with appropriate sourcing, often added by me), while Nightscream is a pruner, chopping away material that is unsourced or non-encyclopedic." You really believe that making this new accusation is a part of good faith or civility? Okay, fine, then. If I'm just a "pruner", then please explain these various instances of adding sources to unsourced material that I've found in articles: [89] [90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109] Yeah, I remove unsourced info, since it's part of policy. I also add sources to unsourced info. And sometimes I fact tag it. It varies, depending on the circumstances. Your characterization, therefore, is just more of your lashing out at someone who has criticized you, because you don't like the fact that I called you on your dishonesty.
- I didn't read that as an accusation, but as a compliment, suggesting you each play different but vital roles on Wikipedia. It's not exactly correct, as I could have told Alan from looking at your contrib history, but it's not malicious. If you felt it is, I think that your decision to back off and cool down is commendable. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Alan: "There needs to be a balance. Keep all content and we have a lot of crap passing as articles, chop everything away and there's nothing left but content-less stubs." False Slippery Slope Argument. The version of the article saved after my first round of edits was hardly a "content-less stub". This statement is a ridiculous exaggeration.
- Alan: "...but claims that I'm lying or blindly reverting are not only false..." Again, if it's false, then why won't you respond to my simple question? You said you made an effort to retain my wording and photo arrangement as best you could. I'm asking you for one example of this. Why can't you provide one? Wouldn't doing so completely falsify my assertion that you simply hit the "Undo" button, and reverted all of my edits? Hell, you even have an audience now, in front of whom you can falsify my accusation, and damage my credibility, right? So why do you refuse to answer the question?
- Yeah, you need to cool down. You just added an unsupported accusation of ) 18:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Alan: "I think that I have been as upfront about accidental removal of his edits..." Hold on. First you say that you made a conscious effort to retain as much of my edits as you could, and now you're saying that their removal was accidental? How was it accidental? Did you not click on the Undo button on purpose? Are you even reading what you're writing? It's like you can't even keep your rationalizations straight.
- Since I get the sense from the others here that this isn't going anywhere, I'm not going to post on this matter again, unless someone has a question for me that they'd like to answer. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this can just be closed with fish all around. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Sicko asking a potential minor to provide links to pictures of his penis
Over at WP:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous, a user (potentially a minor) came in concerned because a friend had posted pictures of his penis on a gay hook up site. DriveByWire then asked him for links, joking about the "size of the problem." When another user removed that, he restored it. Can we really tolerate a user taunting a potential sexual assault victim, asking for pictures of his penis even though these pics may be of a minor? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, we can't, although it does look to me like a WP:JOKEINPOORTASTE (I just made that up). I don't have much of a problem with DBW making the original pos, since we all do dumb things - although I do have a problem with the post itself. It's refusing to accept correction on this sort of inappropriate behavior that's the real problem. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently judging from his talkpage and contribution history he doesn't do much apart from trolling the reference desk. Do we need him around?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't think so. I've blocked DriveByWire indefinitely (ie until he gets some good sense). I see others have speculated he is a reincarnation of an editor previously indefblocked for similar disruption. I belive this merits a further look. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- If the partial-anagram Bred Ivy (talk · contribs) magically turns up, you might to toss him into the fjord also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I do suspect he is the previously problematic Norwegian. I cannot rule out the possibility that a sensible individual also posts on the same IP though. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't think so. I've blocked DriveByWire indefinitely (ie until he gets some good sense). I see others have speculated he is a reincarnation of an editor previously indefblocked for similar disruption. I belive this merits a further look. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Can someone explain to me why our RefDesk is entertaining questions about possible sexual assaults, handing out legal advice on the same, and hosting speculation on the ages of people asking the questions? The blocked editor's behavior here was clearly disruptive, but I'm really more alarmed by the behavior of the other posters in that thread. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- The short answer is that there is a small group of editors who shriek whenever anybody tries to remove an inappropriate item from the Ref desks, and many of the rest of us don't have the heart to fight about it. Looie496 (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- The short answer is the long answer. Anyone who attempts to fix the refdesk is rebuffed by the semi-organized hoard of jokesters who believe it is the right to ask dumb questions and make jokes on an encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd have to ask why we host such a thing at all? Its like a wiki version of Yahoo Answers. Tarc (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- One purposes it serves is as a place to divert people from asking questions on article talk pages or at other help resources, sending them to a specific area watched by wikipedians who may be interested in responding to their issues. Without the refdesks we would get alot more such questions in places like Wikipedia:Help desk and would drown out the editing related questions. Monty845 16:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict with Monty) You're right, Tarc, that's basically what it is. I suspect it was initially set up so that all the weird questions people think we can answer end up in one place, rather than pasted into random articles, etc. A sort of corral-the-crazy strategy. So from a purely pragmatic view, I suppose it makes sense. But if this is the sort of thing that goes on there, I'm frankly pretty concerned about whether we're harming either our reputation or our legal situation by allowing it to continue to exist. It might be wiser to just say "we can't answer your random questions, sorry" than to let people continue to give legal advice, etc. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it was a spinoff from the Help Desk, to divert those kinds of questions which weren't how-do-I-use-wikipedia questions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the only legal harm to the encyclopedia/foundation that would arise from editors giving such advice is that the foundation could end up in a lawsuit, but would win. The foundation is clearly not encouraging unqualified editors to offer legal/professional advice, and we as a community go to reasonable lengths to discourage such behavior. Though obviously the foundation's legal staff is the last word on that if they want to comment. Monty845 16:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Of course; the other "harm" might be if an individual took unqualified legal advice and it caused trouble for them... In actuality unqualified legal advice is frowned on heavily in many countries (particularly the US); if someone acts on the advice of another editor, then that editor is making themselves liable for the outcome of this advice. Even the IANAL disclaimer is not enough; we need to put our foot heavily on unqualified legal advice. --Errant (chat!) 11:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- The problem identified by Looie496 is what drove me away from volunteering at the RD. As to the specific issue here, I think the posting by the OP also exudes the smell of a troll, and the Daniel 2010101 account may be operated by the same person as the now blocked DriveByWire account. --Lambiam 17:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
@fluffernutter, this sort of situation has come up recently. Is it possible to require training so that people at the reference desk know how to respond in such situations. I see no advantage to Wikipedia from allowing these sorts of things. I wonder if Jimbo would have ideas for solutions. NewtonGeek (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- The role of an actual "reference librarian" has been, unfortunately, significantly reduced in this age of Google searches and online forums. ( Yes, I know we are an encyclopedia, not a library). The traditional reference desk at your local library would field all kinds of "out there questions", along with some legitimate ones, but the over-arching purpose was not to "answer" the questions, rather to point the person to the place to look to find the information he/she desires. I think this is the problem with our reference desk. Rather than telling people to look in this or that book, or to contact the local county clerk, or to consult with their state's genealogy society, (or whatever the case may be) instead we are (generally speaking) trying to actually answer the questions, often times from personal experience. And that's a rabbit hole. I am guilty of it myself. Anyway, my point is that the reference desk should empower people to find the sources that will answer their questions, not to answer ourselves, or do the work for them. A quick fix would be to require any "response" on the reference desk to include an actual reliable source, like we require for facts in our articles. Ditch ∝ 22:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- If my account is getting dragged into some sick AN/I problem here, shouldn't Buggs at least have the common courtesy to notify me. I would think that without some sort of reasonable diffs or explanation, bringing me into this is at best a personal attack. Take it to SPI or a trusted CU. I refuted the Anagram similarity here, just last week. Maybe Buggs took this comment the wrong way, and is holding a grudge, but that was way back in March.
- As for the Reference Desk: There are some talented editors who help a great deal at the Ref Desk. They provide a great deal of help. But there are numerous editors that Troll there, with their jokes, and attacks, and unprofessional antics. What WP really needs is the Ref Desk to be run by Clerks, appointed for their knowledge and professionalism. The "Anyone can Edit" strategy to answering questions gives WP exactly what they have now. Bred Ivy (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- If my account is getting dragged into some sick AN/I problem here, shouldn't Buggs at least have the common courtesy to notify me. I would think that without some sort of reasonable diffs or explanation, bringing me into this is at best a personal attack. Take it to SPI or a trusted CU. I refuted the Anagram similarity here, just last week. Maybe Buggs took this comment the wrong way, and is holding a grudge, but that was way back in March.
- It might be instructive to read the entire discussion at the ref desk. It was user Summit who suggested the connection, and for Bred Ivy to characterize that long-time ref desk user as a "troll" is rather odd:[110] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't restate my above edit to imply that I called Summit as a "troll". To say so is quite an unfair twist of my words. Editors can read my above comment for what it does say: "...There are numerous editors that troll there". The fact is, that the Ref Desk questions are answered in a most un-moderated way. There are quite a few trolling editors that will take a reasonable question and use it to start a forum, to joke, and out and out troll. I did not name any of those editors, but a brief glance at the desk, makes it perfectly obvious who they are. Too bad that the editors that reply to questions are not somehow screened, as are the clerks on other boards. Bred Ivy (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not wanting to get in the middle of y'all's kerfuffle, but I'd support the idea of some trusted users being appointed by the community as clerks of the ref desk boards, but not to the degree of prohibiting others from commenting on the boards. Just basically there to keep things clean and in scope...kind of like what the Arb clerks do on the evidence pages. There would, of course, need to be some community discussion regarding this, and this is not the place. I guess this is about some penis pictures and/or a joke make in bad taste. Prbly best to just say it was a misunderstanding and move on with other, more productive things (like a discussion about improving the ref desks. If nobody else does, I'll start a thread on the refdesk talk page and we can all go there :)). 98.251.234.204 (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Oops, that was me Ditch ∝ 00:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds constructive. NewtonGeek (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't restate my above edit to imply that I called Summit as a "troll". To say so is quite an unfair twist of my words. Editors can read my above comment for what it does say: "...There are numerous editors that troll there". The fact is, that the Ref Desk questions are answered in a most un-moderated way. There are quite a few trolling editors that will take a reasonable question and use it to start a forum, to joke, and out and out troll. I did not name any of those editors, but a brief glance at the desk, makes it perfectly obvious who they are. Too bad that the editors that reply to questions are not somehow screened, as are the clerks on other boards. Bred Ivy (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Mkay, see thread here regarding suggested improvements to the ref desk procedure. Now all the penis picture stuff can stay here, and discussion about improvement of an aspect of the project can go there :) Ditch ∝ 01:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note that judging the Ref Desk solely by the problem questions which show up here is sure to lead to a highly biased view. There are many good questions there, with excellent answers, which, of course, don't show up here. StuRat (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- An SPI has been filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Light current. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Request for BLP topic ban for editor Shylocksboy
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Despite warnings, Shylocksboy (talk · contribs) has continued to insert unsourced contentious information into BLP articles. This editor first came to my attention after an OTRS complaint concering Judi Shekoni, see [111] and [112]. He's come to my attention again today after replacing the information that was removed at the time. See also [113] and [114] and [115]. He regularly blanks material from his talk page, as is his right.
See also the current version of his talk page with warnings from other editors.[116].
He has been warned numerous times but continues to add unsourced information - his comment "Who are you or Weller to give me warnings??? I have forgotten more about showbusiness and celebrity birthdays than you will ever know!-" seems to exemplify his attitude.
talk
) 16:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Waiting for response from Shylocksboy, but inclined to support BLP ban. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- You might be better at WP:SPI, as it is clear he is also editing as 87.74.76.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), enough that I'm tempted to just duck block him here and now for both multiple account abuse and disruptive editing. Here are the intersects: [117]. The best example of his work is David Steen (photographer), where he has been edit warring enough that I've had to protect the page, then he starts back as the IP to avoid scrutiny. I personally don't see how this editor is an asset to the project and would imagine a BLP ban is far too lenient. He is causing quality editors to have to spend too much time cleaning up after him, and as such, I would think he is due for an indef, with a proper whacking of any future sock moles that pop up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ ©16:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- For the nth time the Judi Shekoni material IS sourced. I have the cutting on my desk as I type. And I HAVE forgotten more than most of you will ever know about showbusiness and celebrity birthdays. Under my real name, I am quoted as a source on here more than a thousand times from my books and journalism. There are far more egregious "offenders" on here than I could ever be accused of. I get "warnings" to take it to the talk page but no one ever seems bothered to comment/edit certain articles so taking it to the talk page seems a waste of everyone's time. Am I supposed to put out requests for consensus? To whom, pray tell.--Shylock's Boy (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. "no one ever seems bothered to comment/edit certain articles" Quite true, I admit. But you still need to take it to the talk page, wait a reasonable amount of time (a few days), and if no one comments, then add another note to the talk page that given no one has commented, you'll re-add the stuff. Also, if someone's warning you, they're more likely to talk about it on the talk page. You can also comment on a relevant WikiProject talk page. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Some edit summaries [118] [119] and talk page comments [120] are not the best when it comes to civility. Bgwhite (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I will be the first to admit I don't suffer fools gladly and there seem to be no good reason for the Steen reversions. They were all sourced. And from a legitimate book not some self-publishing effort as was alleged. And why if I write/edit something which is then changed by someone else am I accused of edit warring? As far as I am concerned they are edit warring - again "Take it to the talk page" but, again, who am I supposed to ask?--Shylock's Boy (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- WP:COI policy in case you are in violation there as well (I'm not saying you are), based on your comments above. Also, it takes two to tango... and editwar. -- Despayre tête-à-tête17:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree but there seems to be so many more articles on here in dire need of clean-up: badly written, ambiguous, etc that my edits pale in comparison. And, as regards a conflict of interest of all the more than 1100 edits I have made I have only met one subject (Jeremy Beadle in case you were curious). I made it a point on here as well as my books and journalism not to write about people I know.--Shylock's Boy (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I will be the first to admit I don't suffer fools gladly and there seem to be no good reason for the Steen reversions. They were all sourced. And from a legitimate book not some self-publishing effort as was alleged. And why if I write/edit something which is then changed by someone else am I accused of edit warring? As far as I am concerned they are edit warring - again "Take it to the talk page" but, again, who am I supposed to ask?--Shylock's Boy (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think, honestly, this is not so much a problem with Shylocksboy as it is a symptom of a larger problem. There are far too many BLPs that very few people edit and keep an eye on. That said, Shylocksboy, the critical thing for you to realize is that having this info in is rarely an emergency. If someone challenges you to remove and discuss it, remove and attempt to discuss it. I especially encourage contacting relevant wikiprojects or just putting up a note yourself on WP:BLPN to ask for discussion. If no one discusses it with you within a few days, then note that fact on the talk page and re-add it. If the info should be there, fine, but the project's not generally going to be hurt if the info is missing for three or four days. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ya, what he said.
-- Despayre tête-à-tête 18:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ya, what he said.
- (
- One thing that hasn't been made clear to passing strangers like me, is that Shylocksboy is apparently in an 10-month long edit war with the subject of the biography, editing as ) 18:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I fully support a BLPBAN. I have experienced nothing but frustration when attempting to explain Wikipedia's policies regarding living persons and sourcing to Shylocksboy; they refuse to abide by these all-important policies, edit war to restore disputed material, and their civility when dealing with other editors is sorely lacking. I don't believe that Shylocksboy should be anywhere near a living persons biography (or any article really) until they are able to understand and abide by WP:SOCK would also likely be helpful. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots18:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- "They"? I have no idea who Judishekoni (talk · contribs) and Extensionevolution (talk · contribs) are. What I find most frustrating is why these "policies" are not implemented across the board? As for not being allowed "anywhere near a living persons [sic] biography" as I say under my real name my work has been quoted and used as sources thousands of times. More than Mr or Miss Pony, I would suggest.--Shylock's Boy (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- A voice of sanity from (Special:Contributions/Jorgath). Perhaps Mr or Miss Pony could have explained it in that way.--Shylock's Boy (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Try this for an explanation. The same rules apply to you as apply to everyone else, I don't care if you're channelling Max Clifford. Continued inclusion without citation, revert of admin removing material, or other failure to follow the rules of this particular editing house, and you are likely to find yourself contemplating a time out. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- A voice of sanity from (Special:Contributions/Jorgath). Perhaps Mr or Miss Pony could have explained it in that way.--Shylock's Boy (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- "They"? I have no idea who Judishekoni (talk · contribs) and Extensionevolution (talk · contribs) are. What I find most frustrating is why these "policies" are not implemented across the board? As for not being allowed "anywhere near a living persons [sic] biography" as I say under my real name my work has been quoted and used as sources thousands of times. More than Mr or Miss Pony, I would suggest.--Shylock's Boy (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
And who are you "channelling" - Ronnie or Reggie? There is nothing I have included that has not been cited. And how is one to know who is admin?--Shylock's Boy (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Admins can be reverted just like any other user. However we would expect an admin not revert without respect to policy so I get what you are saying. I'm not fond of "beware the admin" arguments -- unless they bite. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- A few month back someone added a lot of material to a Labour MP's article. I decided it wasn't encyclopaedic or especially relevant and deleted it. The editor put it back so I removed it. He put it back and another editor agreed with me and also deleted it whereupon the original editor put it back where the second editor again deleted it. If the second editor was an admin does that give him special rights. I nor he was accused of edit warring...--Shylock's Boy (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) Ok, now you're heading into WP:IDHT territory. This isn't about anyone else's behaviour, except yours currently. Pointing at other things and saying "what about that one?" is wasting ppl's time. What you're doing at the moment (what brought this here), is a violation of policy. Please acknowledge that you understand that and stop doing it, instead of trying to justify why you don't have to follow the same policies that everyone else is supposed to. -- Despayre tête-à-tête20:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) Ok, now you're heading into
- Support 20:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Time for a serious block, no mere topic ban. We're all entering quacking. I frankly don't understand why the needed blocks are still being discussed. Would anybody who knows of any further socks please list them here for convenience, and then somebody just block? (Yes, yes, all I do is point my finger, because I'm not an admin any more, what a relief.) Bishonen | talk21:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC).
- BLP ban or not, blocks are forthcoming. I've filed for a checkuser at SPI solely to check for sleepers, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shylocksboy but no SPI is needed for the duck block, the only question is how long of blocks. I'm still surprised that Bishonen is the only other person to have a problem with the obvious socking going on here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did mention socking in my note above (in amongst the alphabet soup); however, given my prior run-ins with this user my hands are tied. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots05:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did mention socking in my note above (in amongst the alphabet soup); however, given my prior run-ins with this user
- Support block: Quite aside from that no editor in the history of Wikipedia carrying such a "How dare you expect me to consult you ignorant peons and respect your consensus?" chip has ever gotten over it, quite aside from the edit warring, toss in the socking as well and Wikipedia can get along swimmingly without him. Ravenswing 05:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support - If the user is not blocked for the SPI report , then - 05:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Block - Block user, socking, as well as an apparent inability to accept the rules, even after pointed out to him. Just too many problems to ignore. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 06:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- What is socking? Wikipedia is the world'a largest encyclopaedia which means it is not limited by size. There are hundreds of articles on here that would never get into a regular encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia covers matters in depth so yes a quote from Judi Shekoni explaining what she believes is required to be an agony aunt at LiveTV is relevant to the article. As for the Abi Titmuss material it was there for ages before I tweaked it so can hardly have been contentious as one editor claims. I do not have multiple accounts - just this one. I do, however, have two computers - a Mac and a PC. I can't remember my password for the PC (the Mac just lets me type in S-h-y and then it autofills the rest) so if I use the PC I can't log in which is why some edits have just an IP address.--Shylock's Boy (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Just looked up what socking is. I do not have multiple accounts. And I defy anyone to find another one.--Shylock's Boy (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support BLP ban. Like Dougweller, I first ran into the Judi Shekoni issue following an OTRS complaint; but that was quite some time ago, and I'm surprised this same issue is still going on. His edits to other BLPs aren't the most encouraging either. Tendentious editing if I ever saw it. Lynch7 11:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Shylocksboy, take these editors seriously. This means, quit editing articles and use the article talk page to engage concerns. Collaborate with other editors on the talk page; focus on particular specifics of editorial concerns; on contentious matters move forward only when you have achieved a near consensus. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Reply to Shylocksboy. Shylocksboy, a note/response on either of your talkpages[121][122] acknowledging the connection between you and the IP would have been more becoming than this belated explanation. But try it (the explanation) at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shylocksboy by all means. The Mac is able to autofill your password because your browser knows all your saved passwords. They're listed in Preferences/Settings, under something like "Privacy & Security". (I'd have to know what browser you're using to know exactly what they call it). You can look it up there. Bishonen | talk 12:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC).
I use Firefox.--Shylock's Boy (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Shylocksboy has explained the IP, and I am certain that talk) 13:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Shylocksboy has explained the IP, and I am certain that
- Blocked - Please note that the CU at SPI is done [123], Autolycus1 (talk · contribs) is a likely match (and contribs firm that up), the IP is just as big of a screaming duck, and it is easy to see that all three accounts were used abusively to avoid scrutiny at David Steen (photographer) at the very least. As such, I've indef blockeded Shylocksboy and Autolycus1, and blocked the IP for one month, and tagged the registered accounts for multiple account abuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was all prepared to come back to this. I had spent some while reviewing Special:Contributions/Shylocksboy, and was going to suggest an alternative remedy, based upon what I had found there. But Shylocksboy has by xyr actions effectively doubled the contributions histories on me, and I don't feel willing to make the case, now. Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This guy is becoming increasingly aggressive over the use of the term "association football" in the articles
Jay
17:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
User:PeeJay2K3
This user repeats to cheat
Fußball-Bundesliga
.
User:PeeJay2K3
repeats to cheat those rankings. I'm so tired about this user.
Fußball-Bundesliga
"It is the number one association football league in terms of average attendance and its average of 42,673 fans per game during the 2010–11 season was in fact only beaten by the NFL." is true, they understand.
But "It is the number one football league in terms of average attendance; out of all sports, its average of 42,673 fans per game during the 2010–11 season was only beaten by the NFL." is false by
User:PeeJay2K3. That's not correct at all in "wikipedia" Sincerelywikis (talk
) 19:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
And I never want to refer to this user and these articles anymore. Sincerelywikis (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't really an admin issue, more a content issue. Try discussing it on the relevant talk pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- It was content until the personal attacks started - brief block to Sincerelywikis, and I have engaged on their talkpage - I think they don't get RS and CONSENSUS yet (BWilkins←✎) 19:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- No-one seems to have alerted User:PeeJay2K3 to this thread. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- PeeJay2K3 started this thread. 87.113.232.36 (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Um no - it was a separate thread at first that someone else merged together (BWilkins←✎) 00:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Um no - it was a separate thread at first that someone else merged together (
- PeeJay2K3 started this thread. 87.113.232.36 (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- No-one seems to have alerted
- It was content until the personal attacks started - brief block to Sincerelywikis, and I have engaged on their talkpage - I think they don't get RS and CONSENSUS yet (
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Backlog at RFPP
There is a pretty long backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Can a few kind souls please stop by to help clean it up? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Done for now; we're down to just a few requests, and Bearian is still there finishing up. -- Dianna (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Requesting additional eyes at Data entry
ResolvedCan some additional eyes review Data entry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The entry was originally a disambig to existing related subject material. A user from a data entry company rewrote it to being a marketing/how-to-guide, originally the only "source" listed was to the main page of their own company; although now they've added a handful of additional sources that appear to be the sources of several blocks of text as well, so copyvio now also becomes an issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- There are three contributors today, but per ) - 23:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Xe didn't re-write anything. No writing has actually been involved, here. This is plain old honest-to-goodness spam. And it's being done with copy and paste, not with any kind of writing ability. This exact same text is all over the WWW. It's here, for example, dated two years ago. It's patently not free content, so I've revision deleted it. I've also blocked the remaining unblocked account and the IP address. Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
BLP issues from IPs at Altaf Hussain
I'm not able to keep my eye on
WP:BLP
. For the moment the edits have been reverted and appropriate user talk templates have been used, but if one or two folks could put the page on their watchlist I would appreciate it.
- Altaf Hussain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 128.164.215.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 128.164.215.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
—BigNate37(T) 23:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Bridge Boy
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requesting a temporary block of
WP:CIVIL. After a copy-paste move [124][125] was repeatedly reverted [126][127][128] by SamBlob (talk · contribs), Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) and NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs), he began a series of tendentious and pointy edits [129]
and attacks on other users.
Bridge Boy has absolutely refused to respect the requests of several other editors not to do copy-paste moves, or to refrain from pointy and POV-pushing edits until consensus is reached. Page protection was required to stop his edit warring. Again and again, any editor who disagrees with him is attacked for lack of subject knowledge. He does not respect the right of other editors to edit articles or even to participate in talk page discussions. Warnings to cease making personal attacks have been ignored, and he has not even acknowledged that such attacks ever occurred or that his personal attacks are unacceptable.
- "Oh fuck off you twat."
- [130] Ownership behavior in reply to a simple point about how to move articles and establish consensus.
- Refusal to ever use edit summaries. Supposedly because he's "new". Note this editor has created a couple dozen new articles and has close to 1,500 edits. Note that much of the conflict this editor draws on himself could be reduced if he would just use edit summaries to explain his intentions.
- "I realise I snubbed enough noses for people to just vote against whatever is being propose rather than depend on what the sources say"… "you are acting out of person prejudices rather than common sense or knowledge of the subject." Not assuming good faith.
- [131] "But I am looking forward to seeing how the other motorcyclists enthusiasts argue otherwise. It'll be good for a laugh." Only motorcycle enthusiasts are allowed to participate, and if they dare disagree with him, it's because of an imagined grudge against him. "a little gang of 2 or 3 people who think they own motorcycle related topics".
- [132] While attacking other editors for lack of subject knowledge and sources, he disingenuously twists the meaning of sources. Here is cites Japanese Grand Prix Racing Motorcycles by Mick Walker, Redline Books, 2002 for calling two-strokes "parallel twins", yet elsewhere has repeatedly said that the term "inline twin" is not used. In fact, Mick Walker uses "inline twin" again and again, in the cited book, and in others (Mick Walker's European Racing Motorcycles ). "Neither you, nor anyone else, are offering any alternative reliable sources at all. "
- No acknowledgment at all of the large number of sources that contradict his arguments.[133][134]. He bluffs by falsely calling the cited sources in books by recognized authorities, and mainstream newspapers and magazines, "merely blogs or PR releases (primary sources)". And forget about an apology for all the personal attacks against those who disagreed with him.
- [135] "I have had too much of time wasted by the stupidity and ignorance of having to question a choice as poor as "Straight-two engine", and all the bitch slapping and conniving that has ensued since. Something these people don't seem to realise detracts from the job at hand."… "I have no idea why Dennis has fixated on me and was working up such a case … Perhaps it is just an unconscious sibling rivalry? " Again, ownership and not assuming good faith. Any slight disagreement draws personal attacks. Note that I *support* an important part of Bridge Boy's argument, but I get attacked anyway.
- Another editor intervenes, and predictably, gets accused of being in on the grand conspiracy against him.
An temporary block is necessary in order to make clear that this behavior is unacceptable. There are bound to be future talk page discussions with this editor and it's getting tiresome to see the same off-topic, paranoid personal attacks every time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- As someone who has tried to resist this editor's article ownership by reverting his tendentious changes and ultimately requesting its protection at WP:RPP, and who has subsequently had a short discussion with admin Elockid (who a couple of days ago, prior to sysop edit protecting the article was of a mind to block Bridge Boy), I support Dennis Bratland's assertion that this editor simply doesn't play well with others. He ignores the concept of no personal attacks. does not appear to understand consensus, is blatantly dismissive of other people's opinions and would benefit from a period of timeout to reflect on his unacceptable behaviour. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I can understand the position here (I've been involved in the talk:), but isn't this awfully close to the "cool-down block", and we know how well those work. Can someone with an (un-)involved mop please point out the copy-paste move problem, and that nothing is going to happen either way until the dust settles at talk:. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what an "involved mop" is. [Sorry, typo - "uninvolved"] I've been showing him where the guideline is that points out the problem from the start and my effort has been ignored. Instead, he undid everything I did to try and correct the situation (which I now realize I wouldn't have been able to) and blames the whole situation on me.
- I don't think he realizes what he's done wrong, which is frightening when one considers how many times he's been told: just about every page edit of this merged page history from this one to this one is either one of us putting the article back to how it was and showing him the link in the edit summary or him ignoring us and putting it back. An administrator put the article back to how it was before the cut-and-paste move, which is what he is supposed to do when there's a move discussion going on, and he questions the administrator's competence to discuss the matter, even though the administrator is *not* discussing the matter but enforcing Wikipedia policy. I try to explain the situation to him and his only response is to blame me for the consequences of his earlier refusal to listen, as mentioned before.
- His entire attitude thus far has been combative, which I cannot see as working well in a collaborative effort.
- Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No one here is going to issue Bridge Boy a "time out" or a "cool-down" block. That's outside the scope of the blocking policy; correct me if I'm wrong. Might I suggest that you try some of the steps listed at WP:Dispute resolution before posting here? This noticeboard is not intended to be used as the first place to go for dispute resolution. I am notifying Nuclear Warfare that his name has been mentioned in this thread. -- Dianna (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- But someone might block him for personal attacks and disruptive behavior if he doesn't work on his vocabulary and methods. If his behavior continues to disrupt the normal editing of other users, then a block to prevent further disruption is certainly an acceptable way to deal with the problem. His few edits since this ANI started [136] aren't inspiring me as well. I'm all for explaining to an editor what they are doing wrong, but they have to actually listen, and he doesn't seem to WP:DRN only works when all parties are acting in good faith. After all, it isn't enough to be right, you also have to get along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ ©18:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- ...And there is no dispute that needs to move to another forum to resolve. If Biker Biker and SamBlob and the others change their opinions, then the page WP:BLOCK#DETERRENT says blocks should "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". It's worth showing that an uninvolved admin judges his behavior unacceptable; it isn't just a cabal of editors who harbor an imaginary grudge. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- He has been notified of this discussion, and the opinions are pretty clear. I'm not going to block him now, but if he continues his reckless disregard for process and civility and starts back, then I (or any other uninvolved admin) don't have a choice but to use a short term block to prevent the disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- ...And there is no dispute that needs to move to another forum to resolve. If Biker Biker and SamBlob and the others change their opinions, then the page
- Could someone with authority please inform me whether I am really expected to invest time reading and responding in detail to this, and what the profit there might be for either the readers of the Wikipedia, or the quality and accuracy of the content? At present I have not actually read the above but I did predict earlier this was what Dennis had been building up to for some time, and can qualify why.
- It has nothing to do with the aforementioned topic, and has its roots elsewhere in another subject area where I challenged what I considered to be his irrational and uninformed prejudice (although I did not put it in such terms). He has beens talking my edits ever since.
- In this case, I took an article which had a notice saying that it "needs additional citations for verification" and added 44 good references, knowing the subject and having read through them all. Further more, I supported my position with 19 more top notch primary references on the talk page (manufacturers) as I know they are not acceptable on the actual topic page.
- The complainant has conceded I was correct to attempt to re-title the page from Parallel-twin engineand so, as far as I am concerned, there is no argument left.
- The complainant has conceded I was correct to attempt to re-title the page from
- Personally, I'd rather invest what free time I have on developing a related topic like Inline-twin engine, for example, which does not yet exist. The work I am interested in are obscure but significant titles relating to motorcycling, e.g. [137]. I don't expect thanks but equally, as a volunteer worker, I don't expect such irrational obstructions from individuals who do not know the subject matter. Nor do I understand what is to be gained by the tactical creation of such conflicts and casting such accusations. Surely it is only bad for the morale and productivity of your voluntary workers?
- Personally, I'd rather invest what free time I have on developing a related topic like
- One question, if one is confronted by other individuals who clearly do not know any given subject, how much of a responsibility does one have to educate them? It strikes me that a system based on the consensus of a few uninformed individuals would become an uninformed consensus. The danger in relying on contributors who are uninformed about a very specific topic is that when a conflict does arises they will be unable to perceive just how out of perspective their stance and opinions are.
- I checked in with the administrator involved and they confirmed that they did not feel "attacked" either. so what is this really all about? --Bridge Boy (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's ironic that Bridge Boy expects infinite patience in explaining and re-explaining Wikipedia's community standards, yet he is unwilling to spend his own precious time communicating with editors he judges to be less knowledgeable about article subjects.
But the key here is Failure or refusal to "get the point",
WP:IDHT, "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point is accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted." No matter how many others tell him his behavior is unacceptable, Bridge Boy keeps returning to this delusion that it's one guy conspiring against him. Even after an admin has clearly warned him that he will be blocked if he don't stop. And then, Andy Dingley above stated that the dust has not settled in the move discussion, and I said so as well. Did he hear that? Nope, didn't hear. Went right ahead and declared the discussion over and requested a page move.) 14:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)What is the point of allowing this to go on? It's like talking to a brick wall and his behavior will not change. --Dennis Bratland (talk
- It's ironic that Bridge Boy expects infinite patience in explaining and re-explaining Wikipedia's community standards, yet he is unwilling to spend his own precious time communicating with editors he judges to be less knowledgeable about article subjects.
- I think something that is still worrying Bridge Boy here is the timescale for making these changes. The wiki way is pretty thorough and usually quite good on accuracy, but it's certainly not quick! Consensus based editing moves at the speed of the slower editors, not the quickest. Any attempt to speed this up by a quicker editor (which usually means having more time to spend, not themselves being faster) finds itself being strongly resisted by the other editors. This isn't because they're against the change, it's because they're against being bypassed. Obviously this isn't ideal, but it probably is optimal - we have to respect the slow speed that many editors are restricted to by their available time, and we should never rush to "fix" articles with a cry of "too slow" at others. Particularly so for this very, very minor issue - it's not wrong to call a parallel-twin engine an inline-twin or a straight-two, even if it does turn out to be better some other way. Wikiquality in some intermediate state with ongoing discussion isn't suffering, as it might with a libelous BLP issue.
- I'd also ask Bridge Boy to WP:AGFa bit more about other editors. Insulting them isn't an effective way to motivate them or to win them over to your case! Speaking personally I don't much care, but having started out strongly against the move I now find myself with no firm grounds against it - not because of an ear-bashing from Bridge Boy, but because I finally found time to take the reference books down off the shelf and discovered (to my surprise) that they supported his view. I now need to change my own viewpoint as a result, and many, many editors are much less likely to do that after initially feeling insulted by another editor.
- I am concerned too about inline-twin engine. While that is my favoured name for this article, there's a risk of that being a content fork (they're bad) if it's created from scratch or by copying. We quite possibly want to end up with two articles, one specific to motorbikes and transverse twin engines (interesting and popular) with another one (slightly tedious but worthy) filling in the obvious set of possible ways to lay out an engine at the broadest scope. I'm not certain that creating them in this sequence would be best though - this too needs some careful discussion, and doing it beforehand. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Per this last edit, I'd now support a block. I'm tired of this. I'm tired of this rude, argumentative jackass in particular. Editors shouldn't have to be treated like this. No-one else is going after him. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- "I finally found time to take the reference books down off the shelf and discovered (to my surprise) that they supported his view".
- Thank you Andy ... but please don't allow the question of this one topic's title to distract from the actual roots of Dennis's attempted character assassination. The roots of this go back longer and have been simmering for some time.
- I, personally, consider it a futile waste of time and energy to go back, unpick it all, and provide one sided "evidence", and am still waiting for someone with authority to inform me whether I really have to go through it all.
- As with the topic title, even if I was proven right again, I cannot see how it would benefit the readers and content of this website.
- As for the use of the move tag, there is no reason to keep removing, and it is only a provocation to do so. The tag is being used within policy and its purpose is to involve other editors in the discussion. Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- To which your reply was, "you have not heard of it raises questions of credibility in your knowledge or judgement. "
- Sorry, but right or wrong I just don't want to see you editing on WP. There's enough drama already and too many editors interested in shouting their own opinion rather than working with others. "Futile waste of time and energy" - fine. So stop doing it. I'm sure the community will cope without you. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think Andy is being restrained stating "I'm tired of this. I'm tired of this rude, argumentative jackass in particular." BB's poor behaviour shows no sign of abating. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, let's be clear and misconstrue things Andy.
- a) You made the surprised statement of agreement here.
- b) You made the second statement on the topic page.
- I have not read your statement of agreement (here) before I responded to your other comment (on the talk page) based on purely personal preferences rather than the given references. --Bridge Boy (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Proposed resolution
As a proposed resolution to this difference of opinions, could I ask that Dennis Bratland is required to stay away from topics I am editing and talk page for a "cool downing" period as any such interactions, under the current situation, would risk appearing deliberately provocative?
It has been clear to me that he has been following me around for sometime and, from elsewhere, has had other such conflicts with other editors. I'd like to give the time and space to interact with other editors in a non-provacative manner and learn.
I am capable of picking apart his attack if I have to defend myself, but have no wish to carry any dispute on.
Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure whether it's denial or incompetence that causes Bridge Boy to keep making this same error. Per, Straight-two engine began with Bridge Boy's sloppy move, and SamBlob objected, on June 16. I didn't get involved until June 27. After the discussion began, multiple editors objected to any further action without consensus, not just me. Biker Biker attempted to have Bridge Boy blocked for vandalism at AIV before I took this here to ANI. Uninvolved admin Elockid said he was close to blocking Bridge Boy, rather than protecting Straight-two engine. Admin Dennis Brown, who had no grudge against anybody, agreed that Bridge Boy's behavior was uncivil and was ready to block him if he didn't stop. Andy Dingley voiced no support for blocking Bridge Boy until after Bridge Boy dug himself deeper.) 15:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The idea that this is all because I, Dennis Bratland, have a personal problem with Bridge Boy is disproved by the record everywhere you turn. Bridge Boy has antagonized even his allies. He has won support from nobody, all due to his combative behavior and disingenuous twisting of facts. Besides all the f-bombs and ownership of articles, editors who persistently get basic facts wrong (either from malice or stupidity) in a way that disparages other editors (meaning me) should be permanently blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk
I don't see an interaction ban happening and would strongly oppose one. Bridge Boy, you just need to learn to get along with others. You don't have to like anyone, you don't have to agree with anyone, but in a collegiate environment, it is required that you work with everyone and act with a modest amount of civility. This means a little self-restraint. Surely you have enough self-control to not inject your personal opinion of others into your discussions and summaries, or understand that you will be blocked if you don't. Everyone needs to dial back the drama and incivility, for that matter, but Bridge Boy, it starts with you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dennis Brown,
- As yet I have chosen not to respond to allegation nor to spend the time and effort explaining the history for this accusation as I do not see it would be beneficial.
- Consequently, I am a bit concerned by the one sided nature of your reprimand. Dennis Bratland's attack on my character and the deliberate flagging up, has been simmering for some time ever since I questioned some of his more rash and prejudicial comments, or knowledge, of other areas.
- I have no wish to humiliate him in public, and likely provoke him further by doing, but I would like him to be kept away from me for a while. --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Title: Bridge Boy and Dennis Bratland
I am sorry but I have to be quite firm about this.
I am requesting that the title of section is reverted to "Bridge Boy and Dennis Bratland" as the current situation also reflects on Dennis Bratland's prior conduct towards me.
There is no smoke without fire.
Dennis has been building up to this for some time now, with false warnings, false summaries, reversion and minor provocations etc. It is really quite clear if you look. I am sorry but it neither be fair nor correct to look at this one-sidedly.
If I was to take the time I could easily show how I attempted to engage him in discuss first but was ignored, and so on. I do not think it is fair that he, as the accuser, should have the right to exclude himself and his own conduct from this equation. --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- And I am going to be firmer: no. You are the one violating BWilkins←✎) 10:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Move or moves, Bwilkins?
- It was 'move', and the first time I had come across the problem of how to move a page to one that was already occupied. All that needed to be done was the history moved from Parallel-twin engine. The matter could have been resolved without it being turned into a great drama.
- The reversion caused all sorts of problems with a load of shortcuts that the reverter had not released.
- All of the 43 or so references I added to the topic are passable or perfect. Despite a tag requesting it be done, no one else had added any January. There was no support for the previous title. In addition, I provided links which prove that 18 or so major, internationally manufacturers in the fields of motorcycles, snowmobiles and atvs all used the corrected topic title in their product material on the talk page.
- My concern lies most with the accuracy of the content, good referencing and how they match policy. Why would 60 or more references not be good enough? --Bridge Boy (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please also note the what is very difficult not to see as another churlish provocative move by one of these individuals, Inline-triple engine back to Straight-three engine.
- Please also note the what is very difficult not to see as another churlish provocative move by one of these individuals,
- Again, references will show that inline-triple engine is the more commonly used and recognisable title for this engine configuration, and meets Wikipedia policy better. We really need to decide such matters on the references and not be so personal about them. --Bridge Boy (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed that you'd been busy at Straight-three engine too 8-(
- Biker Biker's reversion of your undiscussed move of this page was far from "another churlish provocative move", it was quite correct within WP:BRD. I consider it, again, disruptive of you to mis-represent it as such. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- "references will show that inline-triple engine is the more commonly used and recognisable title for this engine configuration, "
- It is most unlikely that references will show this. References will easily show that "inline triple" is used in some cases, other references will show that "straight three" is used too. Unless some WP:RS has performed an extremely unlikely survey of which is most common, then neither reference shows that either one is "most common". This is why such naming matters are such a common problem for a cross-environment project like WP, and why your dogmatic assertions are far from helpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Inline-twin engine
We're still at an impasse with
content fork
as well. 8-(
There's no consensus for this. It was raised yesterday as a likely, and problematic, creation. We now have two articles with unclear scope, rather than just one. In particular, inline-twin contains two blocks of content: motorcycles (where the inline layout is highly obscure, so this is a very specific scope) and non-motorcycles, where it's just the common way most two cylinder engines are arranged. This only makes sense if both
parallel-twin engine and if parallel-twin is also interpreted as a synonym for transverse-twin (and excludes other engines, contrary to its current scope). Once again, Bridge Boy is ignoring all other editors and using pre-emption as a way to push a single POV onto articles. Andy Dingley (talk
) 10:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it is not a content fork Andy. They are clearly two very different engine configurations, even to the eye of a lay engineer. The Wikipedia has no policy against "obscurity", as long as it is referenced as this one is. --Bridge Boy (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Transverse and longitudinal are "clearly two very different engine configurations", but that's not what you've created here.
- There's also the issue that you're doing everything you possibly can to work against other editors, down to if you don't get your way with one article, creating another overlapping article to try and force everyone's hand. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, as you have doubts Dennis Brown let's look at the technical "right and wrong". This is about the ability to read and understand references and very simple abilities to recognise technical differences which even lay individuals can.
- The engine designs are too significantly different, and there are two many references which clearly support separately valuable and informative pages.
- Referring to "Japanese Production Racing Motorcycles by Mick Walker" on:
- Page 130, Walker describes the Kawasaki KR250/350 engine as "inline".
- Page 152, Walker describes the Kawasaki KR1-S 250 engine as a "parallel twin".
- These are two considerable differences and deserve an equal status.
- The proposer of the deletion, Dennis Bratland, has suggested that Walker is using the term "interchangeably". However, we can see that he is, in fact, describing two entirely different engine configurations.
- We can confirm this by looking at Mick Walker's European Racing Motorcycles by Mick Walker, which Dennis Bratland uses, where he also described the Rotax 256 as an "inline twin", as it is by current manufacturers and authors in others fields as wide as karting and ultralights.
- The Rotax Type 256 engine has its twin cylinders mounted fore and aft. An image is here [142].
- In the same book, he described all other twins as "parallel twins".
- Therefore, there are clearly the references to support two separate articles at least.
- Comparison of two separate engine designs
-
Parallel twin - side by side -
Inline twin - for and aft -
Parallel twin - side by side -
Inline twin - for and aft
(I am limited by the choice of available images on the Wikipedia)
- Before we progress further, I need you to look at the images and read given reference, which Dennis Bratland has chosen, and tell me whether the author is using 'two different terms' to describing 'two different configurations' or 'interchangeably' to describe 'one'.
- Dennis Bratland suggests, "It's strong evidence that there is no real distinction in the minds of the foremost experts today." I suggest it is that he himself that did not know the different, and the evidence is that Walker does, and is using the two terms for two different configurations consistently over a number of publications inline with all the major manufacturers and media outlets. --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Before we progress any further" you have to remember that this noticeboard is NOT for content disputes - it's for behavioural issues, such as yours. Even directly above, your statement "This is about the ability to read and understand references and very simple abilities to recognise technical differences which even lay individuals can" is a pretty egregious personal attack. (BWilkins←✎) 10:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Before we progress any further" you have to remember that this noticeboard is NOT for content disputes - it's for behavioural issues, such as yours. Even directly above, your statement "This is about the ability to read and understand references and very simple abilities to recognise technical differences which even lay individuals can" is a pretty egregious personal attack. (
- Dennis Bratland suggests, "It's strong evidence that there is no real distinction in the minds of the foremost experts today." I suggest it is that he himself that did not know the different, and the evidence is that Walker does, and is using the two terms for two different configurations consistently over a number of publications inline with all the major manufacturers and media outlets. --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is not a content dispute. It is behavioural and relates directly to this discussion.
- I note that Straight-two engine)", and the page never appeared for discussion on the correct page. Now it is plainly not true that the article duplicated an existing topic, it was not up for a speedy deletion and there were not ground for it to be speedily deleted. It was well referenced and constructed.
- I note that
- It was deleted in a matter of hours before any discussion.
- Are people willing to admit, on the basis of all the evidence both written and visual, that these are two entirely different engine configurations? --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal from uninvolved Jorgath
I propose that
WP:COMPETENCE issues. Finally, I propose that certain editors, while quite obviously provoked, may have gotten a little too heated. So I offer both sympathy and a trout to User:Dennis Bratland, and sympathy and minnows to User:Biker Biker and User:Andy Dingley. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs
) 15:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the first inkling of even handedness Jorgath, it goes a long way. I can "hear" and "read" what is being said. What I am saying is that if I am forced to take the accusations and respond to them, as it would be only fair to be allowed to do so, I would be forced to lower myself to the same level of dirty raking, and I am not willing to do that. I just do not think it would promote peace. You're not being told the whole truth, but I refuse to risk humiliating individuals further by digging it all up. The right thing to do is focus on the content and the readers point of view.
- Both Dennis and Andy have conceded that the topic renaming was correct, if technically mishandled which I accept. It is supported by over 40 perfectly adequate references and links to universally supportive documentation from the world's 18 top leading manufacturers. I am perfectly happy to make any personal apology I have to, but there really is no argument to be had on a content level.
- Please look at it for one moment from my perspective. I answered a call for more citations where no one else had been interested. I was defending something that was correct from individuals who had added no references to support the move it was and were unaware of the web of shortcuts they were breaking ... and now am being told all the references above are "no evidence at all" or even "harmful".
- How out of perspective does that look? What better references could there be! It seems individuals are just digging their heels in now or out to prove a point.
- --Bridge Boy (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Both Dennis and Andy have conceded that the topic renaming was correct,"
- No. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Bridge Boy, so far Jorgath's solution seems the most reasonable. I'm quite close to implementing it (and someone else just may of their own accord). You seem to misunderstand a great deal here, including how to work in a corroborative environment. I am strongly suggesting you pull back, lick your wounds, realize that you are wrong here, and try to start over. I haven't looked at the new article, but guessing it would a CSD A10 candidate. Even if you were 100% right (and I doubt it) the way you are going about this is very disruptive. You've had several people here telling you that your methods are highly defective, and you are interfering with the regular process of editing via WP:DE. There is more than enough reason to block you, and was a dozen or so paragraphs back. I want to give you one last chance to simply step back, learn a little about how Wikipedia works, perhaps work on the talk page instead of the article space or moving anything for a while. If you aren't wise enough to do this and learn to get along, I only see a series of ever increasing blocks in your future. We want passionate people as editors, but you still have to get along and you still have to work within the structure here. I'm sincerely hoping you are wise enough to just take some friendly advice, as I would much rather give advice than block you, but I'm fully capable and willing to do either. I'm not likely to offer this again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ ©23:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- At 21:06 Bridge Boy posts here, at AIN, pleading to not be blocked: "I am perfectly happy to make any personal apology I have to". Less than one hour later, at 22:08, he says: "Dennis, I am going to make you a set of colors and instead of a skull and cross bones, its going to have an laserjet printer in the middle. WikipediaMC, Motto: 'We are the Wikipedia Larry Sanger warned you against'."
Even after the Nth admin warned him. He doesn't get it. He will never get it. All he does is attack you if you dare disagree with him. Block him indefinitely. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- At 21:06 Bridge Boy posts here, at AIN, pleading to not be blocked: "I am perfectly happy to make any personal apology I have to". Less than one hour later, at 22:08, he says: "Dennis, I am going to make you a set of colors and instead of a skull and cross bones, its going to have an laserjet printer in the middle. WikipediaMC, Motto: 'We are the Wikipedia Larry Sanger warned you against'."
- Dennis, that was some friendly, gentle humour to try and break the ice. You posted technical details of office printer to support a case about motorcycle engines. It refers back to our discussions about outlaw motorcycle clubs.
- Let's just be honest, you are trying in any way possible to drive me off the Wikipedia and perhaps you know how to press the buttons of some admins here but to suggest that was an "attack" is impossible.
- Why not instead look at what else I wrote and respond to it? Is Walker describing two separate engine configurations or one? If he is describing two, as I suggest the references to the engines clearly prove, then please strike your comment. --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- What you both may need to do is take the disagreement to WP:DRN to settle disputes. You have to be able to disagree without being disagreeable here, it isn't optional. I would try less humor and more humility, personally. Dennis Brown - 2¢ ©11:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- What you both may need to do is take the disagreement to
- Why not instead look at what else I wrote and respond to it? Is Walker describing two separate engine configurations or one? If he is describing two, as I suggest the references to the engines clearly prove, then please strike your comment. --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I would have little hope for WP:DRN. This is a highly technical issue, albeit hiding behind a behavioural one. As we've already seen from the instant deletion of an article for being a duplicate (it clearly wasn't) by a cab-rank admin, taking this to DRN would bring in a load of other editors who (not unreasonably) don't know a Sunbeam S7 from a KR250, but who might also not see this as a barrier to acting beyond their knowledge.
- If this article finds any valuable additional editors, they're likely to come from the motorcycling or at least engineering wikiprojects. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I would have little hope for
- The other problem with DRN: both Bridge Boy and I agree that moving Stright-two engine to Parallel-twin engine meets WP:COMMONNAME. End of disupte. What we disagree over is whether other editors deserve respect, whether or not you should try to kick them out of discussions for not sharing your opinions about motorcycles, and whether you should circumvent discussions that are unresolved. I think one of us doesn't even know what respect is. We disagree over whether mocking and insults towards someone who has complained about your incivility constitute "friendly, gentle humour". It's clear Bridge Boy doesn't respect the Wikipedia process of consensus.) 14:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
When Bridge Boy began at Wikipedia, he was treated with kid gloves for some three months in the hopes that he could learn to edit in a reasonable way. He created questionable articles with a consistent POV slant, poorly written, and everyone let it go because at least he was contributing something. All we have to show for it is an editor who owns articles and attacks those who don't fall into line. --Dennis Bratland (talk
- The other problem with DRN: both Bridge Boy and I agree that moving Stright-two engine to Parallel-twin engine meets
- "The other problem with DRN: both Bridge Boy and I agree that moving Stright-two engine to Parallel-twin engine meets WP:COMMONNAME. End of disupte. "
- I don't want to get into this here, it belongs on the article talk: page, but I would just refute this quickly before it's cited again as "Dennis and Andy have conceded that the topic renaming was correct"
- I strongly oppose renaming to parallel twin.
- It's not a commonname outside motorcycling
- The term is "skunked" (your phrase, I believe) and is now simply too confused for re-use in any context. Even if it did once have a clear meaning, this is no longer clear or suitable for wiki article naming. If this forces us into another name such as "straight-" that is uncommon, ugly and disliked, then at least it's still clear and not confused by other implications, so we're stuck with it.
- Article discussion is still ongoing. Who knows where that will end up, maybe even at parallel twin. However for the purposes of ANI, this is simply not an "End of dispute". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I object to the above close - while there's certainly a lot of content dispute going on, there is in fact a behavior problem that still hasn't been remedied; remedies were being discussed but had not been concluded. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 12:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've now boldly modified the close to leave my proposed remedy open, as it hasn't fallen into the content-dispute side of things. I ask that further discussion of behavior and remedies take place here while leaving the content dispute to appropriate venues. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Bridge Boy, now I see you moving articles (one that is 8 years old) to new names, with no consensus or even discussion, to uncommon names that aren't even consistent. You are adding weight to the arguments regarding competency here, and I don't have time to follow your every edit. I've moved Hyundai U engine and Toyota U engine back to their common names. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- User blocked 48 hours - Looking at what he has been doing since the ANI started, I see he's moved more articles this poorly, completely ignoring the issues raised. IE: 23:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- "I see he's moved more articles"
- Can you please point to the diff(s) for that. I'm having trouble finding it. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Can we strike out and remove Dennis Brown's comment above now as I did not create more disruption by moving "Presenting problem -> Chief complaint". Ditto, I only made two actions to move Toyota and Hyundai U engines, not 4 as present (the talk page is moved automatically).
- Can we strike out and remove Dennis Brown's comment above now as I did not create more disruption by moving "
- If my block was not therefore for the Presenting problem -> Chief complaint, then the reason needs to be removed from my talk page too. Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Bridge Boy, I have a piece of serious advice for you. Please take it. ) 18:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- If my block was not therefore for the
Undiscussed deletion of Inline-twin engine
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That was really unhelpful. Please restore it.
- It's just going to inflame an already awkward situation.
- No-one was calling for it. There may well be two articles here - resolution through clear definition of scope and appropriate naming would be a better way forward.
- The timing was precipitous beyond all need. In particular, it allowed no time for discussion by the handful of editors already trying to resolve this.
- It was done by deletion, then recreation as a redirect - rather than simply changing to a redirect and thus preserving history. This is against WP:PRESERVEand it's also insulting to Bridge Boy, who I'd have to recognise had done useful writing work in creating it.
Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you Andy. I appreciate your equal-handedness in all this.
- What was most mysterious was how deeply it disappeared from every and everyone's record, including yours (although habit had me keep a copy of it).
- Do you see, BWilkins? There is more going on here than meets the eye, and I am not "paranoid" as accused.
- We have a responsibility to put aside any personal differences or interests and be accurate, inline with good references, for sake of the general public or readership. That will include some admitting the evidence of their eyes, e.g. these are two (actually three', to be technically accurate') different engine configurations. Why must it be so difficult? Why must so much energy be wasted here to state the obvious? --Bridge Boy (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Uh, no, there is not "more... than meets the eye." In fact, it was clearly discussed above: the article appeared to be a content fork. And now, it has been undeleted and sent to AfD for consideration. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite14:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- As to your question: it's not "obvious." That's the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't this just a further example of the poor behaviour that Bridge Boy has exhibited throughout this sorry affair? At what point to admins consider that enough is enough w.r.t. his tendentious behaviour and block him? --Biker Biker (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Uh, no, there is not "more... than meets the eye." In fact, it was clearly discussed above: the article appeared to be a
- We have a responsibility to put aside any personal differences or interests and be accurate, inline with good references, for sake of the general public or readership. That will include some admitting the evidence of their eyes, e.g. these are two (actually three', to be technically accurate') different engine configurations. Why must it be so difficult? Why must so much energy be wasted here to state the obvious? --Bridge Boy (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dennis Brown: admin falsifying evidence to justify block.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I apologise for having to bring this up but I consider it seriously unethical enough to warrant a discussion and addressing. It would seem highly unethical for administrators to fake evidence (removing/hiding others edits) or state what they know to be the opposite of the truth in order to justify a block.
Admin Dennis Brown stated that the reason I was blocked for the reason given here [147]
- "User blocked 48 hours - Looking at what he has been doing since the ANI started, I see he's moved more articles this poorly, completely ignoring the issues raised. ie: Presenting problem -> Chief complaintand then said "It is commonly used but, due to my lack of expertise in this area, I am happy to defer to others wisdom." No discussion, no consensus and isn't wise enough to create a redirect pointing to the existing article, and instead moves a long standing article without any regard to consensus."
- a) This statement was completely false and opposite to the truth. I HAD created a redirect.
For a fact, I DID create a redirect at "
Presenting problem" and then flagged it up on the talk page, [150] Talk:Identified patient page, [151] WikiProject Psychology [152]
and WikiProject Medicine.
My contribution log proves this, "14:36, 4 July 2012 (diff \ hist) . . (+497) . . N Talk:Presenting problem (←Created page with '(WPMED\class=Stub\importance=Low) (WikiProject Psychology\class=\importance=) I've redirected this to Chief complaint, as it included the British term ...') (top)"
And yet, mysteriously, my creation of the redirection page at the same time has been Revision Deleted. [153]. I understand other admins will have the powers to be able to see what has happened here and would like it confirmed.
FYI, this is what actually happened.
i) I searched for "presenting problem" as it is a common term and discovered it had no page on the Wikipedia
ii) I searched for alternatives or pages that included it.
iii) I created a redirect to the most likely one
iv) I politely flagged it up on all the related talk pages and related project talk pages.
v) Dennis came along and moved the Redirect page over Chief complaint and then accused me of doing so.
I argue that there was nothing disruptive or improper in what I did, that I did it the correct way and DID NOT move any page as accused.
From Dennis's logs:
"22:53, 5 July 2012 (diff \ hist) . . (+32) . . N Chief complaint (Dennis Brown moved page Chief complaint to Presenting problem over redirect: Moved improperly) (top)
22:53, 5 July 2012 (diff \ hist) . . (0) . . m Presenting problem (Dennis Brown moved page Chief complaint to Presenting problem over redirect: Moved improperly) (top)"
I am raising this because even in my short time editing it is not the first time that revision deletion has apparently been abused to remove all traces of a topic creation or edits from all users logs.
(BTW, strictly speaking I think 'presenting problem' is not the same as 'chief complaint' nor 'identified patient' and I am surprised it does not have a topic of its own. Normally, and in references, you read of "an identified patient with a presenting problem" underlining that they are separate and hence my comment to raise the issue and engage others in discussion on the project page [154]). I would not have made the move Dennis did.
Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- If the admin was mistaken (and that's if), we can be pretty certain that it was a mistake, and the report above is using a misguided approach. I took a very quick look at User talk:Bridge Boy, and you might like to consider adding jpgordon ("Reading the lengthy ANI discussion makes it clear that not only is the block appropriate, it is generous") and Nick-D ("I've reviewed the ANI thread, and I agree that this block is justified") to the report. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy so it does not particularly matter if a block reason was poorly worded. Also, Wikipedia relies on collaboration—let's assume that you are correct and everyone else is wrong. You still need to slow down and reduce the drama. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Serious and unfounded accusations. The ANI report that went on for pages and pages showed enough overall BWilkins←✎) 10:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
@BridgeBoy, the previous two editors have stated that you are most likely looking at poor wording for a block or perhaps not seeing the reason for why you are blocked. In your own words, could you answer just a couple of questions? Do you feel like you've done nothing at all out of line with Wikipedia policy and don't deserve a block for anything you have done? Is there a reason that Dennis Brown would have decided to block you if you had done nothing? And finally, what was your original goal in all of the editing that started this, and how is that goal going, in other words, are you making the best use of your time toward that accomplishment? -- Avanu (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Denis stated that the block was for "disruptive editing". As is obvious from the above report which lead to the block (WP:ANI#Bridge Boy) this was well deserved. Denis' move appears to have been one of several he made to fix up the damage you'd caused, and occurred only four minutes before he blocked you for 48 hours. I too think that an indefinite duration block is in order here, and the only reason I haven't applied it is that this report is almost word for word the same as the unblock request I declined, so another admin will need to press the button. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Back from his block, and within hours he's already flooding the talk pages of the debate with walls of text and harrying other editors over their opinions. I think a longer block is called for, at least until the discussion at berate11:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, I'm trying to figure out the purpose of this ANI filing - I see nothing that suggests any requirement for Admin action, unless one unleashes the BWilkins←✎) 11:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well before you guys fill the page with a bunch of comments about how awful the editor is, can we first and foremost work on actually understanding and diffusing the issue, and work on helping the editor understand how and why this occured? I get weary of the 'hang em high' attitude that frequently permeates the discussions. It makes admins appear to be a special interest block ready to punish and embarrass, rather than a group of concerned editors trying to promote a cooperative spirit. -- Avanu (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually only a small subset of admins are compelled to behave in those unfortunate and demeaning ways, and Dennis Brown is not among them. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Avanu, as I think is clear from the previous ANI thread, a number of editors have in fact already tried that. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think Avanu means that when everyone jump to boomerang the reporter, it looks like a pack of animals jumping on a carcass, even when they are completely right. Avanu, as to explaining, if you check all three previous ANI subsections, I really did try to explain along the way his problems, but I really don't think he gets it, and CIR might actually apply here. I would suggest we do NOT boomerang and that no block should be based on this filing. If he can find a way to contribute properly, great. If he can't, then let the process work at that time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- If I screwed up the move/redirect, sorry, moves are not my specialty. As for the block for WP:DE (which I explained on his talk page, ANI, etc.), keep in mind that there were 3 separate threads ongoing about him, not one. I think I was fairly restrained and did everything possible to avoid blocking, and then only used the least amount of time to prevent further disruption. I will leave the decision as to the appropriateness of my actions and any action that need to be taken here to my peers, but felt I should at least acknowledge the process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ ©11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- If anything, Dennis Brown should be mildly warned to stop being so nice. A 48 hour block was too lenient, and there was clear consensus for a longer block, and well-argued justification, and sufficient consensus, for an indefinite block. The immediate return to disruption, here with this absurd ANI complaint, and back on the article talk pages and AfD, was predictable. We've all seen editors like this before. When they don't give the slightest hint that they understand in any way that they've screwed up, and don't admit even the tiniest incivility (after throwing f-bombs straight in a gentle editor's face, and more), that is a clear warning that a temporary block is pointless. Dennis Brown should have known that this wouldn't be over when the 48 hours was up, and he should have heeded the other admins who favored an indef block, or at least a month. Long enough to get it through this guy's thick skull. A trout to Dennis Brown for that. BTW, I accept the has no hope of winning consensus give him an indef block so we can all get back to doing something productive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- You aren't the first to say this and I respect your opinion, but I still think that a short block the first time is the better solution in the off chance that the person will stop after a couple of days break. I would rather block someone indef the second time than the first if there is even a tiny chance that it will accomplish something. Of course, now it is out of my hands as I'm "involved" and can't block him at all, so odds are the next admin to get involved will be less troutworthy than I in this respect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- @Avanu, my understanding is that other admins can see previous and deleted page creations etc. Those who can will see that I created a redirect and then placed notes on all respective talk pages.
- Could we please just confirm first whether I did what I said I did - and followed policy in an exemplary fashion - or whether I did what Dennis Brown said I did and "disrupted the Wikipedia" by moving Presenting problem on top of Chief complaintetc? If someone will do so, perhaps Dennis himself, then I will answer you?
- Could we please just confirm first whether I did what I said I did - and followed policy in an exemplary fashion - or whether I did what Dennis Brown said I did and "disrupted the Wikipedia" by moving
- Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly, I haven't looked at it, and just took your word that I screwed up the one thing. I think I already covered that above when I said "sorry". You were blocked for the reasons stated, and clear and obvious pattern of disruptive editing, not the one point which was just that one point in a serious of questionable moves. You are demonstrating a remarkable lack of clue here, as this has been explained to you time and time again. The problem is that the facts don't back up your claims here. Not about the mistake, but about how that was the reason for the block, which is well documented. I was even kind enough to strongly suggest that no one boomerang block you above, even though I was in the minority in sentiment in this, something that I regret and retract as your amazing lack of clue is yet showing again as you try to hammer away at this and call this abuse. At first, I thought it was just frustration at my previous overly generous block that should have been much longer. Now I am convinced your genuinely do not have the competence required to participate here. Of course, now that I'm involved, that will be left to someone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TechNev16; logos on Disney Channel
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have tried to reason with
chatter
) 02:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Reverted changes; will drop a note on user talk page. Black Kite (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
SPI
chatter
) 02:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I just came to report the SPI as well. I've tagged his/her talk page with a 3RR warning as well as a the SPI alert and reverted the most recent edit. --Drmargi (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Help with page move
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I'd like to request admin intervention. I nominated a page move here
Animal-rights movement. I asked the closing admin to reverse this move, which he did; and then I posted a note
to Kwamikagami asking him to open up a new RM if he wanted to enact a move (and noting that I disagreed). Instead of discussing, he instead unilaterally re-did the move once again.
This is a relatively minor issue in the scheme of things, but it's a bit frustrating to have an admin use his powers in this fashion. Besides myself, another user has commented that the move should be reversed, but it still hasn't been. So far, no-one other than Kwamikagmi has defended this move.
I'd thus like to request that an uninvolved admin move the page back to the consensus title of Animal rights movement, temporarily lock it from future page moves, and then request that Kwamikagami formulate a proper RM in order to argue to add the hyphen, which is a discussion that I'd be perfectly willing to have, in the proper forum. I'd also like to suggest that another possible solution, which is that the page remains where it is and that *I* formulate an RM instead, seems a bit unfair, as it means I now have to prepare a nicely formatted and researched proposal to move to a title which had been *already* been decided by consensus only 2 days ago (the adding of a hyphen was never discussed in the previous RM, nor do sources or categories or other parts of wikipedia use a hyphen). I think in this case, the burden should be on Kwamikagami to change consensus and provide evidence towards that. Thanks for your input and advice on other ways to resolve this amicably.--KarlB (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I don't see much that can be done immediately in terms of admin intervention. A discussion may be in order, but I am not sure 16:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then perhaps a few words dropped on his talk page from an uninvolved admin might help, to see if he might change his mind and go down the route I suggested (e.g. opening an RM for his preferred title)? He doesn't seem moved by my arguments or those of Tryptofish, nor was he discouraged by the previous revert of his moves by another admin (which makes his last move, technically, a wheel war, no?).--KarlB (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- In my experience Kwami often acts unilaterally with page renames and moves, even when there is no consensus for a move. I consider this to be an abuse of his Admin privileges, because of course he has the power to do these things, and ordinary editors cannot undo them. Normally he just insists that those who disagree with him do things like come here and complain. (The record will show many complaints about Kwami.) Most times ordinary editors just get fatigued with fighting him. In my view, he should not be permitted to remain an Admin. He is often the centre of controversy. -- Evertype·✆ 16:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Evertype, you've made quite a few accusations without supporting diffs. Need I remind you that per WP:RFC/U. As far as an abuse of admin privileges, any confirmed editor can move a page. It is not a subset of admin privileges unless a page is protected against moving. This is an editor issue, not an admin issue. KarlB: I can't imagine how another uninvolved admin would make a difference. A discussion needs to happen on the move warring.--v/r - TP16:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)Thanks - although I certainly don't want this to turn into a trial for Kwamikagami. He did a minor thing, I'm asking for a minor correction, that's all. If the RM (that I hope he puts forward) goes his way, I won't stand in the way. Just I think the article should be moved via an RM, not unilaterally. --KarlB (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Evertype, you've made quite a few accusations without supporting diffs. Need I remind you that per
- (ec) I agree that he should not have used the tools to impose his own preference. I've just noticed that he moved the page last year to a title with a hyphen too; [155] Tony1 later moved it back. [156] Separately from the issue of whether he had a right to move it, there is no need for the hyphen, and the phrase is normally written without one. I've left a note on his talk page asking him to undo his move. [157] SlimVirgin (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- In my experience Kwami often acts unilaterally with page renames and moves, even when there is no consensus for a move. I consider this to be an abuse of his Admin privileges, because of course he has the power to do these things, and ordinary editors cannot undo them. Normally he just insists that those who disagree with him do things like come here and complain. (The record will show many complaints about Kwami.) Most times ordinary editors just get fatigued with fighting him. In my view, he should not be permitted to remain an Admin. He is often the centre of controversy. -- Evertype·✆ 16:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then perhaps a few words dropped on his talk page from an uninvolved admin might help, to see if he might change his mind and go down the route I suggested (e.g. opening an RM for his preferred title)? He doesn't seem moved by my arguments or those of Tryptofish, nor was he discouraged by the previous revert of his moves by another admin (which makes his last move, technically, a wheel war, no?).--KarlB (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, looks like he moved it back. Thanks SV, your note may have helped. This can be closed now as far as I'm concerned. --KarlB (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Quick sock block please
Could someone block 86.1.27.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron please? The case is already closed, and I'm likely to get a much quicker block to deal with his current edit warring here than waiting for someone at SPI to do it. Thanks. 2 lines of K303 19:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done since he continued to be disruptive after the closed SPI. -- Selket Talk 20:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. 2 lines of K303 21:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
User repeatedly recreating articles that were deleted via AfD.
User:Footwiks is re-creating articles deleted via AfD about Korean football clubs. Korea First Bank FC, Seoul Trust Bank FC, Korea Exchange Bank FC, ROK Marine Corps FC and more. Footwiks acknowledged that they are the same user as User:Pfrd. [158]. Footwiks said he created Pfrd because he forgot his password, but has never stopped editing as Footwiks. Football articles were also created by Pfrd. User was warned to stop [159], but has recreated the articles again. User has stated they will keep creating new accounts and never stop. [160]. Both Footwiks and Prfd, in the same message, have asked other editors why the deletion. [161] Both Footwiks and Prfd have recently left messages on User talk:Sir Sputnik. A SPI case was filed a few days ago. I could put the football articles up again for a CSD, but what is the use if the articles are going to be re-created again? Could the article be deleted again with some protection? Bgwhite (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have deleted many of these pages. Owing to the WP:SALTthe pages. I think an indefinite block for sock puppetry is a better solution. I will leave a message to that effect on the SPI page.
- FYI the follow related pages remain because they were either never nominated for deletion or passed AfD:
- Hanil Life Insurance FC
- Chohung Bank FC
- E-Land Puma FC
- Korea Housing & Commercial Bank FC
- Industrial Bank of Korea FC
- Hawaiian Islanders
- --talk) 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Disruptive edits of User:Luciferwildcat
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:FOUR
) 21:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Administrators, I have created User:Luciferwildcat/sandbox/Communications of Barack Obama just for him to work on. Please consider alternatives to blocking him. I must promise you that further trouble would be avoided. --George Ho (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I must give some credit to Lucifer for AFD-tagging on
Ashton Kutcher on Twitter, and I give credit to others for their arguments, as well. The original poster on Tony is a major contributor to either one (Kutcher) or both articles, but that's all I can say. --George Ho (talk
) 22:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have protected the page for 3 days to give time for heads to cool down. For now, IMO, that is action enough.
- The AfD ended with no consensus so there is clearly scope for collaboration to arrive at a consensus version. The sandbox version is a good step to arriving at that. Once the page protection has expired, please do not return to talk) 22:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ongoing, Blatant Edit-Warring by User:DreamMcQueen
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
DreamMcQueen seems to be having a small issue with edit warring. The user is in ongoing edit wars on numerous television station articles and television station related articles with myself, User:Tvtonightokc, User:Fairlyoddparents1234, and User:Strafidlo. When warned of the warned about 3RR, he claimed he was "very careful not to touch the three-reverts-in-24-hours zone". It is clear he is aware of the 3RR rule, intentionally reverting up to 3 times in 24 hours and stopping. This is still a violation of the 3RR rule which states "even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached".
His contribs show an continous edit war on numerous articles. He has even gone so far as to remove hidden notices related to an OTRS ticket and a DCMA takedown notice. The user seems to think he is here to force change and "create order". The latter makes me laugh, I take it he hasn't seen ANI, no order here on most days.
When warned he is breaking the rules, he takes offense at the "blunt and threatening" terms of a warning, rather than addressing what got him the warning in the first place. It is obvious the user doesn't get it, isn't here to edit constructively or collaboratively, feels he is in charge (wonder what Jimbo thinks about that) and is going to "change" Wikipedia rules be damned. Now claiming "it's on" clearly shows he hasn't read
WP:NOTANARCHY (or watches waaay too much WWE). Since obviously my style of telling people to "shape up and fly right" isn't getting through to him (apparently I am too blunt), I am bring this to your attention. - Neutralhomer • Talk
• 06:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- User has been notified of this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're not being too blunt, Neutralhomer, and I thank you for attempting to get this editor to stop his harmful actions. I have been on-and-off watching this user since his (or her) dispute with Fairlyoddparents1234. This is not a "small issue" with edit warring, it is a repeated violation of any respect for Wikipedia policy. This user is a threat to Wikipedia, and appropriate action needs to be taken. Standard06:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am heading off to sleep. My bed has been calling my name for the past hour, so sleep needs to happen. If there are any questions for me, I will do my best to get to them when I get up (which will be sometime this afternoon EST). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Back online if anyone needs anything. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Action needs to be taken on this ASAP. DreamMcQueen is bad news and continues to force change and edit war (see Standard22:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Could we get some eyes on this thread? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Action needs to be taken on this ASAP. DreamMcQueen is bad news and continues to force change and edit war (see
- Edit-warring continues, now at WT:TVS (the Wikiproject for television stations), where DreamMcQueen is reverting a post by me directing WP:TVS members to this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk• 21:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm thinking a 24 hour block would be in order here; seems like pretty obvious gaming the system to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, or a few days to a week. Standard23:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- @Blade: Sorry for the slow reply, was dinner time. I would welcome any block that can be given at this point. DreamMcQueen's behavior is beyond deplorable and he doesn't seem to care that he is breaking numerous rules, especially WP:DE. - Neutralhomer • Talk• 00:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- @Blade: Sorry for the slow reply, was dinner time. I would welcome any block that can be given at this point. DreamMcQueen's behavior is beyond deplorable and he doesn't seem to care that he is breaking numerous rules, especially
- Yes, or a few days to a week.
- I'm thinking a 24 hour block would be in order here; seems like pretty obvious
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Possible interaction ban violation
A previous ANI discussion resulted in a
Nobody Ent
12:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- It would seem pretty clear that this is an iban violation and is more than an incidental mention that could be easily overlooked. I'm not a fan of ibans to begin with, and this is one of the reasons, as it means we get to debate each interaction at ANI, a less than ideal venue. However, the iban exists and was agreed to by both parties, so we have no choice but to enforce. Had Prioryman not editorialized laying specific blame in his comment "as DC has been the driver of the vast majority of the controversy up to now", then I might have considered it a troutworthy offense only. I would rather leave the "punishment" to another admin more experienced in iban enforcement (and let's be realistic, that is what it is, which is one reason I don't like ibans), and hopefully it won't require a block. Prioryman would be wise to self-correct to the degree it can be done here, soon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I will step into broken record territory here and say that this is why I oppose the very concept of an "interaction ban"; it should not be a responsibility of this project to maintain and enforce virtual restraining orders. DC has it spot on with the "My point being that interaction bans which are not enforced, or are only enforced against one party but not the other, actually enable disputes to continue" observation. When enforcement becomes lax as it invariably does when relying on pseudonymous volunteers to do your police work, the i-ban subject tests the waters, leading the other side to have to step up and say something, which itself can become a technical violation, etc... Seriously, just lift the damn thing and deal with actual disruption as it arises. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am thinking all parties have been notified. I would support Tarc's suggestion to end the i-ban here and now. It is not possible to continue the ArbCom discussion fairly while muting an important perspective. Too many people are already mute about the situations being discussed. Also, ArbCom and Elen have repeatedly been asked about this very matter. I wonder if their judgement should not prevail. I am not trying to reconciling agreeing with Tarc that this i-ban be immediately, perhaps temporarily, lifted while at the same time supporting multiple i-bans between editors involved in the ArbCom dispute. My firm feeling is that the controversy that has sucked up so much time must be settled in a very clear way. I would say more but I feel the opposition to doing so is a problem. NewtonGeek (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just for some background; I imposed the IBan a little while ago because these two editors could not leave each other alone. The intention was not to make either feel happy, but to separate them from interacting and causing disruption (which is what many of their interactions did). Since then there has been the occasional flare up, and a couple of clashes, but significantly less than before. My view is that this is the most clear violation so far; they were granted exemption by Arbcom to both post evidence and contribute to this single case - but with specific instructions not to engage directly on e.g. the talk page. So it is without question a mutual violation. I can't really take action because I too am involved in that case (and I am also rather bust this week so can't give it my full attention) but I think some action should be taken - if for no other reason than for those that DC himself pointed out. I'm most disappointed in Arbcom and the clerks who, having granted and noted the exemption, appear to have missed this violation - they are best placed to have enforced it in this case. A significant failing. --Errant (chat!) 13:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- @Tarc; in this case the IBan seems largely to have worked. To be honest - taking your approach the other option at the time was indeffing both until they had lost interest in each other. I'd have been equally happy to go with that alternative, but it's not been popular in the past. --Errant (chat!) 13:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- See, this is why I have a beef with this, you characterize it as "without question a mutual violation", and I don't think that's terribly fair regarding DC. This like the schoolyard where the bully punches you, you punch back and at that moment the teacher happens to walk around the corner. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- It was impressed on both of them how violations should be raised without violating the ban; so, yes, it is fair. Neither of these editors is the "right" one in this matter; they were slogging at each other for a long while before they were stopped from interacting - during which period neither achieved anything constructive in relation to the other. Or to use your analogy; it is like that scenario happening, but on Monday he's the bully, and on Tuesday you are. The problem this addressed was that DC took it upon himself to monitor Prioryman for violations of previous sanctions, probably too heavily, and Prioryman pushed back (again, heavily). Please do suggest a different approach; but their spats disrupted noticeboards for a good while until the IBan, and nothing seemed to be enough to separate them. Indeed it is clear that they cannot simply forget about each other - so barring blocks I don't see what resolution we can aim for. As I stated at the time of the IBan, I don't particularly care about their dispute. But I did care about stopping the disruption across Wikipedia caused by them interacting. --Errant (chat!) 13:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- The difference between Prioryman and Delicious Carbuncle in this latest episode is fourfold: 1. Prioryman started it. 2. DC paid at least lip service to the ban in his post (he did not mention Prioryman), while Prioryman broke the ban outright. 3. Prioryman broke the ban twice last month, on Tryptofish's talk page, and was let off with a last warning – which I personally think was a mistake. On each of these occasions, Prioryman broke the ban without any provocation from Delicious carbuncle, just because he thought he could get away with it, as he did in early May. It's not "even Stevens" at all to me, especially considering the way the ANI thread in May went, where DC temporarily ended up blocked for posting on the one page that was exempt from the ban (your talk page), and Prioryman went scot-free. And I fully expect Prioryman to continue nibbling at the edges of the interaction ban on the case pages if he is not blocked. I don't expect the same from DC, because he hasn't nibbled, as Elen of the Roads pointed out. [164] --JN466 15:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- It was impressed on both of them how violations should be raised without violating the ban; so, yes, it is fair. Neither of these editors is the "right" one in this matter; they were slogging at each other for a long while before they were stopped from interacting - during which period neither achieved anything constructive in relation to the other. Or to use your analogy; it is like that scenario happening, but on Monday he's the bully, and on Tuesday you are. The problem this addressed was that DC took it upon himself to monitor Prioryman for violations of previous sanctions, probably too heavily, and Prioryman pushed back (again, heavily). Please do suggest a different approach; but their spats disrupted noticeboards for a good while until the IBan, and nothing seemed to be enough to separate them. Indeed it is clear that they cannot simply forget about each other - so barring blocks I don't see what resolution we can aim for. As I stated at the time of the IBan, I don't particularly care about their dispute. But I did care about stopping the disruption across Wikipedia caused by them interacting. --Errant (chat!) 13:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- See, this is why I have a beef with this, you characterize it as "without question a mutual violation", and I don't think that's terribly fair regarding DC. This like the schoolyard where the bully punches you, you punch back and at that moment the teacher happens to walk around the corner. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was given specific permission by the Arbcom to post evidence concerning DC (against whom a site ban has been proposed) and I also provided evidence privately (because of privacy implications). My "editorial" comment was merely a reiteration to what I've already said in evidence, publicly and privately. It makes little sense to be allowed to post evidence and then not refer to it in any other context in the same case. The context in which I commented was a discussion on whether an interaction ban was necessary to keep apart the parties in the case (of which I'm not one, for the record) - I supported an iban and I mentioned what I had said in evidence to provide the supporting context. I have no interest or wish to interact with DC in any context outside of this case, and - as I've said several times already - will revert to the status quo ante of total non-engagement as soon as the case is closed. Prioryman (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- @Tarc; in this case the IBan seems largely to have worked. To be honest - taking your approach the other option at the time was indeffing both until they had lost interest in each other. I'd have been equally happy to go with that alternative, but it's not been popular in the past. --Errant (chat!) 13:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Arbcom created this messy grey area by their half-assed 'you can say some things about each other, but some things you can't, but you have to guess which is which.' ban exception. Make them clean up their own mess.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Arbcom ground rules were clear: "For the record, both editors may post evidence pertaining to the other (within the prevailing evidence constraints), and make workshop proposals based on that evidence. They may not directly engage with each other in threaded dialogue, or post about each other on case talkpages. Elen of the Roads 09:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)" --JN466 14:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, look: in the interests of sanity and to avoid wasting anyone else's time, I've reworded my post to remove mention of DC [165], and I'll undertake not to mention DC again in the course of this case. Now can we close this and move on? Prioryman (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome to strike out, but standard Nobody Ent
- No, because you are a prime example of the saying, "Give him a little finger, and he wants the whole hand." If the community lets you get away with a brazen violation of your interaction ban now, for the fourth time, what's there to make you think that you won't get away with it for a fifth time? It's too late for that. If you had apologised and done it yesterday, after Peter Cohen pointed out to you that you had violated the ban, i.e. before it came to ANI, this might have been worth entertaining, but not like this. To edit your post now is just smug, Prioryman, and it's been more than enough shenanigans. Really. --JN466 14:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome to strike out, but standard
Proposal
The existing interaction ban between Delicious carbuncle and Prioryman is modified to exclude pages under the remit of the Arbitration Committee.
- Support As proposer. As AC pages are monitored and managed by clerks, this will allow the editors full participation in the process while still avoiding long unproductive exchanges between the editors elsewhere on Wikipedia. Nobody Ent13:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. I have no interest in participating with DC in any context other than this case, and the exemption from the current iban is (at my express wish) confined to this case alone. As soon as the case is closed, there's no more reason for interaction of any sort. Prioryman (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support in this case that has ArbCom already approving a degree of interaction only. Prioryman, you might rethink your vote, as what Ent is suggesting has nothing to do with anything outside this ArbCom case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's intended to include any future AC actions, too. The essential idea is if the committee wants to deal with an interaction the rest of the community had decided it preferred not to deal with, let them manage the consequences as they see fit. Nobody Ent14:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree to the degree if that ArbCom, in their infinite wisdom, decides to interfere with an existing sanction, then they should deal with the consequences, but would say it should only be limited to when ArbCom *does* interfere and say that the iban is temporarily lifted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- To be clear, neither of them has an exemption from the iban. All they have is terms on which they may give evidence or make proposals. Comments on talkpages were specifically excluded from those terms. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is what makes it so confusing, as since ArbCom made a partial exemptions, it would be strongly preferential that ArbCom police it. You might disagree and I respect your opinion, but this puts us in a bad place here and it is less than optimal, to say the least. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the clerks might have barred a person or persons from further participation previously in this case. Perhaps a clerk would decide to look into this. NewtonGeek (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have requested Prioryman to strike his comments and refrain from further comment [166]. The case is all over bar the voting pretty much - I do not believe that barring him at this point will result in a serious loss to proceedings. I have also flagged to the clerks/Arbs that further action may be appropriate, and will be necessary if he doesn't remove said comments. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the clerks might have barred a person or persons from further participation previously in this case. Perhaps a clerk would decide to look into this. NewtonGeek (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is what makes it so confusing, as since ArbCom made a partial exemptions, it would be strongly preferential that ArbCom police it. You might disagree and I respect your opinion, but this puts us in a bad place here and it is less than optimal, to say the least. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- To be clear, neither of them has an exemption from the iban. All they have is terms on which they may give evidence or make proposals. Comments on talkpages were specifically excluded from those terms. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree to the degree if that ArbCom, in their infinite wisdom, decides to interfere with an existing sanction, then they should deal with the consequences, but would say it should only be limited to when ArbCom *does* interfere and say that the iban is temporarily lifted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's intended to include any future AC actions, too. The essential idea is if the committee wants to deal with an interaction the rest of the community had decided it preferred not to deal with, let them manage the consequences as they see fit.
Block Prioryman
This is getting ridiculous. Prioryman was warned for exactly the same thing last month, by Elen of the Roads: [167], after multiple clear violations. [168][169] He has had his last and final warning, he has no intent to abide by the interaction ban, so block him. JN466 14:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not inclined to block him over something that happened one month ago. If Arbcom has decided to get involved and override the consensus of a previous community discussion, they should deal with the consequences. Since Elen chose to warn that previous time, then I wouldn't override her actions by blocking after the fact. It sucks, but this is why ibans are a bad idea, as is ArbCom overriding previous community decisions where it isn't absolutely required. In otherwords, this should be handled in venue, not here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am not asking anyone to block him for what he did last month. I am asking for a block for what he did now, because he had his last warning last month, and violated clear terms. Again. Frankly, I was surprised he wasn't blocked the time before the last one, i.e. here, when quite a few people thought it would have been appropriate. This is now the fourth time that he has violated the interaction ban without any effect whatsoever. Why have an interaction ban that is not enforced against one of the parties? Enforce it, or lift it. Otherwise it's a mockery. --JN466 14:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- An interaction ban by itself serves as the ongoing warning, and any violation has to be met with some kind of action, otherwise it's meaningless. Interaction ban means no interaction. It ain't rocket science. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Prioryman should be blocked for at least a week, if we want to be fair. Actually, he shouldn't even have been granted the exception he was granted by Arbcom, but what's done is done. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- With apologies to all, I haven't been following this as I've been ill. That said, the terms on which DC and Prioryman were allowed to participate were clear, if either has violated them, then I would have expected the clerks to have taken some appropriate action, which could include a block, or just barring the offender from further contribution - it being pretty much all over bar the shouting now anyway. If there is a consensus for action against Prioryman, please don't let me hold you guys up. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support. As JN466 notes above, DC has been restrained in reacting to Prioryman's violations. He pointed out the breach, once, two days ago, with no apparent reaction from ArbCom or the clerks. If we don't support the restraint by enforcing the ban the logical expectation would be that Prioryman continues to nibble at the edges and DC starts to retaliate in a similar manner. While the normal expectation is that blocks are not punitive, I think something is necessary here to prevent continued erosion of the iban. Nobody Ent15:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support - 1 week. Also support trouting DC; they may have been restrained, as Nobody Ent noted, but they didn't follow proper reporting procedure as outlined the last time this came up. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- The clerks have made many decisions on what to allow and disallow. I think they need to provide input on their perspective. I see no evidence that either party wants to interact except in relation to the case at ArbCom. Since this is a critical juncture in the case, I'd like the clerks' input. In any event I think there would need to be some mechanism for proper input in the case if any action is taken. Otherwise, it will erode confidence in the decision if all perspectives cannot be represented. NewtonGeek (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - Leave it to ArbCom and don't get twisted over old actions. Totally unnecessary. T. trichiura Infect me 17:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note to any potential discussion closer: Trichuris trichiura has very few edits and has chosen not to answer a query as to the status of other accounts. Nobody Ent18:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note to WP:AGF T. trichiura Infect me18:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note to
- Note to any potential discussion closer: Trichuris trichiura has very few edits and has chosen not to answer a query as to the status of other accounts.
- Oppose. We have dispute resolution processes on Wikipedia like ArbCom cases. People participating there should be able to say whatever they feel is relevant, otherwise you end up compromizing these dispute resolution processes. Obviously, if someone misbehaves by making inappropriate comments that can be a factor in the outcome of a ArbCom case (which happens quite frequently). It is e.g. quite common for someone to be unblocked for the sole purpose of being able to participate in an ArbCOm case. So, we take this issue very serious, therefore the I-Ban should not be enforced by us. At most the Arbs can look at the exchange and decide that inappropiate comments were made (judged purely on what was said, not that some I-Ban was violated) and then note that the users were already under an I-Ban and draw some conclusions from that. Count Iblis (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- To Trichuris and Count Iblis: User:Elen of the Roads, commenting above, is the arbitrator who defined the terms Prioryman has violated. She has expressly confirmed [170] that a clear violation occurred, and she has also expressly left it to the community here to decide the matter of sanctions. A clear breach is a clear breach. It's ludicrous to have an interaction ban and not enforce it. JN466 16:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- This. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Elen asked Prioryman to strike a comment and Prioryman did do that, so I don't see the problem. In the comment written by PM, what he wrote about DC was in the relevant context of the case, but it is technically a violation of the I-Ban. I would rather not have a situation where someome cannot write something that in his/her mind is relevant to an ArbCom case on an ArbCom page because of possible punishment elsewhere. If an Arb desides that this comment is an infraction and suggests a remedy (in this case striking the comment), then that should be the end of it. Count Iblis (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, she also said that it was a clear breach of the conditions she laid down, and said above that If there is a consensus for action against Prioryman, please don't let me hold you guys up.. I appreciate that you were against this interaction ban in the first place, Iblis, but given that the community disagreed, and we have the thing, there has to be a symmetry in how it is applied. It's not okay for Delicious carbuncle to be on a hair trigger in this, and for Prioryman to make three, arguably four (4) blatant violations of his interaction ban, and then have nothing happen in response. If the community imposes an interaction ban, clear breaches have to be sanctioned. JN466 20:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I accept that this is a valid POV, if you have rules then one should in principle be prepared enforce those rules. This is one of the reasons why I don't like this I-Ban, because there are always legitimate reasons why both editors would still end up interacting with each other (like on that ArbCom page, where both have a stake in the case). The spirit of Wikipedia is that the relevant processes for maintaining Wikipedia come first, the rules should help one to do that (and in case a rule stands in the way of that, we have to ignore that rule). A block for Prioryman would apart from enforcing the I-Ban, not do much good for maintaining Wikipedia, that's also why I was opposed to blocking Delicious carbuncle the previous time. Perhaps the best thing is to vacate this I-Ban. Prioryman and Delicious carbuncle are free to make a private agreement to avoid each other, but if they happen to bump into each other, the only actionable thing here should be severe misbehavior of some sort. Count Iblis (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I can see the reasoning behind vacating the interaction ban as Count Iblis has explained. Any future conduct issues could then be dealt with through consensus. NewtonGeek (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I accept that this is a valid POV, if you have rules then one should in principle be prepared enforce those rules. This is one of the reasons why I don't like this I-Ban, because there are always legitimate reasons why both editors would still end up interacting with each other (like on that ArbCom page, where both have a stake in the case). The spirit of Wikipedia is that the relevant processes for maintaining Wikipedia come first, the rules should help one to do that (and in case a rule stands in the way of that, we have to
- Well, she also said that it was a clear breach of the conditions she laid down, and said above that If there is a consensus for action against Prioryman, please don't let me hold you guys up.. I appreciate that you were against this interaction ban in the first place, Iblis, but given that the community disagreed, and we have the thing, there has to be a symmetry in how it is applied. It's not okay for Delicious carbuncle to be on a hair trigger in this, and for Prioryman to make three, arguably four (4) blatant violations of his interaction ban, and then have nothing happen in response. If the community imposes an interaction ban, clear breaches have to be sanctioned. JN466 20:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Elen asked Prioryman to strike a comment and Prioryman did do that, so I don't see the problem. In the comment written by PM, what he wrote about DC was in the relevant context of the case, but it is technically a violation of the I-Ban. I would rather not have a situation where someome cannot write something that in his/her mind is relevant to an ArbCom case on an ArbCom page because of possible punishment elsewhere. If an Arb desides that this comment is an infraction and suggests a remedy (in this case striking the comment), then that should be the end of it. Count Iblis (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- This. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- To Trichuris and Count Iblis: User:Elen of the Roads, commenting above, is the arbitrator who defined the terms Prioryman has violated. She has expressly confirmed [170] that a clear violation occurred, and she has also expressly left it to the community here to decide the matter of sanctions. A clear breach is a clear breach. It's ludicrous to have an interaction ban and not enforce it. JN466 16:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Uncertain on this - blocks are not punitive. Prioryman has had problems in the past reasonably warranting "punitive actions" and in the course of an ArbCom case he used his right to vanish, IIRC. Thus the folks here can reasonably connect past and current behaviour. In any case, DC has behaved with more restraint and decorum than has Prioryman, and this should be noted in any consensus closure of this discussion. Collect (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- per Count Iblis. Seems resolved. ArbCom members and clerks can decide whatever they believe is best. NewtonGeek (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Elen decided that Prioryman should not comment further in the case. That seems fair. He had been commenting and now he's not allowed to. Elen also notified "the clerks/Arbs that further action may be appropriate, and will be necessary if he doesn't remove said comments." Then Prioryman struck his comments as Elen instructed him to. He had tried to delete them but that contravened policy because they had been commented on and probably for other reasons. NewtonGeek (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Point have been made, comments have been struck, an Arb was kind enough to take matters back into ArbCom's hands and she already has gotten some results (and Elen has been quite sick and gone for over a week, so I won't blame her personally ). At this point, I say we should let ArbCom deal with it. They laid out the rules for engagement, it is their problem, and taking action here after they have finally jumped in would be unnecessary and be stretching it over two venues. As I stated earlier, ArbCom should have handled it anyway, so trout them and move along. Yes, we could take action, but it is better if we leave it where the problem started from. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- You must have hit save after I read and responded above, Dennis. I think you make a lot of sense. I wonder if I should strike my comment above. NewtonGeek (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dennis, do you realise that Delicious carbuncle was blocked for 75 days (reduced to 10 days a day later, and vacated two days after that) in May for making one comment of the sort that Prioryman has since made three of? [171][172][173] All of that in response to an AN/I thread that Prioryman brought himself, in apparent and unsanctioned violation of the interaction ban, with the poor justification that DC had mentioned him on the one page that was exempt from the ban, i.e. Errant's talk page? How can the community defend this as even-handed administration of a mutual interaction ban – a 75-day block for one violation by DC, versus nothing for four by Prioryman? And whether we like it or not, the community imposed this ban, and arbcom have seen fit to leave it in the community's lap. It's up to the community to step up to the plate, and administer this interaction ban even-handedly. --JN466 02:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think Dennis summarized the situation well. Maybe Count Iblis has a point as well. NewtonGeek (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with this. There is an interaction ban. Prioryman is ignoring it. I'm not aware of him acknowledging it's a problem so it'll be an ongoing thing. Block him until he agrees to abide by the interaction ban. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose This just involves the complication of an Arbcom case that directly involved both parties. Even if Prioryman isn't a party to the case, he is directly involved in the subject matter, so it makes sense for him to be commenting on the case. And considering the case directly involves harassment undertaken by DC at WR and WO, it's hard to avoid mentioning him. I don't think a block is necessary in this case. If the interaction ban had been violated in an instance that didn't involve WR and WO, then I would agree with a block. SilverserenC 00:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio repeatedly inserted
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over on Psalms, Livebymyheart (talk · contribs) has repeatedly inserted a lengthy uncited section. When I Googled a distinctive phrase from the second paragraph (" In tone, they span the gamut of human emotions from ecstasy to despair, indignation to remorse, grief to relief, fear to awe, and rage to love."), I found http://outskirtspress.com/webpage.php?ISBN=9781432785567, which contains that quote and appears to date from before the first time the text was inserted into our article. It doesn't have the entire quote, but I assume that the rest of the section is indeed from the eBook listed there. Could I have some more opinions on this? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't you spot the new external hyperlink at the bottom of the article, entitled "Guide to the Psalms of David"? This edit, claimed to be not a copyright violation, encompasses whole paragraphs from that, which is dated April and marked "©2012 Steven Rosner", two months before Livebymyheart (talk · contribs) even had an account. It's also, paragraph for paragraph, pages 1 to 5 inclusive of the book, published in March, and clearly this person knows that. Uncle G (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked 48 hours for repeated copyvio after warning. Toddst1 (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Todd -- my only concern was that this might be Rosner himself, but as they didn't indicate that they had sent permission to OTRS before reposting it twice, it's probably not an issue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked 48 hours for repeated copyvio after warning. Toddst1 (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RaeRaeBoo's talk page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User talk:RaeRaeBoo contains what appears to be creative writing. This is the only material contributed by this account. I've tried blanking it a couple of times and offering interaction, but the material just comes back. Does having this sort of stuff on a user talk page matter? If so, what should be done about it? Thanks for advice - Pointillist (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- These types of user pages generally get nominated at ) 15:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll action that. - Pointillist (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Operatiom Storm
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In article Operation Storm there was only the Croatian version about number of the Serbian armies. I added the Serbian version and specified a source. Then user IvanOS removed everything. I ask managers to check its actions. Соколрус (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- As I have written in description, references are biased, they are not neutral and they are maybe false. I was not first user who did this: These same references were removed by other users (Joy, DIREKTOR, PRODUCER) because of same reasons. --Ivan OS 19:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- These references are neutral. The Politika newspaper - authoritative release. And the book of general Sekulich is used here in other articles. In article all versions should be reflected, and you leave only Croatian. It against rules. And these references nobody deleted from article, except you. Соколрус (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
This board is for user behavior problems. This is a content dispute. Please take this to
) 19:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)- Beat me to it by a second, Jorgath. Theopolisme TALK 19:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sockpuppetry concerns
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. Please review this page history as well as this one. Evidence appears to point to a possible connection between 98.27.178.183 (talk · contribs) and Voldemort's BFF (talk · contribs). Notice that the IP blanks others' comments from the talk page, and, then, notice that the registered account blanked my warning left on the IP's talk page. Yes, I realize that users are authorized to remove comments from their own talk page, however, if you carefully review both page histories, a possible connection is indicated. Not sure if this is at the level which warrants an SPI report, however, if anybody feels that it does, please do feel free to go right on ahead and issue one. Please provide your feedback on this matter, and watch this post for blanking. Thanks. 69.155.129.170 (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's almost certainly the same user but it seems much more to me as though Voldermort is forgetting to log in. I don't think there's anything sinister going on. Egg Centric 21:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- What concerns me is that the comment removals are taking place while the editor is logged out only. This rings my alarm bell. 69.155.129.170 (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry! That was me. Sometimes I forget to check if I'm logged in before I edit something. I should have said something but I didn't think it was very important. I'm sorry :( I'll be more careful from now on. --Voldemort's BFF (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Legal threat and spamlinking
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
7pines (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
Despite warnings, the editor has been adding spamlinks to many articles. He recently made two blatant
.Indef needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done by foxj00:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked for multiple unambiguous legal threats. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Stodieck aka Amphorus
Hi,
I am getting nowhere in an ongoing dispute of some months, which approaches edit warring, because the other user's behaviour precludes any kind of resolution. This is way beyond a joke now, it has been one-on-one almost all the way and I cannot hold this guy back without some solid admin support. My apologies for the ragged air about this post, please bear with me.
This person has been using two different accounts:
- I must stress that this request is about the user's behaviour, and not about the content of Wikipedia. The user's behaviour is getting in the way
- (see box below for my earlier effort to explain you guys, where I failed to get this message across)
I am also coming to believe that my antagonist is now
Gaming the system
by, for example:
- Using sockpuppets. Then, when rumbled, wriggling round the evidence - here.
- Retailating to the sockpuppet issue by accusing me of . This is ludicrous, as I made no such alleged personal remarks - it's Wikipedia that tracks this sort of IP connection, and the user who chose those account names - names that appear so close to each other in the page Histories.
- Repeatedly accusing me of vandalism in edit comments here, here and here. It seems to me that at the very least this violates WP:GOODFAITH.
I could go on. Do I need to?
- Again I stress that this is about the user's behaviour, not about the content dispute. When you read the conversation below, you will understand why I so want you to bear this in mind
- If anything I have said in the above still leads you to think that this post is about the content dispute, please explain in clear and simple terms where I have gone wrong.
So I appeal to you for the second time. Please, please can somebody resurrect this issue and check out this user's behaviour? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- That earlier attempt, recovered from archive, is reproduced below.
Hi,
I have been doing battle since 16 May (It all started Talk:Stabilizer (aircraft): see my posts from 5 June downwards for diffs and other links. I notice that this user has been censured before on their talk page. Please help, I am at the end of my tether. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi again,
- And also going back and editing a previous discussion comment that I had replied to, making an IP edit:
- while logging in to make new comments, e.g. these two new comments were made respectively before and :after the IP edit of the old one:
- Please, at least tell me why nobody is responding to this request? Am I doing something wrong or missing something out? I'm not asking for a technical judgement, just a call on this editor's behviour. 20:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The reason you are getting little traction here is that primarily this is a technical content dispute. I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you are mostly wrong on this. A control surface ahead of the wing will act as a positive feedback mechanism for pitch instability, so calling it a stabiliser is Orwellian or lazy terminology at best. As to the behaviour of the other party, yes, it can be very annoying if one is a technical expert in something and wiki policies are repeatedly used to frustrate the clear expression of fact. So I suspect he is frustrated by your obtuseness. Greglocock (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks so much for responding. Yes of course there is a technical dispute going on, but that's not why I am asking you guys for help. My problem is the other party's behaviour - riding roughshod over etiquette as I have tried to document. We cannot resolve the technical issue until the parties involved are behaving in a civilised manner. I am carefully avoiding technical issues here and focusing on the behaviour (so I'm not going to respond to your technical comments here). Why is that not working? Do you need more diffs of bad behaviour repeated here as well as on discussions I have linked to above, like when I got insulted on my own talk page, or should I be posting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, or what? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The reason you are getting little traction here is that primarily this is a technical content dispute. I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you are mostly wrong on this. A control surface ahead of the wing will act as a positive feedback mechanism for pitch instability, so calling it a stabiliser is Orwellian or lazy terminology at best. As to the behaviour of the other party, yes, it can be very annoying if one is a technical expert in something and wiki policies are repeatedly used to frustrate the clear expression of fact. So I suspect he is frustrated by your obtuseness. Greglocock (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I realize that you are dealing with multiple issues here, and I acknowledge that you have kept
WP:DRN
. Note that DRN has it's own guidelines for what works best, so be sure to review them. Copied from header (above):
--
talk
) 16:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the articles should be deleted, bu I would like to additionally propose a week-long block. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Need assistance with WP: Harassment
Posting of personal information WP:OUTING Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, . . . . Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently.
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stodieck - Incident involves attempt to establish new private ID, needs permanent deletion of text. The sockpuppet allegation is false and easily disproven. The post violates "Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently." This is the request for permanent deletion.
Offending editor is (Talk)
See line below i.e. "Stodieck aka Amphorus" in this forum which is the 3rd violation of WP:OUTING in 2 days. --Stodieck (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC) .
- I don't see any attempted outing. Pointing out a connection in behaviour between two active accounts is not inherently outing; the sockpuppetry report appears in good faith. If the issue relates to your username, then I don't see where you've made any attempt to change it. —C.Fred (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) - violation of topic ban
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) had a topic ban applied in December 2011 that applied no creation of new articles, or redirects. he was informed of this [182]. and was blocked in January 2012 was blocked for violating this and it was noted that this was an indefinite restriction. Given Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) block history he has a record of pushing the boundary to see how far he can get away with. only a few days he creates a redirect and a new article. I seek community and admin consensus on what to do. LibStar (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- The diff makes no mention of a topic ban. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Topic ban on creation of articles - Users article creation diff looks like a clear violation of the users edit restrictions to me - Youreallycan 04:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- thanks Youreallycan LibStar (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) - so this is part of my voluntary agreement to only make a single comment in regards to ANI reports and not to open any reports of my own - Is it disputed that User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_) is not allowed to create new articles at this time? - Youreallycan 04:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- thanks Youreallycan LibStar (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
@YRC. Maybe I'm just tired, but that diff (to me at least) sounds like it falls short of a ban. It was suggested he not create articles, but didn't go far as to say he was banned. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- nvm. I didn't see the top part where he acknowledged restrictions. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- This seems a bit stale. What good will blocking him do? Also, is there some problem regarding the article he added? If RAN is willing to create articles that are not a problem, are we to insist on the letter of the ban? Seems shortsighted to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also shortsighted is saying "well, he was banned, but we'll wink and nod because he's not causing problems despite violating his ban" - should we not give somebody a ticket for going 120 in a 55 zone just because they're driving a Ferrari built for that speed? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- We're also not the police. We're an encyclopedia, and we don't destroy good content simply to enforce some rule. No, he should not create articles. Yes he did create one. The Wikipedia servers will not crash if he is not indeffed. Every incident is judged on its own merit. That doesn't mean I think he shouldn't be blocked, and saying that doesn't mean that I think he should. But arguing from a point of blind adherance to the rules for the rules sake, without regard for the effect on content, is in direct contravention of Wikipedia's core values. If you want to argue that he needs to be blocked, fine, but find a better reason than you came up with there. Merely stating he violated his restrictions doesn't necessarily follow that he must be blocked without discussion. Maybe you think he needs to be blocked, but that doesn't preclude people from discussing the matter, or even arriving at the conclusion that this violation doesn't merit a block at this time. --Jayron32 06:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also shortsighted is saying "well, he was banned, but we'll wink and nod because he's not causing problems despite violating his ban" - should we not give somebody a ticket for going 120 in a 55 zone just because they're driving a Ferrari built for that speed? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- This seems a bit stale. What good will blocking him do? Also, is there some problem regarding the article he added? If RAN is willing to create articles that are not a problem, are we to insist on the letter of the ban? Seems shortsighted to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Bah. Here is the topic ban. Black and white. The community simply does not trust RAN to create new pages, at all. He knows this. If he thinks that this consensus may have changed, he should suggest that the ban be lifted, not simply start ignoring it again. This is not "blind adherance [sic] to the rules for the rules sake"; it is uncontroversial enforcement of a popular decision made to protect the project. I'm inclined to block for a week, per the standard procedure of escalating blocks (the last was 31 hours, although in a depressingly familiar manner was shortened to time served after merely two hours on a technicality). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'll reply as soon as I get my head around blocking someone for creating good content (assuming, of course, that it is such).--Wehwalt (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Obvious, and based on the short discussion above it is problematic. RAN probably could have asked for a removal of his topic ban at this very forum - it may or may not have been successful. However, he merely thumbed his nose at it and broke it. I have been generous and only provided a mere 60hr rest from the project so that he can re-read his topic ban. His chance of having it removed/reduced just dove like BWilkins←✎) 10:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Continued Abusive Behavior from Ihardlythinkso
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While I respect Ihardlythinkso for being a capable editor, his continued abusive, aggressive behavior makes editing chess articles both an irritating and laborious chore. Sadly, this is not the first time there has been a problem with this particular individual. He was eventually temp-banned for his behavior, including legal threats, but after a brief hiatus, he has resumed his behavior.
I have ignored it for a while, since I do feel he is an otherwise worthwhile editor who has something to contribute to the encyclopedia. For instance, here he makes an unmotivated personal attack against me on an AfD page, tell me to "find some dignity", and decries the "slanderous fabrication" I supposedly made, "which you got away with at ANI". I calmly ignored him.
Unfortunately, this editor seems to be following me around lately, insulting and warring over the smallest thing. While initially civil in this talk topic, his replies became more belligerent over time, until the end, when my research uncovered that he was, in fact, correct about the topic.
Shortly after this, he wrote more very aggressive, often personal replies on this AfD page. Again, I replied to him very civilly, and mostly overlooked his behavior.
However, his
his recent replies
on this Talk page have been too much. I finally asked him to stop the personal comments (calling my views "shrill", "reckless", saying I have no facts or arguments, and that "your hyperbole is tiresome"). His reply? More insults.
Again, this editor has been banned before, and has had several conflicts with other editors that have made it to the Administrator's Board stretching back to (at least) last year. While I believe he could be a valuable editor if he wanted to be, he displays a categorical unwillingness to avoid personal attacks or stick to the article at hand. As such, I think the negative he brings to the encyclopedia outweighs the positive. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- He was banned, which is something else entirely and which I do not want to consider here (Ihardlythinkso has been very productive). If I were you I would not poke the bear, which never ends well with Ihardlythinkso.--Jasper Deng (talk)23:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, my mistake with regards to term. That being said, this is hardly me "poking a bear". Rather, this is a bear following and attacking me wherever I happen to go! I'm perfectly fine with leaving Ihardlythinkso alone, and have ignored him for a long time now. (His first personal attacks linked above occurred in February) However, he is not willing to extend me the same courtesy, and makes my attempts to edit anything related to chess a chore. While I'm a lowly editor, not an admin, I disagree that we should let editors be as abusive and disruptive as they want to be. Especially since I'm far from the only editor or admin affected by this. (You have had an ANI issue with him yourself, if I recall) ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- You've had quite some heated arguments with him on the pages you linked. Did you ever consider just not replying at all?--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's precisely what I have done most of the time. In the first link, I ignore him altogether. In the others, I let him get "the last word" and ignore most or all of his personal attacks. Unfortunately, this hasn't worked. Also, I can't ignore him completely since those discussions are about content in the encyclopedia, and in at least one case, his revert of one of my edits. While I agree with your general attitude of "just ignore it and focus on the encyclopedia" and wish Ihardlythinkso would as well, it simply hasn't worked in this case. And if this was just an isolated incident with me, fine. But think of how many HOURS you have wasted of your life, Jasper, contentiously arguing with this guy either on the ANI board or on a Talk Page where he has started making personal attacks about you. Anyways, I'm okay with whatever the admins decide, but want to stress that this is a persistent problem that detracts from the encyclopedia.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- You've had quite some heated arguments with him on the pages you linked. Did you ever consider just not replying at all?--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, my mistake with regards to term. That being said, this is hardly me "poking a bear". Rather, this is a bear following and attacking me wherever I happen to go! I'm perfectly fine with leaving Ihardlythinkso alone, and have ignored him for a long time now. (His first personal attacks linked above occurred in February) However, he is not willing to extend me the same courtesy, and makes my attempts to edit anything related to chess a chore. While I'm a lowly editor, not an admin, I disagree that we should let editors be as abusive and disruptive as they want to be. Especially since I'm far from the only editor or admin affected by this. (You have had an ANI issue with him yourself, if I recall) ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Um:
- Above claim: "This editor has had several conflicts with other editors that have made it to the Administrator's Board stretching back to (at least) last year."
- Let's see ... Besides *this* one, there's been exactly one ANI case involving me, it was a case I initiated, as a result of a fabrication ChessPlayerLev made about me.
Is this representative of how you report the "facts" to others, ChessPlayerLev? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Um:
- Above claim: "He was eventually temp-banned for his behavior, including legal threats".
- Let's see ... I was blocked exactly twice, both blocks by the hand of admin User:Toddst1, neither of which mentioning anything about "legal threats".
Is this representative of how you report the "facts" to others, ChessPlayerLev? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Um:
- Above claim: "He wrote more very aggressive, often personal replies on this AfD page."
- Like, can you point out even one "very aggressive, personal reply" in that linked thread?
Is this representative of how you report the "facts" to others, ChessPlayerLev? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Um:
- Above claim: "This editor seems to be following me around lately, insulting and warring over the smallest thing. While initially civil in this talk topic, his replies became more belligerent over time".
- Let's see ... I have WP:BRD. So where exactly was it that I was "warring"? And who was warring? And if this was "the smallest thing" (and presumably not important at all to anyone, including you), why did you put up such a lengthy contest on the Talk, insisting on your change until disproven by the author of the source? And please show me one instance I was "insulting" over the entire thread.
Is this representative of how you report the "facts" to others, ChessPlayerLev? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- A rudimentary search reveals this ANI dispute with Elen of the Roads. There was also the whole fiasco with you going off on Jasper on this Talk Page although admittedly, I don't know whether it became a case on an Admin board or not. Your block log also indicates an indefinite blocking for your behavior on this page. None of those three cases involved me, either.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Um:
- Claim: You seemingly are attempting to suggest, that the thread opened by User:Elen of the Roads at ANI was about some behavioral issue, which it was not. It was a content dispute, over whether policy permitted use of "hide/show" feature on chess problem diagrams. An RfC was opened by Elen, thinking I just didn't understand policy. The consensus at the RfC decided I was right, not her. As a result, MoS was changed to make the use of "hide/show" explicitly clearer for chess puzzles. As a result, we have beautiful chess problems protected for eyes not to see, so that others may enjoy working out the solutions, without the "answer" staring back at them when they begin, e.g., Nenad Petrović (chess composer). I did a good thing by defending my side of the content issue to use "hide/show", it lead to improving the encyclopedia at least a little. (Can you tell how it is that you attempt to use that ANI as a disparaging remark against me now?)
Is this representative of how you report the "facts" to others, ChessPlayerLev? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Question for ChessPlayerLev: Is the ANI you opened here supposed to be about your complaints regarding thing(s) I said or did to *you*? Or thing(s) that you want to contend that I said or did to *others*? And second, in either case, are your complaints about thing(s) I said or did recently? Or about thing(s) going back as far back as you want without limitation?
Because I'm not willing to go over with you everything including kitchen sink that you like to try and find to throw my way, for example, discussing with you the indef block I received from the hand of admin User:Toddst1, which Arbcom overturned without restriction. You really don't know what you are implying regarding the quality of that block and Arbcom's deliberations regarding same. You seemingly just like to use the existence of the block to smear me, to suggest: "if he was indef blocked, then for sure he is guilty of anything I want to complain about him". A fallacy. (Or, do you want it your way: Anyone and everyone who was ever blocked, especially indef'd, certainly deserved it, and it is perfectly civil to hold past blocks against them, as though they are bad editors and Wikipedia undesirables, especially if you feel like saying something disparaging about them to others at a free-for-all ANI. Right.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- The complaint is about your behavior towards me during the last week. However, if this was an isolated incident, I would be happy to submit this to the Wikiquette board instead, or even tolerate your abuse. Unfortunately, it's the same behavior you have displayed over many months here, towards myself and other editors. It's gotten to the point where it's an actual impediment to improving chess articles. Hence, why I mentioned that in my complaint. It's a shame too, because you do have valuable contributions to make when you're not needlessly raging at someone. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, you're not going to justify throwing every kitchen sink at me you can find. And, "if this was an isolated incident", implies that you are speaking facts, whereas I already started going over some of your "facts". (Did you even read what I wrote above? You certainly didn't respond.) I think it is *you*, ChessPlayerLev, who is being aggressive, abusive. (How else do you account for the smearing fiction that you propogated above?) Our first interaction "during the last week" was at WP:BRD situation, and how you warred, I didn't. (And on the article Talk, who was acting belligerent?! Me? Where? Because I find several instances of you acting that way, not me, starting with your edit summary, quoted above.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, you're not going to justify throwing every kitchen sink at me you can find. And, "if this was an isolated incident", implies that you are speaking facts, whereas I already started going over some of your "facts". (Did you even read what I wrote above? You certainly didn't respond.) I think it is *you*, ChessPlayerLev, who is being aggressive, abusive. (How else do you account for the smearing fiction that you propogated above?) Our first interaction "during the last week" was at
- It's hard for me to reply to everything you write, considering you edit your comments after I have already replied to them, adding a bunch of new material in the process. I don't have all day to closely monitor this page and edit it non-stop. It's also difficult since you continually ignore everything I write and instead keep repeating "you have shown no instances/facts of me doing anything wrong!" like a mantra. This, despite direct quotes in my initial complaint as well as corresponding links where you made them. I guess telling me to "find some dignity", calling my views "shrill" and "tireless hyberbole", etc. is perfectly civil on your part. (Keep in mind that this was all out of the blue; I made no abusive comments towards you, and in the first instance, wasn't communicating with you at all)
- Again, it's a shame you continue behaving this way. Had you simply written "okay, no more personal comments, I will stick to chess", that would have been fine by me. But your only reply is more and more insults. Anyways, I would like to hear from other editors on this. If Ihardlythinkso's conduct was simply rude, abusive, and/or limited to me, I would have ignored it. But it's also tremendously disruptive to building a better encyclopedia, incredibly discouraging to other editors, and part of a pattern of behavior that has gone on for many months and affected a number of other editors and admins. This is my last reply on the subject before an admin weighs in.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you're going to quote me, ChessPlayerLev, please be accurate. I never wrote "tireless hyperbole", what I wrote was that the hyperbole "was tiresome". (Big difference. The first asserts that you persist in hyperbole without end; the second asserts the hyperbole you were generating was taking a toll on me.) You said the ANI is about things "the last week", but there you go again, complaining about something said months ago. You say you made no abusive comments this week, but you haven't made comment on our first interaction of the week where you wrote in edit summary after my WP:BRDrevert: "It would be nice if you gave me a chance to respond on the Talk page before rabidly reverting the most minor of my edits." I asked you on the Talk what you meant by "rabidly". (No response from you.) You've accuse me of making "personal comments" and "personal attacks" the last week. If I find your content dispute rationale questionable or confusing and ask for clarification or challenge it, you consider those "personal attacks"? If you say a contention is "laughable" or "silly" or "bunk" or "ridiculous" but give no rationale for that opinion in a content dispute, and I point out those are not arguments but shrill opinion in place of argument, then I'm making "personal attacks" and giving you "insults"?
- If you're going to quote me, ChessPlayerLev, please be accurate. I never wrote "tireless hyperbole", what I wrote was that the hyperbole "was tiresome". (Big difference. The first asserts that you persist in hyperbole without end; the second asserts the hyperbole you were generating was taking a toll on me.) You said the ANI is about things "the last week", but there you go again, complaining about something said months ago. You say you made no abusive comments this week, but you haven't made comment on our first interaction of the week where you wrote in edit summary after my
- I really want to know something from you, ChessPlayerLev: Please go back to Talk:Paul Morphy, read the interactions between us this last week, and point out something specific, even one thing, that you think or wish that I had done better. (Alright? Or is that asking too much?)
- I wish you had come to my User talk instead of ANI, but, I can see your intentions were not to resolve anything between us, but rather, to "get [me] blocked", with arguments like "continued misbehavior" after "past blocks including indef", "the negative he brings to the encyclopedia outweighs the positive", and etc. That's really aggressive in my book, ChessPlayerLev, and you should have two legs to stand on when attempting things so serious as that, rather than generalities without specifics, accusations without facts, and so on. (To me, your serious endeavor here, seems to rely on generating prejudice, which in fact quite mirrors your argumentative style in the content disputes you've linked, where you've used disparaging comments in place of argument, for example: "that's ridiculous", "that's silly", "that's bunk", "that's nonsense", "that's laughable", and so on.) Try to do better, and next time please come to my Talk. Ok? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Here, you were claiming User:GFHandel was being abusive!
- Here, you were claiming User:BashBrannigan (a respected ProjChess member) was being hostile, "ridiculous", biased, and "blatantly dishonest". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- ... and you call *my* behavior "a shame"?! (I think there's been enough aggressive hypocrisy from you!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Here, you accused me of name-calling two editors "idiots" and "asshats", names I would never use against anyone at WP, ever. I never received any apology from you, only a fake, flippant one at the ANI. (The difference between you & me, ChessPlayerLev, is that I don't fabricate or intentionally distort or exaggerate. You do. I consider it more than uncivil, it's unethical. I don't care if you call me any name your imagination can muster; it's sticks & stones. But fabrications are a particularly underhanded dirtiness in my book, and IMO you swim in it. It's one of the reasons I love chess, because ChessPlayerLev, you can't *cheat* in a chess game, can you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, ChessPlayerLev and Ihardlythinkso, both of you need to back away from each other and from this thread. You're not 10 year olds on the playground anymore, and you shouldn't be acting like it. So here's the deal; we can let this go, and if I see any continued asshattery I'll start with the blocks. Both of you seem like otherwise quite reasonable editors, so I genuinely think that you're capable of preventing it from coming to that; I sincerely hope you'll both decide to take the high road instead. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reopening
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Reopening this; see this and the ensuing discussion on User talk:Ihardlythinkso. I think a block for Ihardlythinkso would probably be the best solution at this point. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the accusations on ) 16:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- 2 weeks or 1 month sounds like a good length - he did not have any justification in calling Todd his "undesired nemesis", which clearly matches TE and BATTLE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Deng, I don't write things, I have "no justification" for. Toddst1 took extraordinary measures against me, that were unjustified. Those things weren't done in a vacuum. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've read time and time again, ANI is to be used as "last resort" only, after all other venues over an issue have been exhausted. Apparently that was misleading, and ANI can be "plopped into" whenever it pleases the purpose of the opening editor? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ooh, the fire is cooking... Be calm - snarky comments never helped anyone. Theopolisme TALK 17:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Am calm, just taken aback. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ooh, the fire is cooking... Be calm - snarky comments never helped anyone. Theopolisme TALK 17:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- 2 weeks or 1 month sounds like a good length - he did not have any justification in calling Todd his "undesired nemesis", which clearly matches TE and BATTLE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the accusations on ) 16:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Can I make an observation or two here? Surely, everyone will be upset afterwards, but I wouldn't have it any other way. First, Ihardlythinkso, I think you are being a bit oversensitive in the whole event. Not discounting your feelings, but I think you might be wearing them on your sleeve just a bit and it isn't helping you, and may get you in trouble. I only ask you trust me just a little bit here, you are being snarky and it doesn't suit you. And everyone one else on the block button, I don't see how blocking is going to do anything but antagonize the situation and serve as punishment rather than to prevent disruption. Yes, we are admins so NPA doesn't apply and all that, but this is one of those situations where it is better if everyone just backs away from the dead horse, because nothing anyone says is going to make the other side agree. ANI happened, feelings got hurt, a few jabs were thrown, now lets all go back to writing articles and staying off each other's talk pages for a few days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd probably agree to that were it not for the fact that this is hardly the first time Ihardlythinkso has had serious battleground issues, including multiple blocks for it. Given the latest round of wild accusations towards me and Toddst1, I don't see that he's learned anything at all, and I certainly don't think the problem is just going to go away; that's what I tried last night, and it lead to the aforementioned threads on each others' talkpages. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you in principal, that Ihardlythinkso went too far and got emotionally involved and over the line. I've been on the exact same side of the stick, with the same editor, I fully understand. I'm not ignoring or excusing it. Blocking is an option, but I don't think it is the best option because it is likely to antagonize the situation rather than resolve it. This makes it a no-win scenario, and I don't like to block if it isn't going to really resolve anything. It just feels dirty. That doesn't stop you from doing so, but I would encourage everyone to accept that some editors are a little more emotional but worthwhile contributors, and for us to try just a little harder to work it out, that is all. I've added a note to a conversation that Ihardlythinkso and I are having on my talk page, and just consider my intervention as one last effort to try to find resolution peacefully. I'm not going to interfere, I only hope to find a better solution if it is possible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let me understand: suggesting MO that Blade & Toddst1 are "admin-friends", constitutes "wild accusations", is emotional and "over the line", and is valid basis for a block? Also, my two past blocks keep being referred to here, as they are some sort of Gold Standard, when they were both from the hand of User:Toddst1, the second of which was overturned by Arbcom, in addition to other actions taken by Toddst1 against me (removal of my WP Email access while blocked) that were extraordinary and unjustified. And Dennis, my purpose of our past dialogues was to show that you are "not perfect" in case there was any danger in your thinking you were (because, everybody seems to compliment you, and as human being, that can easily cause a puffed-up self-image). That is not the same kind of thing here, where I'm defending, where User:The Blade of the Northern Lights seems to be hard bent to hang me high. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, my indefinite block of IHTS for "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing" was not overturned - The user was unblocked per appeal to arbcom after a month. Upon being unblocked, IHTS was noticed that "nobody has taken back the finding that you were engaging in "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing" and "repeated personal attacks and quick and consistent disregard for civility in the face of conflict." This is an important fact that IHTS seems to have lost and would do well to take to heart instead of fabricating conspiracies and projecting repeated problems onto others. Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let me understand: suggesting MO that Blade & Toddst1 are "admin-friends", constitutes "wild accusations", is emotional and "over the line", and is valid basis for a block? Also, my two past blocks keep being referred to here, as they are some sort of Gold Standard, when they were both from the hand of User:Toddst1, the second of which was overturned by Arbcom, in addition to other actions taken by Toddst1 against me (removal of my WP Email access while blocked) that were extraordinary and unjustified. And Dennis, my purpose of our past dialogues was to show that you are "not perfect" in case there was any danger in your thinking you were (because, everybody seems to compliment you, and as human being, that can easily cause a puffed-up self-image). That is not the same kind of thing here, where I'm defending, where User:The Blade of the Northern Lights seems to be hard bent to hang me high. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Toddst1, first, I was not "noticed" what you quoted. (What you quoted is news to me. Did Arbcom say this? Can you give me a link on my Talk, please.) All I was told, a day or so after my appeal, was that I was "free to edit". Second, for the record, the month time duration you mention, was my choice, no one else's. Third, please drop any notion of accusing me of "fabricating conspiracies", ok? (Unless you want to get into that, I don't, in which case I'm likely to ask you to specify what multiple conspiracies you are talking about, etc.) Thanks for your consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- p.s. To be clear about this, you indef'd me, I appealed to Arbcom, I was not noticed, I was told a day after my appeal that I was "free to edit" (no restrictions given). That is what I meant by your indef block being "overturned by Arbcom". (Is there some kind of "Wikipedia legalese" going on here re term "overturned". Because if so, I didn't and don't know about it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- One of the reasons I took a month before appealing, is that I wasn't sure I wanted to return to WP at all, back into what I perceived an abusive environment. My unblock appeal contained my contention at the outset that IMO your block was excessive and inappropriate. You also removed my Wikipedia Email privilege while blocked, a measure that I understand is done only under the most extraordinary of abuse circumstance. There was no abuse by me of Email to any degree at any time. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- And I still think you could have chosen some of your words more carefully and are creating problems for yourself by not admitting it. Blade is a good guy, he is human, so he is fallible, but I've always known him to try to do the right thing, and he is likely frustrated because you have been more than a little rude to him. I also know you are good guy, fallible, and a bit oversensitive at times. My goal here is simply to lower the drama level and deal with the issues, which looking over the previous ANI, is due in part to a sharp tongue. We don't have to agree with each other. Hell, we don't even have to like each other. We DO have to get along with each other, and you know that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Another way to look at this would be to figure out what behaviors IHTS is repeatedly exhibiting for multiple admins to separately develop the inclination to "hang him high." (as he put it) Then comes the question what, if anything, to do?" 20:19, 12 July 2012Toddst1 (talk)
- () 20:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well Dennis, if you think Blade is a good guy, that is good enough for me. To Blade: I'm sorry that I got snarky with you. I didn't enjoy being compared to a 10-yr. old, and decided to hit back with snarkiness. Sorry.
- Dennis, if you now tell me that the additional admin also deserves apology, I will draw the line. (Because that admin, took pains to "bury me six feet under", and "tighten screws to my coffin". The measures were extraordinary, and reversed with the help of Arbcom. It was an experience that is hard to forget.
- Dennis, I'll even agree about being "oversensitive" to someone crossing me with unfair stuff. (But you know what? That is relative. That is relative to the current environment here at WP. A nasty & hostile environment that evolved to its current state, long before I came along as 1+ years editor. I am not responsible for the environment here, where false accusations fly overhead like a busy airport, nor am I trying to "correct it" [because, that would be impossible]. But I have a hard time too, just "sitting and taking it". [Why is it you think Malleus gets in trouble for "returning as good as he got"? Malleus gives respect equal to respect others give to him. Although I can fully respect that view, as I do nearly everything about Malleus, I don't practice it myself. Instead of dishing out equally, my pref is to answer directly and specifically; my fault is sometimes snarkiness creeps in, but not always.])
- Dennis, what's troublesome here too, is there is a bias to look first, and usually *only*, at the "behavior" of a lowly user. And not the behavior of, say, the admins. (Implication: IMO, a good case, a very good case, could be made against the admins involved here, for incivilities, for "crossing the line", for rudeness, for snarkiness, etc. But, that seems to ... not count at all in the world of English WP. Admins we're told, are just other editors, with extra tools. Not true. They are given more rope to be ... anyway they wish to be ... with *much* less incentive. Because, to block an admin is against the admin-corps motto. It is a stacked deck for the typical editor, producing a demeaning, intimidating environment. I am not the only one who has made these observations. Specifically, when blocks are given, there is some sort of assumption, that the block is always valid, and the blocked user must "confess" or be slaughtered. It is one of the most abusive aspects of WP in existence, IMO, and colors even the dialogue here.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I accept that there is some bad blood between you and Toddst1 and allow for it. I haven't looked into it, but frustration from an admin that blocks someone (particularly if it is overturned) is not uncommon and I have no desire or need to inject myself in that history. We still have to get along or avoid each other when possible, which is likely the best solution. Blade's comments in closing the previous ANI were a bit strong but not altogether unfounded as there was plenty of snark before the close. I see a lot of positive attributes in you, but I'm not blind and I see a degree of defensiveness and bitterness that I think sometimes clouds your judgement. It does not serve you well. As for admins who err, all I can say is they don't go unnoticed. They may not get drug out in ANI, but I can promise you that they are not ignored, and I take a personal interest in them and have reviewed every case that has been dropped on my talk page. In this case, however, abuse clearly isn't an issue, and everyone just got a bit oversensitive, including Blade, Todd and you, after a frustrating ANI report. I would conclude that you all need to just drop the stick and stay off each other's talk pages for a long while. We're all good people here, we just piss each other off every now and then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if you think you can handle this without blocking, I'm all for it. Hopefully it can work out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I will continue to follow up with him, and appreciate your trust in this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if you think you can handle this without blocking, I'm all for it. Hopefully it can work out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I accept that there is some bad blood between you and Toddst1 and allow for it. I haven't looked into it, but frustration from an admin that blocks someone (particularly if it is overturned) is not uncommon and I have no desire or need to inject myself in that history. We still have to get along or avoid each other when possible, which is likely the best solution. Blade's comments in closing the previous ANI were a bit strong but not altogether unfounded as there was plenty of snark before the close. I see a lot of positive attributes in you, but I'm not blind and I see a degree of defensiveness and bitterness that I think sometimes clouds your judgement. It does not serve you well. As for admins who err, all I can say is they don't go unnoticed. They may not get drug out in ANI, but I can promise you that they are not ignored, and I take a personal interest in them and have reviewed every case that has been dropped on my talk page. In this case, however, abuse clearly isn't an issue, and everyone just got a bit oversensitive, including Blade, Todd and you, after a frustrating ANI report. I would conclude that you all need to just drop the stick and stay off each other's talk pages for a long while. We're all good people here, we just piss each other off every now and then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dennis, what's troublesome here too, is there is a bias to look first, and usually *only*, at the "behavior" of a lowly user. And not the behavior of, say, the admins. (Implication: IMO, a good case, a very good case, could be made against the admins involved here, for incivilities, for "crossing the line", for rudeness, for snarkiness, etc. But, that seems to ... not count at all in the world of English WP. Admins we're told, are just other editors, with extra tools. Not true. They are given more rope to be ... anyway they wish to be ... with *much* less incentive. Because, to block an admin is against the admin-corps motto. It is a stacked deck for the typical editor, producing a demeaning, intimidating environment. I am not the only one who has made these observations. Specifically, when blocks are given, there is some sort of assumption, that the block is always valid, and the blocked user must "confess" or be slaughtered. It is one of the most abusive aspects of WP in existence, IMO, and colors even the dialogue here.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dennis, I'm not the one choosing to continue this. Toddst1 has made additional comments here, and at my Talk. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Replying to your request (above) for the diff where you were noticed after unblocking, perhaps you were too busy telling Guy Macon to piss off to internalize what he said: [183]
"nobody has taken back the finding that you were engaging in "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing" and "repeated personal attacks and quick and consistent disregard for civility in the face of conflict." If you go back to your old ways you will be blocked again."
To which you told Guy Macon to get off your talk page.[184] for no other reason that that you didn't want to accept his highly constructive comments.
- That is not the reason, Toddst1. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
It's important to note that Arbcom didn't endorse your behavior - it only accepted your appeal to terminate your indefinite block - and nobody here is standing up for your current behavior.
The conspiracy that you fabricated (and seem to have quickly forgotten) was Blade's reason for reopening this thread about your disruption. See the lines right under the reopening.
- I fabricated nothing. Especially not any "conspiracy". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I think what you fail to grasp here is that your behavior has been and continues to be problematic. More concerning is you continue to not take responsibility for your actions, instead continuing to blame others for your outcomes. The question is, what does the community want to do about it?
- I disagree, regarding who's behaviors are poor here. And I have no problem with "responsibility". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I came to the conclusion months ago that
you don't have the skills
to constructively engage others without "continued abusive, aggressive behavior" as ChessPlayerLev put it opening this thread. I remain even more convinced of that based on this recent fiasco.
Toddst1 (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- And I remain more convinced about you too, Toddst1. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I thought you meant that Arbcom "noticed" me, and there was a technical aspect about term "overturned" that I was unawares. But now you say the "noticed" was a message User:Guy Macon wrote. That editor was not involved in any way whatever with my appeal to Arbcom. His opinion about anything related has no weight, he does not represent Arbcom, only his own editor opinions, and, I've no interest in his opinions, sorry. (I see on his Talk you have now encouraged him to join the discussion here. What is the point, Toddst1? To bait me? I have had disputes with this user in the past, I'm sure you know. Is it your intention to inflame the situation?) Regarding responsibility, I have no problem with it. I have no idea what "actions" you feel I haven't "taken responsibility for". But I'm not interested at this point to continue the discussion, which everyone but you has been trying to shut down. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to put above quote by me in context. I was responding to the following quite reasonable question:
- "If CIV is *sometimes* enforced, isn't that a trap whereby blocking Admins will use when they "want" to, and a chaotic non-uniformity of enforcement results like a Wild West of favoritism and prejudice gone berzerk?"
- My response was:
- "WP:CIVILshould be equally applied. That being said, it looks like you are making a "He was uncivil and got away with it so its OK for me to be uncivil" argument. No. You are not allowed to be uncivil no matter what other editors do. If someone is getting away with something, report them. Do not respond with incivility.
- That is not what I said at all. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Although arbcom lifted the indefinite block (and I agree; a 48 hour block would have been more appropriate) nobody has taken back the finding that you were engaging in "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing" and "repeated personal attacks and quick and consistent disregard for civility in the face of conflict." If you go back to your old ways you will be blocked again. If, on the other hand, you start taking WP:BOOMERANGand they will get blocked."
- That was and still is good advice for Ihardlythinkso, or for anybody in a conflict. Be responsible for your own actions, and don't blame anyone else for them. Make sure your own behavior is squeaky clean before accusing others. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand how patronising that is. I have no problem with "responsibility". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Guy. I hope with the diff I presented and IHTS response, it was well in context (which was my intent).
- Responding to IHTS comment "everyone but you has been trying to shut down" - actually, the only person that has suggested shutting this discussion down to date is Dennis. Blade, Jasper and I have each recommended blocking you for continued disruption - specifically TE and BATTLE. Toddst1 (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Toddst1, I think you overlooked User:Jorgath's comments at 20:27. And it doesn't surprise me, the three editors you named, I've had disputes w/ Jasper, obviously you've blocked me twice, and Blade has been discussed earlier. (But it seemed, at least to me, Blade was interested to shut down too. By his remarks to Dennis. You seem to be interpreting differently.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Alas, Ihardlythinkso's comments like "you know what? That is relative." and his praise of another editor for "returning as good as he got" tells me that he has learned nothing and still believes that "He misbehaved so its OK for me to misbehave" is a valid argument. The problem is that we as a community cannot tolerate anyone who follows that principle. There will always be someone else who misbehaves. To be a Wikipedia editor requires a willingness to follow our policies even when other editors violate them. I just don't see how Ihardlythinkso can contribute unless he agrees to that. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- You misread that, Macon. What I did write is that I differed with Malleus in his approach of "giving as good as I got", and that I don't myself follow that approach, when faced with incivility. I don't recommend Malleus's approach, I think it just enflames things. But ethically, Malleus has his point, too. (Malleus is a very smart man.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- So you fully agree with and promise to comply with ) 05:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Of course. The most that can be reasonably humanly expected. (But what about yourself, User:Guy Macon? Do you see yourself as "always civil"? Because I have an off-Wiki list of 15 things you've done toward this editor, now 16, that were far from civil. I can back up what I say, if you happen to be sometime interested.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Macon, please tell, is this an example of your respect for WP:CIVIL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihardlythinkso (talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Macon, please tell, is this an example of your respect for
Ihardlythinkso, Jasper Deng has asked me to comment here as I've spoken with you before. You have a large number of editors here who would like to see you blocked. Would you be willing to simply pledge to stop commenting on other editors completely for the foreseeable future? If the answer is yes, I would be happy to support Dennis in closing this. 28bytes (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- This comment about Guy after your offer appears to be a defacto rejection. Very creative and constructive offer though. Toddst1 (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Toddst1, I've no idea who you're addressing, or what you're message is. (But I'm really not interested in clarification, either.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- 28, of course I am interested in you to close this. It was never my desire or intent, to eat up anyone's time or attention here. WP:RS, civility, how to offer argumentation in content disputes, and even on this thead, how to write a section title. I've read time after time that ANI is to be used as "last resort" only when resolving issues. Why did no admin point this out to ChessPlayerLev?) Instead the opening has been used as a convenient opportunity for a piling-on, by editors I've had disputes with in the past. (Save Blade, whom I've just "met".) And this kind of thing, is not seen as aggressive and uncivil? There have been many things written in this thread that are completely irresponsible and unfair to me, meanwhile accusations of "bad behavior" and "irresponsibility" are comments and accuses I'm supposed to take at face value?!
- You're asking me if I'd be "willing to pledge to stop commenting on other editors completely for the forseeable future". The way I translate that, is that you want to be sure if you close this, that, what?, I won't go to these users' Talks, and make comments? Or that I won't make comments elsewhere, about these users? Please let me make something clear. I don't initiate. I only respond. (The ANI was opened with false accuses. I responded. I had issue with Blade's summary remarks. I responded on his Talk. Toddst1 has contributed inflammatory material here, I've responded. User:Bwilkins, whom I suspected might, but didn't ... so now I have a greater abiding respect of that admin! Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Anon IP with several IP addresses abruptly changes lede of article
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This pertains to an anonymous IP with a different IP each time this person edits the Time article. However,this is not a case of sockpuppetry. Today's IP is [185]. Previous IP's are [186], [187], and [188].
This person inserts an OR lede usually without discussion [189], [190], [191]. Then if this person is still around they will not allow a change in the lede (at all)[192], [193], [194]. You may notice that their justification in the edit history is not grounded in fact, policy, or guideline. It may this person accuses other editors of doing what they do [195], [196] as well as focus on the editor rather than the edit [197].
The only time this person attempted a discussion (on July 2) they broke up the paragraph's of two editor's discussion in order to respond. I call it a shotgun scatter response [198]. I went through all three responses to restore the original format and placed the group of this person's comments after the other two editors [199]. It was a sequential order determined by time and a way to avoid confusion. This person did not believe this satisfactory. He or she admonished me on my talk page [200] and on another editor's talk page [201]. Today, I did try the IP talk page but to no avail [202].
This person's editing today disregards discussions that have been taking place on the talk page for the last week or so[203]. The problem of course is a different IP each time this person returns, and lack of communication on this person's part. It seems that person does not feel they must abide by guidelines, policies, consensus, discussion, and is free to disrupt both the article main space page and its talk page. I have run out of ideas and that is why I am here. Help! ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- So ... following BWilkins←✎) 00:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then again, it might just be a content dispute where multiple other editors (I am neither pillar of the project. 71.169.190.154 (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is not the place for content disputes. This pertains to editing behavior. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then again, it might just be a content dispute where multiple other editors (I am neither
- For whatever my opinion is worth, I've been watching and discussing and now recently beginning to participate in this content dispute and have found nothing egregiously wrong with these anon IP edits either in the article or in the talk page, though several things strike me as wrong with Steve Quinn's edits; but none of it is anything serious enough to warrant escalation to ANI in my opinion.
- The anon IP has a made well-written and well-cited edits to the article and Steve has flatly reverted them on insubstantial grounds like "consensus" (even as a very active discussion takes place on the talk page and Steve and other editors continue to make changes to the article reflecting that discussion); meanwhile Steve's own edits to the article have been haphazard and conversational in tone. Likewise, the anon IP's threaded response on the talk page is not at all an unprecedented format, and Steve has shown a misunderstand of the relevance of indentation to threading himself in at least one response.
- This looks like crying wolf to me, an unnecessary escalation bypassing simpler steps of the dispute resolution process, and I would ask that RFPP or other admin action not be granted, at least not without consulting the other active editors on the page who are still hashing things out. Things are in an unstable state but certainly under control over there. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- As shown by my initial complaint dispute resolution with this anonymous IP has been tried over and over and failed. This person seems to be unresponsive. This can be seem by the numerous recent threads on the talk page where the IP has not participated.
- During this latest discussion the IP arbritrarily changed the lede while all the other editors have been working on it [204]. The IP is not making well cited edits and uses undue weight instead. I am not sure what "haphazard" Pfhorrest is referring to. I have been consistently editing the Time article along with the other editors involved for about a week or so. My editing has been consistent (hardly haphazard). I have also actively particpated in the multiple discussions that have been generated on the talk page.
- I would also like to point out that the IP seems to have some sort of agenda, but I am not sure what it is [205]. The anonymous IP was also WP:Canvassing pertaining to this round of editing [206], [207], [208]. Although I admit the last diff doesn't look like much. However, if it is combined with the diff at User talk:Pfhorrest and the other two it seems to be part of the canvassing effort. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your "dispute resolution" so far seems to consist of something halfway to an edit war; though I admit the anon IP could talk more at Talk, but edit comments count as discussion as well, and your counter-edits could try to integrate his material instead of just reverting.
- By "haphazard" I meant the quality and coherence of your edits, not the regularity of them; such as [209] which appears to begin the article mid-thought in a longwinded way, and [210] which seems to be making comments on the editing process ("supports a single point of view") as much as on the topic, and where you included a <ref>Please see the other sources referenced in this article.</ref> tag. But I don't want to go into too much detail on that because I'm not trying to write you up here at ANI.
- As for the IP's "canvassing", if you read the WP page you linked it explicitly excludes notification on WIkiProjects and involved editors (such as Stevertigo and I) from the definition of canvassing, and considered them acceptable practice. I still see no wrongdoing on the IP editor's part. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have aptly showed my attempts to communicate with this Anon IP in my original complaint. I have also shown the attempts at bullying by the IP by comments left in the edit history and on my and other's talk page. This person's editing behavior is uncivil and non-communicative. The person appears to edit with a battleground mentality. I do not agree that edit history comments take the place of talk page discussions. Also, Pfhorrest has an opinion on my editing but this is not an accurate representation -- not nearly an accurate representation. Also, the IP is obviously capable of spewing comments on their own as shown by my evidence above and their comments here. And WikiProjects and involved editors are not excluded from "canvassing" when there is a bias involved as has been shown. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not the place for content disputes. This pertains to editing behavior.
So are you willing to hold up your behavior to scrutiny? Or just others?I have aptly showed my attempts to communicate with this Anon IP in my original complaint.
Like this one, right? The problem with your attempt to communicate is not with your ability to transmit information, but is with your inability to receive and heed information.I would also like to point out that the IP seems to have some sort of agenda, but I am not sure what it is...
So let's see, what would your agenda atWP:OR (in the form of numerology? It doesn't yet rise to the level of wikistalking, but some editors might think that following the contribs of a user back to other pages (that one never edited before) and reverting their edits solely because you didn't like their edits on a page you thought you owned, might be a form of wikistalking. It is, at least, an indication of an agenda (an agenda to undo whatever this other editor does, regardless of justification). Notice how fast your reversion there was reverted (by one editor and affirmed by another). This shows clearly that you reverted an edit, not because of content (because you apparently hadn't the foggiest idea), but because of who made the edit.- So Steve, I am happy and willing to put my editing behavior under a microscope, but only if your behavior is also. 70.109.182.232 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have aptly showed my attempts to communicate with this Anon IP in my original complaint. I have also shown the attempts at bullying by the IP by comments left in the edit history and on my and other's talk page. This person's editing behavior is uncivil and non-communicative. The person appears to edit with a battleground mentality. I do not agree that edit history comments take the place of talk page discussions. Also, Pfhorrest has an opinion on my editing but this is not an accurate representation -- not nearly an accurate representation. Also, the IP is obviously capable of spewing comments on their own as shown by my evidence above and their comments here. And WikiProjects and involved editors are not excluded from "canvassing" when there is a bias involved as has been shown. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Do I misunderstand the function of ANI? Is this supposed to just be you accusing and him defending, and other involved parties keep out? I see someone making constructive edits being accused of unconstructive behavior and I want to stand up for him. I admit that he could talk more, but for the most part I think he has been constructive and we should not bite the newcomer by throwing admins at him.
- Here is what I think is relevant history, with diffs:
- April 27th: Anon IP added new lede sentence [211]
- Almost a month later, May 19th Stevertigo requests citations with expectation that they will support it [212] and then adds one himself [213]. So far the new contribution seems generally supported.
- Over a month after that, June 22nd, after standing for almost two months without complaint and with some support, Steve Quinn reverts it [214], takes it to talk, where a large discussion on the lede begins, in which the anon IP participates, albeit not much.
- Only July 1st, amidst that discussion, the anon IP reinstates a better-sourced version of his edits [215][216] and over the next four days a slow semi-edit-war occurs; this is the only thing that looks problematic to me, but not egregiously, and is past now.
- Over the next week other editors, including Steve Quinn and at least two others, both continued to discuss, and made edits to, the lede [217], apparently breaking with BRD and everyone being OK with that.
- Then yesterday, July 11th, the anon adds his new first sentence again, with sources [218], without undoing any of the other improvements that have been made meanwhile. Steve Quinn makes some rather incoherent modifications to it [219], Anon (rightly IMO) restores the intact version which actually agrees with the sources it cites [220], Steve Quinn reverts again [221], and I decide it's time someone explicitly supports this guy, and revert Steve [222] and call for further discussion before any more reverts. Steve and I are now discussing his complaints about it on the talk page. There is no edit warring going on, though we were close to it briefly for a while. The anon is not behaving flawlessly nor do I agree with his edits entirely, but I don't think he's done anything that requires admin intervention. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Pfhorrest's last response appears to be a balanced view of the situation. I was not aware of any strong suppport for this lede in any form until I began to interact one on one with Pfhorrest. No one said they explicilty supported the IP's lede until I noticed that Pfhorrest seems to a couple of days ago. Originally, three or four other editors and I were developing a different (agreed upon) version when it seems User:Stervitigo (not sure if he was working with us or not) jumped the gun and placed an unsupported lede [223]. This was reverted a few edits later [224]. This is when the Anon IP jumped in [225]. JimWae tried to save the lede we had been working on for a week [226]. The anon IP wasn't having it and stuck in their lede [[227], so I tried to diplomatically copy edit the Anon's lede[228] -- and so on. As Pfhorrest said he finally stepped in. He set it up so we should follow BRD and discuss the lede along with proposed edits. And here we are. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also, I am close to withdrawing my complaint. I think there were six or sven editors involved (including the Anon) and not everyone was commincating (something like that). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my complaint
I think my last description of events is comical in retrospect. It's funny how there was so much tension behind the editing that one perosn (User:Stertivigo) inadvertantly touched off a chain reaction. The good thing is that it ended peacefully and now we are sifting through proposals in the talk page [229], [230], [231]. Therefore, I withdraw my complant. Unless there are objections, I request the Admin close this discussion. Thanks ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SPA pushing joke to disruption
WP:DNFTT
|
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Renato Laranja. Renato is a character played by Rhasaan Orange as a private joke that's recently gotten some publicity on youtube. This user is trying to push that joke onto the article talk page and an ongoing AfD. There is no way to possibly mistake this character as a real person; we have sources documenting the joke by the author of the youtube videos, the actor, his associates, and so forth, on top of his wild and obviously fabricated claims. This kind of disruption to the article has been common since its creation (July 7, July 5, July 3). I've warned this user a few times, but he's taken to edit warring; he's simply not here to build an encyclopedia. Can we please have a block for this SPA? Thanks. 02:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I asked him not to refactor others comments on his talk page. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC) (not an admin)
Troll blocked. |
Margofilop
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I'm not an wiki admin and this is my first time posting here, but the user Margofilop (talk · contribs) has been uploading and reverting copyvio images on the Lisa Gerrard article even after being warned several times on here and wikipedia commons. Here is the edit log: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_Gerrard&action=history
I suggest a temp block or something.
Thanks very much.
Tribal44 (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44
- I've left Margofilop a note on their user talk. Be careful, Tribal44, that you don't edit war yourself. I'm not saying you have but you need to be aware of the policy. Tiderolls
- Oh, I'm being careful. Thanks again.
Tribal44 (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44
- I popped over to commons an put an OTRS pending tag on the image. I also left a note on the commoms OTRS board. The commons talk page on the image says that the email has been sent. Would the blocking admin consider an unblock if the editor agrees to not put the image back in until OTRS approval?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would only entertain an unblock discussion if the user exhibits an understanding of the situation combined with a confirmation that the OTRS team is actually working on the situation. Margofilop has zero talk page edits; this may not be the root of their problem, but not responding to messages is a significant alarm signal for me. Tiderolls 01:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I see your point. The email may not exist for the one image that is in OTRS. I feel you can close this admin section now. Margofilop may have had a quick education about wp and commons and I think we can just hint to them again if there are more problems. I myself am assuming good faith on their part that the email was sent. I added the file name to the OTRS notice board at commons in case they get a strange email from Aus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would only entertain an unblock discussion if the user exhibits an understanding of the situation combined with a confirmation that the OTRS team is actually working on the situation. Margofilop has zero talk page edits; this may not be the root of their problem, but not responding to messages is a significant alarm signal for me. Tiderolls 01:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Could admin pop over to the talk page an explain 'consensus' to the editors there? There seems to be an edit war going on without any discussion at all. Talk:Lisa Gerrard--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. The image is approved by OTRS now and all parties are happy with it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP hopping vandal, committing BLP violations on Cam Janssen
Hello.
I found no need to warn the IP hopper given IP hopping combined with the fact that the user is deliberately violating policies. Page protection may be warranted, and I am requesting deletion of the revisions under criterion RD3. Thanks. 69.155.129.170 (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Requested protection Standard23:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Notified per requirements, even though I disagree with this. I feel that the notification may constitute pouring lighter fluid on the fire. Thanks. 69.155.129.170 (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- It just looks like standard vandalism from someone who probably couldn't get a date; nothing to break out RevDel over. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:06, 13 July 2012
- Given Janssen's
Facepalm inducing comments today, I suspect it is standard vandalism by a series of annoyed hockey fans. Resolute 00:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC) - It seemed to me to constitute purely disruptive material, which would be eligible for removal. 69.155.129.170 (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've also indef blocked Hayhaytaytay (talk · contribs) for abusing multiple accounts, vandalism, etc, who is obviously the same as the IPs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Given Janssen's
- It just looks like standard vandalism from someone who probably couldn't get a date; nothing to break out RevDel over. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:06, 13 July 2012
- Notified per requirements, even though I disagree with this. I feel that the notification may constitute pouring lighter fluid on the fire. Thanks. 69.155.129.170 (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hundreds of possible hoax edits by 24.159.181.208
Not sure if this should go here or to
bold, possibly an admin or experienced rollbacker, should attempt a rollback of this IP's edits wholesale, and then someone is going to have to go back through the edits that can't be rolled back because of reverts, and find parts of the vandalism that weren't completely reverted in each case. 24.159.181.208 (talk · contribs) has been making hundreds of edits to television-related articles, changing years and false claims of hosts leaving. The edits have neither references nor edit summaries; in fact, several of the edits remove existing references. The account appears to ignore warnings, and after being blocked once, appears to have simply continued after the block expired. In some cases, the same claim was applied not only across the same article uniformly, but to multiple articles consistently: See, for example, Let's Make a Deal and Wayne Brady, in which the IP persistently re-edited the articles, in April 2012, to claim Wayne Brady had left the show. The revert-thrashing left a navbox at the bottom of Wayne Brady that (as of now) still says that Wayne Brady is not the incumbent host. I suspect this has happened in more cases. --Closeapple (talk
) 03:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- When patrolling Special: RecentChanges, I see edits like this all the time, and I always revert such edits. This is very common, but I wonder how the IP evaded notice for hundreds of edits. Sometimes editors overlook such changes as "normal" or "insignificant" as I did before an admin discreetly told me that such edits are bad. Very peculiar. Anyways, I think the right choice of action is to block and rollback, as Closeapple said. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I notice this user has been blocked for this previously, a few months ago. So I have placed a lengthy block on the account. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- But how does that stop the IP from continuing to add false hoax edits when the block is done? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Has archiving on this page been turned off?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The last time the archiving bot ran was 13:46, 11 July 2012. There certainly appear to be sections with no postings in more than 24 hours, those titled "User:Nenpog" and "Intolerable Behaviour" to name two.
Also, the top of the page says that sections are archived by MizsaBot II however looking at the page history the last few archiving actions were done by ClueBot III.
Requested actions, in case it is not clear, is to clarify which bot does the archiving and update this page if needed, plus to get the thing running so that some of the at current count 56 sections, not counting subsections, can be cleaned up. Thank you. JanetteDoe (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- MiszaBot was malfunctioning recently, so ClueBot was activated instead temporarily (the message in the header had been changed as well, I'm not sure who changed it back). I'm not sure why ClueBot is lagging now, but since Misza seems to be running alright on other pages I've now switched back to it. Give it 12-24 hours and it should clean things up. Equazcion (talk) 14:04, 13 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- The bot attempted to archive however there was a blacklisted link (worldpharmacyverification dot com) which prevented it from writing the page and I can't restore it because of the blacklisting. The link may need to be temporarily removed from the blacklist in order to restore the threads and then the url could be mangled to allow proper archiving.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)- They really aught to make rollback exempt from the blacklist. I've run into problems where you can't revert vandal blanking because of it. Anyway, an admin will just need to handle it, as they are exempt. Monty845 15:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Had a similar problem on man AN page, see Nobody Ent15:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, as an admin I am not exempt from the blacklist; if I try to include a blacklisted link my edit gets blocked like anyone else's. ~talk) 15:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I restored the material removed by Miszabot, and removed the http leader from the URL, so that the blacklist won't get triggered. The next time the bot sees this page, it should work. ~talk) 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I restored the material removed by Miszabot, and removed the http leader from the URL, so that the blacklist won't get triggered. The next time the bot sees this page, it should work. ~
- As far as I can tell, as an admin I am not exempt from the blacklist; if I try to include a blacklisted link my edit gets blocked like anyone else's. ~
- Had a similar problem on man AN page, see
- They really aught to make rollback exempt from the blacklist. I've run into problems where you can't revert vandal blanking because of it. Anyway, an admin will just need to handle it, as they are exempt. Monty845 15:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- The bot attempted to archive however there was a blacklisted link (worldpharmacyverification dot com) which prevented it from writing the page and I can't restore it because of the blacklisting. The link may need to be temporarily removed from the blacklist in order to restore the threads and then the url could be mangled to allow proper archiving.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
P.S. ClueBot III was failing to archive for the same reason, however, it won't pull sections from the main page until they have been persisted on the archive page. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 22:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
POV pushing by User:58.26.207.170
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
) 16:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Seeing as how the IP lacks a clean block log, and violated WP:NPOV), I believe that a block is warranted. I'm not quite sure if indefinite would be appropriate, however, although it may come to that. Perhaps a month?—Yutsi Talk/ Contributions( 偉特 ) 16:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd support a month. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- We don't indef IPs, even static IPs. Typically one year is the longest. The last block was one month, and there is a clear pattern of abusive behavior here, so a block of 1 to 3 months may be warranted. I'm debating it, but if someone beats me to the punch, I would hardly blame them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, the last one was a month, so I've gone for 3 months this time. The pattern of contributions suggests the IP is static. Watchlisted the article as well in case it isn't. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vandalism of Airport articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, for some time, airport articles have been subject to vandalism by an IP editor with the address 180.149 and 58.97. One of the pages where this is taking place is
Shahjalal International Airport was semi-protected every time, but the user was never blocked. So as soon as the protection expired, the IP user continued his vandalistic edits like nothing happened. I request that an admin do a range-block for IP addresses within the range of 180.149.xx.xx and 58.97.xx.xx. Everyone in the Airports wikiproject will be so glad that somebody finally did this! Thanks for your consideration, Compdude123
22:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Range 58.97.192.0/18 (up to 16384 users would be blocked); range 180.149.0.0/19 (up to 8192 users would be blocked): There's lots of edits coming from both of these ranges; they're not all your airport guy, and lots of them are constructive edits, so range blocks will not be practicable. In my opinion the way to go would be to protect the individual airport articles that are being targeted. -- Dianna (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please read my message again. Semi-protecting a page hasn't worked. Once the semi-protection expires, the user starts vandalizing the page again. In the meantime the user will just go and find other airport articles to vandalize, and it's impractical to go semi-protect all of them. Just block the user please. The reason why I was suggesting a range-block was because the IP address the vandalism comes from always changes slightly. But perhaps that's overkill. Again, I would like you to do nothing but block the user. Semi-protecting the articles simply does not work, but blocking will. Thanks, Compdude123 01:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate entirely that it's long-term and very frustrating whack-a-rat for you guys, when you'd rather be contributing new content. But if the vandal skips over the ranges you describe, we'd have to long-term block over 24,000 addresses, and we just can't do that. We've no more power or insight than you do over who the individual is, all we see is the same IP addresses. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 02:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- If this continues, I'd suggest requesting blocks on Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports' talk page. Maybe some of the admins there can work together to manage these? In any case Shahjalal is now protected for a longer period of time. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please just block the IP addresses that have vandalized Shahjalal Airport page and others. Keep in mind that there are multiple pages that have been vandalized and it's impractical to semi-protect all of them because the user will find other pages to vandalize. Trust me, he will. For the fifth time, just block the user! Enough with semi-protecting pages; block the user! As I said previously, go thru the history of the page and that of Shah Amanat International Airport (another page that's been vandalized) and block all the vandalizing IP addresses. Block 'em! Thanks, Compdude123 17:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate entirely that it's long-term and very frustrating whack-a-rat for you guys, when you'd rather be contributing new content. But if the vandal skips over the ranges you describe, we'd have to long-term block over 24,000 addresses, and we just can't do that. We've no more power or insight than you do over who the individual is, all we see is the same IP addresses. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 02:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please read my message again. Semi-protecting a page hasn't worked. Once the semi-protection expires, the user starts vandalizing the page again. In the meantime the user will just go and find other airport articles to vandalize, and it's impractical to go semi-protect all of them. Just block the user please. The reason why I was suggesting a range-block was because the IP address the vandalism comes from always changes slightly. But perhaps that's overkill. Again, I would like you to do nothing but block the user. Semi-protecting the articles simply does not work, but blocking will. Thanks, Compdude123 01:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, so since Vegaswikian has brought this discussion over to the Wikiproject Airports talk page, let's continue this discussion there in order to keep the comments in one place. From now on, if you wish to comment on this discussion, please put your comments on the WP:Airports talk page. This will help to keep all comments in one place. Thanks, Compdude123 02:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request experimental lifting of edit restriction on Esoglou
- Esoglou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I would like to propose an experimental lifting of the edit restriction on Esoglou wrt Eastern Orthodox doctrine.
Aside from a general desire to tap Esoglou's extensive knowledge of Catholic and Orthodox doctrine, the specific motivation for my request is that I wish to ask Esoglou for help in reviewing and improving the orphaned article
Eastern Orthodox opposition to the doctrine of Papal Primacy. I will, of course, also consult Orthodox editors such as User:Cody7777777 andUser:Montalban
. However, I wish to include Esoglou in my efforts to improve this article and I will be able to benefit more fully from his knowledge if he is not under edit-restriction. (NB: His edit restriction is only in article space and not in Talk Page space).
In May 2011, Esoglou and LoveMonkey submitted to voluntary edit restrictions where Esoglou agreed not to edit text regarding Orthodox doctrine and LoveMonkey agreed not to edit text regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. That agreement was more or less effective in reducing the conflict between the two users. However, as of Dec. 31, 2011, LoveMonkey has from Wikipedia. He may come back. He has left and come back before. However, he's been gone over 6 months this time around.
LoveMonkey is not the only editor that Esoglou has been in conflict with in this topic area but the other conflicts have been much less contentious. With LoveMonkey gone, I think there is a good chance that Esoglou can contribute usefully to Wikipedia articles on Orthodox doctrine.
So, I propose that we lift the edit restriction on a probationary basis with myself acting as Esoglou's mentor, working to mediate any disputes that may arise. If serious conflict occurs, then we will have to consider reimposing the edit restriction.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- The present editing restriction can be seen in WP:RESTRICT where you can search for 'Esoglou'. The intention was to confine Esoglou to Catholic articles and LoveMonkey to Eastern Orthodoxy to prevent edit wars.) 21:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
So long as LoveMonkey is inactive, there is no need to keep the restriction in place. Since this was imposed as a community ban, it needs to be at least mentioned on a noticeboard before being lifted. Please comment if you see any problem with lifting the ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)See revision below. EdJohnston (talk
The purpose of the editing restriction was simply not to avoid disagreements beween LM and Esoglou; it was to stop both of them from making personally motivated edits which pushed their theological POV, which is what was causing the conflict in the first place. I see no evidence that Esoglou has ever ceased to do this, and he can be consulted without this restriction being lifted. The additional fact that this proposal is being made by an editor who did little or nothing to discourage Esoglou from POV pushing (even when he acknowledged that's what was happening), does not incline me to support it.Taiwan boi (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is he currently permitted to edit related talkpages? To me, opening this up would be a valid first experimental step (BWilkins←✎) 17:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was thinking the exact same thing. Let 2 or 3 months pass on the talk page with no problems and it would be very easy to be open minded on the rest at that time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually his talk page restriction was lifted in May, 2011 (see the wording in WP:RESTRICT). Now that I review the original ban discussion from 2011 I can see the logic of keeping the restriction in place. Esoglou can still propose changes to Orthodox articles using the talk pages so he can make his contribution that way. If the present thread were going to actually lift the restriction, there are a bunch more people who ought to be notified. Their names can be researched out of the original ban discussion. Cody7777 and Montalban should be notified also, since they are described above as Orthodox editors. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually his talk page restriction was lifted in May, 2011 (see the wording in
I'm a bit offended by Taiwan boi's characterization of me as having done "little or nothing to discourage Esoglou" but this is not the forum for an extended discussion of that so I will simply register my objection and move on. FWIW, the top of Esoglou's talk page is the most recent example of my attempting to improve Esoglou's style of interaction.
Returning to the matter at hand, given Taiwan boi's objection and EdJohnston's revised position, I withdraw my proposal. As has been noted, Esoglou can comment on the Talk Pages and someone else (such as myself) can serve as a filter to add the worthwhile contributions to the article text. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I must agree with Taiwan boi wholeheartedly on the matter of Esoglou. Even when I offered sourced material I found what I wrote re-edited or rather slanted to fit a particular POV. I had no sense of fair play in these edits. I found Pseudo-Richard however attempting to find a middle ground even though I suspect he probably agrees with Esoglou. He did at least act in good faith
Montalban (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Veyangoda Central College
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:AFD. During this process the author has removed the discussion templates three times and has been warned three times, but still continues to make disruptive edits. I don't know if a block is appropriate but the user blanked their talk page so that none of the warnings show up. Some help would be appreciated. Keystoneridin (speak)
06:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- The article in question has been deleted as copyvio, and I have blocked the user with {{BencherliteTalk10:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Neutralhomer likes to Gaming the system
- warned against claim that I am vandalizing page without looking at referenced sources
- Deletion & Merge of WNEM-DT2
- the article is tagged refimprove and Unreferenced
- vote for merger: Wxyzdan 70.8.99.167 Spshu 121a0012 4 -- against: Aikidockd TomCat4680 Neutralhomer Dravecky 4
- [Policy is pointed out] - WP:BROADCAST: Subcarriers - Services carried over the same bandwidth as the broadcast signal, such as closed-caption news tickers, SAP audio programs, or digital radio and television subchannels, generally do not merit separate articles and should be covered in the station's main article.
- accuses me of cherry picking BROADCAST but is clearly Gaming the system
- makes personal attack also "I'm sorry, but you don't know as much about television stations and naming conventions as you think you do and the snarky attitude isn't going to get you what you want."
- I point out that the burden is on them not the pro-merger group per BROADCAST
- notablity search done - no articles found
- wants to stop people from point out the falsehood of his stand
- another attack - that I don't know any thing about TV stations dispite my showing int the PTEN matter
- lies to an administrator over the vote (claims kept to delete is 5 to 2 dispite it being 4 to 4) and that there is anything more to discuss (the keep side still needs to show notability) and another personal attack to boot
- Here are various discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stationsthat indicate that they should be in the stations' article not general in their own article:
- Digital_TV_information
- UPN14
- Listing_of_DT_channels_in_market_boxes- in effect indicates that subchannels are a part of the TV Station and are not another TV Station
- Separate articles for digital subchannels?- again subchannels are not generally suppose to have their own article
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_9#Articles_on_subchannels- another subchannels are not generally suppose to have their own article
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_9#WENY-DT3 WENY-DT3- 3 to 1 vote against subchannels recieving their own article with Neutralhomer for.
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_9#Subchannels Subchannels- ignore earlier discussion, it comes up again. 3 to 2 against them having articles. With editors pointing out that Neutralhomer is talking nonsense and Neutralhomer wanting to close discussions.
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_9#Digital_Subchannels Digital Subchannels- once again subchannels are legally apart of the TV Station - "My view is, if the subchannel is significant and different enough to have a subpage, then it should, otherwise, it should remain on the primary page." NECRAT
- Threatensanother editor for removing unproperly source material. ANI for which I can not find in any archive.
- Threatens another editor over a request not to mention an ANI report that doesn't have to do with the thread dispite Neutralhomer's claim.
- 21:16, 12 July 2012 Neutralhomer (talk | contribs) . . (21,908 bytes) (+515) . . (Reverted 1 edit by DreamMcQueen (talk): Next time you revert, you will be marked for vandalism, stop now. (TW))
- (cur | prev) 20:56, 12 July 2012 DreamMcQueen (talk | contribs) . . (21,393 bytes) (-515) . . (→Style and formatting issues: Keep your beef with me off the project page. Thank you very much.) (undo)
- (cur | prev) 20:51, 12 July 2012 Neutralhomer (talk | contribs) . . (21,908 bytes) (+515) . . (Reverted 1 edit by DreamMcQueen (talk): Don't do that again. (TW)) (undo)
- (cur | prev) 20:47, 12 July 2012 DreamMcQueen (talk | contribs) . . (21,393 bytes) (-515) . . (→Style and formatting issues: Neutralhomer, please keep your personal beef with me off this page. Let's stick to the topic. Thank you very much.) (undo)
- (cur | prev) 20:13, 12 July 2012 Neutralhomer (talk | contribs) . . (21,908 bytes) (+515) . . (→Style and formatting issues) (undo)
- Warning given about his behavior
- insults me] with a newbie warning over an edit consistant with above TV Stations' subchannel discussion as and WP:BROADCASTthen
- threatens me with banning and stalking me by looking at my sandbox collecting the above information
[Notice about ANI Spshu (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- The above is hilariously funny coming from someone who is dwelling on something that ended a little over 2 months ago, back in May! A little over 2 months ago a Move/Merge Request Discussion was ended at beat a dead horse. Requesting this ANI thread be closed, Spshu admonished and the horse given a nice burial. - Neutralhomer • Talk• 22:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- ) 22:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- NO, Neutralhomer, you have been an ongoing Gamer of the system and WVIR-DT3 makes it current. Second through the discussion at Talk:WNEM-DT2 you claimed that all discussions at WP:tv stations where in favor of subchannels getting their own page. I request that you point them out to me but you just repeat your statement. I thus did the research and find you are lying to game the system. Spshu (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
-- Ok, Spshu, there was a merge/deletion discussion that didn't go your way. There has been some hostility from both camps, but it seemed to have cooled down. Let's
accept things the way they are and move on. Also, please do not revert other people's talk page comments. -- Selket Talk
22:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I never reverted anyone's talk page comment, but Neutralhomer accused me of doing so during the WNEM-DT2 merge discussion and could not show me were I did that. Second the ) 22:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, let me be clear, I expect both of you to cool it. There's been some antagonism on both sides (templating regulars for example). Just stop, it's very easy to do. -- Selket Talk 22:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Selket. This escalated to ANI way too fast. The vast majority of the diffs are from a month or more ago. Here's what I see from recent history. Spshu redirected a page. Neutralhomer undid the redirect. Spshu left a note on Neutralhomer's page citing an event from May and that wasn't a problem as Spshu stated. Spshu then gathered up a history of virtually every edit of Neutralhomer that Spshu disagreed with. Neutralhomer "templated the regular" and Spshu went to ANI in response. This is entirely unnecessary. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict): I am about as cool as I could get, I had completely forgotten about the WNEM discussion and about Spshu as I had taken the WNEM-DT2 page off my watchlist right after the discussion had been closed on May 9. I no longer have a horse in the race as the race is over and the horses are at the stables (to keep the "horse" metaphor going). Spshu came to me today, 2 months and 4 days after the fact, to continue something that had been closed and forgotten. I can't be any cooler, but obviously he is still dwelling on the subject. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- So your current attacks ([232]]) and threatens me with banning) didn't then just accur? Nor his attacks on DreamMcQueen in the edit over his ANI when he was acting fine in ) 22:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
This is about a pattern of behavior on Neutralhomer's part. Spshu (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ryan please read the material, he has been attacking people as vandals back to 2007 and two other editors resently. Spshu (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Your first diff is a warning. A warning is not considered a personal attack. It may have been a poor decision to use a template though. The second one didn't mention banning, it mentioned blocking and he didn't threaten you with it. He just expanded on the template and pointed that continuing in a similar behavior could get you blocked. Let's throw these sticks away now. I'm finding this entire ordeal disruptive. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict): Oh, they did happen, but after 2 months and you are still dwelling, a warning to you was necessary. DreamMcQueen's behavior was dealt with by an admin (two actually) and found to be in violation of the rules and policies of Wikipedia. If you wish to continue to beat a dead horse, fine, sure, whatever, I'll saw you down a tree for sticks, but I was done on May 9. Go argue with someone else. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- You previously lost the argument over subchannels then claim false that they when your way.
- Ryan -- read this from that argument. "Hi Spshu,
Thanks for your note. I've sent NH the external link, and asked him not to give out vandalism warnings to good-faith contributors like yourself. "Firsfron of Ronchester 16:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)"
- A blocking or banning does it really matter what term he uses.
- That is interest that you have changed your tune now that it is at ANI. You already lost your argument here: ) 22:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- This appears to be a content issue to me. Take it to the talk page of WENY-DT3 not here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- 2007? Really? First 2 months, now 5 years? OK, if anyone needs me, I will be over on Facebook. It makes a bit more sense over there. Message me on my talk page if something needs to be addressed and I will be here posthaste. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oakley77
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Thread copied from Good Article nomination processes because of a failure to understand Wikipedia policies. It might be time to consider community blocking User:Oakley77 from this community process as he appears to be adding material that does not uphold community standard. contributions here and logs here. --LauraHale (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- If we're angling for a community ban from this process, mightn't ANI be a better venue for this? I'm not sure, which is why I ask. :) OohBunnies! (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly is your motive here? Do you wish to request a community ban from AfC or request that the user be community blocked? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Since there is no reviewer approval process or quality review process, I think ANI would be the place to go. :- ) Don 00:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for the double-post, but a bit more digging reveals that this user appears to have accepted EVERY article that they reviewed. If there are that many good articles in AfC, then I'm a mouse. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Since there is no reviewer approval process or quality review process, I think ANI would be the place to go. :- ) Don 00:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly is your motive here? Do you wish to request a community ban from AfC or request that the user be community blocked? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm migrating this here so we can have some community input on this problem. (Oh, and to answer your question, Nathan, fairly sure Laura meant a community ban) OohBunnies! (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- (thread migrated from original topic) I'm not angling for a block for this user. This user can sometimes do very good content work when they work purely on content. They just have made some reviews that demonstrate a problem understanding notability and copyright issues. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arctic Anthropology are I think the ones I recall. There was one that he passed that was subsequently speedily deleted. gives an idea of problems. I mention this only because another article I hadn't looked at before that he passed was mentioned on his talk page today. Hence the timing. --LauraHale (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Commenting again: He was community banned from GAN with out being blocked. You can probably do a community ban instead of doing a block as he just needs to stay out of reviewing without understaning policy. It doesn't need to go to ANI to escalate. --LauraHale (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan2055 (talk • contribs)
- It's not that I think he needs to be blocked, it's just that talk:AfC is a very quiet venue, and this is generally where we work out community sanctions, isn't it? OohBunnies! (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm not trying to escalate the problem, I just don't think we can add and enforce a community ban being added by a three-person discussion on a quiet talk page. Bans are typically either added through large community consensus or order of ArbCom. On a smaller note, I have finished merging the discussion and blanked the original thread. Please comment here instead. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just a comment: I looked on Oakley's talk page and notice a couple of instances where they have told other editors that they declined their submission because it wasn't well "formatted" such as WP:AFCR under "invalid reasons to decline a submission" it says "Declining an article because it contains easily solved formatting issues, such as no wikilinks to other articles or no sections, is not acceptable. Instead, fix it yourself, or accept and tag the article to alert other editors to the one or two issues that you believe are the most urgent issues." I wouldn't think it warrants a community ban, but just another demonstration that they may need help understanding some of the AfC criteria. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont00:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, I also notified Oakley about this discussion. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think LauraHale means topic banned from AFC - not community banned (though at the rate this editor is going, that may well happen). The move of this to ANI was premature and should be reverted. --Rschen7754 00:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Topic bans are also community-imposed, are they not (unless via ArbCom)? The reason this is here is to get some input from the community. OohBunnies! (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Since this isn't exactly an "incident," isn't the proper venue for this actually ) 00:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Topic bans are also community-imposed, are they not (unless via ArbCom)? The reason this is here is to get some input from the community. OohBunnies! (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what we're trying to do here, or what sanction or block is asked for. But I have a proposal: Oakley77 should NOT be reviewing anything at all. Not GAs, not FAs, not DYKs, not AfCs, nothing of the kind. They simply do not have the reviewing skills, and they do not seem to understand or listen to directions. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, if this is in the incorrect place, I take the blame and apologise. But it's here now, and wouldn't be a good idea to move it again, so I'd like to simply make the proposal. As demonstrated above by the examples Laura Hale gave, Oakley77, though well meaning, doesn't have a firm grasp of certain policies and has been active in the Articles for Creation area. Most recently, articles were reviewed and passed by them that contained obvious copyright violations.
- I propose that Oakley be placed under a 3 month ban from reviewing articles submitted via copyright violations. I think 3 months isn't too harsh and gives the user plenty of time to gain the experience and knowledge needed to continue to help out. How does this sound? OohBunnies! (talk)01:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. first, there is no point in moving it elsewhere. second, that the three month ban would be a good idea, with careful watching to follow. There are likely to be need for other such afc bans, and I think this page a perfectly reasonable place to discuss them. AN should be kept for more general problems. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Or concurrently with this GAN topic ban? Informal mentorship was tried but did not work well. : / --LauraHale (talk)
- Support - Keep it here, three month ban on reviewing as per OohBunnies proposal. --talk) 03:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support though I'd suggest extending it to all featured processes (FAC, FLC, etc). with delegates' input, as well as DYK. --Rschen7754 03:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support, I also suggest making sure Oakley can demonstrate an understanding of AfC reviewing guidelines, in addition to other policies, before lifting the block. Also, I believe it is important that all articles that Oakley approved get moved back into AfC for reevaluation. Also, I think all users whose articles were improperly accepted need to be informed of it. One article creator Standard05:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support I have removed the PROD from relatively high impact journal for anthropology and on that basis meets the GNG. But by no means do I think this undermines what LauraHale has said about Oakley77's standards at AfC. I happen to be familiar the subject of the article and some of the more obscure guidelines surrounding it, but that's not something we can count on at AfC. When the article was accepted it had no independent sources and most of the text was copied directly from the journal's website. I think this highlights why it's really important to be diligent at AfC – if Oakley77 had declined the submission on these grounds, we as a project would have worked with the submitter to improve the article, get it accepted, and possibly gained a valuable long-term contributor to the encyclopaedia. Accepting submissions that only go on to get nominated for deletion gives a really bad impression to new editors (see User:Press Stevens' frustrated comments at Talk:Arctic Anthropology) and risks scaring them off for good.
- Looking at Oakley77's contributions, he has created other similarly awkward situations by accepting unsuitable submissions. I'm sure he's not alone, but it's time we tightened up standards at AfC. t•c08:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. first, there is no point in moving it elsewhere. second, that the three month ban would be a good idea, with careful watching to follow. There are likely to be need for other such afc bans, and I think this page a perfectly reasonable place to discuss them. AN should be kept for more general problems. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. The problem with this user is BY FAR not only GAN. Here they created a one-line unsourced stub ALL information in which was in fact false (compare with the current version). At the time, they were creating several dozens such stubs per day. Here they replaced correct info in the article by wrong info. When I pointed out this at their talk page, I got no recation. My conclusion is that the user basically does not understand the basic policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter, same problem here. Completely read a source completely wrong and put factually incorrect information in to address something in a GA review, where he is specifically blocked from participating and after having failed to consult me about doing that. --LauraHale (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I support a ban, but with these new findings I believe first a block and then a ban might be even more 'correct': this user has simply made too many problems to let him walking around and 'destroying' that project. mabdul 08:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- My concern is that we're eventually going to have to ban him from every darn process if we can't get through to this editor... and then we probably will be left with no option but then to do a full community ban. I've tried talking to this editor and don't seem to be getting through. --Rschen7754 08:*29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's my concern too. He wanted to get back into WP:GAN and I agreed to mentor. I specifically spelled out what needed to be done. part of this edit made me vaguely nutty. Fact added in club section did NOT belong there and was not supported by the citation. Then, we derailed as they then wanted to do stuff outside the conditions of mentorship and eventually went shopping for a new article. I had to ding back a number of articles to Cs because he thought poorly written wrongly assessed Bs were nomination close to ready. He should have known the criteria that suggested these were not going to GAN any time soon.--LauraHale (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's my concern too. He wanted to get back into
- My concern is that we're eventually going to have to ban him from every darn process if we can't get through to this editor... and then we probably will be left with no option but then to do a full community ban. I've tried talking to this editor and don't seem to be getting through. --Rschen7754 08:*29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I support a ban, but with these new findings I believe first a block and then a ban might be even more 'correct': this user has simply made too many problems to let him walking around and 'destroying' that project. mabdul 08:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter, same problem here. Completely read a source completely wrong and put factually incorrect information in to address something in a GA review, where he is specifically blocked from participating and after having failed to consult me about doing that. --LauraHale (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Would there be any objections to an indefinite block on the grounds of
BencherliteTalk
09:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- As someone else who's previously warned him about a completely unrelated issue (the mass removal of maintenance tags from articles without making any effort to fix the problems involved), and also had no reply from him - and who's witnessed his repeated malformed nominations at WP:TFAR despite repeated explanations as to what he's doing wrong - I'd support this. Any block should be very clear that "indefinite" is being used with the meaning of "unspecified", not "forever" - provided he demonstrates that he understands what he's doing wrong, and promises to stop trying to run before he can walk in future, I'd have no problem with said block being lifted. Mogism (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I support Oohbunnies! proposal and oppose Becherlite's. He's been constructive in other areas in the project, and I don't see why we have to block him for CIR issues. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would support either proposal. Alas, when looking at edits in other areas, I don't think mass-creation of error-ridden unsourced stubs, mass-removal of maintenance tags, misreading of sources &c can best be described as "constructive". Everybody makes mistakes sometimes, but if an editor makes so many mistakes in different areas as to require constant supervision and cleanup by other editors, their contributions are hindering rather than helping the encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I support the three-month ban from AfC at the very least. We have a GA ban already, and I've remarked on their talk page that they should stay away from FA as well (duh). What's odd is that we have an editor who is active and interested, and seems to be utterly incompetent at the tasks they have taken up themselves. Laura's mentoring advice is instructive: there's plenty of "yes, sure," and then no improvement. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ban from all content review venues - This editor has already been banned from GAN, and now faces a ban from AFC. It seems reasoanble to expect they will simply move to another review process despite a demonstrated lack of competence. So why do it piecemeal? No opinion on an indef block, but frankly, that is the next step if problematic behaviour persists. Resolute 14:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support topic ban on all content reviewing. I think Resolute has it right. This should explicitly include GAN, FAC, AfC, and DYK. I think it should be an indefinite topic ban until the user can deomonstrate competence, perhaps with more formalized mentoring required. LadyofShalott 14:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- What about ITN? Featured Sound/Image? FL? If you miss to include one, he/she will likely pick that one... mabdul 14:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then use more general wording? "All content reviewing and promotion, broadly construed. This includes ITN, DYK, AfC, GAN, FAC, Featured Signpost Article, Category Of The Day, Good AN/I Thread Nominations, and Portals for Creation." No? bobrayner (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Includes but is not limited to..." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- "is not limited to..." is redundant. I trim that from articles all the time. Going forward, Drmies (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Of course it's redundant. And good on you for trimming it from articles. But in this case, it's redundancy for emphasis, to make it absolutely clear that there's no loopholes; things we're leaving off the "includes" list are still in there. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I will grant you that we're dealing with an editor on who redundant repetition is not wasted, to head them off at the pass--but I detest that cliche. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- "All Wikipedia content assessment processes, all discussions relating to content assessment processes, such as but not limited to…". Looking at his recent history, it looks like hijacking low-traffic WikiProjects is going to be his next move, so it may be worth shoehorning them into the proposal as well. Mogism (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I will grant you that we're dealing with an editor on who redundant repetition is not wasted, to head them off at the pass--but I detest that cliche. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Of course it's redundant. And good on you for trimming it from articles. But in this case, it's redundancy for emphasis, to make it absolutely clear that there's no loopholes; things we're leaving off the "includes" list are still in there. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- "is not limited to..." is redundant. I trim that from articles all the time. Going forward, Drmies (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Includes but is not limited to..." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then use more general wording? "All content reviewing and promotion, broadly construed. This includes ITN, DYK, AfC, GAN, FAC, Featured Signpost Article, Category Of The Day, Good AN/I Thread Nominations, and Portals for Creation." No? bobrayner (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- What about ITN? Featured Sound/Image? FL? If you miss to include one, he/she will likely pick that one... mabdul 14:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would also support a ban from all reviewing processes until the user can demonstrate understanding of processes and policies, if that's on the table. I wouldn't support a block at this time, though. OohBunnies! (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I am voluntarily removing myself from the AfC process in order to stop wasting productive, precious time. The can still be placed as I see it, I just wanted everyone to now that I will not be reviewing anymore AfC articles. As for the GAN and me, I am learning as much as I can in order to hopefully be reinstated into the process as a nominator. I also will not review a FA, a GA, a DYK, or a AfC again until I fully comprehend the review process AND get an involved editors' permission. Sorry for any trouble I have caused, Oakley77 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I propose that if Oakley can successfully move all articles that (s)he approved back into AfC, the ban be shortened to 1 month. Standard18:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- And what about his problems at ) 19:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) No. Moving articles back to AfC would create more mess and confusion and would not solve anything, nor prove that a lesser ban is needed. OohBunnies! (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well the articles he accepted need to be re-reviewed, no question.
If someone can get me a list of them I will go through them.Never mind, found them using this. Also, I still support a 3 month (at least) ban.Standard20:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to open a proposal to ban Oakley from all content reviewing to January 1, 2013, to be lifted after the user goes through formal mentoring about Wikipedia policies. I'd also like to request the the topic ban from the Good Article process be extended to after the mentorship is complete. I formally oppose moving any content back into the AfC process, at the maximum those articles should be AfDd to avoid excessive
00:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)- Support new proposal by Standard01:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Support all proposals to topic ban from all content review. Oppose indefinite block at this time. --Rschen7754 02:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support the broadly construed topic ban from content review processes. I supported the GAN ban, which doesn't lapse until November 25, 2012. I also currently oppose an indefinite block at this time, but I fear that one may be required in the end, so I harbor no prejudice toward such a proposal in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 04:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support either topic ban or block. I also have to say that Oakley's new article creations are not exactly helping the encyclopedia. I have been going through his contributions for a while now just to fix obvious errors, adding a source here and there, etc. I was very surprised to see the above statement "Just need better format and structure and we could have an article" on the AfC seeing as most of their articles have many formatting problems, from incorrectly formatting external links to not bolding the title, and more importantly, very few of their one line stubs are referenced. It seems to me that awarding oneself an award and all the above concerns about GAN and AfC show a profound lack of 14:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Awarding oneself two awards, for crying out loud! Standard18:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Awarding oneself two awards, for crying out loud!
- Support a ban from reviewing processes (Featured content reviewing, GANs, DYKs, and ITN too). I think a block will be too much. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support topic ban from ALL reviewing areas for, say, 3 months? Anyone able to mentor in the meantime? GiantSnowman 15:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Has anyone even read my comment? Oakley77 (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I have, and I still support a ban followed by mentoring. Also, Oakley, I recommend you delete the barnstars you gave to yourself. Standard21:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I have, and I still support a ban followed by mentoring. Also, Oakley, I recommend you delete the barnstars you gave to yourself.
Okay then, I will do the following:
1. Acknowledge the 3 month ban on reviewing anything on Wikipedia, and obviously not violate it, and work cheerfully and dutifully with my assigned mentor (if any).
2. Delete my self administered barnstars ;). Oakley77 (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your commitment to quit disrupting Wikipedia's processes would have been considerably more convincing it if you hadn't immediately followed it by signing up for the WikiCup (a contest based on article assessment) and proposing a Wikiproject on a topic you have no apparent connection with, have never edited an article on as far as I can see, and which would only cover 68 pages. (To go with the 17 other low-traffic WikiProjects you're already either tried to join or tried to start in the the last couple of months, presumably - [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249]. It's possible a user has a genuine knowledge of Puntland, Animals in media, Brazilian Antarctica, Australian music and the islands of St Pierre and Miquelon, but I find it unlikely.) Mogism (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I really don't believe you have done anything to show us that you won't resume your behavior. I have nothing against joining or creating low traffic WikiProjects, but please stop creating drama and please don't resume content reviewing until this discussion is closed. --Nathan2055talk - contribs17:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I really don't believe you have done anything to show us that you won't resume your behavior. I have nothing against joining or creating low traffic WikiProjects, but please stop creating
2. All my WikiProject memberships are of geography related-topics, except for one. So yes, joining that combination of WikiProjects IS possible. Oakley77 (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Rabbits, Australian music, Deserts, National soccer teams, Animals in media... Mogism (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- What do you even base that on? I join WikiProjects, yes, but that doesn't mean I don't edit much either. Is that a joke, have you even looked at my recent contributions? Oakley77 (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- C'mon people, it clearly states at the top of this page: "Do not clutter discussions here with irrelevant side-discussions". This discussion ended a while ago. Oakley77 will receive either a 3 month ban or a ban until the end of the year from all reviewing processes. In addition, a mentor will ensure that Oakley77 can demonstrate his full understanding of any reviewing instructions for any review process he wishes to participate in after his ban has lifted. Standard01:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I accept this ban on reviewing and can't wait to have a mentor. Again, I apologize for any time anyone feels was wasted. Oakley77 (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: As I understood this ban, he was to not be involved with community processes like ) 02:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't draw up the ban, but I lead it to believe I was banned from all reviewing processes until I show competence, and a designated mentor thinks as well. Nothing about ITN or Current Events was in there. Can whoever devised this ban please clarify? Oakley77 (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- "...Then use more general wording? "All content reviewing and promotion, broadly construed. This includes ITN, DYK, AfC, GAN, FAC, Featured Signpost Article, Category Of The Day, Good AN/I Thread Nominations, and Portals for Creation." No?..." That was discussed above. Please stop doing anything in the category of content reviewing. This includes, but is not limited to:
- AFC
- ITN
- DYK
- GAN
- FAC
- Anything that involves the Main Page, such as TFP or Current Events
- Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Does promoting stubs count as reviewing? I thought it did but Oakley77 has done three today [250] [251] [252]. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- At this point, I'm thinking he probably needs a block. No reviewing means NO reviewing. He can't identify qualities for GA. He can't identify what is needed for AFC. He shouldn't be involved with assessment period and that has been made clear. That he decided to re-assess three things today and be involved with ) 03:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Does promoting stubs count as reviewing? I thought it did but Oakley77 has done three today [250] [251] [252]. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Question If he could be made a project coordinator till April 30 2013?Mir Almaat Ali Almaat ☏ From Trivandrum, Kerala, India(UTC+5:30) 05:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- If it involves any sort of reviewing, then no, not until the ban is lifted. Standard06:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Likely sockpuppeting from banned user XB70Valyrie
About a month ago
wp:NOTHERE. He specifically was active in trying to add a controversy section to the political activities of the koch family page and was attacking administrator Arthur rubin, going as far as creating and posting a youtube video about rubin with nothing but personal attacks. He was banned for those reasons and for sock puppeting, and has a list of suspected sock puppets
. Most of the sock puppets start with 99 and a few are 99.181.
Since this happened I've been on the lookout for more IP's with similar activity because when he was banned, he threatened that he would use multiple IPs to continue to harass Arthur and disrupt Wikipedia: "I can have a different IP every night, if I like"[253]. I noticed this IP (
obvious that these IP's are XB70Valyrie and he's using them to continue disruptive editing. Since he was banned indefinitely and has threatened that he would do this with multiple IP's, I think these IP's need to be blocked and added to the list of his sock puppets. Is this enough evidence to do that, and is there some way to block that 99.181 ip range as well? AdventurousSquirrel (talk
) 22:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is it possible Arthur had some other sock or editor with a vendetta against him? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's possible and I'm sure and Arthur could weigh in on that, but I think based on the fact that the IP ranges here are so similar to the ones already in the list of suspected socks for XB70Valyrie strongly suggests that it's the same user. That is coupled with the fact that he basically stated that he would be using multiple IPs to continue to harass Rubin. I noticed some more evidence: On XB70Valyrie's talk page before he was banned he had multiple IP's post to the talk page talking about Arthur. The majority of those IP's started with 99.181 or with something similar to the one's listed above. It seems that he was talking to himself on his page. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- A checkuser would have have to have checked XB70Valyrie's IPs, but I really don't think these 99.181 IPs are XB70, nor are they the same person as the one who caused his stable base IP (97.87.28.188 at the Kalamazoo Public Libary) to be blocked for 5 years. They are disruptive, but I notice none of them have restored the particular statement which XB70 had insisted on creating. My sock-sorting skills (both here, and in real life) are not great, so I could be wrong, but I think (most of) the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of XB70Valyrie are improperly tagged. That being said, I did block some of them this month, but I think that was wrong, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I see. Was there no checkuser done on XB70 after he was banned to check for the IP's he used? If not, that would probably be a good idea. I just think it'd be tough to call it a coincidence that so many IP's with such similar ranges would be posting in the same talk pages. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- There were one or two IPs which were clearly XB70 (same edits, some articles), but I don't recall what they were. NewsAndEventsGuy was analysing my data (those IPs which I'm sure are the same people) for ranges to block, but I don't recall which IPs were clearly XB70 (making the same edits before XB70 did, although XB70 has been around for a while). — Arthur Rubin (talk)00:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Checkuser will not disclose relationships between registered users and IP under almost all circumstances. Sometimes a CU can check their old logs and roughly match up, but that varies from CU to CU as it is as much art as science, but 02:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Or, as they say,
pixie dust. - The Bushranger One ping only05:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Or, as they say,
- Checkuser will not disclose relationships between registered users and IP under almost all circumstances. Sometimes a CU can check their old logs and roughly match up, but that varies from CU to CU as it is as much art as science, but 02:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- There were one or two IPs which were clearly XB70 (same edits, some articles), but I don't recall what they were.
- I see. Was there no checkuser done on XB70 after he was banned to check for the IP's he used? If not, that would probably be a good idea. I just think it'd be tough to call it a coincidence that so many IP's with such similar ranges would be posting in the same talk pages. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- A checkuser would have have to have checked XB70Valyrie's IPs, but I really don't think these 99.181 IPs are XB70, nor are they the same person as the one who caused his stable base IP (97.87.28.188 at the Kalamazoo Public Libary) to be blocked for 5 years. They are disruptive, but I notice none of them have restored the particular statement which XB70 had insisted on creating. My sock-sorting skills (both here, and in real life) are not great, so I could be wrong, but I think (most of) the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of XB70Valyrie are improperly tagged. That being said, I did block some of them this month, but I think that was wrong, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's possible and I'm sure and Arthur could weigh in on that, but I think based on the fact that the IP ranges here are so similar to the ones already in the list of suspected socks for XB70Valyrie strongly suggests that it's the same user. That is coupled with the fact that he basically stated that he would be using multiple IPs to continue to harass Rubin. I noticed some more evidence: On XB70Valyrie's talk page before he was banned he had multiple IP's post to the talk page talking about Arthur. The majority of those IP's started with 99.181 or with something similar to the one's listed above. It seems that he was talking to himself on his page. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Greczia
- Greczia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tirgil34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 62.143.41.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User Greczia violates
. He continues behavior of Tirgil34, just compare contributions.The main reason of my report is his behavior. Some cases:
- Edit warring and misleading in the article Göktürks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). ([261], [262], [263], [264])
- Violation of )
That is from his recent activity. I request admins to infinitely block Greczia.
P.S. All his known accounts are already blocked in German Wikipedia for the same behavior.--Bouron (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Beside the fact that Bouron is making sense of my contributions, the same discussion which was also opened by User Bouron ended with following Clerk note: "Insufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion. Feel free to refile if there is new evidence."
- I don't know how many times Bouron tried to block me, but I think this would be the 3rd or 4th unsubstantial attempt. I am just fed up with his conspiratorial behavior.
- @Bouron: It would be nice to have a short look at here and here. Regarding German Wikipedia I wrote following: "Otberg and Koenraad got to know to my new account (Greczia) and that's the reason why they wanted to close my account again. They mentioned some past incidents to strength their fake-report. In short: they did the same as Bouron did. The problem with the dewiki is that there are many admins who are abusing their administrative rights to solve their private problems. I've protested against this decision on dewiki per e-mail. I hope to resist against this harassment on dewiki as well as on enwiki."
- I don't think Greczia understands the concept of ( 偉特 ) 17:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah. I don't see a real problem here. Greczia made a less-than-competent attempt to WP:CLEANSTART or try again and do better at it next time. I haven't seen any evidence that s/he's socking. Boroun is not harassing Greczia, as Boroun had a good-faith misunderstanding of what it means to fail at a clean start. Unless anyone has real evidence to the contrary... - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah. I don't see a real problem here. Greczia made a less-than-competent attempt to
- This has already played out and been explained at the SPI that Bouron filed May 30, here [269], and where I already said there wasn't any way to connect to the other socks and there wasn't abuse, the person admitted the previous accounts. I suggest Bouron might want to 18:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, it's bordering on Harassment now. So it's not clean start, it's merely close down one account and move to another - as long as the previous one was not blocked, it's fine unless behaviour changes to poor (granted, if it's not cleanstart, the accounts should likely be formally linked). Indeed, any restrictions on previous accounts automatically transfer to new ones - so unless there's something else this is open and shut - and time to move on (BWilkins←✎) 18:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- If Greczia were to ask, I would happily indef block the old account "per user request, moved to new account" without mentioning the new account, which would reduce some of this and then linking wouldn't be needed. Not sure if that is exactly how the policy says to do it but seems like a common sense solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, it's bordering on Harassment now. So it's not clean start, it's merely close down one account and move to another - as long as the previous one was not blocked, it's fine unless behaviour changes to poor (granted, if it's not cleanstart, the accounts should likely be formally linked). Indeed, any restrictions on previous accounts automatically transfer to new ones - so unless there's something else this is open and shut - and time to move on (
- This editor is not attempting a clean start in the usual sense. He wants to continue fighting the same battles in the same topic area, but he doesn't want anyone connecting his current account with his poor behavour in the same area using WP:SCRUTINY, and the accounts should be linked in the usual way. Kanguole00:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
To Dennis Brown. It was very strange decision by clerk. Because comments by other users contained comments by Greczia where he didn't deny that he was Tirgil34. Moreover Greczia said “Bouron destroyed my new attemp to make a new start”. That happened before clerk closed the case concluding Insufficient evidence.
What about blaming me in harassment. I am cancelling my request to block Greczia, cause it's really like harassment. But instead I request to give me recommendations on the following situation.
Tirgil's first time appearance in my watchlist happened because of this edit. That was a pushing of table with nonsense etymologies. He originally posted that in German Wikipedia article about Scythians. That table caused edit war (6 reverts in 8 days by Tirgil) and this discussion. Here are some citations from the discussion.
I'm extremely wary of the comparisons with modern Turkish/Bashkir/Mordvin/Romance/English (sic!). Much of that is obvious nonsense, as far as I can see...--User:Florian Blaschke
I can only assume this is a joke. Please don't waste people's time with this stuff. If you want to amuse yourself with posting random nonsense to see how people react, pray use google groups or something of the kind. Wikipedia is full of geeks with no sense of humour, so your pranks are not going to be appreciated. -
User:Dbachmann
Why is this even brought up here, and why is Tirgil34 being allowed to revert-war over something like this without being given over to the warn-block cycle without further comment? -
User:Dbachmann
From the discussion it should be clear for Tirgil that his theories are not accepted. After he has been being reverted by group of users he switched to another conflicting pro-Turkic anti-Iranian activity. He continued edit warring and have been blocked. Details are here. Being blocked, he created another accounts and continued edit warring again. And again his edits were of the same kind. For example in article Göktürks. (Details are here) As a result, he has been blocked again. After that he created his current account. He have chosen name Greczia, which is connected to Greece (while Tirgil is pro-Turkic). He also created userpage which has sure been copied from Lysozym's userpage. He only changed link to previous account (at the bottom of userpage). He stated that he was User:Xoloz (Admin). Was that casual? Sure not. So what do we have at the moment of creation new account? User Tirgil has reputation of pro-Turkic user. His new starts fail. He have been blocked a lot. So he need new account so that nobody would reveal his “pro-Turkicness” and “anti-Iranianness”. The best way is to ensure other users that he is connected to Greece and Iran. So he decided to chose Greece related username and create pro-Iranian userpage. Additionally he stated that he was User:Xoloz, who is not connected to his previous activity. He also have chosen another place to his activity. If this is not avoiding scrutiny, then what is this?
How he violated
WP:CLEANSTART? He continued doing pro-Turkic and anti-Iranian edits in article Balkars
.
So now I have no idea how to communcate with him. His Reveal of Bouron's argumentation and this became the last straw. I am sure that he would never recognize that
- Karachay-Russian dictionary is more reliable than forum user's comment
- Songs from Youtube are not reliable.
- Iranian speaking Scythians is not pseudoscience.
- And so on. Please read Reveal of Bouron's argumentation.
Finally, my request is to give me recommendation on how to avoid being suspected in harassing and prevent Greczia from edit warring, pseudoscience pushing and deleting sourced information.--Bouron (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Violating WP:RFPP and ask for full protection if an edit war breaks out. And it was Bwilkins that called it harassment, I'm the guy who called it forum shopping. You don't want to know what a third admin will call it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ ©12:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Since this account is not a WP:SCRUTINY. Kanguole18:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
User Writegeist is Wikihounding either me or user Collect
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Writegeist is Wikihounding either me or User:Collect because he/she knows an edit I provided to User:Collect that he/she cannot have known about unless he/she was Wikihounding either me or Collect. The edit I made was admittedly a rather crude statement about a user's behaviour, I have since apologized to that user for it, here is the apology: [270]. If you at the noticeboard wish to take a reprimanding action against be for making that uncivil remark about that user, I will accept your judgement. However there is a conflict of interest between Writegeist towards me.
Important background info: First of all Writegeist and I are not on good terms, our tensions began when at the WQA noticeboard, I went there to seek assistance to resolve a dispute between user Collect and User:Bryonmorrigan. Writegeist as a WQA volunteer insulted another WQA volunteer, and if I remember correctly he told that WQA volunteer in a condescending manner to get a desk job. I got angry that Writegeist as a WQA volunteer was insulting another WQA volunteer rather than helping resolve the issue, I told her/him that I thought he/she was behaving incompetently for insulting that volunteer. The volunteer reported Writegeist for uncivil behaviour - particularly trolling. And after some aggravating comments later, our relations with each other since then have been hostile to say the least. I did get very uncivil with him, as he did with me. I have told this user to leave me alone and stay away from me. However Writegeist continued to make condescending remark about me, after our discussions ended, to other users. Writegeist has also has made condesending remarks about user Collect to other users, after discussions with Collect ended.
Now then: Writegeist knows about an edit I made to Collect's talk page even though Writegeist has been inactive on both of our talk pages for at months. Since Writegeist has bad relations with both Collect and me, why does he/she know about the edits that I have made on Collect's talk page? The only answer I clearly see, is that he is Wikihounding either Collect or me. I am asking for necessary action to be taken to stop Wikihounding either me or Collect, or both of us. The location for the comments by Writegeist are here: [271]--R-41 (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Examine WGs UT page - which has for over three years now been heavily devoted to me - with over 3500 words. Or WGs posting history on noticeboards, which show a marked propensity to find threads in which I participate, with a likelihood of him disputing me of 105% or more <g>. Or his "remarks" to another editor clearly referring to me - which comprise a huge percentage of his UT posts. Wikihounding requires that he have some chance of driving me off Wikipedia - which he has thus far failed to do. He is thus more of a gnat than anything else - but his posts indicating that he is following your edits as well is disturbing and quite contrary to any Wikipedia policies at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- This tool might be handy, [272] which shows the 109 pages you both have edited, and the 26 [273] in common with WG and R-41. I don't have time to go through them myself, but wanted to provide that for you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec) R-41's post is a bit short on diffs.
WQA thread (R-41 reporting editor Bryonmorrigan for "being combative and uncivil towards User:Collect"), which R-41 refers to above: [274]
Writegeist/R-41 interaction at User talk:Bryonmorrigan, [275] where R-41's threat "if I ever saw you in person I would let out my excess liquids from my kindneys onto your feet" is one of my most treasured Wikipedia gems.
Writegeist's comments re. R-41 at Writegeist's UTP, which R-41 refers to: [276]
- R-41/Writegeist interaction at Writegeist's UTP [277]
- ANI report which R-41 refers to: [278] Report alleged "trolling" and kind of fizzled out. R-41 added numerous other allegations, including that I and another editor "have had long-term relations". Fortunately Mrs. Writegeist has a sense of humour.
- R-41's personal attack on editor The Four Deuces at Collect's talk page: [279]
- R-41's personal attack on The Four Deuces at DRN: [280]
- Writegeist advice to R-41 at DRN: [281]
- R-41's response: [282] (hope this is the right diff, he posted about ten different iterations of the same post, with different comments in each).
- Writegeist's response to R-41's response: [283]
- Writegeist's comments addressed to R-41 at Writegeist's UTP: [284]
- R-41's response (which I subsequently removed): [285]
Please note, I have not "had relations" with my dear old friend Collect or R-41 (I'm not into water sports anyway, and (s)he has expressed a desire to urinate on my feet, which is a deal-breaker for me). Or any other wikiperson whatsoever. Not even a peck on the cheek. I do wish R-41 would stop these salacious and totally groundless allegations. Note (2): the bulk of the 3500 words on my talk page that Collect claims are "about" him comprises a dialogue with him that I copied from his talk page--in which he made really quite spectacularly unfounded and unsupported allegations against me. Why did I copy it from his page to mine? Because he doctored the thread by removing contributions from me that did not serve his agenda of giving the allegations a semblance of veracity, and I wanted the thread accurately documented. Oy vey, thread-doctoring by an old friend! Who can you trust these days? Writegeist (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- {Comment removed by me due to advice by other users) Yes, you are sure right I was uncivil then, I was very angry at you. I do not want to talk to you, nor have any interaction with you since I saw your snotty patronizing insult against that WQA volunteer who was trying to help out users. Most of what you did there as a WQA volunteer, was say cynical remarks, and you had a bias against Collect when you said that you didn't care about what he said while you backslapped and joked with Bryonmorrigan, you were supposed to help the two resolve a dispute between them, but you didn't take it seriously. Your behaviour there was incompetent and disgusting to me. That WQA volunteer you insulted, reported you - it was your own fault for being reported for that. I despise you, and I have told you to leave me alone because I desire no further contact with you to avoid another confrontation like this. You have not complied. You have spoken about me and Collect on your talk page to other users after our discussions ended. Why are you telling your friends about TFD's edits in a condescending manner? If they are not in the discussion you've had with Collect, it is none of your business to tell them what he said, so you have violated Collect's personal privacy. Your entire purpose for posting at the dispute resolution noticeboard was about your vendetta against me.--R-41 (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please edit your posts offline and then post them here when done. Repeatedly re-editing and reposting them here makes for unneeded edit conflicts. So, anyway. I can't be right about something I haven't said; your threat was too hilarious to be "uncivil". About anger, someone advised: "When angry, count to four; when very angry, swear" -- quite good, I think. Marshall Rosenberg's books on non-violent communication might also be helpful despite the wooden prose. (I think he's brilliant.) And your assumption about a vendetta is mistaken. I have robustly defended Collect in the past, and I don't see it as beyond the realms of possibility that I might defend you likewise in the future. To me, R-41 is just another avatar on a website, and I take each post on its merits. And anyway I'm not Sicilian. Vendetta? Mama mia! I'm done here. Have at it! Writegeist (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- {Comment removed by me due to advice by other users).--R-41 (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK I'll bite. I feel sad for your partner. But I hope you won't mind me saying a Wikipedia noticeboard isn't really the place to discuss her suffering. Just a thought. Writegeist (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- While I, too, feel sad for your partner, I feel compelled to point out that...um...you're on the Internet. Which means it's very hard to avoid sexual references/humor. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 05:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- And you are on a very highly watched page on a one of the Internet's most popular websites. ) 05:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- And you can't be raped by your partner! - jakk said at 05:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- {Comment removed by me due to advice by other users).--R-41 (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- My daddy told me not to be smart with strangers, but he had consent if he was her partner! I'm gonna need a citation needed on that one, ha ha ha! - jakk said at 05:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Can someone please get this laughing psychopathic user jakk blocked from Wikipedia for what he has just said.--R-41 (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Consent does not work that way. Blocked for personal attacks for 24 hours. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, R-41, no personal attacks and no legal threats, please. Mythpage88 (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- What legal threat? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I will take down the comments where I mentioned my partner earlier here shortly, it is true, but I didn't need to bring it up here. But I will leave this comment here for a bit of context, I get very frustrated and saddened when I look out at the world and think of the kind of comment that the user jakk just said about the situation that my partner had been in with her ex, I don't know what kind of human being would say that. That makes what I am frustrated with Writegeist about, mild in comparison. That statement by that user really has put me off, I'm leaving this conversation, talk with the user Collect, he/she says that Writegeist has been abusively tracking his edits for three years.--R-41 (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- What legal threat? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, R-41, no personal attacks and no legal threats, please. Mythpage88 (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- My daddy told me not to be smart with strangers, but he had consent if he was her partner! I'm gonna need a citation needed on that one, ha ha ha! - jakk said at 05:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- {Comment removed by me due to advice by other users).--R-41 (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- And you can't be raped by your partner! - jakk said at 05:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- And you are on a very highly watched page on a one of the Internet's most popular websites. ) 05:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- While I, too, feel sad for your partner, I feel compelled to point out that...um...you're on the Internet. Which means it's very hard to avoid sexual references/humor. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 05:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK I'll bite. I feel sad for your partner. But I hope you won't mind me saying a Wikipedia noticeboard isn't really the place to discuss her suffering. Just a thought. Writegeist (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- {Comment removed by me due to advice by other users).--R-41 (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please edit your posts offline and then post them here when done. Repeatedly re-editing and reposting them here makes for unneeded edit conflicts. So, anyway. I can't be right about something I haven't said; your threat was too hilarious to be "uncivil". About anger, someone advised: "When angry, count to four; when very angry, swear" -- quite good, I think. Marshall Rosenberg's books on non-violent communication might also be helpful despite the wooden prose. (I think he's brilliant.) And your assumption about a vendetta is mistaken. I have robustly defended Collect in the past, and I don't see it as beyond the realms of possibility that I might defend you likewise in the future. To me, R-41 is just another avatar on a website, and I take each post on its merits. And anyway I'm not Sicilian. Vendetta? Mama mia! I'm done here. Have at it! Writegeist (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
It is not mysterious why Writegeist would pay attention to a dispute filed against me by R-41 about Fascism at DRN that mentioned Collect. Writegeist, R-41, Collect and myself have all been active on the Fascism article for over 3 years. Writegeist is also active at DRN. Writegeist has also conducted discussions with both Collect and R-41 on their talk pages. So when R-41 launched what he admits to be a personal attack against me at DRN, Writegeist may have seen the other personal attacks on his watchlist or may have looked at R-41's recent edit history to see if he were making attacks elsewhere. None of this amounts to wikihounding.
I notice that Collect has asked R-41 to e-mail him about possibly starting an RfC/U against me. Collect writes, "I was victim of an "orchestrated" one [ Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect ] with 14 people CANVASSed for it."[286] Collect also asked R-41 to e-mail him on May 31st, after R-41 brought a WQA.[287]
My suggestion is to close this thread and go back to discussing the content dispute at DRN.
TFD (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: TFD makes an implicit attack above which is errant. I have never started any RfC/U, nor do I intend to do so, nor did I suggest to anyone that any such RfC/U be orchestrated. I would cite WP:False consensus as my position right at the start. I would further note that Writegeist has not been an "active editor" on Fascism, in fact he has never edited that article at all! Not even the talk page! Now it is one thing to assert "active" but zero edits and zero posts do not generally make one "active" on a topic. Just felt that when such disagreemwent with fact is posted that it ought to be noted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Page used as a battleground, and not for serious or major edits.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Stephanie Adams article is being used as a battleground for User:Hoary as well as User:Fasttimes68 and people he claims to be socks. Edits made are not neutral or even rational, but more as a way to create the next war. A ban proposal was started by other editors in the recent past. If these users are banned, the various IPs will go away like they did in the past too. The page was re-created by a group of neutral editors. Adams has not been in the media after her lawsuits and clearly states in the biography on her official site that she wants to be private now. So claims that she might try to use this article to promote herself are foolish and just an excuse to keep harassing the article, especially since she can do that on her own sites. To prevent further disruption, maybe it would be best to leave the page alone and as it is now. Incidentally, Fasttimes68 now changed his user page to simply state "I like money" and paid for editing, especially to harass an article, is not acceptable on here. Both users' attraction to this article have gone above and beyond the norm and if you look at their long history of "contributions" which also caused edit warring, they date as far back as 2006. Enough already. ARMYbling (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking of socks... a new editor's very first entry is to ANI ??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ —Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- BWilkins←✎) 13:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, a reliable sign in an article history of an evil, devious and thus banworthy editor may indeed be that of having made no edits to it whatever since a minor one three full months before the alarm is raised. ¶ The page was re-created by a group of neutral editors: Here you are. A very small number of admins (trivially including the evil and devious and neutral Hoary) did administrative stuff while the rest was done by Delicious Carbuncle. -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Personal attacks
User being reported:
)- Personal attack: [288] 16:08, 14 July 2012
- Request to remove attack: [289] 17:26, 14 July 2012
- Reply to request: [290] 18:23, 14 July 2012
Johnsy88 made a
personal attack against another editor and when I asked him to remove it, he made a personal attack against me, both attacks using colorful language. I suggest this editor be blocked until he is willing to refrain from personal attacks. Also, could an administrator please revdelete
those edits.
TFD (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- i wouldn't say it was colourful at all. if i were to use a colourful profanity i would have called you a fudge tunnel or bear trappers hat talk) 18:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- i wouldn't say it was colourful at all. if i were to use a colourful profanity i would have called you a fudge tunnel or bear trappers hat
- I think that as personal attacks go, it's hardly AN/I-worthy. I intended to ignore it, and suggest that others do the same. Frankly, Johnsy88's earlier off-topic rant would be more problematic if he made a habit of doing this sort of thing. Maybe someone should give him a whack or two with a decaying haddock, tell him to find another forum to vent his spleen, and leave it at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Andy that this is not ANI worthy --Guerillero | My Talk 19:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ditto. When you bring it to ANI, it has the effect of feeding.... Anyway, not sure if an admin would actually think it should be revdeleted, but either way, I reverted the edits in the interim so as to remove the remark. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Im very very very very very sowwy:( talk) 19:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Im very very very very very sowwy:(
- Agreed with above, doesn't seem to be a pressing issue, though Johnsy88 could use some growing up. – Connormah (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have to agree, they are personal attacks, but simply minor trolly ones, almost vandalism. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 22:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Unsavoury language
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User being reported:
)Swearing and demeaning language - Please analyse these discussion here and here to get a flavour of what has been occurring. Sport and politics (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Unsavory in what way? I don't see it, unless you are complaining because he might be a Brit. In that case, he's beyond help. I kid, of course, but in looking over the text in that section, I am not seeing the swearing or unsavory language.... could you provide a specific quote or a diff? -- Avanu (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- The user has used the word "fuck" in an edit summary and the tone of what they have been saying has been derogatory using phrases like "Listen boy". That kind of language shows a level of superiority and demeaning. Sport and politics (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think using the word "fuck" is enough to warrant taking action against a user you disagree with. — foxj19:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- It appears you two are engaged in a fairly length debate over which terms are proper to use for naming certain sporting events. Other than a simple reminder to maintain civility in these length discussions, I don't see anything yet that really rises to a level where others need to intervene on behalf of you two in an administrative way. You could both find an alternative article for a bit or maybe just leave some sort of compromise language in place for a time. Perhaps if you got more people involved in the discussion it wouldn't just be simply the back and forth so much that you've been seeing. -- Avanu (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think using the word "fuck" is enough to warrant taking action against a user you disagree with. —
- The user has used the word "fuck" in an edit summary and the tone of what they have been saying has been derogatory using phrases like "Listen boy". That kind of language shows a level of superiority and demeaning. Sport and politics (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
this, this, this and this are examples of some of the edit summaries. In my opinion these are derogatory and unsavoury.Sport and politics (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your 2nd and 4th links are the same, by the way. In looking at the initial utterance, it seems to be a generally exasperated comment, not a comment that was pointed in a particular way at you. I do agree that we don't need to have coarse language, but I also think a single utterance is simply one of those things you can overlook out of general civility. Pointing it out should be enough, even if he doesn't agree. As I said, this doesn't seem to be much more than a content dispute where you two have been arguing it for so long that the temperature of the discussion has risen a little. -- Avanu (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for that accidental duplication. The user did then repeat the word "fuck" and then used "F Word" in subsequent discussions. What is the next step in resolving this dispute? Sport and politics (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing in those diffs is even close to actionable. There's no rule against saying 'fuck' on Wikipedia. If it were part of a personal attack or article vandalism or evidence of a long pattern of consistent incivility, that would be different. But it isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Fucking A. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Suggest Closure
This is a non issue, making zero progress on its journey to nowhere. Annihilation recommended. Egg Centric 20:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Does this constitute a personal attack? Sport and politics (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Can an involved editor in the main conversation really close this surely that's a Conflict of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sport and politics (talk • contribs) 21:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Me? Nope - if anything I agree with you (about the original topic at hand) but launching an unnecessary ANI thread is not needed. Less drama please! GiantSnowman 21:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Giantsnowman was not involved, so no, that's not a conflict of interest. I suggest you read these policies ( 21:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
My apologies. I just don't like swearing and I'm still trying to find my way round here. I have learnt a lot from this.Sport and politics (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TheIrishWarden
I am requesting help. The users: EggCentric, Gareth Griffith-Jones, 83.119.142.202, 2.123.157.246 for the last 4 days they have hanged up on me calling me a troll and really making me feel threatened. It all started as the IP: 83.119.142.202 added gay pimp into an article this was previous reverted for vandalism by cluebot and then I reverted it again. Then I start getting malicious notices from EggCentric saying he was going to prove things while not telling me what was wrong. Then I looked at EggCentrics edit history and saw this group of 4 were talking about me in a nasty manor. I stepped in and then they all ganged up on me, the ip 83... Says anything I do is vandalism and the other ip is possibly operated by EggCebtric. I have sent many messages saying lets leave it and they keep talking about me, I'm not having that happen. I have sent reasonable msgs to them and they are still dismissed. I really feel threatened, please help. TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think that this is more of a case of WP: NPA. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- what should I do now? TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Put a personal note on their talk pages explaining yourself and linking them to WP: BITE. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the situation here deserves some further consideration at AN/I. While TheIrishWarden erred, the response seemed way overly hostile, and I would like to know if there is a reason for the level of hostility that isn't immediately apparent from the talk page histories. Monty845 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Put a personal note on their talk pages explaining yourself and linking them to
- I don't agree I was at all hostile. I cannot speak for the other parties. In the last half hour TIW has left two messages on my talk page - erroneous, threatening. I asked him to desist after the first message (for the record, I never, ever used the world 'troll' or variant) and he just went ahead and did it again. Look at this from the start. He bit hard on a diff of mine for highly spurious reasons and he's playing the victim card? Something is not quite right here, that much is obvious. I don't believe this editor is new to wikipedia. John --83.119.142.202 (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- what should I do now? TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- What utter nonsense this is. Go through the guy's contributions - heck just the history of his user and talk pages will do. I'm not even going to waste time commenting unless anyone seriously, after properly looking at what he's been doing, seriously thinks there's a case to answer. He is almost certainly a returning troll, and if he isn't then he simply lacks the 21:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Guys, he is not trolling. Please seem m: Troll. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I never said he was trolling (see above). Not sure how you would define the messages he's been leaving on my talk page - when asked not to do so - but I never used the word. Huge alert for 'politics of the playground', but I did not start this. Please also note, despite significant provocation, that I have not once left a message on TIW's talk page. John--83.119.142.202 (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Guys, he is not trolling. Please seem m: Troll. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- He is almost certainly a returning troll, and if he isn't then he simply lacks the competence to contribute here. As I and another admin habe been endeavoring to explain to Egg, it is often hard to tell the difference. Which is why we assume good faith barring actual evidence to the contrary. Present that evidence or STFU. talk) 00:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am not going co-operate with this as I have been wrong persecuted. I stand by my ideas. Au revoir to all if you, I am going ff to become a good editor and have been invited the CVUA twice this week, what does that say? Anyway I don't really care wha you say or what you do, I'm not going to reply to anything involving this. I am rightly UN co-operative. TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have STFU. I have only responded to his forum shopping, and minimally at that. Since he's flouncing off again, I see no reason for this thread to be open. The evidence will be his block log in a few months' time. Egg Centric 11:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)`
- unbelievably aggressive and volatile reaction and they should be punished for it. No wonder so many users don't come back if they are bing treated in an awful way. I will still remain UN cooperative TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- We don't do punishiments here at Wikipedia-en Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, but Egg Centric is being highly uncivil and failing to assume good faith without any evidence to back up their failure to assume good faith. They deserve an entire ice-bucket of trout, and should probably apologize for incivility. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Accusing someone of being a sock without providing proof is indeed uncivil, and can be harassment (it's my own userpage that says "file your SPI or STFU"). Of course, if someone is a sock and pretending not to be, they're an unethical dick. TIW is not helping their own case, one must agree. Also, remember, you cannot make someone apologize for anything (BWilkins←✎) 20:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have made it clear on several occasions that I simply cannot be bothered to provide said evidence given that it is based on behaviour and gut instinct. I have also made it quite clear I am prepared to STFU. I am not however prepared to retract the accusation or apologise for it, yet, as I am convinced I will be proven correct, and rather quickly at that. I have also made it clear it will be retracted after a few months of TIW editing trouble free (or perhaps before hand on my own initiative) and that TIW has nothing to fear if he isn't up to no good.
- I would however like some clarification on one point: If I do start to accumulate evidence in a subset of my userspace that TIW is a troll, would this be a violation of ATTACK? Egg Centric 20:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- In general, it's not a good idea to keep that info on-Wiki. It can be seen as an attack page, yes, and people have been smacked for it. Just save it offline, then you can paste it into a report if you get enough to finally file one. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Accusing someone of being a sock without providing proof is indeed uncivil, and can be harassment (it's my own userpage that says "file your SPI or STFU"). Of course, if someone is a sock and pretending not to be, they're an unethical dick. TIW is not helping their own case, one must agree. Also, remember, you cannot make someone apologize for anything (
- No, but Egg Centric is being highly uncivil and failing to assume good faith without any evidence to back up their failure to assume good faith. They deserve an entire ice-bucket of trout, and should probably apologize for incivility. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- We don't do punishiments here at Wikipedia-en Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- unbelievably aggressive and volatile reaction and they should be punished for it. No wonder so many users don't come back if they are bing treated in an awful way. I will still remain UN cooperative TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- (And another point - why is that users like Badmachine are blocked for the slightest imagined offence, yet I am having to waste time explaining that it's not unreasonable to have a teeny weeny bit of suspicion about a user who within 24 hours of joining was asking Wikipedians to leave messages on his talk page about whether they agreed with him that Hitler was the best politican ever [291]?) Egg Centric 20:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I did not mean that you should be forced to apologize, merely that, in my opinion, you ought to do so of your own free will. As for the rest of it, 1) extraordinary claims require proof, and 2) there's far more evidence for "troll" than for "returning." Also, in the spirit of "comment on the edits, not the editor," it's far better to say "User:Example is trolling" than "User:Example is a troll," if you see what I mean. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- <digression>That's an interesting point - obviously no one need be a troll for life (although I do enjoy Daniel Brandt's characterization of one our favourite editors who I'm certain won't mind and indeed would be amused by me mentioning it, something involving troll blood, I'm sure you've read it...) - then again I think that just saying the account is trolling isn't quite strong enough in this case either. Perhaps "User:Example (is created|is here) to troll" as a compromise?
</digression> Egg Centric 21:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- <digression>That's an interesting point - obviously no one need be a troll for life (although I do enjoy Daniel Brandt's characterization of one our favourite editors who I'm certain won't mind and indeed would be amused by me mentioning it, something involving troll blood, I'm sure you've read it...) - then again I think that just saying the account is trolling isn't quite strong enough in this case either. Perhaps "User:Example (is created|is here) to troll" as a compromise?
- Just to clarify, I did not mean that you should be forced to apologize, merely that, in my opinion, you ought to do so of your own free will. As for the rest of it, 1)
- (And another point - why is that users like Badmachine are blocked for the slightest imagined offence, yet I am having to waste time explaining that it's not unreasonable to have a teeny weeny bit of suspicion about a user who within 24 hours of joining was asking Wikipedians to leave messages on his talk page about whether they agreed with him that Hitler was the best politican ever [291]?) Egg Centric 20:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- On a point of order, EggCentric has had it explained to him/her (more than once) that Badmachine was finally blocked by Arbcom for something way more serious than just sticking a GNAA userbox and a piccy of a dick on their userpage. If he's decided in response to start carrying out random attacks on new users without providing any evidence, that could be considered disruptive behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Two points: The first is that I have made no such decision - that's ridiculous. This case has nothing to do with anything else. I also note that I am not the only user who is suspicious of TIW (indeed he has decided that one or two IPs and Gareth and I are socks of one another, although I'm not sure who). Also, I have not altered my beahviour one jot because of badmachine, at least not intentionally (it does make me less confident in wikipedia's leadership but that's by the by) I just mention it as the case seems pertinent as it's about trolling, as was badmachine's. Secondly, I haven't had that explained to me even once, never mind more than once. I even emailed arbcom about it and had no reply. Egg Centric 22:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- To be fair to Egg, they're not the only one here suspicious of TIW's motives. I appreciate I am hardly whiter than white (just view my contributions [292] and my own taunts towards other users [293] [294]), but if you view the thread that TIW started on my talk page [295] you will probably agree that they have taken far too much glee from getting someone blocked. Having been a bit of a vandal myself in the past, I am used to far more generic and mature responses most of the time. This kind of goading from TIW is blatantly coming either from a troll or from someone with the mental age of an 8 year old. 81.108.7.13 (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
This is what I say to all this:
- To be fair to Egg, they're not the only one here suspicious of TIW's motives. I appreciate I am hardly whiter than white (just view my contributions [292] and my own taunts towards other users [293] [294]), but if you view the thread that TIW started on my talk page [295] you will probably agree that they have taken far too much glee from getting someone blocked. Having been a bit of a vandal myself in the past, I am used to far more generic and mature responses most of the time. This kind of goading from TIW is blatantly coming either from a troll or from someone with the mental age of an 8 year old. 81.108.7.13 (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Two points: The first is that I have made no such decision - that's ridiculous. This case has nothing to do with anything else. I also note that I am not the only user who is suspicious of TIW (indeed he has decided that one or two IPs and Gareth and I are socks of one another, although I'm not sure who). Also, I have not altered my beahviour one jot because of badmachine, at least not intentionally (it does make me less confident in wikipedia's leadership but that's by the by) I just mention it as the case seems pertinent as it's about trolling, as was badmachine's. Secondly, I haven't had that explained to me even once, never mind more than once. I even emailed arbcom about it and had no reply. Egg Centric 22:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
|
I am a.. WikiVampire Slayer and vow to end their tyranny! |
You know who you are. IP 81.108.7.13 told people multiple times to F-OFF last week so they can hardly say anything! TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
...and they were blocked for that last week too, so drop it; period. I've gently advised you to drop the
BWilkins←✎
) 16:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- TIW please learn how this talk page works, First, with this edit [296] you removed BWilkins post. The edit summary is misleading at best since it says that you were removing your comment. Next, on this page you are not to remove your own comments either. If you have made comments that you regret you use the strike through command like this <s></s>, otherwise it looks like you are trying to hide something or refactor the discussion both of which can cause further errosion of AGF. 17:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Now I see that you did restore the comment you removed in error so that was a good job on your part as to the others you put an <s> at the start of the comment and an </s> at the end. Which will create something that looks like this
at the start of the comment and an. This is tricky to learn at first but will be useful in your future editing. MarnetteD | Talk 17:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Now I see that you did restore the comment you removed in error so that was a good job on your part as to the others you put an <s> at the start of the comment and an </s> at the end. Which will create something that looks like this
- TIW please learn how this talk page works, First, with this edit [296] you removed BWilkins post. The edit summary is misleading at best since it says that you were removing your comment. Next, on this page you are not to remove your own comments either. If you have made comments that you regret you use the strike through command like this <s></s>, otherwise it looks like you are trying to hide something or refactor the discussion both of which can cause further errosion of AGF. 17:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Talking about not biting newcomers
Could someone please sort out the incident here where TIW has branded someone a vandal who was trying to make constructive edits by (a)changing the nature of the warnings to the IP and (b)asking TIW to be more careful in future. I would do so myself but you know,
23:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)- How about this: We assume good faith for a little longer; he's a new editor and gets a little slack. If he makes a lot more bad edits, then we do something about it. Otherwise, he'll either make no edits, or, heaven forbid, be someone who makes good edits! p23:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Malfunctioning bot
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
talk
) 18:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's odd, and it's the only error of its type I'm seeing through a quick scan of edits. Did you approach the bot owner first? (BWilkins←✎) 18:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Interestingly, the most recent time the bot used that edit summary it was malfunctioning as well, albeit in a different way [297] [298][299].
- If you want my best guess, when it is operating using that edit summary it has got the removal and insertion code the wrong way around - so if it's supposed to be adding the template nothing will happen (as it tries impotently to remove the template) whereas if it's supposed to be removing the template it adds another copy of it. The weird removal of numbers in the edit highlighted above are just because of an edit conflict (it's essentially a very quick reversion). Anyway fixing the first problem should be easy. The edit conflict problem not so much... Egg Centric 18:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, the bot's user page instructs to use WP:ANI as the primary notification instance. __talk) 18:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I gave sig a notice on his talk page. If the bot makes a bad edit again drop me a line and I will block it --Guerillero | My Talk 19:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure all involved in this thread read the bot's userpage and made note of Disable the bot by changing this page to anything but "true", before starting this thread.
That particular edit may have been caused by a failure to handle edit conflicts properly. EkoGraf edited the page while the bot was processing the text, and the bot saved the revision prior to EkoGraf's edit, see diff. This issue will be remedied shortly. →Σσς. 19:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Did you look at the diffs I provided where it was inserting a template twice? Egg Centric 19:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:COMPETENCE block for an IP
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 99.90.197.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It is just plain gibberish today from this user. I first noticed at
Talk:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, but the user's history is littered with warnings and a half-dozen blocks going back to Nov 2011 for the exact same thing. Is it time for something lengthy/permanent? Tarc (talk
) 05:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is three months lengthy enough? I don't think we permanently block IPs... Doc talk 08:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Three months is fine for a static IP of unknown endpoint like this. Even static IPs change owners from time to time, so we can't indef block them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yiddi
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The User:Yiddi offered a bribe to me, involving her/him supporting a stance I have on something on the condition that I support something that he/she is involved with, that I am not involved with now, here is the bribe: [300], I responded with the following: [301]. I indicated that it is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy to offer bribes. Rather than remove it out of good will, Yiddi removed it with an indifferent and abrasive comment "fine whatever", and it seemed to me to be admitting that he did attempt to bribe me, [302]. I responded by saying that bribing a user is seriously wrong and a violation of Wikipedia guidelines and warned the user to not do this again, [303]. Yiddi responded by saying that he/she "did not deny or admit anything", and proceeded to use swear an obscenity at me, see here: [304]. A few minutes later, Yiddi issued a threat to me, threatening that if I discussed what I was anymore, he/she would report me to a noticeboard, see here: [305]. I regarded the swearing in combination with the final comment to have completely crossed the line. I had considered letting the user be off the hook for the bribe if he/she showed some intention that they would not do it again. But I believe the last two comments when compared with the first offer of the bribe, show that this user is behaving very inappropriately, he/she quickly descended from offering a bribe and being positive to me to swearing at me and threatening me within a matter of minutes.--R-41 (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support a block. Totally unacceptable. Sigh... Theopolisme TALK 00:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Are you sure a block is necessary? I do agree that the behavior of Yiddi is atrocious, but does it really need a block? Perhaps a topic ban from the Fascism/Nazism debate would be more effective. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see the action as a bribe but as an offer. "Fine whatever" is dismissive but not abrasive. It depends entirely on how it was intended. I believe that a short block is in order and requiring Yiddi receive mentoring support as would be good for R-41. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Are you sure a block is necessary? I do agree that the behavior of Yiddi is atrocious, but does it really need a block? Perhaps a topic ban from the Fascism/Nazism debate would be more effective. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It's not the first time a new user has come on a bit strong. Just because Wikipedia's motto is "everyone can edit", doesn't mean that everyone should edit. Although I don't really see this as a bribe, there doesn't seem to be a WP:BRIBE. Although I'm sure we can wikilawyer some guideline or another. And the cursing didn't seem to be a personal attack, nor is Wikipedia censored. A block really doesn't appear to be justified, although a few wiki linked policies might be in orderJOJ Hutton 01:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- why are you talking about ? what is the worst ? bribes or the obvious fact that my account is a sock of the banned user chaosname. your choice ! thanks Yiddi (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is he joking, or is a checkuser needed? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly enough to justify a report to 01:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- A bribe is an offer done that involves attempting to achieve an end through manipulating other person(s) by presenting them an offer that the person{s} may desire, on the condition that that person does something in return in their favour. The exchange that Yiddi offered was that he/she would abandon her/his position against me on a discussion on ) 02:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The swearing at me by Yiddi is in violation of WP:CIVIL. Yiddi also has deleted a warning and advice from her/his talkpage by User:JTBX who sent Yiddi a message that said that Yiddi was edit warring and advised Yiddi to engage in more positive ways of editing, see here: [307] I also think that this user Yiddi if he/she is a sockpuppet is preparing to jump ship from this account that is about to be blocked, and open up another sockpuppet account, as revealed by the indifference of admitting it. If Yiddi is a sockpuppet, then blocking this one account alone will not stop the abusive use of accounts by this person whose language indicates that he/she doesn't seem to care about upholding Wikipedia principles and guidelines at all. A ban of the IP address would be wise to administer if this is the case, as Chaosname has already been banned.--R-41 (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly enough to justify a report to 01:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is he joking, or is a checkuser needed? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- why are you talking about ? what is the worst ? bribes or the obvious fact that my account is a sock of the banned user chaosname. your choice ! thanks Yiddi (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One Direction vandalism
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For a few hours now there has been a lot of vandalism about two members of One Direction, specifically that they are closeted homosexuals. This has spanned many pages involving multiple accounts, probably puppets of the sock or meat variety. Effected pages include Bromance, Ship and Sweet Disposition. I've been trying to tag all relevant accounts with sock tags; the list can be seen at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Managementloveok. 50.131.220.134 (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- There has indeed been a lot of disruption to this effect. Very frustrating, either part of a coordinated attack or a LOT of socks. --Jprg1966 (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps a good course of action would be protecting pages while a checkuser inspects the vandals. Have you filed an SPI case yet? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- IP editors cannot start pages, which precludes me from starting that process. 50.131.220.134 (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps a good course of action would be protecting pages while a checkuser inspects the vandals. Have you filed an SPI case yet? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say this was a coordinated attack; I have semied the three pages and blocked a bunch of accounts. I have also run a couple of checks, but could find nothing particularly useful (though I have to admit I did not dig very deep). Thanks to all those who reverted these vandals. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user has created a page Leonard G. Ayunar, a non-notable person.I CSD'd it.The user continuously removed the tag from the article until it was deleted.Now he creates a duplicate in Mr._Leonard_G._Ayunar, a previous redirect.Please take some action.Regards ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 05:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have deleted the other version of what appears to be their autobiography - based on the username/initials of the editor in question. I have dropped them a note about autobio, and am keeping an eye on their talkpage (BWilkins←✎) 08:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Although this is closed, I should add that I deleted yet another version before unfortunately blocking (BWilkins←✎) 11:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Although this is closed, I should add that I deleted yet another version before unfortunately blocking (
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Possible IP sock on Ken Hutcherson
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I came across IP 4.30.137.50 repeatedly adding adding spam to Ken Hutcherson in edits like this. The IP repeated this 4 times and warned, and has been given a last warning. Now, User: C5008 has added the exact same content, shown in this edit. I have reasonable suspicion that this is the same user. Can a checkuser please find out the source of this new account? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- CheckUser is normally not used to link an IP to a named account; see Wikipedia:CheckUser#IP information disclosure. --Lambiam 08:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Steelbeard1 is using an article talk page to make personal attacks
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Will someone please take a quick look here and decide if these comments about me belong at this talk page. Please, isn't there one admin who is willing to help me? I'm being repeatedly harassed by several editors, and I need admin assistance asap. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 11:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I rather think you should be aware that making lots of new sections here about everyone else may have some look at your posts. Just a "heads-up". Collect (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- GabeMc's caustic comments speak for themselves. He is the antagonist who keeps looking for consensus multiple times even when consensus does not go his way. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) Feel free to look through all my comments Collect, or anyone. If an admin would take a close enough look they would see that these articles were stable, and indeed I just finished a successful FAC at McCartney days before this broke-out. In fact, if you look, the article was passed right on the heels of the edit-warring, harassment, and intimidation. FTR, I have only ever opened two polls on this issue, the two that are running now. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 11:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- GabeMc's caustic comments speak for themselves. He is the antagonist who keeps looking for consensus multiple times even when consensus does not go his way. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
(this AN/I. GabeMc is forum shopping in an effort to "win" the "battle" over the letter 'T' which he continues to inflame in spite of being strongly advised not to do so by an admin and the community. Radiopathy •talk• 16:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Steelbeard1, your remarks at the 3RR page and the Sgt Peppers talk page were incorrect and out of line. It is perfectly acceptable to criticise administrators; I don't agree with what Wilkins said there either, and I said so in this post. The Mediation Committee has just accepted the case for formal mediation, and a case page has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles. -- Dianna (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Time for interaction ban? Users SplashScreen, Tomica and Status
These three editors have been in a state of constant dispute for some time now. The first ANI thread is here, where SplashScreen got into a revert war with Tomica. Since then I've kept an eye on that particular area of Wikipedia to watch out for further disputes, of which there have been many. It seems that now these editors can't get into any sort of communication without it instantly devolving into bickering.
I'm proposing an interaction ban between SplashScreen and Status/Tomica (not a ban between Status and Tomica, as they appear to be friends). It's clear they can't get along at all, but wherever SplashScreen goes, both Status and Tomica spring up, and SplashScreen has started many AfDs on articles one or the other has either created or worked upon, and recently today an AfD resulted in another revert-war (there is a thread on the
here and (lucky me) on my talk, here
. Telling them to stop arguing didn't work, and I doubt it will, so I'm proposing an interaction ban.
That Tomica and Status are now appearing on most of SplashScreen's AfDs to disagree with him is obvious, and the fact that SplashScreen's conduct at AfD is needlessly aggressive is also obvious (in my eyes), but I'm really just trying to focus on the interactions between these editors. I welcome any input. OohBunnies! (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just a note - I originally suggested such a block on OohBunnies!'s talk page. SplashScreen (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's a ban, not a block. Technical difference. OohBunnies! (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I understand the issue with Status and Tomica, but my real problem is that I strongly suspect that SplashScreen is a returned user that isn't making a good clean start. I haven't been able to identify precisely who he is yet, but it has been apparent to me from early in his editing career that he had an issue with Status and other Rihanna editors from some prior interaction. I feel very uncomfortable supporting an interaction ban without a corresponding topic ban on pop music articles unless and until I know what the prior interaction was and can factor it into my thinking.—Kww(talk) 01:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, maybe SplashScreen will divulge a little information when he's back (it's early morning here in the UK). I agree Splash seems to be a returned editor of some kind, and it would be good to know if there were some past issues affecting this dispute. I wouldn't want to put the blame for all this entirely on him though, bad clean start or no. The behaviour of Status and Tomica has added to this "us v. them" mentality that we can see here. All I've really tried to do is remind the involved users to calm down and not make accusations, before one of them ended up blocked. I don't like to see users blocked. Although, if there ends up being consensus for a block of some kind then that will be that. But it would be really good to get some uninvolved eyes on the behaviours of all the involved editors here. OohBunnies! (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I personally think that an AFD ban on SplashScreen would be much more effective. Seeing as he clearly doesn't quite understand the process of nominating articles for deletion. For example, he nominated WP:BEFORE. He also feels the need to reply to everybody who disagrees with him; which has been pointed out by several users (and not just this little "clique", as he calls it). It should also be noted that, although according to him, I don't vote against him in every AFD he opens. I !vote the way that is correct. For example, I voted delete on this AFD, which he created. Statυs (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I personally think that an AFD ban on SplashScreen would be much more effective. Seeing as he clearly doesn't quite understand the process of nominating articles for deletion. For example, he nominated
- Also note [308] - the longest oppose I have ever seen on a RFA. --Rschen7754 04:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am not a returning user with a bizarre vendetta (as I made clear on Bunny's talk page). Of course Status is going to want me to be banned on AfD, because his articles .
- In short, it seems that WHEREVER I go on Wikipedia, Status and his troupe and sure to follow. This is why I have requested this ban. I am sick to the back teeth of them bitching about me on their talk pages, I am sick to death of receiving rude and explicit comments on my talk page when I make edits that they don't "like", I am sick of this pathetic one-up-manship that has occurred simply because I'm an editor who sees things differently to their little clique and who doesn't believe that the WP:CRUFTy; partly due to my own edits, but partly because my AfDs have caused other editors to improve the quality of articles. However, I can't deal with this feral campaign any longer and I would welcome an interaction ban with gusto. SplashScreen (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with KWW. It appears there is more than meets the eye going on here and it's not good. When an editor's 4th edit is to WP:ANI, you have a problem.
- To Bunny's point, there is a group of editors that tend to scrum on these pop articles and the general dynamic is problematic. While I think Splash needs to be addressed, the general ownership of articles, edit warring and disruption by the others is also a major issue. Toddst1 (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with KWW. It appears there is more than meets the eye going on here and it's not good. When an editor's 4th edit is to
I think that may be possible, but there appears to be a grudge and other problems have resulted. My observations are that the other editors in this cluster are at this point, in varying degrees less problematic (previous behavior notwithstanding):
- talk · contribs) seems to have cooled off a bit but still pursues edit wars rather than other measures (see The Pussycat Dolls).
- Calvin999 (talk · contribs) appears to be working very diligently to stay within his voluntary 1RR after his last block.
- talk · contribs) seems to have some of the best intentions but has had some issues in the past.
Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's not edit warring if I'm removing poorly sourced info from the BLP. Per Till I Go Home05:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's not edit warring if I'm removing poorly sourced info from the BLP. Per
@SplashScreen What series of perfume articles have been deleted? You took it upon yourself to redirect them, which we actually came to an agreement on. As for personal life and Bennifer, why must you keep insisting that I'm some how upset about this? I was upset about personal life at first, since I didn't have a back-up of the information, as a lot of it was not in her main article. But I got that now. I accept if an article gets deleted, it gets deleted. You were right in the sense of both those articles. I don't notice myself !voting on either of them, do you? You seem very paranoid people are talking about you behind your back, which isn't the case. You clearly seem to be talking about this comment [316] Till I Go Home left on my talk, in which he was asking for some Wiki assistance. Please direct me towards where any user has personally attacked you. You seem to be the one attacking other users, as seen in almost all of your AFDs. And I've already told you this, you've got to stop bringing up shit from almost a year ago. People are not entitled to change their opinions on things in a span of a year?
Just drop it. I will say this one last time, I have never asked anybody else to comment on any of your AFDs. As I've already told (which you brought an ANI about it, for some strange reason) since we are all "friends" here, we often look at each other's contribs and see what each other are up to. I have not commented on all your AFDs, and have not voted keep on all of them just to "spite" you. I have voted the way I feel is right. I've repeatedly said this to you, and you don't seem to care enough to respond, yet you keep saying it. Statυs (talk
) 19:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
IBAN Proposal
Per KWW, the proposal is "interaction ban with a corresponding topic ban on pop music articles" for SplashScreen, Tomica, Status.
- Question: What exactly does this type of ban involve? Statυs (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- An "interaction ban" generally means the following: Neither editor talks to the other. Neither editor mentions the other. Neither editor edits any article or discussion that the other has edited. There is usually an exception for people bringing up a violation of the interaction ban. Otherwise, violations lead to blocks. In this case, it should be noted that the proposed iban is SplashScreen-Tomica and SplashScreen-Status; Status and Tomica are not problematic in their behavior towards each other. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Neither editor edits any article or discussion that the other has edited" seems problematic to me. Statυs (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Which is one of the many reasons many people dislike I-bans. But the thing is, there's no way to prevent interaction without banning one or the other party from editing the same article, and there's no way to do that fairly without banning both from editing the same articles. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Partial support: I support an iban between SplashScreen and Tomica based on what I've seen. If Status and SplashScreen wish an iban between them too, I'd support it, but I don't support an involuntary one there - they don't like each other, but they're usually civil. I do not support a topic ban, but the iban would mean that both Tomica and SplashScreen would have to stop editing articles the other has ever edited. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination) is a humungous AFD started by User:SplashScreen which is getting no traction. This user seems to be over-reaching and so limiting his actions would be sensible. I have no opinion about the other users mentioned here. Warden (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention this. Thanks for bringing it up. He claims that we come into his AFDs to vote keep, so they are kept. It appears none of us have commented on that AFD, but they are all keeps. Weird. Statυs (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: this really isn't workable. An interaction ban on the three would wind up effectively slicing the Rihanna articles into two camps, and not much else. I support the intent, but don't think this will work.—Kww(talk) 12:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: Much for the same reason as Kww. Tomica has worked on Rihanna articles along with Calvin and other users for quite a long time. If an topic ban is enacted, then Splash may edit all Rihanna articles and then leave Tomica out of the topic on wich he edits the most, and probably he will end up retiring the 'pedia. I Partially support banning both users to talk each other directly on talk pages or discussions, but not editing the same pages, unless it is clearly an edit war or content dispute. PD: I had no internet connection and no power supply, thats why i didn't commented before. Regards. —2113:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kww. I'm not a fan of ibans to start with, as the success with them is a mixed lot and enforcement is always a drama-fest, but in this case it poses real world problems that are going to be hard to work around. I also share his suspicions that there is more than meets the eye going on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding that AFD
I've closed it as a snow keep; help untagging the articles and adding the oldafdfull template to the talk pages would be appreciated, as it's dinnertime here now and I only got about a quarter of them at most so far... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- A list of the still-tagged AFDs can be found at User:Snotbot/AfD_report. I'll work on a few of them as I get the chance this morning - but any help is appreciated. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- The rest should now be cleared. Monty845 15:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Should Splashscreen be restricted from creating new AFDs, or perhaps restricted to creating them under the mentorship of an experienced editor? He failed to notify the creators of the 246 or so articles in that mass nomination, and claimed that if anyone else notified the creators, it would constitute canvassing. His deletion reasons were mostly very much off-point.He didn't even tag all the articles he listed in the AFD, omitting tags on ) 17:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)A good point. Yes, I think a trout and perhaps a ban from creating AfDs is in order. I propose the following restriction: for three months, if SplashScreen wants to create an AfD, they have to ask another editor (who is in good standing) to do it for them. That way, they'll still be able to use the process for valid candidates, while learning more about how to do it properly. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I support Jorgath's specific recommendation. A 3 month period sounds reasonable. Edison (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable to me (and thanks y'all for the help mopping up). - The Bushranger One ping only 22:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I also support the proposal. And btw Bush, i have been clearing some of them from the tag, do you know how much are left? I will be cleaning more today in a couple of hours. Regards. —2107:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Pretty sure they were all cleaned up. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I also support the proposal. And btw Bush, i have been clearing some of them from the tag, do you know how much are left? I will be cleaning more today in a couple of hours. Regards. —
- That sounds reasonable to me (and thanks y'all for the help mopping up). - The Bushranger One ping only 22:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I support Jorgath's specific recommendation. A 3 month period sounds reasonable. Edison (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)A good point. Yes, I think a trout and perhaps a ban from creating AfDs is in order. I propose the following restriction: for three months, if SplashScreen wants to create an AfD, they have to ask another editor (who is in good standing) to do it for them. That way, they'll still be able to use the process for valid candidates, while learning more about how to do it properly. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Should Splashscreen be restricted from creating new AFDs, or perhaps restricted to creating them under the mentorship of an experienced editor? He failed to notify the creators of the 246 or so articles in that mass nomination, and claimed that if anyone else notified the creators, it would constitute canvassing. His deletion reasons were mostly very much off-point.He didn't even tag all the articles he listed in the AFD, omitting tags on ) 17:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- The rest should now be cleared. Monty845 15:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- So an ongoing dispute between 3 users in various parts of the encyclopedia is being resolved by one user being banned from starting AfDs, despite the fact that no such conflict took place on the AfD that catalysed the ban and that said user has started various successful AfDs in the past, whilst no action is taken against the remaining two contributors. Makes sense. SplashScreen (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that proposal gained enough support to be considered binding, SplashScreen. You probably should take notice that it did get some support. Philosophically, I tend to support your stance at AFD, but I think you are nominating articles that you know going in are going to be kept. No reason to nominate things just to make a point.—Kww(talk) 16:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. - The Bushranger One ping only22:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I 1000% support this. It should also be noted he created another AFD of an article I created. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album) (2nd nomination) Cheers, Statυs (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Have you ever stopped to consider, Status, that the problem isn't that I keep nominating articles for deletion, but that you keep creating articles that are against the guidelines? theme? And yes, you can point me to a million articles you've created that are FA/GA or were kept at AfD, but this doesn't change the fact that said deleted articles were created in the first place. If we're going for knee-jerk, reactionary blocks, I also suggest that Status be blocked from creating articles for period of three months, during which time they can familiarize themselves with the inclusion criteria. SplashScreen (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Have you ever stopped to consider, Status, that the problem isn't that I keep nominating articles for deletion, but that you keep creating articles that are against the guidelines?
- You do realize that you're the one who is requesting an IBAN against me, right? That would mean that you wouldn't be able to list any articles I am involved with for deletion? You need to take a nice look at the 3 articles I created that got deleted; the AFDs meaning. Notice that I didn't vote keep, delete or merge in any of them? Strange, isn't it? Kind of shows that I was placing its fate in the hands of the community, right? As for your proposal, all I'm gonna say is: LOL. Statυs (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whose "hands you were placing their fate in" (although you did !vote merge in not one but two of them). The fact is that, if you knew anything about the inclusion guidelines, you wouldn't have created them in the first place. SplashScreen (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- It should be noted I asked SplashScreen to not reply to comment I made in another AFD [317] and he replied anyway [318]. If he truly wanted an IBAN against me, why does he still interact with me? Statυs (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you were supporting of such a ban, why did you instigate such a discussion by a) commenting on an AfD that I'd started and b) directing comments towards me in said AfD? You can't run around Wikipedia and yell WP:CONSENSUS and this often involves discussion. If you don't want to partake in such discussion (as I am willing to do, as such a ban is not yet in place and seemingly never will be), then don't comment on pages in which editors you dislike are involved. SplashScreen (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you were supporting of such a ban, why did you instigate such a discussion by a) commenting on an AfD that I'd started and b) directing comments towards me in said AfD? You can't run around Wikipedia and yell
2 accounts
ResolvedI would like for the experts to rule on whether Bred Ivy (talk · contribs) is using his two accounts within the rules, or if his apparent use of good hand / bad hand accounts needs to be dealt with in some way.[319][320] Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Yiddi in a very bizzare post shows that he has evaded blocks for years, please ban this user's IP address to completely prevent them from editing
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user Yiddi has just said this, [321] whilst committing a blatant act of vandalism on Wikipedia. After bribing me with an offer offer to edit a page, exploding in anger at me for criticizing her/him for bribing me, and being condemned by multiple users for it. There Yiddi said that he is a sockpuppet of the banned User:Chaosname, and the above statement and a discussion two sections above, reveals that he is a sockpuppet. An earlier discussion ended with a user saying that Yiddi had been indefinately blocked, but he has not been blocked by anyone, contrary to what the title says.
The user Chaosname/Yiddi appears to try to make some edits that are not deliberate vandalism, but when he is caught, he attempts to get away but then when he cannot, he explodes in a
temper tantrum
and does acts of blatant vandalism. The user appears to me to be violently mentally unstable in his changing behaviours and continuing to edit on Wikipedia in spite of his claims that he hates it.
This, [322] is the final straw, this user should be banned from Wikipedia - since the user clearly boasting that he intends to do sockpuppetry again and again, I suggest that the IP address be banned from editing on Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- This looks like an indefinitely blocked user to me... -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 06:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- R-41, that edit is over five hours old. It was reverted pretty quickly. He was indef'd already. For 06:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bridge Boy will not drop the stick
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since being unblocked,
Straight two engine is filled with his rants and personal attacks, becoming both more aggressive and veering farther off topic as time goes on. It is time for a permanent block. --Dennis Bratland (talk
) 15:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Notified Bridge Boy - diff - Youreallycan 15:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I see he was notified twice. He's now also indef'd for BATTLE, NPA, DE, and so on. (BWilkins←✎) 16:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I see he was notified twice. He's now also indef'd for BATTLE, NPA, DE, and so on. (
- He seems a bit prickly but I can't support a permanent block, no way hozay. His positions seem to at least be arguable and he seems relatively polite (I also take into account that most participants are bikers, who speaking frankly I don't expect to be pussies - therefore robust discussion is more acceptable there than it would be in say Talk:My Little Pony. This is a principle of my own common sense rather than wiki policy) Perhaps some interaction ban for a short period could be imposed if absolutely necessary, but honestly I think this issue will peter out if it's just left on its own. Egg Centric 16:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's indef until he's ready to work within the community correctly. I have no issue with topic/interaction bans, but his return to the exact behaviour as he was doing before his first block was boneheaded. He's welcome to show us when he's ready to grow up. (BWilkins←✎) 16:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's indef until he's ready to work within the community correctly. I have no issue with topic/interaction bans, but his return to the exact behaviour as he was doing before his first block was boneheaded. He's welcome to show us when he's ready to grow up. (
- I am loath to keep this debate alive, but I have to object to the tough guy biker stereotype. For a good meta-analysis and debunking, see, Motorcycling and Leisure; Understanding the Recreational PTW Rider Ashgate May 2009, ISBN 978-0-7546-7501-3. Paul Broughton, Owl Research Ltd, UK and Linda Walker, University of Stirling, UK. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's not about being a "tough guy" (ffs I have a bike licence myself!) but I do consider that if you are a rider you are probably someone who can think for themself - and such people are far less likely to get upset by people they disagree with. Egg Centric 16:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- One of the proposals the community rejected was a content fork that treated motorcycle straight-twos separately from cars, trains, boats and planes. So editors from outside motorcycling are naturally going to be involved. Anything that tends to drive away non-motorcyclists from the discussion is disruptive. And in general, WikiProject Motorcycling welcomes Wikipedians who don't ride and who are not technically inclined. It's one way to check to see if the technical language is accessible to Wikipedia's general readership. One of Bridge Boy's tactics was to challenge anyone who disagreed with him to show proof of their motorcycling expertise, in violation of WP:OWN and the core principle that anyone is welcome to edit. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's not about being a "tough guy" (ffs I have a bike licence myself!) but I do consider that if you are a rider you are probably someone who can think for themself - and such people are far less likely to get upset by people they disagree with. Egg Centric 16:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've been thinking a lot about what Egg wrote. To me, Egg's sentiment boils down to "Bridge Boy didn't do anything THAT bad, so he should not get an indefinite block." Generally, I'd agree with such a sentiment, but in this case, Bridge Boy keeps doing bad things (albeit not THAT bad), and he shows absolutely no remorse for doing them. In fact, he won't even acknowledge that he has done anything disruptive. I'll paraphrase some of his sentiments: "The other editors don't understand!" "The other editors don't know as much as I do!" "The admin doesn't understand!" "The admin lied!" Etc. Any time an editor calls him on something (and I count at least eight editors who have tried to reason with him at this point, not just the one "nemesis" he would have us believe is hounding him), he responds with a long-winded lecture about how he is right and everyone else is wrong. There is just no reasoning with him. Some day, if he were to approach the Wikipedia community with an apology, an acknowledgement that he understands what he did wrong, and a promise not to do it again, then we should consider lifting the indef. Without such assurances from Bridge Boy, it is obvious that if his block is lifted he will just go back to the disruptive behavior that got him blocked in the first place. Peace, Ebikeguy (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am loath to keep this debate alive, but I have to object to the tough guy biker stereotype. For a good meta-analysis and debunking, see, Motorcycling and Leisure; Understanding the Recreational PTW Rider Ashgate May 2009,
- I support the indef. I had blocked him for 48 hours previously, a term many argued was too short but I still support my original decision as a good faith effort to allow him the opportunity to conform to community expectations for behavior. I believe in giving everyone a second chance, but since this second chance has started, he has done nothing but climb higher on his soapbox and shout louder, clearly demonstrating that he is not capable of participating in a corroborative environment at this time, and there isn't a way to determine when, if ever, he will be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, what Dennis Brown said, and BWilkins (on the user talk page), and just about everyone else. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Good block. Returning to the same behavior and worse indicates toxic environment. - The Bushranger One ping only22:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thenextlike: trolling and hounding
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thenextlike (talk · contribs)
Would someone please block this troll who has repeatedly hounded me on my talk page after multiple warnings, in addition to leaving multiple messages at the Help Desk, bureaucrat noticeboard, admin noticeboard, and maproom about matters entirely unrelated to Wikipedia. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edit warring by Michael2127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Michael2127 is a repeat edit warrior who refuses to
get the point
. Worse, he has taken to personal attacks.
This began all the way back on May 31, when he added a claim regarding journalist User:Dreadstar for "misrepresentation" and claiming that Michael's source, The Huffington Post, was not reliable for BLP. Michael re-reverted, albeit in a civil manner [326]. In my view, things became problematic when Michael attempted to allay a concern of Dreadstar's by adding a claim here that was not supported by the text. User:Littleolive oil got involved at this point, deleting Michael's contribution and referring to a discussion on the Erin Burnett page warning against synthesizing and OR. Several editors were involved in the discussion, and all but Michael2127 opted for exclusion.
In the midst of this mess, Michael2127 was blocked on June 21 for 24 hours (offense: 3RR) and June 23 for a week (offense: edit warring). Then he used a sock account to edit the page, yet denied it on his talk page and accused
User:JamesBWatson concurred with Tide rolls and declined the unblock. Then Michael deliberately ignored rules regarding deleting block notices while they are in force, replacing it with an extremely uncivil rant
, earning a block on editing his talk page or e-mailing.
Today, Michael returned to re-revert the consensus decision on Erin Burnett OutFront. User:Diannaa reverted the edit, leading to another revert by Michael. Then he left a personal attack on Diannaa's talk page [327].
I think further administrative action is required. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- HuffPost is indeed not a reliable source, and especially not for BLP issues. --talk) 01:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- HuffPost is indeed not a reliable source, and especially not for BLP issues. --
- Indeed a refusal to get the point followed by childish retaliation. If it hadn't been for those reverts of Diannaa's edits I would have blocked only temporarily. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Result was Blocked by DrmiesKeystoneridin (speak) 05:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Where does the idea that Huffington Post is blanket unreliable come from? On RSN we would consider each case seriously. Have you looked through the archives? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- The reliability of the source isn't really the issue here, and that's a red herring. The issue is that various editors assert that the article edits misrepresent the knowledge to be gained from the source. See Talk:Erin Burnett#BLP for the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK. Do send it to RSN if you need views on reliability. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Roomdarkxx1 and BLP violations
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Roomdarkxx1 (talk · contribs) has been continuously inserting BLP violations into the article Alan Davey (musician). The page was semi-protected by user:Drmies but Roomdarkxx1 is now auto-confirmed. They were recently blocked by Drmies after failing to listen to instructions on their talk page, and their talk page access was removed by user:Fluffernutter when they repeated the BLP violations including insulting the subject (which Fluffernutter oversighted or deleted or whatever). Now that their block has worn off they have instantly returned to inserting the violating material. This is clearly a SPA with no intentions of stopping, so I think an indef is perhaps warranted? Thanks, OohBunnies! (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and before they made the account, I believe they are the IP address(es) in the article history, adding the same thing. Maybe the article should be semi-protected for a longer period to deter them from coming back as an IP and re-adding the BLP violations. OohBunnies! (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, if someone (anyone, please) wants to do something about this...the user is once again ranting in caps on their talk page...including insulting the subject of the article...I've reverted but they're going to do it again. So...anyone? OohBunnies! (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Indeffed per WP:NOTHERE basically. For the moment, I have not yet revoked his talk page privs; should he repost that rant, please let me know and I'll flip the switch. Salvio Let's talk about it!12:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, I knew my pitiful pleading had to work. ;) OohBunnies! (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Indeffed per
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.