Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive832
This user claims to be a "professional historian" and yet keeps inserting a new criticism section full of Christian apologetics at the Bart Ehrman page. Similarly on the Richard Carrier talk page, he makes various unsubstantiated assertions, trying to undermine Carrier.......P.S. If you are confused why a Christian would partially defend Ehrman against Carrier, as the user sometimes does, its because Ehrman still believes Jesus existed, something Richard Carrier doesn't. RosylynGrock (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- To explain the situation rather more clearly than that less than coherent paragraph which has been randomly plastered here and on two talk pages:
- Rosylyn Grock is new to Wikipedia. She made a number of contentious edits to two biographies of living persons. I reverted them, only to have them reverted back.
- The changes in question are:
- 1) The user wishes to alter Carrier's lead to read solely 'historian' rather than 'blogger' with 'trained historian' in the next paragraph. As I have pointed out, he is a blogger and is undoubtedly notifiable as a blogger. His historical work is of at best more doubtful merit, and even if it was not it is unlikely he would be notifiable solely on the basis of it. This change appears to be because of her admiration of Carrier and her desire to put his status/qualifications beyond doubt.
- 2) She wishes to alter text on Bart Ehrman's talk page to imply Carrier found major factual errors in Ehrman's work. As any objective reading of their dialogue would show, Carrier found a few minor errors. Not more than that. It is also worth considering whether Carrier should be on there at all given the source is his blog. There are plenty of good sources giving critical (in both senses) appraisals of Ehrman's work without bringing in material that has been discredited.
- Since edit warring is (a) pointless (b) time consuming for those of us who have books to write and classes to teach and (c) banned by Wikipedia, I have now left messages on the talk pages, to which I got the above abusive response, despite her having been advised by administrators on other pages of the protocols for editing Wikipedia. There was no attempt to engage with the issues or to make a defence of her actions. This person appears to have a heavy, to the point of irrational, bias in favour of Carrier. While I would not support a ban or a topic restraint at this time, I suggest that a caution might be in order.86.181.139.204 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- This sounds like a content dispute. I suggest taking the IP's advice, WP:DR, my suggestion to most people is to start at the top and work your way down. But try a third opinion before going any further. -- Atama頭18:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a content dispute. This guy claims to be a "professional historian", an expert in the field and claims to know personal details of Richard Carrier. Why would a professional historian insert a section full of Christian apologetics? Why would an expert in the field be so intent on undermining his colleagues Ehrman and Carrier? RosylynGrock (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- RosylynGrock WP:BLPN might be helpful. At its core, the dispute is about two BLP pages, where there are questions about how to characterize the professions of the persons. I couldn't care less who is a professional historian, an unprofessional historian, or a historical professional, and Rosylyn needs to understand that the only thing that matters is the edits to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, the core issue is that the other editor keeps inserting a new section full of Christian nonsense into the Bart Ehrman article while claiming to be a "professional historian", an expert in the field and claiming to know personal details of Richard Carrier.RosylynGrock (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- I realize that you are new to Wikipedia, but you really need to hear me, that criticizing another editor on the basis of their expertise or non-expertise is not going to help you, and may even end up getting you blocked from editing. If, as you believe, the material is "nonsense", then you can rest assured that our WP:BLPN. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- I can claim to be the King of Jupiter (prove that I'm not!) but it makes no difference how I edit Wikipedia. Tryptofish is giving you good advice here. Try the noticeboard for biographies of living people ( 17:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I realize that you are new to Wikipedia, but you really need to hear me, that criticizing another editor on the basis of their expertise or non-expertise is not going to help you, and may even end up getting you blocked from editing. If, as you believe, the material is "nonsense", then you can rest assured that our
- No, the core issue is that the other editor keeps inserting a new section full of Christian nonsense into the Bart Ehrman article while claiming to be a "professional historian", an expert in the field and claiming to know personal details of Richard Carrier.RosylynGrock (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- RosylynGrock
- This is not a content dispute. This guy claims to be a "professional historian", an expert in the field and claims to know personal details of Richard Carrier. Why would a professional historian insert a section full of Christian apologetics? Why would an expert in the field be so intent on undermining his colleagues Ehrman and Carrier? RosylynGrock (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- This sounds like a content dispute. I suggest taking the IP's advice,
- Since edit warring is (a) pointless (b) time consuming for those of us who have books to write and classes to teach and (c) banned by Wikipedia, I have now left messages on the talk pages, to which I got the above abusive response, despite her having been advised by administrators on other pages of the protocols for editing Wikipedia. There was no attempt to engage with the issues or to make a defence of her actions. This person appears to have a heavy, to the point of irrational, bias in favour of Carrier. While I would not support a ban or a topic restraint at this time, I suggest that a caution might be in order.86.181.139.204 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Possible pointy addition of speedy delete tags
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 reverted a series of {{db-inc}} speedy delete tags that were added to multiple articles by Simon161388 (talk · contribs). The user appears to be making pointy speedy nominations due to their opposition to earlier speedy, then prod, and now AfD tags that have been added to the article they created at Blue Penguins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
I'm reporting here so that others can review the speedy tags, as well as the user's behavior. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: some of the tagging may be appropriate; but the articles need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and not mass nominated in a pointy manner. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Barek decided to list me here after I mentioned several articles of self promotion of avertisment on few articles on a few companies. I used speedy deletion for the reason these articles did not have orginal sources to back them up.
- I had an article was written all to wiki's standards, being netural, has one or two sources to back up the company. This article was placed into speedy deletion as well. After naming sources But my article continues to be placed into the deletion category. But these articles remain.
- I felt a duty to mark these articles for speedy deletion since they do not have sources to back them up. Also mentioned most were report written for self promotion. I should mention most of these are written in a form of advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)contribs) - 03:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Lack of sources isn't the criteria for db-inc - a subset of WP:A7which reads: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines."
- Lack of sources isn't the criteria for db-inc - a subset of
- You've also suggested some of these articles might instead be WP:G11which reads in part: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion."
- You've also suggested some of these articles might instead be
- Happy to assume good faith and review the articles you've tagged, but as above, sourcing is not by itself a speedy deletion criteria and the bar is set quite high for suspected "promotional" pages. If you believe these articles should be deleted you will likely have to pursue ) 05:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Simon161388 is now AfDing multiple telecom/voip articles in a way which looks pointy. Martin451 1:26 pm, Today (UTC+0)
- WP:QUACKING in support of simon161388 on one AfD, after only making an edit to Blue Penguins. Martin45114:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- In this edit, Simon161388 removed 2 other users' comments. I have added them back in here. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- In this edit, I made small mistake by not noticing that I removed noticing the comments when I added my versions of events for Martin451. (Voceditenore) mentioned do not refactor another editor's comment). Well (talk) well you also removed my mentioned for a mistake. This has become a poltical cirus to keep an article here. Not worth the hassle, and wasted the entire day trying to defend an article, and point out spam articles.(talk) 16:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 11 March 2014
- No, what I reverted was your subsequent edit, where you actually attempted to refactor and remove David Biddulph's note. Voceditenore (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
No (Voceditenore) this is your version of events you also refracted my apology statement so get your facts straight before making accusations, looks like three ring circus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Martin451 has mentioned that I been tagging article in a bid for self promotion. I been tagging spam related articles that should not be listed on wikipedia as mentioned above from Euryalus. There was no mentioned that I had to find someone other than my self could flag them for spam. Yes I created an article for
These comments Martin451 left on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blue_Penguins, I am getting the impression that Martin451 has some form of personal interests with Voipfone, and XLN Telecom.
As far as
- If you think I have a 15:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- You know, I think your time would be better spent making Blue Penguins a stronger article, rather than trying to report other articles at AfD. A deletion discussion is exactly that...a discussion. You can often get ideas of how to improve the article and make it a more worthwhile contribution to the encyclopedia. I know it is painful to write an article only see it immediately proposed for deletion but the verdict isn't in so try to salvage your article by removing any promotional content. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
deletion discussion text copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Penguins - AfDs take place on their own page, and shouldn't be replicated here - links to them are sufficient.
|
|---|
Comments made by Martin451
Note The above comments were copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Penguins and pasted here by User:Simon161388 with this edit. Voceditenore (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Note I was just mentioning the comments made by Martin451 on Blue Penguins, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs) Note Konveyor Belt's comment above was not part of the original AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC) |
J0hn Galea
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.
Could an Admin please delete
) 12:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)- Done, salted and sock blocked. BencherliteTalk12:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Sock/troll needs blocking
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 user Note impersonation of [1]. --NeilN talk to me 20:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- I never said this was an actual photo of me. it is just a photo I am fond of. --れ下がった (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- You in fact did say "me" in your caption, twice, and claimed the photo as your own work, which would be a copyright violation. Good catch NeilN! Gaijin42 (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. The caption clearly says "Me, at Tokyo University of the Arts in 2014 January". Stop messing around. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. The caption clearly says "Me, at Tokyo University of the Arts in 2014 January". Stop
- You in fact did say "me" in your caption, twice, and claimed the photo as your own work, which would be a copyright violation. Good catch NeilN! Gaijin42 (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- I never said this was an actual photo of me. it is just a photo I am fond of. --れ下がった (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please do not block me, Talk to me and we can discuss this like adults. Something that the above user does not want to do (User:NeilN) wants to do. English is not my first language so I did not mean to say it is my photo. But I have permission to use it. But to block and accuse someone as a sock/troll because of a minor photo rule? --れ下がった (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I tagged the image for deletion at Commons so it may disappear soon. And れ下がった|れ下がった, our admins aren't stupid. --NeilN talk to me 21:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) The word "me" is generally understood to mean the speaker, even among those with limited skills in English (and yours seem to be quite adequate). You posted the photo on Jimbo's page with a statement that it was an image of you, and you also claimed to have given a well-attended lecture at Tokyo University today that, a fact that you wanted to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article. Since you acknowledge that the photo is not you, therefore that you are not Mo Yan, the case is rather clear that you are Talk21:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Whoever he may be, definitely ) 21:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- For whatever worth, there is no professor by the name of Aito Tayakimati (or any of a number of variants) listed among the teaching staff at Tokyo University of the Arts. Talk21:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- For whatever worth, there is no professor by the name of Aito Tayakimati (or any of a number of variants) listed among the teaching staff at Tokyo University of the Arts.
And see this diff.
- For what it's worth, Google Translate renders the user's name as "You have been dropped". Tarc (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Anonymous user requesting deletion of fully protected image
Not sure what to do with this, so bring it here for advice. I received a request on my talk page asking for me to delete File:Image.jpg on the basis of a different image was available on commons with the same name. Some quick checks show the image on the English Wikipedia is permanently protected and that I am not the only admin to have received this request ([2] and [3]). The protection logs do not specify a reason for why the image was permanently protected (the ability to add such information was very limited back in 2005), but I suspect it is to force anyone attempting to upload an image to such a generic name to choose an appropriate name. Any advice on how to best deal with this request? --Allen3 talk 22:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Can files be WP:SALTed? If so, the local file could possibly be deleted and just salt the local file name.--Rockfang (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is would be possible to WP:SALT the name on the English Wikipedia. A deletion and SALTing would effectively result in the image being replaced by the commons:File:Image.jpg. The image on commons is currently semi-protected, so it is possible for users lacking an admin account on commons to over-right the contents of the image file.
- The more I look at this request, the less I like it. File:Image.jpg is used in places such as {{Protected generic image name}} along with documentation for a variety of templates (e.g. {{Infobox college softball team}}). Other uses of the image appear to be in articles where an editor used an automated method to add an image but failed to change the name of the image from a default value. As there are individuals that are banned on the English Wikipedia but who are active on Commons, granting this request could allow such an individual a means to insert an inappropriate image into a large number of locations here. Unless someone else can point out other considerations, I am thinking it is probably best to not grant this request. --Allen3 talk 23:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is would be possible to
- I don't think this request should be granted; the current local image actually states "don't upload files with this title", where as the commons image just says "IMAGE" - the text actually tells the editor attempting to upload a file why they can't do it with that name. Thus, I say we decline this request. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Not seeing much point replacing our version with Commons' version. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I got asked as well. Placeholder images on Commons are supposed to be redirects to File:Name.jpg; this one is an aberration. Until Image.jpg at Commons goes to the right place, we shouldn't replace our more helpful image with Commons' less helpful image. Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Not seeing much point replacing our version with Commons' version. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Request for arbitration re inappropriate editing of leads on Daniel Amen article
Request for arbitration go at
talk ) 23:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
Involved parties
Confirmation that all parties are aware of request:
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Problem B) (in short) large chunks of opening text, all fully supported by factual citations, are being continually reverted in a 24 hour cycle from the article lead. No citation mentioning a non-negative fact can survive more than 24 hours on this site in the lead. Facts, such as that the article subject is a neurologist, or that he works in this capacity for the National Football League should not be repeatedly stripped from the article.
Use of the word "condemned" related to the article subjects medical theory (he is a board certified psychiatrist and neurologist) in the article lead is inappropriate. It is also editorializing in the lead of an article about a living person. And-- So is the statement that his diagnostic theory has not been accepted by the psychiatric or medical community (the editor claiming this is not properly sourcing such a claim). 1) This is an abuse of MOS:LEAD .
MOS:LEAD Requires neutrality in the opening
MOS:LEAD says "no contentious language in the opening". The word "condemned" is very contentious. It is also clearly being used by the editors to condemn the article subject (both the person and his theories).
Saying that his therapy "is condemned" is also an interpretation of what others have said. No one else, not one professional in the field, has been quoted using the word "condemned". Also as per WP:FRINGE theory must not be drawn from newspapers (instead medical publications would have to report the theory as effectively "Fringe").
MOS:LEAD says the following-- "Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view".
WP:FRINGE ).
From WP:FRINGE --
Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point. Dr. Amen, the proponent of this theory and the subject of this article, has the following credentials: 1) He is a board certified psychiatrist. US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619
2) He is a board certified neurologist. US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619
He is a graduate of the following schools: Amen received his undergraduate degree from Southern California College in 1978 and his doctorate from Oral Roberts University School of Medicine in 1982. US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619
Amen did his general psychiatric training at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619 and his child and adolescent psychiatry training at Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu. US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619
He also works for the neurologist(a Doctor ) (See article).
Therefore, as per academic debate still exists on this point.
Lastly, Dr. Amen has 22 (twenty-two) published peer-reviewed articles, listed on PUBMED, an authoritative source, here is PUBMEDs listing of his articles: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%28Daniel%20Amen[Author]%29&cmd=DetailsSearch
Here is list of WP:FRINGEas a reason not to treat the article as a fringe topic, again-- should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists
None of this proves that Dr. Amen is right, and his theories have certainly been criticized by number of his colleagues (not unusual at all in medicine and science) but altogether, none of this proves that Dr. Amen's theory meets the standards of WP:FRINGE , and at best it is a new idea meeting the same flurry of doubt that most new ideas get in science and medicine.
In any case, the article does not warrant WP:FRINGE labeling or editorial treatment, and so words like "condemned" and "controversy" are not appropriate for the lead. It would be appropriate however to say something like, "a number of scientists in his field have criticized his theory" or, "the veracity of his theory is still under debate in the scientific community".
Problem B) (added detail and link to contrib and evidence of violent imagery by alleged offender)I was able to find the specific contrib of one of the people doing these wholesale removals of cited text, with links to the relevant contribs. ArtifexMayhem (most recent removal of citations and text about article subject being a ADHD and being employed by the National Football League .
See this contrib " 20:43, 11 March 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-51) . . Daniel Amen (→top: Not supported by the source provided) " on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ArtifexMayhem In fact, every citation that he/she removed was a supporting source. Please also note the word "Mayhem" in the username. Use of violent imagery: Please also note, this person has a violent image on left side of his Userpage. Please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArtifexMayhem Thanks for looking into these concerns. [Special:Contributions/2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45|2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45]] (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
|
- Thanks, but I went to WP:RFARand can't find anything there about where to actually file an arbitration request.
- Thanks, but I went to
- The issue has been exhaustively debated, with no resolution so I very much want to do this. Is there a link that takes me straight to the page where I file the request?
- 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Many thanks
- The procedure for initiating arbitration is set out on WP:RFAR - see the section entitled 'Requests for arbitration'. However, I'd strongly advise you not to request arbitration at this point, as it seems certain that you will be told that there have been insufficient attempts to resolve this elsewhere. I suggest that instead you post a brief and on-topic summary of the issue at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, explaining exactly what the problem is (as you see it) in the Daniel Amen article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- The procedure for initiating arbitration is set out on
- How about a mediation request. Where do I make that directly?
- BTW, re WP:RFAR, I've looked all through it. It certainly isn't easy to find that answer there.
- BTW, re
- 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- For various options, including mediation, see WP:BLPN first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- For various options, including mediation, see
- I started a thread at BLPN as I feel Wikipedia is going overboard to characterize Amen's work as disreputable. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Multiple 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.
Users seems to be associated with a political party and vandalizing multiple templates and pages. They have been provided multiple warnings.
Got some wierd messages from User:Bishonen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/Clueless_complaints_about_Sitush_noticeboard
- User:Bishonen
- User:Sitush
- User:IronGargoyle Pulkit18 indore (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)}}
- URLs in the message above have been fixed by Tito☸Dutta 00:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC) See also: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Aam_Aadmi_Party_electioneering Tito☸Dutta 00:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
-
- Also see User_talk:IronGargoyle#having_payeng and concerns about notability raised on some of the article talk pages. Not to mention a couple of warnings issued to them. This is a concert party of COI editors at best but it'sd 00:50 here & I need my sleep. They seem to have ignored the suggestion on my edit notice of taking the issue to WP:AN/S. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wrong venue. Please repost at CCASN. --RexxS (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Pulkit18 indore, unsourced prose in articles about current election candidates in India. Please desist as it is becoming disruptive. The editors you "report" above are appropriately reverting or modifying this non-neutral text to bring it back into line with encyclopedic standards. If you disagree with their edits you should raise the issue on the relevant article talk page, and not here. Euryalus (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- The dedicated Sitush noticeboard has already been linked to no less than three times above (once by the OP!). Will somebody please move this complaint there? Bishonen | talk 06:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
- Pulkit18 indore,
- Wrong venue. Please repost at CCASN. --RexxS (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, doesn't seem that bad. One fairly major, one minor and not that easy to avoid. Warned him, hopefully it won't happen again. talk) 13:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edit warring and persistent addition of unsourced and potentially controversial material to Daniel Andreas San Diego, a BLP. User has been repeatedly warned. I am unable to revert their most recent addition of the same material out of respect for the 3 revert rule. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLPREMOVE policy states that the removal of BLP violations or contentious material that is unsourced or badly sourced is exempt from the 3 Revert rule. What is or is not a BLP violation can be controversial so it is always best to take such matters to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Take your pick...but this may not be the right venue for the matter at this time.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- It appears that Blackguard SF has removed the content as a copyright violation so admin may want to keep their eyes on the IP for further, or other such violations. I support blocking for persistent copyright violations, but that's just me.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also Ad Orientem, you only reverted twice, so you had one more revert that would NOT have crossed the 3RR. Now...the IP is at their 3rr limit. If they revert again I strongly recommend reporting to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Mark for your prompt response. Re WP:BLPREMOVE, I think Harvard Law School should start a course in Wiki rules and regs. How admins can keep up with all of them is beyond me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Now there is also another option I should really be mentioning....reach out to the editor and discuss the issue with them on the talk page or their user talk page. Many don't suggest approaching editors engaged in reverts on their own user page...but it is an option if you feel you can do so without it becoming heated. Perhaps they don't know the ends and outs of Wikipedia and you may have information that can help them avoid a block for edit warring. IP's are editors too so, remember that, even though they may not be registered they are still just like you....but may not know our policies and guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Actually I did leave multiple messages in the form of template warnings. I started with the very friendly AGF level 1. The next one was an only slightly more pointed level 2. After that however I had trouble assuming AGF and left a rather strongly worded note. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Now there is also another option I should really be mentioning....reach out to the editor and discuss the issue with them on the talk page or their user talk page. Many don't suggest approaching editors engaged in reverts on their own user page...but it is an option if you feel you can do so without it becoming heated. Perhaps they don't know the ends and outs of Wikipedia and you may have information that can help them avoid a block for edit warring. IP's are editors too so, remember that, even though they may not be registered they are still just like you....but may not know our policies and guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Mark for your prompt response. Re
- Also Ad Orientem, you only reverted twice, so you had one more revert that would NOT have crossed the 3RR. Now...the IP is at their 3rr limit. If they revert again I strongly recommend reporting to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- It appears that Blackguard SF has removed the content as a copyright violation so admin may want to keep their eyes on the IP for further, or other such violations. I support blocking for persistent copyright violations, but that's just me.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, DangerousPanda is correct. Sometimes such templating can be confusing to newbies and the regulars don't appreciate them. So, while these templates are certainly there to be used, the entire point of Wikipedia (aside from the free flow of information) is collaborative editing. Working together, even if you have had a bad experience with an editor can sometimes be a sign to the other editor that your intentions are to be helpful and work on the article in a way that improves the page and the project. In fact I had to remind myself of this fact when replying to you. It is very easy to become frustrated and annoyed with someone that just keeps placing back the same bad content. Explain why it is not appropriate, be friendly and always assume good faith unless it is outright vandalism.
- You never know when you may be the one needing assistance instead of just reaction.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Actually - I think BlackGuard_SF is correct , the second paragraph starting with "He has several tattoos" is a word-for-word copy from | fbi.gov just as he says. The rest appears not to be, so I'd support a re-wording of that paragraph alone the rest didn't need to be removed. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 10:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I see nothing that disputes that here from anyone.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- But now that you mention it...is BlackGuard really correct about a copyright violation from FBI.gov? It is an official site of the U.S. government, U.S. Department of Justice and in such should fall within the public domain.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Mark Miller is right. It probably would have been better to reach out to the new IP (templates are, in a way, copy-paste by proxy - we're asking editors to contribute in his own words, after all). His edits were clearly in good faith, which is why I opted for the soft uw-copyright-new template, and weren't controversial WP:BLP violations. For the record, six of the seven paragraphs, not just one, were copied from this press release. You can tell when the WP:COPYVIO ends when the grammar and spelling errors begin. Is government material is exempt from copyright? Would six paragraphs of a press release improve an encyclopedic article? These are bigger questions, and I don't have particularly strong feelings about either. Blackguard 23:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- But now that you mention it...is BlackGuard really correct about a copyright violation from FBI.gov? It is an official site of the U.S. government, U.S. Department of Justice and in such should fall within the public domain.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I see nothing that disputes that here from anyone.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Actually - I think BlackGuard_SF is correct , the second paragraph starting with "He has several tattoos" is a word-for-word copy from | fbi.gov just as he says. The rest appears not to be, so I'd support a re-wording of that paragraph alone the rest didn't need to be removed. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 10:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all of the input above. I will try to limit the use of templates to cases of obvious vandalism or other similar situations where AGF cannot be reasonably applied. On the subject of the FBI copyright, my understanding is that if it comes from the US Government and is posted openly on one of their websites, sans a copyright or some other "do not copy" notice, it is considered to be within the public domain. All of which makes me feel rather badly. If the user had simply cited the source and put some quotes around the text I think he would have been in the clear. You will excuse me now as I think I need to drop an apology on a certain talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring and ownership at Manned mission to Mars
User:Marsadvexpdev wishes to include a section called "Solar System Longboats" which is based solely on one scientific paper that he wrote. The paper was apparently not peer reviewed and seems to have attracted no attention - I am unable to find any citations and he is either unable or unwilling to correct this deficiency. I obtained a third opinion - see the article' talk page. Marsadvexpdev's approach is to be personally abusive and to ignore requests for further references, simply to restore the section. See my talk page, User talk:Marsadvexpdev and User talk:TransporterMan. andy (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- It is possible that an administrator may see any one of the single reverts made by Marsadvexpdev to be edit warring, but 3RR has not been violated as the reverts only consist of three reverts - one on the 4th, another on the 6th and this last one on the 11th[7]. But even a single edit can be edit warring. I have reverted based on TransporterMan's research that he mentions in his third opinion which, as he states, is non binding, which in itself may be confusing the editor. But, clearly the source is not reliable as it is not peer reviewed. I highly recommend that this be taken to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard since the source being used is supposedly the work of the editor placing the non RS into the article. This may well be considered spam so an admin may see this as edit warring with spam posting. It is a possible out come.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I do see it as edit warring with spam posting. Slow edit warring isn't all that much more acceptable than fast. But the editor is new and uninformed, so I've started with some information: a "soft" edit war warning, {{uw-ewsoft}}, and some stuff about using talkpages — he hasn't posted on the article talkpage even once — he does want to discuss, but even when he's responding to something on Talk:Manned mission to Mars, such as the request for third opinion, he takes it to the person's usertalk. We should be aware that the system isn't very self-explanatory..! And I wrote to him about using edit summaries, also. I'll get to advice about not being so combative later… and about the advisability of responding here… unless somebody else does, which would be good. I'd rather not fill up their talkpage with more of my sigs than I've already done. Bishonen | talk13:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
- Well, yes, I do see it as edit warring with spam posting. Slow edit warring isn't all that much more acceptable than fast. But the editor is new and uninformed, so I've started with some information: a "soft" edit war warning, {{uw-ewsoft}}, and some stuff about using talkpages — he hasn't posted on the article talkpage even once — he does want to discuss, but even when he's responding to something on
(
I want someone to answer the questions that I have posted regarding overall standards and comparisons to other materials placed on this page. I have asked Mr. Andy J Smith to answer these questions but he seems unwilling to do so due to some kind of bias or preference. Based on the other material there, one especially, my post should be just as acceptable. Please answer regarding all the examples I have put forward. Here is a cut and past of the questions from Transporterman's site: "Based on this statement, we should revisit all the material on this page a little closer then - here are a few examples:
- MarsDrive mission design (2008) - is a piece internally referencing other Wikipedia sites (internal self referencing is not a basis for validating information), and published data on the other pages are from articles written on SpaceReview or ISDC conferences (also some of those links don't work).
- NASA Austere Human Missions to Mars (2009) - is a file solely referencing either an internal NASA PDF presentation or an AIAA presentation - nothing published and only opinion.
- USA's Mars orbit by the mid-2030s (2010) - is a piece internally referencing other Wikipedia sites and a Staff Op-Ed article in Science - not a published technical study or Mars mission design!
- Russian mission proposals (2011) - this entry and its links call on information from the Russian space web site (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/index.html), which is a single person owned web site that has no external controls over the information published on the site.
- NASA/SpaceX 'Red Dragon' (2012) - first, this has nothing to do with Mars, and second, it internally references several other Wikipedia sites and externally references a NAC meeting report and an article in Space.com - where is the credibility in this information or the relevance to Mars mission information/design?
And lastly and most related to the issue at hand is a input on the same page that is almost exactly like the one I placed there:
- Conceptual Space Vehicle Architecture for Human Exploration of Mars (2012) - an item which contains a single paragraph and a reference to a single AIAA paper.
Given this, and Mr. Andy J Smith's persistent editing and TransporterMan's comments, at the very least this last input example should be also be deleted. And if not, my entry, therefore has just as much validity to remain on this page as any of the examples presented above. Unless Wikipedia has a rule that says that all information on their site must come from peer reviewed journal publications, then any AIAA work should be of sufficient quality as to be used on this site. Given this, I plan on restoring the information I put there when I get a chance, yet again.
Note: AIAA's H-index ranking in the Aerospace Engineering category is 82 which places it at the top of its index. If that is not a relevant location to reference work from than what is? Most of the other items discussed above don't even have information published in Journals or their related conferences. Also, note that many other sections of this page and sub-linked pages have missing links/data and other problems that lend to a diminished credibility of the information presented in this section."
And yes, the talk and respond sections of Wikipedia are not intuitive or user friendly unless you have a lot of time to learn how to navigate them. And most people who would contribute substantial information, i.e., subject matter experts, are probably too busy to learn these tricks. Marsadvexpdev (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Let me offer up one comment and one tip. The tip: your signature goes at the end of your post, thus signifying the end, rather than at the beginning. I've moved yours above, which I hope you won't mind, to model the correct format, and have repaired some other formatting errors that materially affected how your input displayed.
- Now the comment. There is a perverse sort of logic here that subject matter experts who can source edits (and everything, be it edit or revision is termed an edit here) to their own academic work are somehow in conflict of interest, and their work is not a valid source because it does not appear in a secondary source (i.e. someone else is not talking about it.) I am an academic, and don't edit anything close to my area of expertise for that reason, and because they've conflated US and UK practice in my area into one article that accurately reflects neither. The sources all look right, but the people citing them don't understand them at the level of depth needed to interpret them correctly, much less write about them at a level of scholarship one would expect from an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an exercise in compromise over scholarship in that sense. It's like populist art: Thomas Kincade rather than James Whistler. I've long since resigned myself to that, and stayed in the safer, casual subject matter areas. It keeps my blood pressure down. Andy Smtih is making an honest effort to write a good article, there's no doubt in my mind. Transporterman has explained the conference acceptance process accurately (but may not know that your proposal was peer reviewed, and may have required submission of a paper prior to your presentation.) They're doing their best within the guidelines available to them. Attempting to hold them to a different standard won't help until the guidelines are changed. Regrettable, but true. --Drmargi (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've tried multiple times to defend subject-matter experts as well, but there are (at least) three problems with experts using their own work to expand articles. None of them, by the way, have anything to do with conflicts of interest; while COI is often cited as a reason to resist allowing the use of such sources it's not really the problem. The issues are these:
- Wikipedia values neutrality as a core principle, something that is difficult to achieve when an editor is using their own work. (This is tangentially related to COI, admittedly.)
- Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and is meant to be an aggregate of secondary sources. Wikipedia is not meant to be a primary source, where original research is used to develop articles. Nor is it a secondary source that analyzes and interprets primary sources. Instead, it is meant to use secondary sources as references; sources that reliably analyze original research outside of Wikipedia itself. All of that makes it anathema to include information directly from experts.
- Decisions on Wikipedia, from policies to content, are decided by consensus. One knowledgeable expert's opinion when weighed against the opinion of a dozen others isn't going to be a determining factor, especially if those dozen non-experts are more familiar with existing policies and guidelines. This is made even worse by the anonymity most editors have, where it is difficult for anyone to verify an editor's actual credentials and so a claim of expertise is given less weight than it might in the real world.
- So by necessity, the way that Wikipedia has been built from the ground up makes it very difficult for experts to have much influence, and it's much more complicated than conflicts of interest. There have been other projects like Citizendium that have been designed to be more friendly to experts, but (at least in my opinion) they haven't had the kind of success that Wikipedia has had (either in terms of size or popularity). -- Atama頭 18:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Overall Atama I don't think you are all that incorrect with your statements above but, there are a few things. "Conflict of interest" is actually a type of behavior, not necessarily just being related to the subject or the source, however the neutrality issue is a concern if you are using your own work to source claims you yourself are making. Wikipedia attempts to be welcoming to everyone and experts are needed in every field and subject. It's just that an expert, using their own work can easily cross that line without even realizing it. COI is a behavioral guideline. It is not yet a policy and certainly not a Bright-line rule. But is has been the subject of a great deal of discussion and the guideline has been re-written to be about as precise as editors can make. Here is what we currently say about COI editing: "When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest. This is often expressed as: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."
- I've tried multiple times to defend subject-matter experts as well, but there are (at least) three problems with experts using their own work to expand articles. None of them, by the way, have anything to do with conflicts of interest; while COI is often cited as a reason to resist allowing the use of such sources it's not really the problem. The issues are these:
- Experts should familiarize themselves with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The main problem that generally comes up are non academic experts. Those who have no real field but claim expertise in areas that are not academic or scholastic. But, like everyone else, sometimes experts feel they know more about a subject and can get offended or angered when their legitimate source is declined simply because they placed it there. Remember, if you are edit warring or being unusually determined to place YOUR documentation into the article around the consensus of others, than you are advancing your outside interests above the interests of Wikipedia. However...it is almost never that black and white.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Experts should familiarize themselves with
Talk page violation
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 posted a notice to
- Are you quite certain that "admonished" is the correct word here? Eric Corbett 19:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, not at all sure. I'd be down with "told," "instructed," "advised," "prodded," "nudge, nudge, wink, winked," or "clued in." I know John's trying to do the right thing here and is to be commended for that and I'm sure he'll listen to good counsel. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Opening a request for mediation while an RfC is in progress is disruptive. I'd like to see User:TransporterMan "admonished" not to waste our time with a frivolous and out-of-process move here. (The Mediation Committee can only discuss content issues, and the content issues are already in the middle of being discussed) See here for a taste of the regular and frequent disruption that has been caused to our project by the long-term dispute over whether the game Wikipedia knows as association football should be known as soccer, football or something else in an Australian context. With a view to clarifying different understandings of the consensus here, I asked some of the disputants to comment in an RfC here. My attempt to solve the problem of Australian sport naming seems unlikely to be progressed by having another process started in the middle of the existing one, unless it brings more eyes to the RfC. My approach has recently been reviewed here and by Arbcom. If the community and specifically Arbcom saw no problems with the existing process, why would we need to open another discussion? I fear it will waste more editors' time and energy. --John (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'd have to dig them out but there have been many attempts and proposals over the years to create a binding content dispute resolution process. All have failed. Some of those proposals were very carefully crafted to draw in the maximum amount of community input possible and to limit their use to the most intractable of conduct disputes. Yet they have failed. (The most recent one being a proposal for a system of binding RfC's.) It therefore beggars the imagination that the ability of the entire community to edit content in a particular way can be restricted by gaining a simple consensus of the editors who care to participate in an ordinary, garden-variety RfC filed by any editor who wishes to file one. If this is a legitimate process, then every content dispute over the background color of infoboxes is going to have an RfC filed and a line added to the RfC proposal that says, "and if consensus is reached on this then no one can ever do it differently ever again, nor can the consensus reached in this RFC ever be changed by any future consensus." If 10 of the 12 editors who !vote in that RfC strike a consensus, then every infobox on WP from then on, forever and ever, amen, will be the color adopted. Moreover, even with the currently-pending RfC there is going to be weeks to years of drama and disruption over the question of whether or not it was legitimate and it sets the stage for that drama to be repeated again and again and again in future RFC's. John believes that those questions can be put off until after the current RfC has been concluded, but that's just trading one set of disruptions for many, many more. It's a question that needs to be resolved before editors can contend that the result of the current RfC is legitimate and binding, not afterwards. Frankly, MedCom may not be the best place to seek that resolution, but ANI is clearly not that place. I appreciate John's effort to solve this particular problem and, indeed, I am on record as a supporter of some form of binding content resolution, but we really need to have a much larger conversation about whether this is the way to go about it. The MedCom filing is one way to have that conversation. Regards, here. — TM 20:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'd have to dig them out but there have been many attempts and proposals over the years to create a binding content dispute resolution process. All have failed. Some of those proposals were very carefully crafted to draw in the maximum amount of community input possible and to limit their use to the most intractable of conduct disputes. Yet they have failed. (The most recent one being a proposal for a system of binding RfC's.) It therefore beggars the imagination that the ability of the entire community to edit content in a particular way can be restricted by gaining a simple consensus of the editors who care to participate in an ordinary, garden-variety RfC filed by any editor who wishes to file one. If this is a legitimate process, then every content dispute over the background color of infoboxes is going to have an RfC filed and a line added to the RfC proposal that says, "and if consensus is reached on this then no one can ever do it differently ever again, nor can the consensus reached in this RFC ever be changed by any future consensus." If 10 of the 12 editors who !vote in that RfC strike a consensus, then every infobox on WP from then on, forever and ever, amen, will be the color adopted. Moreover, even with the currently-pending RfC there is going to be weeks to years of drama and disruption over the question of whether or not it was legitimate and it sets the stage for that drama to be repeated again and again and again in future RFC's. John believes that those questions can be put off until after the current RfC has been concluded, but that's just trading one set of disruptions for many, many more. It's a question that needs to be resolved before editors can contend that the result of the current RfC is legitimate and binding, not afterwards. Frankly, MedCom may not be the best place to seek that resolution, but ANI is clearly not that place. I appreciate John's effort to solve this particular problem and, indeed, I am on record as a supporter of some form of binding content resolution, but we really need to have a much larger conversation about whether this is the way to go about it. The MedCom filing is one way to have that conversation. Regards,
- Sorry this process is too simple for you. Re binding RfCs, Salvio doesn't agree with you. We aren't talking about the colour of infoboxes and I'm not sure why this is relevant here, and neither are we discussing deciding anything "forever and ever, amen" but trying to agree not to rehash something again that has been discussed to death already, led to several blocks and many tens of hours of wasted time, until next August. I am sure that your intentions are good too, but your intervention isn't well-judged and your hyperbole and red herrings certainly aren't. --John (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- With all respect, and I have a great deal of respect for him (and you), Salvio's opinions as an arbitrator and an administrator are worth no more than any other editor where content matters are concerned. Frankly, I can make a pretty good case for ArbCom-ordered binding content resolution, as mentioned by Salvio, in those cases where other means of dealing with severe conduct disruptions have proven to be fruitless (just as, by way of analogy, the CONLIMITED. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I know I was only a member of MEDCOM for a brief time, and it was a while ago, but is mediation where something like this is going to be solved, or should be? I thought that mediation was to settle content disputes. This sounds more like a policy dispute (whether or not an RfC is binding). I'm not so much objecting here as I'm trying to understand, especially since mediations themselves are usually not binding, but voluntary per WP:MEDIATION. So using a non-binding discussion to determine whether a different discussion was binding seems... Weird? -- Atama頭21:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I know I was only a member of MEDCOM for a brief time, and it was a while ago, but is mediation where something like this is going to be solved, or should be? I thought that mediation was to settle content disputes. This sounds more like a policy dispute (whether or not an RfC is binding). I'm not so much objecting here as I'm trying to understand, especially since mediations themselves are usually not binding, but voluntary per
- With all respect, and I have a great deal of respect for him (and you), Salvio's opinions as an arbitrator and an administrator are worth no more than any other editor where content matters are concerned. Frankly, I can make a pretty good case for ArbCom-ordered binding content resolution, as mentioned by Salvio, in those cases where other means of dealing with severe conduct disruptions have proven to be fruitless (just as, by way of analogy, the
Is ANI the place? Transporterman brought a conduct issue here. Now the mediation case is being played out here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- You just said it was a conduct issue so...yes, ANI is where one brings conduct issues if intervention is needed. Mediation does not deal with conduct but content so I fail to see how mediation is now taking place here. Experianced editors are attempting to weigh in and I think TransportationMan's initial filing seems to make it clear that this is a matter of conduct and intervention could be anything from an admin stepping in and using tools to just an experienced editor helping to determine what the issue may be and how to handle it.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- My experience with "binding" RfC's is they arise as the result of a process in which the principle disputants agree on wording (and evidence ie sources) - that can and has occurred from a mediation(Muhammad Images RfC). They also should be widely advertised in multiple boards and -- then the things that one cannot know: a solid consensus (often closed by a panel of three) arising from a pretty large participation after thirty days of being open. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I can not but repudiate any decision here that would validate this RFC as anyway binding. That is a question for the community. There is no question here if an RFC can be used to effectively create policy. I think everyone would certainly answer that they can. The question is if an RFC set up like this can. I feel there can be no greater farce than to legitimize the answer to that question here under the ANI banner. A banner that says, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." I feel that this would be tantamount to a minority group making a backroom deal and then running the elite to enforce it.
- They didn't work this thru dispute resolution until ARBCOM could take this case. ARBCOM didn't set it up to be bound.
- They didn't goto the greater community. They opened up a RFC and advertised it under "Society, sports, and culture" and "Wikipedia style and naming". They opened it for 14 days. Let's not stand here and make a Kangaroo court. If there is a need for this kind of action then take to the community. Just like arbcom was set up so to can something else. If policy already exists then show it to me. Show me where an an Admin or just any editor can form a small ad hoc group to make a policy that the whole community has to abide by. Show me the policy. If you can't then don't enertain offering a decision here on this matter. You can talk about what ever you wish but when it's time that any decision me made go back to the matter that started this. Keep it to the conduct dispute.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I guess one question we can put to this AN/I board is, are there any admin actions that will likely be taken, as a result of whatever the outcome there was of this now disputed RfC process? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- The content consensus should be respected. There is every reason to respect the content consensus. As this came thru discussion editors should be weary of trying to get consensus by editing. The policy consensus should not be. There is no reason to respect it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Excellent There is an argument about whether a certain game should be called "soccer" or "football", and there is an argument about the argument at the RfC, and now there is an argument about the argument about the argument at Mediation and here at ANI. And that's not counting the request for arbitration (declined 12 March). Hint to prospective mediators: everyone knows that an RfC cannot be binding. There are two reasons for the RfC. First, to get the participants to say whether they can agree on anything (such as what the issue is), and to allow the participants to come to an understanding that arguing-to-death is not going to win their case, and to consider pausing the argument until August next year (that will be two years after the last RfC reached a conclusion that has been contested ever since). The second reason for the RfC is that if another ANI discussion is necessary, it will be much clearer which participants have been behaving collaboratively, and which haven't. Then the matter can be resolved with topic bans or blocks, as needed. John should be applauded for volunteering to try this approach as the alternative (weekly fights) was very tiresome. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I commend John for his effort. I applaud his effort. It would be great if everyone choose to consider pausing this argument. I hope it's not neceassry to end banning productive editors that generally follow policy outside of this dispute. However I have every reason to believe that this RFC is intended to actually be binding. I do not commend or applaud that. I'm apalled at that. As A proposed alternative I suggest finding out what the consensus is and doing something similar to what they have done at Talk:American Civil War with the FAQ section of the talk page. As I understand this was done so that wasn't necessary to continue to argue it to death. As the consensus changes it to can be changed. There is no honest reason to have the facade of a binding RFC.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it's soccer / "association football." Really hasn't been much of an argument since last August's RFC was fairly conclusive. There's been a lot of I don't like it clever arguments about why common name shouldn't apply but not a lot of substance. While John clearly has good intentions, he's not getting a clear read on the situation (arbcom didn't actually endorse his actions per se) and edit warring on the page was silly and trying to declare / enforce a moratorium on future discussion is really problematic. (consensus can change is policy). If the RFC is declared "closed as no discussion until Aug 2015" and a new account or previous non-participant comes by the page and says "hey, shouldn't this be called football?" it's going to be really problematic if admin powers are used, and really problematic if the "no discussion consensus" isn't "enforced." John's good intentions may be paving a wikiroad to ... a problematic place. NE Ent02:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- No one will be blocked for saying "hey, shouldn't this be called football?". However, such a question will be answered by pointing to the RfCs and saying that unless new evidence is provided, it would be disruptive to re-open a question which has seen year-long battles. After a couple of back-and-forths and an insistence that a new discussion must be held (and assuming no compelling new evidence is available), a new user might be warned that pursuing the matter would be unhelpful. If they press on, they would possibly be blocked with a review of the block at ANI. The alternative—disallowing the current RfC because no discussion at Wikipedia can ever resolve anything—would just allow the bickering to continue forever, and would render all RfCs and all ANI discussions null and void because anything could be contested/appealed indefinitely without relief so there is no point ever deciding anything. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- But then if those on the talk page didn't want to talk would that rule out them seeking a wp:medcom. It's very clear they shouldn't harrass others on the talk page. It's not about if an RFC can be used to do this. It's about if an RFC done like this can do this. Can a consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, with little advertisement or effort to bring in the greater community force a policy on the greater community? Where is the oversight? Where is the limitation?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- But then if those on the talk page didn't want to talk would that rule out them seeking a
- No one will be blocked for saying "hey, shouldn't this be called football?". However, such a question will be answered by pointing to the RfCs and saying that unless new evidence is provided, it would be disruptive to re-open a question which has seen year-long battles. After a couple of back-and-forths and an insistence that a new discussion must be held (and assuming no compelling new evidence is available), a new user might be warned that pursuing the matter would be unhelpful. If they press on, they would possibly be blocked with a review of the block at ANI. The alternative—disallowing the current RfC because no discussion at Wikipedia can ever resolve anything—would just allow the bickering to continue forever, and would render all RfCs and all ANI discussions null and void because anything could be contested/appealed indefinitely without relief so there is no point ever deciding anything. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I saw that but I also saw: However, such a question will be answered by pointing to the RfCs and saying that unless new evidence is provided, it would be disruptive to re-open a question which has seen year-long battles. After a couple of back-and-forths and an insistence that a new discussion must be held (and assuming no compelling new evidence is available), a new user might be warned that pursuing the matter would be unhelpful. If they press on, they would possibly be blocked with a review of the block at ANI. Which again would that preclude seeking a third opinion or another RFC? Would that preclude trying to take it to some form of dispute resolution? And those who have had the discussion when can they revisit it? After a month? A fresh print of the Sysdney Times calling it football would be new evidence.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- What is the problem? If someone re-beating dead horses, they may not get support at ANI. If someone finds new evidence, of course they will be welcome to raise the matter and start a discussion on possible consequences of the new evidence. Wikilawyering about what "new" means may not get support at ANI—if someone can show that similar material was raised in a previous discussion, it is not new. To put all this another way—what is the alternative? Are you suggesting that the community should sit back and let the soccer and football supporters fight it out indefinitely? The loudest and most persistent group wins? Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Fight it out indefinitely? There are topic bans, blocks, and if really gets bad enough there is arbcom. And if it really needs to be done like this take it to the community. Don't even take this question to the community. Go to the community and ask them to set up something so this can be done this way. Have some oversight, structure and rules so a group creationists, some other ideological minority, or who ever doesn't walk in and try to play this same fast game. You wouldn't need wikilawyers if you didn't have wikijudges. It's very funny to think that an RFC can be closed by the decision of the participants or moved to another dispute resolution forum but you can't ask those participants to do either. It's funny to think that Medcom can't advertise case to group that a case was opened about. I certainly didn't realize they had to seek ANI or admin approval before accepting a case. It probably is the wrong venue. But so is ANI. But at least there the possibility that me and John can actually try to discuss this dispute without a circus. My answer was not to bring it here. I was going to take it to the village pump to either set up a policy to do such as this or outright stop it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
This thread was started with my request that John be asked not to revert my notice of the mediation request at the RfC talk page. Another editor has replaced that notice and though John has now had ample time to revert that replacement he has not done so. In light of that, I withdraw my request for any action. He has also informed me that he thought that before my 23:47 UTC edit, above, he had rejected the mediation request by removing the notification template from his user talk page. I've let him know that was not noticed by anyone because it was not done in the proper manner, but have also conveyed his intent to reject mediation to the Mediation Committee. I believe this ANI listing can be closed, at least insofar the reason it was begun, but before it is closed I would like to say, lest someone take it that I may feel differently, that I believe that John was entirely acting in good faith and with the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart when he set up and conducted the RfC and I further believe that his attempts to limit discussion of the validity of that process were also done in a good faith attempt to protect and control that process. I question only the efficacy and unintended consequences of his actions, not his good will. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Ethnicity of Ahmed Deedat
Something of an edit war is going on on the Ahmed Deedat-page. User:Gandfaru is inserting unsourced claims on Deedat's ethnicity, and reverts everything that questions it [8], reverts it to the old version [9], or removes it for being unsourced [10]. An attempt to discuss the matter on the talk-page lead to nothing. Can anyone take a look at the matter annd see what steps can be taken to end this? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Edit warning given to ) 16:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Umami Vandalism
In one of today's episodes of the youtube series "Game Grumps", the two hosts talked about Umami. As a result, vandals have descended onto the page. I'm currently reverting the edits of User:HeyyyImGRUMP, though he appears to have stopped. I'm requesting a temporary lock on the article until people forget about it, or at the very least an admin to watch it. --Tarage (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Because the person who undid my edit was really chill about it, I will desist and not bother that page any more. Cheers.HeyyyImGRUMP (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- There have been a total of two editors vandalizing the page, and they've done so over the course of two days (essentially one person a day). Page protection isn't generally necessary unless you have a lot more disruption than that; either having it happen over a longer period of time, or having more disruption over a shorter period of time. Read WP:SPP if you're curious about the criteria that admins generally use for protecting an article against these kinds of problems. Generally, the proper response in this case is to block the individual editors. Since HeyyyImGRUMP declared above to stop vandalizing, and they haven't continued, I don't see that a block is needed (though one more vandalism edit from this edit and I'll block as a vandalism-only account). -- Atama頭20:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- There have been a total of two editors vandalizing the page, and they've done so over the course of two days (essentially one person a day). Page protection isn't generally necessary unless you have a lot more disruption than that; either having it happen over a longer period of time, or having more disruption over a shorter period of time. Read
promotional userpage
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.
Though I don't read the language, the userpage of Ilinet zagreb (talk · contribs) seems to be merely promotional. --Túrelio (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have never seen a user on the English Wikipedia with a non English language user page and user talk page but I agree it certainly does appear promotional.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Commons has begun deletion discussion on at least one image as purely promotional. [11].--Mark Miller (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is purely promotional and I would add that by using non English on the English Wikipedia it may be an attempt to do so on the sly. The heading reads: ILINET marketing agency and web design".
Main thumbnail = ILINET Marketing Agency for web development and Internet advertising.
Gallery images:
- (Thumbnail 1) = "Creating and graphic design flyers for businesses and professionals. Advertise your product and highlight it."
- (Thumbnail 2) = "Design and fabrication business card business cards at very reasonable prices"
- (Thumbnail 3) = "Web design modern interface and outstanding design web pages in the CMS."
- (Thumbnail 4) = "Creating a brand and brand development for the company's products and its modern principles of graphic design"
- (Thumbnail 5) = "Making the sign and production of advertising and promotional signs at very affordable prices."
- (Thumbnail 6) = "Printing on t-shirts and print on t-shirts is inexpensive and a great way of promoting your brand and company."
The talk page says: "In our design studio you can order a flawless web design, business card design, logo design, making posters, making the book of graphic standards and web development. More about ILINET marketing agency can be viewed on our website [contact info removed]"
Both pages should have an admin step in and simply delete the user page. I also believe that by using non English they are using their talk page as a social networking homepage and possibly making near impossible for others to know what they are doing. OR actually...just block for "
- Erm, surely anyone can see that a sentence like "ILINET su specijalisti za dizajn web stranica i grafički dizajn" is obviously promotional? It's pretty obvious, isn't it? --Shirt58 (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Deleted, and user spamnameblocked. There, that was easy. Yunshui 雲水 10:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Yunshui. Shirt...if it were obvious to me or the OP we would have stated so and I wouldn't have had to use Google translate. And...I'm a graphic artist so what was obvious to me were the images and how they were being used alone. But hey...languages are easier for others.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- My sincere apologies, Mark. This is what I was going to post before an edit conflict:
- <poking fun at self> Huh? Can't everyone read basic Serbo-Croatian? Sheesh, it wasn't even in Cyrillic. (note: User:Shirt58 struggled to pass High School maths and physics.)</poking fun at self> --Shirt58 (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Yunshui. Shirt...if it were obvious to me or the OP we would have stated so and I wouldn't have had to use Google translate. And...I'm a graphic artist so what was obvious to me were the images and how they were being used alone. But hey...languages are easier for others.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Deleted, and user spamnameblocked. There, that was easy. Yunshui 雲水 10:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edit-warring, posting of fringe or conspiracy theories, and now persistent vandalism by User:Notebedenotebede, who was already warned for edit warring by me. ANI notified -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Was looking at the article, saw the offending section, went to remove it, then saw it was removed, then saw that this user (notebenenotebene) was responsible, then saw it wound up here. WP:NOTHERE as "not there?" sometimes it seems equally appropriate.... Sailsbystars (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
How many "final" warnings is a user allowed to ignore before action is taken?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please take a look at
- I understand your concern, Roger, but I don't think there's much need to worry about it at present, since a couple of admins (me and Acroterion) are watching the user quite closely. I am getting a bit tired of the way he keeps repeating already-answered questions, but that's hardly a blocking matter — at least, not yet. The situation is under control as far as I'm concerned, and it's probably in fact better if nobody piles on on his page right now. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC).
- My feelings too. Not getting the point in a conversation on their talkpage isn't something we would usually block for. Maxx appears to be gradually absorbing some of the advice, and I'm trying to get them away from the tennis volley back-and-forth escalating pattern they've displayed. Also, I'm at lunch. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a comment about Maxx as I am beyond that situation now. But guys just for future reference, when you give warning after warning and has to spend hour upon hours monitoring a user then perhaps it is an indication that something needs to be done. Also giving "final warnings" and then not do anything when a user continues to do what you just warned them about is perhaps not the best way of handling a situation. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, one issue with that is that any editor can give a final warning but only admins can administer blocks. I think final warnings are often given out of frustration with an editor and, unless an admin is notified about it, admins have no idea that a line has been drawn in the sand that they are now supposed to monitor. Meaning, there is no follow-up procedure in place to ensure final warnings are, in fact, final. Liz Read! Talk! 17:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Both Bishonen and I drew lines in the sand, and as far as I'm concerned they've seen the warnings and more or less taken them to heart. They're still wrangling, but it's confined to their talkpage, and nobody's throwing more logs on the fire. Demanding total compliance beyond not posting taunts on other peoples' pages or baiting them (which is what the warning was about) is rarely attainable, in the same way that demands for an apology are usually futile. Slowing things down, putting some space between one response and the next and generally breaking the chain of escalation are valid and useful strategies, and short of a resumption of the disruptive behavior, they're more productive than a block. Most admins aren't going to (or at least shouldn't) cave in to demands that a given person be immediately blocked in this kind of situation unless there's no prospect for redemption. Acroterion (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a comment about Maxx as I am beyond that situation now. But guys just for future reference, when you give warning after warning and has to spend hour upon hours monitoring a user then perhaps it is an indication that something needs to be done. Also giving "final warnings" and then not do anything when a user continues to do what you just warned them about is perhaps not the best way of handling a situation. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Over the course of several years, if the fact that it is a Bad Thing(tm) to insert and then edit-war one's personal analysis into encyclopedia articles does not sink in, then this just seems like a massive competency time-sink. Whether it's scare quotes around Mitt Romney's Mormonism, parenthetical comments about The "America" part of the U.S.A. being a misnomer, or the recent unilateral moves of "Summer Olympic Games" to "Olympic Summer Games", this is just mop-up after mop-up. You have more patience then I. Tarc (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sometimes a warning is an action. I'm not trying to be facetious; there are many times that a warning is enough to prompt someone to change their behavior. Sometimes, an editor won't stop until they receive a "final" warning, or a warning that includes the credible threat of a block. Often, if I'm asked to take action in response to some misbehavior a warning is all I'll do and I don't need to do any more. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption, and are only done when needed. We have a "bright-line" rule called 3RRwhich states that reverting more than 3 times in a single article can lead instantly to a block. It's the best example I can think of where we have an objective criterion for when a block is warranted (even other "automatic blocks" like legal threats are open to interpretation). Yet, violating 3RR doesn't always lead to a block. For example, if a significant time has passed since the last revert and now, or if the editor is now discussing matters with the person(s) they reverted instead of continuing the edit war, a block is no longer necessary.
- Sometimes a warning is an action. I'm not trying to be facetious; there are many times that a warning is enough to prompt someone to change their behavior. Sometimes, an editor won't stop until they receive a "final" warning, or a warning that includes the credible threat of a block. Often, if I'm asked to take action in response to some misbehavior a warning is all I'll do and I don't need to do any more. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption, and are only done when needed. We have a "bright-line" rule called
- Over the course of several years, if the fact that it is a Bad Thing(tm) to insert and then edit-war one's personal analysis into encyclopedia articles does not sink in, then this just seems like a massive
- So, bottom line, there is no "rule" about when sanctions (like blocks) are done except that they are done by an administrator when their judgment says it's necessary to stop disruption. As far as how many warnings are needed, sometimes a lot, sometimes none. (For example if an account is doing clear vandalism, or spamming, and has done a large volume and has done nothing else, they're likely to be blocked without a warning at all.) Usually, if someone receives a warning from an administrator that says "Don't do foo or you get blocked" and they foo, they should be blocked, otherwise the administrator is making idle threats which lack any teeth. But as I said above, it's situational, and if the editor does foo and then immediately reverts it with an apology or there is some other indication it won't be repeated the block isn't necessary. -- Atama頭 18:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- This still doesn't get at the fact that some regular editors are very liberal in issuing final warnings threatening blocks. The majority of users don't know who is and who isn't an admin and who can follow through on the warning and who can't. In fact, if they are a new editor, they may not even know that admins exist. I still run into users who think Wikipedia is run by a staff of paid writers and researchers.
- Of course, as long as there are programs like Twinkle, there is nothing preventing any editor from issuing final warnings threatening blocks to any other user nor is there any way to track these threats and follow-up on them and see if the offending behavior has changed. Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is nothing personal against anyone. I only raised the issue because I think that if you issue a final warning or a "if you do this one more time I will block you" kind of warning that should be a final warning. Otherwise just like kids the kid will continue to misbehave because the kid knows it will not be punished for misbehaving. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- The final warnings say that "you may be blocked", only a personal note can say "I will block you if you XYZ". I'm saying that many final warnings are given out by regular editors who do not have the power to block the user. Unless they follow-up and notify an admin later, it's unlikely any misbehavior will result in a block. Liz Read! Talk! 18:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- There's no restriction about who can issue warnings at another editor's page (including "final" warnings). If a non-admin gave a final warning that was appropriate (because it followed up on lesser warnings) or an "only" warning (for something egregious) and then reported the editor (at AIV, ANI, ANEW, etc.) those warnings may be sufficient evidence to an admin that the editor deserves a block. Final warnings are usually "final" but they aren't always. What if the final warning was inappropriate and shouldn't have been done at all? Warnings serve two purposes; to show that an editor was sufficiently warned prior to a block, and to inform the editor themselves that their actions are controversial or disruptive and can lead to consequences. They can sometimes also serve to modify behavior (as I mentioned earlier), but they don't have to in order to be effective, so whether or not a warning is backed up by action isn't that critical. If an final warning ends up not being a final warning, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a useless warning. Since this is not a bureaucracy we don't need to always worry that warning A leads to warning B leads to block, and so on, to ensure that "rules are followed". -- Atama頭19:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but like in my case today there were administrators who wrote to a user about final warnings and then when the "bad behavior" continued it did not result in a block but just a continuation of the disruptive never ending meta-debate (in my opinion a block had been appropriate). In my opinion if you issue a final warning that should be reinforced with a block afterwards if the final warning does not work. Otherwise we are back at the kid who continues to misbehave because he knows the never ending warnings will not be reinforced.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Like I said, it's situational. In the situation that prompted this, there's an editor that (in my quick view) is on the verge of being not here to contribute productively (at least not in a collegial matter) but they're being watched by people who are very responsible and capable of proper enforcement. In another situation, where an editor isn't even asking questions about what is or isn't proper behavior and is just plowing ahead, heedless of any warnings, I'd probably block. But in any case administrators are allowed to use or not use tools in their own judgment. I definitely support Bishonen and Acroterion, I know that they are very good with these cases and I know that if this editor steps wrong that they know how to intervene, and will do so. -- Atama頭20:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I fully agree with you concerning Bishonen and Acroterion that is not my issue. All I am saying is that if you issue a final warning and then not making it a final warning but warns several more times then it becomes hollow. Anyway we all do things differently.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately (or fortunately?) administrators do not have defined areas of responsibility (except for Sandstein, about whom I often humorously mention that someone once asked him if he was the administrator in charge of dealing with communist terrorism), and thus we can't force them to act on anything in particular. There are lots of occasions when one thinks "hey, that guy should be blocked for that, why hasn't he been?", and the answer is simply that no admin blocked him. It's not like we can dock their pay or something. Don't worry, something will get done in the end, if it's needed. --talk) 20:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've been accused of being too quick to block people, and not quick enough to block people. (And I'll admit that I think there are times when I was too quick, or not quick enough.) In the end, administrators are given pretty wide latitude as to how and when we block as long as we aren't abusing our tools or position in the process (particularly by violating policies and guidelines). That's why we are put under a magnifying glass (one that generally burns us) when undergoing 21:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- As a frequent target of the barbs of an editor who was recently blocked indefinitely, I think BabbaQ is pointing out the key issue here. It's not whether someone is blocked, or not, or whether it happens quickly, or not. It's whether someone is repeatedly warned, for months on end, years sometimes, including many "final" warnings, but not actually blocked. It's warnings without effective follow-up, or warnings without teeth. It really does make the processes here look silly, and actually creates drama, rather than limiting it. The targets of such meaningless warnings end up not feeling threatened at all. Their behaviour doesn't improve. In fact, it often gets worse, because there ARE no consequences. We need to find a way of avoiding meaningless warnings, especially meaningless FINAL warnings. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've been accused of being too quick to block people, and not quick enough to block people. (And I'll admit that I think there are times when I was too quick, or not quick enough.) In the end, administrators are given pretty wide latitude as to how and when we block as long as we aren't abusing our tools or position in the process (particularly by violating policies and guidelines). That's why we are put under a magnifying glass (one that generally burns us) when undergoing 21:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately (or fortunately?) administrators do not have defined areas of responsibility (except for Sandstein, about whom I often humorously mention that someone once asked him if he was the administrator in charge of dealing with communist terrorism), and thus we can't force them to act on anything in particular. There are lots of occasions when one thinks "hey, that guy should be blocked for that, why hasn't he been?", and the answer is simply that no admin blocked him. It's not like we can dock their pay or something. Don't worry, something will get done in the end, if it's needed. --
- I fully agree with you concerning Bishonen and Acroterion that is not my issue. All I am saying is that if you issue a final warning and then not making it a final warning but warns several more times then it becomes hollow. Anyway we all do things differently.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Like I said, it's situational. In the situation that prompted this, there's an editor that (in my quick view) is on the verge of being
- Yes, but like in my case today there were administrators who wrote to a user about final warnings and then when the "bad behavior" continued it did not result in a block but just a continuation of the disruptive never ending meta-debate (in my opinion a block had been appropriate). In my opinion if you issue a final warning that should be reinforced with a block afterwards if the final warning does not work. Otherwise we are back at the kid who continues to misbehave because he knows the never ending warnings will not be reinforced.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- There's no restriction about who can issue warnings at another editor's page (including "final" warnings). If a non-admin gave a final warning that was appropriate (because it followed up on lesser warnings) or an "only" warning (for something egregious) and then reported the editor (at AIV, ANI, ANEW, etc.) those warnings may be sufficient evidence to an admin that the editor deserves a block. Final warnings are usually "final" but they aren't always. What if the final warning was inappropriate and shouldn't have been done at all? Warnings serve two purposes; to show that an editor was sufficiently warned prior to a block, and to inform the editor themselves that their actions are controversial or disruptive and can lead to consequences. They can sometimes also serve to modify behavior (as I mentioned earlier), but they don't have to in order to be effective, so whether or not a warning is backed up by action isn't that critical. If an final warning ends up not being a final warning, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a useless warning. Since this
- The final warnings say that "you may be blocked", only a personal note can say "I will block you if you XYZ". I'm saying that many final warnings are given out by regular editors who do not have the power to block the user. Unless they follow-up and notify an admin later, it's unlikely any misbehavior will result in a block. Liz Read! Talk! 18:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is nothing personal against anyone. I only raised the issue because I think that if you issue a final warning or a "if you do this one more time I will block you" kind of warning that should be a final warning. Otherwise just like kids the kid will continue to misbehave because the kid knows it will not be punished for misbehaving. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- So, bottom line, there is no "rule" about when sanctions (like blocks) are done except that they are done by an administrator when their judgment says it's necessary to stop disruption. As far as how many warnings are needed, sometimes a lot, sometimes none. (For example if an account is doing clear vandalism, or spamming, and has done a large volume and has done nothing else, they're likely to be blocked without a warning at all.) Usually, if someone receives a warning from an administrator that says "Don't do foo or you get blocked" and they foo, they should be blocked, otherwise the administrator is making idle threats which lack any teeth. But as I said above, it's situational, and if the editor does foo and then immediately reverts it with an apology or there is some other indication it won't be repeated the block isn't necessary. -- Atama頭 18:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I personally will block if they keep up the exact same behavior past a final warning, but won't necessarily if they cause another unrelated problem (though competence starts to become a question).
- The idea used to be that we blocked "productive users" (trying to do good) only as an absolute last resort. I think things got a little too far the other way, with some admins blocking because the user had been a net time drain for a while, even though they might well be productive again in the future. I think it in part depends on the nature of the problem; disruptions where the other parties are mature editors and "can handle it" are often treated less severely than ones where they go into conflict with one new editor or smaller, less admin issue savvy group. But this is all personalized, to some degree.
- Anyone who thinks that having gotten a few final warnings without blocks means they are immune somehow from blocking is very wrong and will find out such if they push the wrong buttons... Have no fear on that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- (ps - as the user in question found out about below, about an hour ago... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC))
- So then...are we done here and can we close as resolved or do we need to have a bit more drama? I see this as soapboxing just like below. If it isn't asking for intervention...just what is being discussed here beyond a contributor and not the contribution?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Resolve away. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- So then...are we done here and can we close as resolved or do we need to have a bit more drama? I see this as soapboxing just like below. If it isn't asking for intervention...just what is being discussed here beyond a contributor and not the contribution?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- (ps - as the user in question found out about below, about an hour ago... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC))
Disruptive editing by Sitush
Can any admin please block User:Sitush for disruptive editing?
Recently I added some more contents to Indraprastha article with reliable resource, but User:Sitush reverted the edits without explain the cause and he himself made unnecessarily and unreferenced edits, stated that there is no certainty to my edits. I would like to let you know that the main references added in the article since a long span is pointing out the same i.e. Delhi itself. For the same I warned him but rather explain the issue he reverted the edits. WOWॐIndian Talk 19:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I just reviewed Sitush's edits. They were good faith and brought the article into compliance with Wikipedia editing guidelines. I don't see where any administrative action is warranted here. I suggest that if WOWIndian has concerns with the text of the article that he should participate in the discussion that Sitush started on Talk:Indraprastha. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Have I made a mistake by reporting here on WP:ANI about a editor who is senior (in editing) and not even thought to discussion on the matter? Is this a way to discourage a junior editor? Dear Sir, I would like to remind you all that here on Wikipedia I am just a volunteer and not earning anything that by blocking I won't able to run my livelihood. WOWॐIndian Talk20:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- In what way has Sitush not discussed anything? He put explanations of his reverts in each of the edit summaries, and also started a thread on the talk page (here). You should go join the the thread and discuss the content issues. Sitush said that the source you were citing does not support your statement that Delhi and Indraprastha are one and the same; you should go make your case on the talk page about why you think it does. Your mistake was not that you reported an editor who is more "senior" than you (a concept that has little meaning or relevance to Wikipedia by itself); your mistake was that you said he was not discussing things with you, when it would appear that he is trying to discuss things more than you are. Making mistakes is fine, as long as you learn from them, but this was a mistake, and dragging it out is not going to help much. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for understanding me and explaining the concern in detail rather warning me from getting blocked. WOWॐIndian Talk 20:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- As long as you're acting in good faith people are more than happy to give you guidance rather than warning you. Of course you're allowed to question the actions of editors with more experience than you. I would caution you about coming to this noticeboard quickly, though, at the very least if you are in a dispute with an editor you should make an attempt to talk to them (either on the discussion page of the article or on their user talk page). -- Atama頭21:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- As long as you're acting in
- Thank you for understanding me and explaining the concern in detail rather warning me from getting blocked. WOWॐIndian Talk 20:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- In what way has Sitush not discussed anything? He put explanations of his reverts in each of the edit summaries, and also started a thread on the talk page (here). You should go join the the thread and discuss the content issues. Sitush said that the source you were citing does not support your statement that Delhi and Indraprastha are one and the same; you should go make your case on the talk page about why you think it does. Your mistake was not that you reported an editor who is more "senior" than you (a concept that has little meaning or relevance to Wikipedia by itself); your mistake was that you said he was not discussing things with you, when it would appear that he is trying to discuss things more than you are. Making mistakes is fine, as long as you learn from them, but this was a mistake, and dragging it out is not going to help much. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
How many treatments of inequality between one user and another must one endure, and WHY ANY?
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.
First, I would love to start this thread with the name of the primary offender under this subject, just as another editor has so boldly done with my name; but then even part of this inequality of treatment between him and me is that even though others can mention me by name here and not get blocked, supposedly if I write directly about my offender (such as including specific distinctions like his user name), the inequal treatment against ME is that I will most likely get blocked! The up-side to that, though, is that I don't have to notify him of this!
So that's what I'm here to ask about, and as I understand it, I shouldn't be blocked right now as long as I don't talk about this arrogant user specifically, and as long as I don't reedit the Olympic pages to the correct order of the wording of their names without a consensus, and as long as I don't do something nasty like highly insult one of you, etc. Right?
Okay, so if I may:
1. Talking about a specific member identifiably in a disputing way
a. Obviously, members in here can normally mention other users directly without getting in trouble (being blocked).
BUT b: for some reason, according to two of you admin.s, if I mention a specific member who has been doing things to me just like he told me not to do to him (which, when he does them, are annoying), I will likely be blocked, even though when he talks about me in the same way, he does not get blocked!
Now please, if you would so kindly do so, tell me why we have this inequality here. OK?
2. Being falsely accused of "personal attacks"!
a. Okay, without going into enough detail of what the supposed "personal attack" in question is (so as not to end up accidentally giving enough information that it refers to this offender specifically, and then I might get blocked for it), this user can somehow falsely accuse something I wrote on his page as supposedly being "offensive" in a certain "damaging" way, according to him.
BUT b: for some reason, when I give his writings on my page that same label as he gave mine on his, I get called out by one of you admin.s as if my label on his was a supposed "personal attack," for which I might get blocked! But when we turn that around, that admin. doesn't acknowledge that this other guy's writings on my page are what I called them even though my writings on his are supposedly that.
Now please, if you would so kindly do so, tell me why we have this inequality here, too, OK?
3. Those annoyingly insulting "official"(-looking) warning stickers!
a. Now you've helped me know now that just any regular Joe-blows editor can dish out any number of any kind of official(-looking) warnings to another member as he or she wants, usually without getting in trouble for overdoing it. I didn't know that just regular members could wield those swords, as if to look "bigger than they really are," until just hours ago! So I won't be asking why one guy did that to me several hours ago (as of this writing). That's just one of the flaws that has yet to be corrected here at the Wiki.
(It's obvious that a regular user can give a regular-text warning that such-and-such a thing might happen, if she or he wants to (which can be a nice heads-up sometimes), but it's weird to me that they even have access to things that make them look more official than they really are! Well, we don't have to hash over that here, because you already have that chat going up above. But I just wanted to touch on it.)
BUT b: for some reason, though, supposedly if I do the same thing to a user who has been treating me badly, I might get in trouble (be blocked).
Now please, if you would so kindly do so, tell me why we have this inequality here. OK?
4. "Keep doing unto others as you would have them NOT do unto you!" (A.K.A. hypocrisy!)
a. The continued action by this other user (which I'm afraid to describe without permission, for fear that I would be unfairly blocked for being specific enough that I end up referring directly to this other user anyway) that motivated me to give him my own official-looking warning sticker (after learning which part of the source code to copy--but which I was then unfairly told that I might've been blocked for doing) was something that he had already asked me NOT do do, which I DID stop doing!
BUT b:... now... for some reason, this guy, who seems to think he has more "admin right" than I do (but which, in reality, is none for both of us--the best I can tell, anyway), figured that even though he told me to stop doing it to him, it was somehow "okay" for him to keep doing it to ME! And then two of you admin.s here (especially one) confirmed that if I did it again, one of you would block me. However, neither one of you would agree to do the same for me to this other guy if he kept doing it to me, despite my repeated notifications that the action had happened again.
Now please, if you would so kindly do so, tell me why we have this inequality here, too, OK?
How much more of this inequal treatment must someone endure, instead of having this flawed system fixed so that if one person is going to be treated in a given way for a given action, the other person or people in that mix will be treated the SAME way for those same actions and/or words?
Mike
MaxxFordham (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Are you asking for intervention?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Mark, if you'll just reread my line that comes after each subitem b. a little more carefully, you'll be able to notice more easily what I'm asking for.
- Well actually, come to think of it a little more now, I guess I might be asking for that too, a little. Perhaps a super-admin. could intervene against these level-1 admin.s (if the system is set up that way) to get them not to treat people who are both doing and/or saying certain kinds of things with different levels of consequence.
- MaxxFordham (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Pardon me, Dennis, I want to add a little information, as with the lack of diffs and names and the general allusiveness, this lengthy post may be difficult to understand. The OP is the user who is the subject of the thread "How many "final" warnings is a user allowed to ignore before action is taken?" above — you can see how the title of this one alludes to that one. I think the veiled yet angry complaints about being threatened by blocks for mentioning another user refer to the warnings from me and Acroterion in this thread on his page. Make of it what you will. I've gone to bed, I'm not blocking nobody tonight. Acroterion may be in a more useful timezone. If anybody's got the strength, maybe they'd like to move it up to the original thread that it ought to be a part of. Bishonen | talk 02:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC).
- I saw that Maxx is already in good hands with you and Acroterion watching, which made closing the best solution; much better than letting it drag on here. Explaining to Maxx everything that is wrong on on his talk page would take more time than I have at my disposal, but I am grateful that others are willing and up to the task. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Closed ALREADY? Why shouldn't my complaints against someone else be considered just as much as ones against ME have been?
ResolvedSomeone started a thread about me in here that started with my user name in the first line!
Why shouldn't I get the same benefit of having my similar concerns addressed with as much seriousness as complaints against me have been?
MaxxFordham (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
But, Bishonen, that can't include blocking, because I should have the same right to complain and ask about complaints as any other user here--but I didn't even specifically talk about the person you guys told me not to; only the actions. I should be allowed to talk about the actions without being blocked! In fact, I really should be allowed to talk about that person specifically, in here, the same way as any other user is!
MaxxFordham (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- A lot of it is because it is too long. talk) 02:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Maxx, I have to go now, but let me say that I did you a favor by closing. You might not understand why this is so, but trust that it is your best interest to keep the controversy in one place, or better yet, take Mark's advice and drop the stick. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Uh, no, HiaB, it is not. That's at short as it can be and still get all the information to the admins! There's no way to make it shorter, because if it was, it wouldn't get enough information out.
- Dennis, I tried to keep it in one place (on my talk page), but that didn't work. Maybe I should just write it up as a regular report like was written against me (naming the person and then the complaint) and see what happens!— Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxxFordham (talk • contribs)
- That's ignoring common sense. We have an essay talk) 02:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's ignoring common sense. We have an essay
I think this has gone on long enough, a lot of editors have been kind and trying to help but there comes a point where a line is drawn, lets just end this here and now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Cripes, I was away for the evening and come back to this. Blocked for a week, and that's provisional on an attempt at reform, otherwise it's indefinite as NOTHERE. This is wasting too much time on everybody's part. Thanks to those who gave it one more try. I too am done for tonight. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry you had to come back to this but hope your evening was nice =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Constant arguing over parapsychology
Basically a new user PhiChiPsiOmega has joined Wikipedia a few days ago with plans to do "major" revisions on the parapsychology article, unfortunately this user has not read Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience or fringe theories. So he has ended up ranting on the talk page of the parapsychology article and using it as a forum [[12]] and basically disagreeing with pretty much everything and anyone has said to him. He's now arguing with users here [[13]]
- PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs)
- 69.14.156.143 (talk · contribs)
If you check his talk page he admits he disagrees with the scientific consensus about parapsychology and even wikipedia. He has left some aggressive comments a few times (both on his account and on his IP) on my talk-page, I am not too bothered about this but he's done the same thing on the parapsychology talk-page and elsewhere. I don't see anything positive about this user on Wikipedia. His existence here seems to just want to argue with people because his belief in psi is not supported on Wikipedia. I think he should be topic banned on the topic of parapsychology.
To make things worse, he's now hooked up with a fringe proponent Tom Butler (talk · contribs) (an anti-Wikipedia editor who talks about Wikipedia editors censoring his paranormal views) who has written "Ah, but that is my point: in Wikipedia, they are not real people, and not being subject to social norms, are technically immune to embarrassment. They do become aggressive when cornered, though, and band together to eliminate opposition whenever possible ... with great success." [14] amongst other nonsense.
I can just see these two editors getting worse and worse and they are obviously not on Wikipedia to improve any articles or doing anything productive but just argue with editors so I think a lid needs to be put on it now before their trolling spreads to other places on wikipedia. Goblin Face (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Parapsychology is subject to discretionary sanctions per WP:AE. I recommend withdrawing this complain and filing it there instead. Noformation Talk03:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- (boldness and we want bold editors here. However we also want editors who are willing to seek consensus even when it might chafe their passions. Simonm223 (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. He's a new user (very new) and I think he is allowed some leeway to picking up an understanding of WP policies and guidelines. I know many editors who had a bumpy landing when they started editing WP and, unfortunately, PhiChiPsiOmega wandered into one of the most conflicted areas on Wikipedia. I think that editors who regularly police this area are on the lookout for potential "disruptors" and are overly vigilant. But Parapsychology is not the DMZ or the old Berlin Wall and any editing errors can be reversed. There is no call to block new editors who are not aware of ARBCOM sanctions and the history of these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Liz but you have done comments like this which doesn't help. "Welcome to Wikipedia, User:PhiChiPsiOmega|PhiChiPsiOmega...where if you aren't sufficiently skeptical, you're considered "fringe" and a quack. Happy editing!" [15].
Two issues remain here. PhiChiPsiOmega existence on Wikipedia is to just stir up trouble over the parapsychology article (psi is even in his name). He's made it clear he is not convinced by the scientific references on the topic (the hundreds that are on the article), and he rejects the scientific consensus:
Here he even claims the arbitration committee is wrong:
Basically everyone is wrong apart from himself and he isn't going to stop arguing about the subject. I am bringing this to the Administrators' noticeboard now because if it doesn't stop now it's just going to go on and on. The second issue is that this user Tom Butler (talk · contribs) is a troll off and on Wikipedia. Off Wikipedia he's created countless blog and forum posts against Wikipedia like this, and even an entire website against Wikipedia policies [19]:
| Tom Butler anti-Wikipedia comments |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
"After being remained about the futility of trying to reach consensus with Wikipedia editors, my natural reaction is to take my efforts for balanced reporting elsewhere. Perhaps a wiki titled: “Wikipedia Truth Watch.” In their devotion to mainstream ideals, skeptical editors are well organized and help one another while more moderate editors are not inclined toward activism nor are they inclined to organize. Reliable sources are required for every statement of substance; however, that rule is used to say that virtually all publications supporting the study of things paranormal are not allowed as references while virtually any publication negative toward things paranormal are allowed–This is a result of skeptic control of the encyclopedia." [20] "I would like to add my two cents worth. I have been an editor for a number of years and was involved in the decisive administrative action that resulted in a permanent ban of probably the last truly effective editor who was a supporter of fair treatment for paranormal articles." "Editing Wikipedia is truly an exercise in futility. I let myself be drawn in from time to time to at least put my point on record, but also to see how the problem has evolved. I learn more about people each visit, but my wife Lisa and I have otherwise concentrated on countering Wikipedia with education." [21] and he has an entire anti-Wikipedia website here: [22] "The problem is that Wikipedia policies have made it possible for Skeptics to dominate parts of the online encyclopedia. These faceless people have run off virtually all of those of us who think an encyclopedia should say what something is without characterizing it as good or bad. Those who persist in making what they consider more balanced entries are often subjected to abuse that is more like the Lord of the Flies than a collaborative community." [23] |
And you only need to look at his Wikipedia user page and comments on Wikipedia to see he is only here to cause trouble. Here is encouraging a user to quit Wikipedia and "give up here" to join his own paranormal alternative [24] On his very own user page it reads "Editors blocked for attempting fair treatment of Rupert Sheldrake The public will know these editors as maters of the search for fairness." and now he's encouraging the user PhiChi [25]. I have no idea why this editor is still on Wikipedia considering all the damage he is trying to do to it on and off Wikipedia (he's even hosted online petitions against Wikipedia). The way for this issue to be solved is to ban these users because they are not here to edit Wikipedia, they are using the site to stir controversies over parapsychology and it is going to spread if they are not warned. That's all I am going to say on this. If action is not taken then in a few weeks time someone else will just be coming back here complaining about these users and it is going to get worse and worse. Goblin Face (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'd rather go there than deal with the lack of objectivity and quote-mining I get here. Look, GF, I understand that psi is an uncomfortable topic for you, but he has good reason for posting those things: You are not looking at this from a neutral point of view. I disagree with the skeptics because they DON'T represent their opponents very well, and that their opponents represent a small niche in the scientific community. Appealing to the "hundreds of articles against" (while ignoring the hundred articles ' ' for ' ' ) psi is just proving my point. Don't you dare do anything to Tom Butler. Neither he nor I are here to cause trouble, as I've said (and as can be seen on my talk page!) several times over. My name comes from the last four letters of the Greek alphabet, not an appeal to "psi". Quit reading into things. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think we're supposed to call editors trolls, and one could argue whether "troll" is strictly accurate because it looks like an editor who is not trolling but who genuninely believes a bunch of FRINGE stuff, and is disappointed that it is so hard to push it at Wikipedia.
PhiChiPsiOmega has a highly original manner of editing, changing the opening sentence of
) 09:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Johnuniq, but I'm not a "pusher". It is fact that Wikipedia isn't citing the full spectrum of scientific opinion. Not all parapsychologists are woo-meisters or New Age gurus, and a great deal of them are well-respected physicists, psychologists, and statisticians. My point is that the debate can't be just given over to everyone uber-skeptical of psi. I even cited a skeptic who thought parapsychology was a science, but its findings inconclusive. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think the inevitable result of this will be that WP:ARB/PS, and it's either going to happen sooner or later. Right now, I wouldn't be pushing for a ban, but I think it's ultimately inevitable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- via my crystal ball and potent psi powers, i can see it is only a matter of time before the user is escorted off the premises. its merely a question of how much disruption we allow before the inevitable. WP:ROPE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom12:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- via my crystal ball and potent psi powers, i can see it is only a matter of time before the user is escorted off the premises. its merely a question of how much disruption we allow before the inevitable.
- I think the inevitable result of this will be that
- TRPoD, that was so funny I forgot to laugh. Look, the only reason I'm here isn't because I irrationally believe in the face of evidence, or that I believe non-scientists over scientists, or that I am a woo-pusher who wants to cause trouble. I am here because there is a wide spectrum of opinions on psi, and that, at best, you can call it an extremely controversial science that few defendants hold to, but not pseudoscience. Just because a lot of people think psychoanalysis is pseudoscience doesn't mean it's classified as such. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I fully agree with noformation. ANI threads about disruptions in the topic area of pseudoscience are always problematic. That is why we have discretionary sanctions and this thread should be filed at WP:AE to stop the TLDR text and the peanut gallery. Second Quantization (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wolfie, WP:IDHT issues. If this isn’t the right venue to deal with a chronically disruptive editor then what is? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The discretionary sanctions available apply across pseudoscience and fringe articles, broadly construed. This includes all contributions where there are issues such as IDHT, NPA etc in that topic area. Second Quantization (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The
- Wolfie,
- I'm really trying not to be a peanut gallery. I just think it's better classified as "fringe science" than "pseudoscience". PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that Wikipedia is not about what you think it's about what the reliable sources say and there are hundreds of scientific references which classify parapsychology as a pseudoscience, it's not Wikipedia's problem that you disagree with the reliable sources. In response all you are doing all over the place is offering your own opinion and stirring up arguments. You are a single purpose account who is just going to keep arguing about the subject. You have made it clear you disagree with Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience and fringe theories. You seem to be using this website as a forum and just using various talk pages or places to argue about what you think about the subject. It really has got boring and if this isn't stopped now you are just going to log in everyday doing it and more and more articles or places on Wikipedia are going to be disrupted. When Tom Butler next logs in there's just going to be even more arguing over this issue and he feeds off it. I would appreciate an admin's response on this current issue but also this Butler character and why he has not been banned considering his purpose on Wikipedia is only to stir trouble. Goblin Face (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- And the reliable sources indicate that parapsychology is fringe science, but not outright pseudoscience. For the record, reliable sources also say psychoanalysis is pseudoscientific. That doesn't make it so. And I presented reliable sources to you, which you ignored repeatedly (which makes me wonder why I'm still talking to you). Once again, I've made my position clear: I am not just a pot-stirrer. I'm saying this topic needs to be looked at more. I only disagree with parapsychology being placed as pseudoscience, and even Wikipedia protocol seems to be open to just calling it controversial or questionable, but not completely pseudoscientific. Tom Butler may have bizarre beliefs, but he's right in saying this has gone in the wrong direction. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that Wikipedia is not about what you think it's about what the reliable sources say and there are hundreds of scientific references which classify parapsychology as a pseudoscience, it's not Wikipedia's problem that you disagree with the reliable sources. In response all you are doing all over the place is offering your own opinion and stirring up arguments. You are a single purpose account who is just going to keep arguing about the subject. You have made it clear you disagree with Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience and fringe theories. You seem to be using this website as a forum and just using various talk pages or places to argue about what you think about the subject. It really has got boring and if this isn't stopped now you are just going to log in everyday doing it and more and more articles or places on Wikipedia are going to be disrupted. When Tom Butler next logs in there's just going to be even more arguing over this issue and he feeds off it. I would appreciate an admin's response on this current issue but also this Butler character and why he has not been banned considering his purpose on Wikipedia is only to stir trouble. Goblin Face (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
PhiChi says "And the reliable sources indicate that parapsychology is fringe science, but not outright pseudoscience". This is nothing more than trolling and it' utter nonsense like all of your other unreferenced personal beliefs that you have spammed on Wikipedia talk pages (you have failed to present a single scientific reference to make your case). It's trolling because there's countless references on the article which indicate it is a pseudoscience but every time you say it isn't. Can you not read the parapsychology article? There are over 10 references which indicate it is an obvious pseudoscience and many listed on the talk-page. It is even mentioned in the lead, and is cited in mainstream books on pseudoscience like Massimo Pigliucci, Maarten Boudry. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University Of Chicago Press p. 158. "Many observers refer to the field as a "pseudoscience". When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated." This is just a waste of time. No matter what is said you are just going to continue to promote your personal fringe beliefs on the subject, arguing, ignoring what people have said to you and causing disrupt. If someone wants to take this to another venue they can, but I am not wasting anymore time on this. Goblin Face (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I gave you plenty of references! Your failure to look at them is indicative of something else other than objectivity at work. I gave you plenty of articles from scientific journals and I could have given you more! It's not trolling. There are several authorities who claim psychoanalysis is pseudoscience, even though you still represent the counters of those who support psychoanalysis. They're saying many people refer to it as pseudoscience, not that it's completely pseudoscientific. And even if it is disagreed with, cite the esteemable people who actually support the stuff and are credible enough to get the material published in academic lit: http://books.google.com/books/about/An_Introduction_to_Parapsychology_5th_ed.html?id=rPlsF2BJiHUC. This counters several of the criticisms, and I don't see you even looking at it once! It's hardly something not worth citing like SIGNATURE IN THE CELL for evolution or something similar. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok guys, let's not have this argument here as well. Let's either take this to the appropriate venue, as suggested by Second Quantization and Noformation or just simmer down and let people cool off a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is only one reason I spend pretty valuable time on Wikipedia. The online encyclopedia is read by the public, and as such, the articles that slander living people and give people a false impression about subjects have become effective propaganda for a demonstrably biased point of view. None of my edits, none of my comments on Wikipedia have been contrary to the belief that the public deserves a balanced view. In fact, that is the nonprofit charter of Wikipedia.
- As a manager of a nonprofit myself, I am obligated to serve the best interest of the public in the nonprofit's literature. To knowingly falsely represent a subject violates that charter. As representatives of the Wikipedia nonprofit, the editors here are equally obligated to be truthful and slandering people and intentionally giving only one side of a subject, while as a policy, rejecting the other is something I have difficulty being quiet about.
- You can ban me, but all that does is confirm my point. The real answer is to get off your pompous seat and try balancing the articles. I am sure editors like PhiChiPsiOmega will help. Tom Butler (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Proponents of Flat Earthers proponents have no claim to be equally represented in their views than Round Earth proponents. Not even at Flat Earth page.Arildnordby (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Arildnordby: How does parapsychology fit in with flat-Earth and YEC nonsense? They have no peer-review, no textbooks, and no wide range of academic literature behind them. Parapsychology, on the other hand, does. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Tom, you serve no purpose on Wikipedia but are just here to cause trouble. You are anti-Wikipedia and both on and off this site you are promoting libel about various editors who you classify as "skeptics", you even have an entire website against Wikipedia which you believe is "biased". Look over your edit history there's nothing constructive but you are encouraging people to cause trouble on here. It's also stupid you claim to be "neutral" but you have written books claiming people can talk to the dead. Basically anyone who is not a believer in your fringe beliefs is "biased" and you attack Wikipedia in the process. Goblin Face (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Goblin, if you had read any of that material, you would understand that my behavior here is a learned one as a last resort. I am also demonstrably neutral in the study of these phenomena. For instance, I am a lone voice against a couple of popular techniques. I may seem biased toward the subject because I write about what I learn. Were it otherwise, then I would be preaching and this is not about religion.
- If you do not consider yourself a skeptic, then why do you have "This user is a skeptic" on your page?
- And to Simonm223, I can support that contention about slander. Rupert Sheldrake was very close to suing Wikipedia for slander. Other living persons have expressed to me similar points. I have even heard talk of a legal defense fund. Do you want to make a case of that? It is the skeptics who use terms like Woo and quack. As a general rule, the most we do is say you are a skeptic.
- I will also note that I would not be aware of PhiChiPsiOmega if it were not that many of you were complaining about him on the Fringe Notice Board below where you mentioned my name. I do not monitor the parapsychology article ... it seems silly to try to help those who do not help themselves ... but it seemed only fair to warn PhiChiPsiOmega you were talking about him.
- I know it is eating at you that I am inviting editors to come help in Citizendium. You should be happy that I am offering them a way to help that is out of your hair. Citizendium is an outpost on the Internet, but is a good place to develop balanced articles. The existing editors there will assure we do not develop propaganda, but they seem dedicated to balanced treatment of articles. If I were you, and looking at all of the complaints, I would be encouraging people to go there.
- I think it is time to stop complaining and either fix the articles or admit that you want them as billboard for your opinions. Tom Butler (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I have archived PhiChi's argument on the parapsychology talk page. Goblin Face (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Goblin, it is inappropriate to completely archive a talk page. Also, your reasons are way off base. If I am not mistaken, this is a troublesome pattern of some editors that needs to stop.Tom Butler (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I will not edit war with you over this, but be advised that the archive is deliberate tampering with an open exchange in information and will not hide the conversation from the world. Tom Butler (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- GF: I've talked with Radin before. He only responds to stuff in peer-reviewed journals. Look at the comments here if you don't believe me: http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/06/constructive-criticism.html. That said, if you press him enough, he will respond in a private conversation. I've shared emails with him, and I've kept them. If I'm correct, the skeptical criticisms usually repeat themselves like a broken record (you're defining psi by what it's not, lack of replicability immediately means bad experiment and no further investigation is needed, it'll defy the laws of physics as we know them, etc.), and I'm suspecting Park's criticisms are no different. Radin has responded to criticism, but he doesn't have to respond to every single skeptical writer directly in order to do that. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, you don't need to quit at all. We're not bullies, and I'm guessing you're valued elsewhere. We'd just appreciate if you would find something of substance to give us and stop playing a victim all the time (which means not accusing someone of being a sock). Mr. Steigmann has good reason to be harsh with Wikipedia. You're only representing one side of the story while pretending that it's neutral. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia reports the current scientific consensus, which is that paranormal phenomena are fringe science (at best). Neutrality does not factor into it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, you don't need to quit at all. We're not bullies, and I'm guessing you're valued elsewhere. We'd just appreciate if you would find something of substance to give us and stop playing a victim all the time (which means not accusing someone of being a sock). Mr. Steigmann has good reason to be harsh with Wikipedia. You're only representing one side of the story while pretending that it's neutral. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just a note another user has correctly removed the comments from me to the sock puppet 67.188.88.161 (talk · contribs) and his comments to me as it was off topic and he has openly confessed to being banned on his account Blastikus and others. I apologise for thinking this sock was PhiChiPsiOmega. Tom Butler's behavior is being discussed elsewhere by admins at Wikipedia Arbitration so I think this discussion should be closed. Goblin Face (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
PhiChiPsiOmega, you just need to contact James Randi to set up some tests. If the results of these tests are positive then that will be a notable enough result for Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Count Iblis: I'm familiar with the Randi Challenge, thank you, but the Ganzfeld has undergone far more skeptical scrutiny. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- GF: No worries. It's the internet. It happens. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- What matters is to get results that are widely accepted. So, assuming for argument's sake that you are right and that in Ganzfeld experiments a positive result does show up, one still has to demonstrate this in a way that will gain acceptance within the scientific community. If we also assume for argument's sake that you initially don't gain acceptance because of unreasonable skepticism, you still have to deal with that problem before you can claim a positive result (however unfair this is).
- Randi was dealing with the opposite problem in the late 1970s, at that time certain results like Uri Geller's mind of matter results were accepted as proven by the parapsychology community while his criticism of these results were totally ignored. It took several years for him to prove that he was correct and that the entire parapsychology community was wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a little skeptical about James Randi at times. Scott Rogo, an eyewitness to the Targ-Puthoff experiments, seems to have disputed many of Randi's claims. Also, even if Targ and Puthoff's work is as terrible as it seems, more controlled experiments have been done in psi tests since then. In any case, skeptical arguments are often met in the parapsychological literature, which is quite academic, and written by respected scientists who still have their jobs. If the literature shows that the criticisms have been met, I don't see any reason to not include them. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Articles follow WP:REDFLAG—the science which makes planes fly and phones ring finds there is no evidence to suggest that parapsychology is any different from all other junk FRINGE stuff. Of course some eye witnesses dispute Randi's claims—that's what fringe people do. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Er... WHAT??? You're dismissing eyewitness accounts because James Randi said so? Is that ' 'really' ' your argument? Again, the "science which makes planes fly" is mostly agnostic on the matter. The "professional" skeptics are those who actually care most of the time, and every time someone says "the scientific community rejects it", they're often referring to this crowd of skeptics. Other scientists' feelings about psi being unscientific seems proportional to those who hold that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Er... WHAT??? is exactly the response of mainstream science to parapsychology. My prediction that this will end up at WP:REFUSINGTOGETIT still stands. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Er... WHAT??? is exactly the response of mainstream science to parapsychology. My prediction that this will end up at
- Er... WHAT??? You're dismissing eyewitness accounts because James Randi said so? Is that ' 'really' ' your argument? Again, the "science which makes planes fly" is mostly agnostic on the matter. The "professional" skeptics are those who actually care most of the time, and every time someone says "the scientific community rejects it", they're often referring to this crowd of skeptics. Other scientists' feelings about psi being unscientific seems proportional to those who hold that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Articles follow
- I'm a little skeptical about James Randi at times. Scott Rogo, an eyewitness to the Targ-Puthoff experiments, seems to have disputed many of Randi's claims. Also, even if Targ and Puthoff's work is as terrible as it seems, more controlled experiments have been done in psi tests since then. In any case, skeptical arguments are often met in the parapsychological literature, which is quite academic, and written by respected scientists who still have their jobs. If the literature shows that the criticisms have been met, I don't see any reason to not include them. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
This is not the place to continue debate on policy. Unless an admin plans on handing out sanctions, there's nothing else to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, this thread should be closed as no action is likely, Second Quantization (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- The situation has not been resolved, there's now PhiChi with an abusive IP editor promoting conspiracy theories of censorship on the parapsychology talk-page and others. Goblin Face (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- NO! I'm not "presenting a conspiracy theory". I'm presenting EVIDENCE. Please learn to tell the bloody difference, stop accusing me and others of bias, and start acknowledging your own. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, you've not provided "evidence." You've provided your opinion, which is against consensus. This is becoming disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- NO! I'm not "presenting a conspiracy theory". I'm presenting EVIDENCE. Please learn to tell the bloody difference, stop accusing me and others of bias, and start acknowledging your own. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has come to a dead end. Just to clarify why an admin should close this discussion:
- Tom Butler (talk · contribs) has been topic banned from editing the Rupert Sheldrake article and has left Wikipedia.
- 67.188.88.161 (talk · contribs) has admitted to being a banned sock puppet (but he says he is not PhiChiPsiOmega and I believe him based on the available evidence).
- PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs) has not been active for a few days.
- 159.118.158.122 (talk · contribs) has vandalized articles and attacked editors but has not been active recently.
As no action is likely the be taken and the trouble has probably stopped, this should be closed now. Thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- GF: The reason I haven't been active is because I have a life outside Wikipedia and thought I could wait until you've calmed down enough to have a decent discussion. It has nothing to do with the idea that I'm hiding from you. Tom Butler left Wikipedia because he found that it wasn't worth talking over the screeds people have published. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Admins: I will present a case for parapsychology in the near future, once I've taken a bigger dive into the rather labyrinthine work on the subject, and become more acclimated to Wikipedia. I hope that, when I do, more light will be shone on this unbelievable interesting and misunderstood topic. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hand: Do you want me to present the evidence again? Do you want me to cite the article "Parapsychology is Science, But Its Findings Are Inconclusive"? Do you want me to tell you, again, that skeptics like Ray Hyman and Richard Wiseman only represent one-half of the academic debate, as can be seen if you just do a Google Search? Do I need to point out how this invalidates their claims that parapsychology is "rejected by the scientific community"? Do you want me to say that whenever I've suggested people to include the responses to the criticisms, which include replication studies and other citations, that I've been given question-begging arguments that the skeptics are right no matter what people say? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- PhiChiPsiOmega, I would caution you about diving into this contentious area. But if you want to pursue this, familiarize yourself with the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions and be able to back all of your assertions with well-sourced material. Know that you will meet resistance that is fierce. Be prepared for that. Look at the disputes that have already occurred (you can find them an AE), see where editors went astray and avoid that behavior. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- PhiChi writes "Admins: I will present a case for parapsychology in the near future" and nobody is objecting against you doing this but you need to find the correct venue for doing it instead of on article talk-pages where some of your posts have caused disruption. You said you want to take it up with the Arbitration Committee then that is what you need to do, not here like another user said. I would be interested in seeing your case but this discussion here is not about Wikipedia policy, it was about editors misbehaving on the parapsychology article - as that issue seems to have been resolved then an admin should close this. Goblin Face (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Arbitration Enforcement filing
I have filed an arbitration enforcement report about PhiChiPsiOmega. The issue with Tom Butler remains unresolved. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong: Stubborn, Page Ownership, Profanity/Abuse
Both myself and many other users are tired of his totalitarian reign over all of the TAR pages. We are tired of his constant views that everything he thinks of is automatically right, and everyone else is automatically wrong. We are tired of him ignoring others' views, ignoring others' comments, and basically being closed to discussion. He acts irrationally when people do not automatically bend to his will, even when his opinion is in the minority.
Please intervene. We are tired of this. Shadow2 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute and does not belong on this board. The discussion is currently underway on the talk page and Shadow2 is just trying to remove me from it so he can have his way. I did not lash out at the IP editor who is probably just Shadow2 because he repeatedly notified me of replies. I do not see how not being convinced of the arguments on the talk page is equated with ) 17:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ryulong, recognize that this goes beyond the current TAR24 discussion. This is a long-lasting issue. You did not lash out at the IP editor (Which is me, yes), but you lashed out at both myself and Masem on the TAR24 page. Shadow2 (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, this is pretty much just about the discussion over the final placements. And my patience in dealing with the constant repetition of reasons why we should ignore the reliable sources has worn thin. Just start a ) 17:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are unbelievableShadow2 (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are framing your arguments through the content dispute over edits I made over two days ago. What am I supposed to think?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- If you feel that strongly you can also file a RFC/U but he is right the complaint does not yet belong here. talk) 17:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I did not bow to his demands, and so he felt the need to swear like a sailor at me. This is not related to this single content dispute. Ryulong feels he has complete and total control over all of the TAR pages. It's his word all the time. No-one is ever allowed to challenge himShadow2 (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Every single argument I have with you over these pages' content is over such trivial nonsense though. What flag to use for Northern Ireland. What nations to include in the section headers. Do we use finish line order or departure order. And then Gsfelipe94's complaints about image usage when I wasn't even the first person to revert him. This is so unnecessarily exasperating.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- If they are so trivial, then why do you so vehemently oppose my proposed changes? You can say what you want, but this is clear ) 18:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Every single argument I have with you over these pages' content is over such trivial nonsense though. What flag to use for Northern Ireland. What nations to include in the section headers. Do we use finish line order or departure order. And then Gsfelipe94's complaints about image usage when I wasn't even the first person to revert him. This is so unnecessarily exasperating.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I did not bow to his demands, and so he felt the need to swear like a sailor at me. This is not related to this single content dispute. Ryulong feels he has complete and total control over all of the TAR pages. It's his word all the time. No-one is ever allowed to challenge himShadow2 (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- If you feel that strongly you can also file a RFC/U but he is right the complaint does not yet belong here.
- You are framing your arguments through the content dispute over edits I made over two days ago. What am I supposed to think?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are unbelievableShadow2 (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, this is pretty much just about the discussion over the final placements. And my patience in dealing with the constant repetition of reasons why we should ignore the reliable sources has worn thin. Just start a ) 17:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ryulong, recognize that this goes beyond the current TAR24 discussion. This is a long-lasting issue. You did not lash out at the IP editor (Which is me, yes), but you lashed out at both myself and Masem on the TAR24 page. Shadow2 (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
why not link us to the diffs of the attacks?
- This one and this one come to mind as "attacks". I am not accusing him of always attacking, however. I am also accusing him of Page Ownership. Shadow2 (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Those aren't remotely worth bringing here. There are no attacks, he uses profanity but we don't care. Of he was calling you a shit instead of saying people shit themselves, you'd have grounds for a warning but wow this are exceedingly minor. talk) 18:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Very well. Then we are left with the issue of WP:OWN Shadow2 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, those are extremely minor and one wasn't even directed at you. There's no rule against using slightly salty language on Wikipedia (in fact, past attempts to establish such a rule have failed by a landslide). Overall, this looks more like an attempt by Shadow2 to gain an advantage in a content dispute by tattling than any genuine and actionable wrongdoing on Ryulong's part. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I am being accused of things I am not doing here. I can try to dispute such claims, but I know how that would turn out. People would just accuse me of more of the same thing. The fact remains that I believe Ryulong is exercising Page Ownership over the TAR pages. Gaining an advantage is not really my mission here. I simply want Ryulong to be more reasonable and open to discussion instead of cementing his stubborn belief that everything he decides is the way things will be done. Even when two people disagree with his opinion, he still believes he is right and will revert any edit made that contradicts his own views. If you are fine with his cussing, then fine. The issue is now something else.
- I hope to have a discussion that doesn't end with people simply saying "He's trying to gain the upper hand" and leaving. I will be very disappointed otherwise. Shadow2 (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- AN/I doesn't settle article content disputes, though. Wikipedia has several means of settling such disputes, and if you do decide to go that route I'd recommend Wikipedia:Third opinion, although there's also RFC. I can't promise you'll win, but at least you'll come off better than trying to get an editor sanctioned for using curse words. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- How many times must I repeat myself? I am not here (solely) because of a content dispute. I am here because of Ryulong's Page Ownership. Shadow2 (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is you haven't shown us anything where he actually claims he owns a page or otherwise violates WP:OWN. Again, you'd be better off going through dispute resolution with this. Andrew Lenahan- Starblind 22:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is you haven't shown us anything where he actually claims he owns a page or otherwise violates
- How many times must I repeat myself? I am not here (solely) because of a content dispute. I am here because of Ryulong's Page Ownership. Shadow2 (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- AN/I doesn't settle article content disputes, though. Wikipedia has several means of settling such disputes, and if you do decide to go that route I'd recommend Wikipedia:Third opinion, although there's also RFC. I can't promise you'll win, but at least you'll come off better than trying to get an editor sanctioned for using curse words. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, those are extremely minor and one wasn't even directed at you. There's no rule against using slightly salty language on Wikipedia (in fact, past attempts to establish such a rule have failed by a landslide). Overall, this looks more like an attempt by Shadow2 to gain an advantage in a content dispute by tattling than any genuine and actionable wrongdoing on Ryulong's part. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Very well. Then we are left with the issue of WP:OWN Shadow2 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Those aren't remotely worth bringing here. There are no attacks, he uses profanity but we don't care. Of he was calling you a shit instead of saying people shit themselves, you'd have grounds for a warning but wow this are exceedingly minor.
While I agree with the sentiment that these are not bad enough for ANI, I do find it rather troubling the frequency of which people feel the need to report Ryulong. Isn't it becoming like a weekly thing now? Even if he's right every time, he's still riling a lot of people up. Ryu, can you please tone it down a bit, if for no other reason, just so you can stop wasting your own time in having to respond to these issues all the time? Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- He got reported a couple of times by IP block evaders just to get him in trouble. I hardly think you can blame Ryulong for that. As you can see from the below comment, the block evaders immediately pounce on these type of threads and suggestions such as yours just encourage them.--Atlan (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I feel the need to speak up in Shadow2's defense. Ryulong has a long track record of picking fights (particularly on Anime and Manga related projects) and has attempted to help topic-banned editors (LuciaBlack) evade sanctions. Wombshifter (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about them. Just this week a long term, good standing editor expressed frustrations with him. Asked whether it should be an RFC or ANI thing. I told him RFC, but another user already had reported him to ANI for the same thing. Not to mention the month-long-spanning issues and failed mediations with a handful of people from the Anime Wikiproject. Like I said, I'm not really suggesting a block or anything, I just wish he'd all save us a bit of trouble, himself included, and work on his "beside manner" a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have any other examples besides DragonZero? Because otherwise, not counting the block evaders, you're only talking about DragonZero and your worries about the frequency at which Ryulong is reported is quite exaggerated. Other than that I agree with you that rephrasing some of the more uncouth posts Ryulong has made would go a long way.--Atlan (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I admonished Ryulong on this board recently for making a personal attack against someone, but neither of the examples that Shadow2 has shown above rise to that level. I also don't see sufficient examples to show ownership. Usually it's necessary to give diffs to show specific examples of misbehavior rather than linking to a page and hoping that others will be able to figure out what you're trying to convey (which is why this noticeboard states on the top that you should provide diffs). -- Atama頭 21:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- This diff is a recent example. (IP user is me). I had given a large paragraph describing my meaning, and his response was "Whatever. You're wrong." Shadow2 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC) I can dig for more if necessary, but generally this is the kind of thing that happens with Ryulong and TAR pages. If someone disagrees with him, he tries to end the argument in his favour before discussion is even made. Shadow2 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your diff doesn't support that accusation, Ryulong is giving an argument based on an interpretation of consensus. That's a far cry from saying "whatever, you're wrong". I've seen that kind of behavior before, and I find it very disruptive (on this page I recently supported a ban for an editor showing that behavior). But although you may be feeling like Ryulong is simply saying "I'm right, you're wrong", that's not what's happening. Ryulong is not going overboard on politeness, but there's a big difference between the diff you provided and the examples I've seen where an editor literally says "I'm right and I'm done talking". -- Atama頭 21:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- This diff is a recent example. (IP user is me). I had given a large paragraph describing my meaning, and his response was "Whatever. You're wrong." Shadow2 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC) I can dig for more if necessary, but generally this is the kind of thing that happens with Ryulong and TAR pages. If someone disagrees with him, he tries to end the argument in his favour before discussion is even made. Shadow2 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I admonished Ryulong on this board recently for making a personal attack against someone, but neither of the examples that Shadow2 has shown above rise to that level. I also don't see sufficient examples to show ownership. Usually it's necessary to give diffs to show specific examples of misbehavior rather than linking to a page and hoping that others will be able to figure out what you're trying to convey (which is why this noticeboard states on the top that you should provide diffs). -- Atama頭 21:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ryulong shows up at ANI a fair amount because he's a prolific editor with a focus on areas such as anime and reality TV where editors are often young and opinionated and things can get heated. Ryulong's editing isn't perfect (none of ours is, is it?) but it's telling that when a Ryulong thread does show up it's rarely Ryulong who's found to be more at fault. We should never assume that someone mentioned on ANI a lot is necessarily a bad editor or in the wrong. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- "I'm right and I'm done talking". Such as this? And this. As well as the previously linked diff on Gsfelipe's Talk, where he basically said "Holy shit, stop. You're wrong!" Shadow2 (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, let me sum up what's already been said (using your own words): "Holy shit, stop. You're wrong!" Or at least you've failed to post a single diff that shows "holy shit, you're right" DP 23:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, I said "Holy shit stop changing the god damn images and their layout. It does not have to be 100% identical to other pages."—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- And this goes back to what I was saying; while not hard-policy-breaking, all parties, you included, would be better off if you didn't waste everyone's times with these pointless profanity tantrums like this. If you haven't noticed, it's not doing you any favors. It just rubs people the wrong way and leads to further conflict and time-wasting. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. It's a matter of style and having some patience with other editors. Impatience seems to be common with editors who are prolific and productive. Collaboration takes time and work, it can be messy and frustrating to have to explain yourself repeatedly. I understand the desire to take short-cuts but having to spend time on AN/I defending yourself is a time suck when you could be doing other work. But, as I was told at AE, there is no way to make people be nice but try to see it in your own self-interest to avoid all of this drama. Liz Read! Talk! 00:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Did you just say time spent here is a time suck? LOL! Then don't spend time here.;-) I for one feel an obligation to spend some time here. It is as important as collaboration, but not as important as content creation.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- having to spend time on AN/I defending yourself is a time suck
- I was talking about his specific situation and didn't intend for this statement to be generalized to all editors. Most do not have cases brought against them on a weekly basis. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- It does seem as if there is a special class of editor one sees brought here often and the waste to everyone's time is certainly an issue, but more important is it takes away resources to more serious issues. One can easily get burnt out having to go through the all of the filings here that don't really need to be brought up. Some times just trying to get along better is the real answer. We can't be parents to editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Did you just say time spent here is a time suck? LOL! Then don't spend time here.;-) I for one feel an obligation to spend some time here. It is as important as collaboration, but not as important as content creation.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. It's a matter of style and having some patience with other editors. Impatience seems to be common with editors who are prolific and productive. Collaboration takes time and work, it can be messy and frustrating to have to explain yourself repeatedly. I understand the desire to take short-cuts but having to spend time on AN/I defending yourself is a time suck when you could be doing other work. But, as I was told at AE, there is no way to make people be nice but try to see it in your own self-interest to avoid all of this drama. Liz Read! Talk! 00:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- And this goes back to what I was saying; while not hard-policy-breaking, all parties, you included, would be better off if you didn't waste everyone's times with these pointless profanity tantrums like this. If you haven't noticed, it's not doing you any favors. It just rubs people the wrong way and leads to further conflict and time-wasting. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have any other examples besides DragonZero? Because otherwise, not counting the block evaders, you're only talking about DragonZero and your worries about the frequency at which Ryulong is reported is quite exaggerated. Other than that I agree with you that rephrasing some of the more uncouth posts Ryulong has made would go a long way.--Atlan (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Yet, again, Ryulong shows himself utterly incapable to change his abusive language, his predilection for profanities, and, in general, complete disrespect for decent human behaviour towards other editors. But, he is under Administrator Protection, so nothing will change this time, either. It is the cabal of Ryulong-protective administrators who are most to blame here, Ryulong himself is beyond helpArildnordby (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Rude.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. It is the type of chastisement you, and the involved administrators deserve to be met with. See if you can manage for a week or so to abstain from profanities? That will be really, really tough for you, but after a month or so, it might become easier for. Being decent is also a skill that must be developed; you are lacking in it.Arildnordby (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not going to change my behavior when it is not against the rules of the site. And I've probably already gone a week without using profanity. Simply being exasperated in a single argument and getting reported here does not indicate I have a behavioral problem.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. It is the type of chastisement you, and the involved administrators deserve to be met with. See if you can manage for a week or so to abstain from profanities? That will be really, really tough for you, but after a month or so, it might become easier for. Being decent is also a skill that must be developed; you are lacking in it.Arildnordby (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Stating people are "beyond help" and have a "complete disrespect for decent human behavior" is far worse than some profanity out of exasperation.--Atlan (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Arildnordby is hardly coming here with clean hands. A quick glance at their talk page revealed this incredibly WP:BITE-y jab directed at a younger editor who was apologising for poor spelling. "Well, if you cannot improve, you will probably be blocked. We aren't here to listen to baby-babble, OK?". Wow. Just wow. That's ten times worse than anything I've seen from Ryulong. To think how the young editor must have felt reading that response to their apology is just sickening. Andrew Lenahan- Starblind 16:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yawn. Wallow about in the logical fallacy known as Tu Quoque for all I care. Emotional fluffery like Tu Quoque is so much better to wallow about in than logic, don't you agree? Logic is scary stuff!! PS: You are still wrong about having this protective zone of administrators around Ryulong.Arildnordby (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- One more just a bit more civil instead of throwing around comments like that. - The Bushranger One ping only23:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Why can't I make more than one ping?Arildnordby (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Its not that he's got "a ring of Admin protecting him". I'm rather tired of his antics. The problem is, there's no precedent to block him or do much else in response to how he currently acts. A few around the project have mastered it - being rude without quite falling into personal attack territory, or being incivil enough to warrant a block. If you want to cite some policy, provide some links to examples, and show precedence that people have been blocked similarly, go for it. But if you just keep with the mudslinging generalities, you're going to fall on deaf ears. And its because of your sloppy argument, not any admin protecting him. Sergecross73 msg me14:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Have I said that there are anymore than, say, two or three admins doing this? That's bad enough, of course, just check the times Ryulong has been reported, and how typically the same protectors come around. Secondly, a persistent behaviour of "small"-scale disruptive behaviour should, of course add up over time (until sufficient numer of instances warrants a block), rather than Ryulong getting his slate wiped clean each and every time. Progressively lower thresholds for block enactment for persistent abusers as policy, that is.Arildnordby (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- The same should apply to your continuous casting of bad faith aspersions then. Also, Ryulong was blocked twice last month for disruptive editing, so saying he gets away with anything is nonsense.--Atlan (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- "The same should apply to your continuous casting of bad faith aspersions then" Of course. Have I said something contrary to that? " Ryulong was blocked twice last month for disruptive editing, so saying he gets away with anything is nonsense". Relative to others, he certainly is. Others would have gotten months long blocks for proven persistent misbehaviour.Arildnordby (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- The "I" in ANI is incident. -- it's not the best forum for chronic issues; WP:RFC/U is. NE Ent11:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- The "I" in ANI is incident. -- it's not the best forum for chronic issues;
- "The same should apply to your continuous casting of bad faith aspersions then" Of course. Have I said something contrary to that? " Ryulong was blocked twice last month for disruptive editing, so saying he gets away with anything is nonsense". Relative to others, he certainly is. Others would have gotten months long blocks for proven persistent misbehaviour.Arildnordby (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- The same should apply to your continuous casting of bad faith aspersions then. Also, Ryulong was blocked twice last month for disruptive editing, so saying he gets away with anything is nonsense.--Atlan (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Have I said that there are anymore than, say, two or three admins doing this? That's bad enough, of course, just check the times Ryulong has been reported, and how typically the same protectors come around. Secondly, a persistent behaviour of "small"-scale disruptive behaviour should, of course add up over time (until sufficient numer of instances warrants a block), rather than Ryulong getting his slate wiped clean each and every time. Progressively lower thresholds for block enactment for persistent abusers as policy, that is.Arildnordby (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Its not that he's got "a ring of Admin protecting him". I'm rather tired of his antics. The problem is, there's no precedent to block him or do much else in response to how he currently acts. A few around the project have mastered it - being rude without quite falling into
- Why can't I make more than one ping?Arildnordby (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- One more
- Yawn. Wallow about in the logical fallacy known as
- Maybe I am here (on ANI) at the wrong place but if that is the case, can someone take charge to move this elsewhere ? I came here because of the WP:BRDWRONGpage If they continue reverting, put in an RFC or report them for edit-warring on WP:ANI. You may not abuse WP:BRD to force users to engage in overwhelmingly unnecessary discussion. Please advise.
Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- The article reflects a point of view completely unilateral and corrections are necessary. In essence, the user Onlyfactsnofiction and others have built an article based solely on Indian sources passing them off as truths clearly established and using Italian sources only when useful to support their point of view.--Antonioptg (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to notice that, during some of the dispute mediations to which miself as well as other editors recurred in order to try and resolve the frequent diatribes we had on the talk pages, it emerged that, as a side effect of the deeply polarized views about these facts, the article eventually had become too long, overdetailed and difficult to read -- please see f.i. here [32]
- Now, to the credit of Antonioptg, he is the first who is actually trying to resolve this problem by effectively rewriting and simplifying the article. I do not think he is purposedly trying to move the narrative to mirror the Italian official position. Viceversa I think he is trying to show in every part of the article that there are two conflicting views, the Indian and the Italian ones, and descrybing them, which I think is generally correct, and the only way to be really neutral in this dispute.
- Of course every single editor can object to single entries and deletions on a case by case basis. -- LNCSRG (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Can inclusions to put forth the Italian POV be based on verifiable Italian investigation reports and court documents instead of dubious journalistic speculations ? WP:WEIGHT given to these controversial issues. Deletions of text content from authenticated sources and the justifications for article tweaking provided by Antonioptg, Robertiki and now LNCSRGseem shallow.
- I have repeatedly engaged Italian origin users and even expressed support to work in improving the article if the content edits are based on WP:RELIABLE sources. I am unwilling to subscribe to alternate reconstructions by "Luigi Di Stefano" and "Toni Capuozzo" which according to LNCSRGis "admittedly highly speculative and based on uncertain assumptions" even if this line of thought may have traction with a certain population within Italy.
- I repeat my offer to work with the Italian editors if they can come with official court documents, investigation reports, etc., to corroborate and lend credence to certain Italian perspectives which they wish to highlight. Concurrently, I have made an effort to seek-out feed-back from users who have previously weighed-in on this article including from those who did not necessarily agree with my perspective so as to reach-out and get as broad a view as possible.
- Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Can inclusions to put forth the Italian POV be based on verifiable Italian investigation reports and court documents instead of dubious journalistic speculations ?
- Actually, those court documents are not allowable sources: please see WP:BLPPRIMARY. - The Bushranger One ping only10:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, those court documents are not allowable sources: please see
- @WP:BLPPRIMARY point. Please see that the article is not exclusively created by citing court documents. Kindly refer to the discussion about court documents on Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard at [33]and where-in we all agree that an article should not rely exclusively based on court documents.
- If you scrutinize the article, you will see that the court documents are only used as one among many additional reference points to validate/invalidate information published in secondary sources. Use of primary documents was in a bid to improve/measure/validate the verifiability of a piece of information. It seems to me in-congruent to compare statements which have been cross-checked with statements/affidavits filed in a court of law by involved parties/actors versus free flying journalistic speculation and controversy theories which have no official backing whatsoever.
- Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that the "statements/affadavits filed in a court of law" cannot be used to source BLP issues (which this is), as they are being used "third-party sources with editorial oversight. Although they should be noted as "X reports..." or "X states...". - The Bushranger One ping only20:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I repeat, most of the text content in the article regarding chain of events, victims, location, arrest, court happenings, etc., has come from the english-language media can stand on it's own. The "statements/affadavits filed in a court of law" only serves as a back-up to cross-check information that already has a secondary source. If you check the citation references of the article you will see that text is linked to news media or book publications.
- The problem is that the "statements/affadavits filed in a court of law" cannot be used to source BLP issues (which this is), as they are being used "
- @
- Secondary sources are preferable to primary sources where available. If there is a question of whether a source is reliable it should be brought to WP:NOENGtry to find some high-quality English language sources for the English language version of Wikipedia; as reliable non-primary English sources are the preferred standard.
- What has concerned me as I've monitored the talk page lately has been the refusal to assume good faith by some editors involved here. This has been particularly pronounced against the Italian editors - it seems like having an Italian IP automatically has led to a disregard of WP:AGFand that needs to stop.
- If there are specific contentious edits by specific editors regardless of where they are from these should be discussed in the appropriate talk pages, but going forum shopping with moderately vague claims that the Italians aren't being fair is getting tiresome. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- @WP:CONTROVERSIALFACTSinclusions which remain yet unanswered.
- About forum shopping: As written here earlier, I contacted all persons who had weighed-in for RfC about this article including those who opposed my views. I believe that that is good faith. If I had really wanted to forum shop, I could have posted on the Indian versions of the article on wikipedia (using Google translate) and had a hoard of Indians weighing-in (like what can be seen on the Italian talk page). However, this is something I did not do.
- Also, please review the edit history of the article over past 2 years and see which origin are the IPs and users who are trying every few weeks to include journalistic controversies and hypothesis ? That is the reason why after thousands of lines of discussions on the talk page which refer to requests to settle/answer/address the content related questions, I pointed out that these types of swarm-type edits are predominantly from a known set of Italian users/IPs (see edit history list of disruptive page edits relating to inclusion of controversies that even the Italian Govt. is not supporting). Mind you, the Italian users have pointed out to my Belgian IP origin when referring to my discussions and text inclusions. I therefore see no problem in referring to an user by IP origin. However, when you start to call persons names, then it is rude and against wikipedia rules and etiquette. Although I have been curt at times due to frustration, I have never called anyone names. However, the Italian users (see the Italian talk page) resorted to name calling by referring to me as Indian while very well knowing from my IP that I am from Belgium. Is this not racist and WP:PERSONALverbal attack just as several others in hte past and did not respond in kind.
- I also highlight the fact that I have consistently supported and cooperated/assisted in non-controversial text inclusions on this article as long as WP:RELIABLEsources are concerned.
- You will not see me packing the article with so many [34] "Citation Required" tags (even in areas where information was sourced within the article) as it has just been done by an anonymous user who uses an IP from you know where. Now the article is littered with "Citation Required" tags at the end of almost every paragraph. Addition by "217.201.225.102" of 30+ tags in a single edit and this without any explanation or discussion on talk page apart from a repetitive "Reliable source needed for the entire sentence". Wow !
- Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I question some of the tags but other ones are valid. Handle it by reviewing each tag, find a source for the information and add that source to the article. If the source is already in the article, reuse the existing cite. One of those tags is on a direct quote from someone and there is no reference for that quote. That's a completely valid tag. You need to at least partially Ravensfire (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I will assume good faith over the inclusion of a fresh set of 10 "Citation Required" tags by Antonioptg hoping that it is not a step towards the fast/easy deletion of text-content where those tags appear. I would caution against the idea that "every disputable content should be removed" as stated by Antonioptgon the talk page.
- It is possible to stop adding "Citation Required" tags at the end of every other line and instead report them instead onto the talk page ? Because, the article is starting to look really weird with so such intense use of "Citation Required" tags. Also, maybe it is possible to start and move section by section instead buzzing of all over the place.
- To all the persons who are presently involved in text inclusions I make 3 requests : please (1) keep in mind the WP:WEIGHTto fringe theories and (3) before deleting something, kindly verify if the information is noteworthy to be retained.
- Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I will
- I question some of the tags but other ones are valid. Handle it by reviewing each tag, find a source for the information and add that source to the article. If the source is already in the article, reuse the existing cite. One of those tags is on a direct quote from someone and there is no reference for that quote. That's a completely valid tag. You need to at least partially
- @
Disruptive editing and failing to engage by user Bryski 25
Bryski 25 (talk · contribs) has been extensively editing on Marikina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A number of issues have arisen recently, whilst many of the edits are useful, the user consistently fails to add an edit summary, despite myself trying to request on several occasions as seen on their talk page. However, not using an edit summary is not the biggest issue here.
But more significantly, Bryski has been engaging in large scale changes and deletion of valid text of section to the article with no explanation or at least an edit summary. these large changes are [35], [36], [37], [38]. I also have given the user 3 recent warnings with no success. Warning diffs are here: [39], [40], [41]. I seek admin response/action to this issue. thanks. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Dispute resolution noticeboard is thataway. You really shouldn't template the regulars and while I agree that edit summaries should be used, as yet it is not a policy or guideline that can be violated. But both of you are edit warring and gee...look who reverted first with what looks like a less than good reason. Just because there was no edit summary is no excuse to revert. There is nothing I see from the original that was constructive to begin with and you might notice all those "Citation needed" tags. These are the only tags I see and they were not all removed.
- Wouldn't working on getting sources be a better use of time and be far more supportive of your position?--Mark Miller (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Mark, I came here because despite repeated attempts to ask bryski to explain their changes, I reverted repeated removal of valid text. Continually removing valid text is a cause for concern, and furthermore making no attempt to justify changes. If bryski made an attempt to discuss I wouldn't be here. LibStar (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand your explanation, I just don't agree that this is a matter for intervention at the moments because, believe it or not, you are as guilty of edit warring and the same sort of behavior you are referring to this board, except that you use the edit summary. However you have not attempted the talk page yet and haven't really tried to "engage" the other editor. You just warned them in a rather formal manner. You are not following burden of evidence being satisfied. "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source.".--Mark Miller (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand your explanation, I just don't agree that this is a matter for intervention at the moments because, believe it or not, you are as guilty of edit warring and the same sort of behavior you are referring to this board, except that you use the edit summary. However you have not attempted the talk page yet and haven't really tried to "engage" the other editor. You just warned them in a rather formal manner. You are not following
- Mark, I came here because despite repeated attempts to ask bryski to explain their changes, I reverted repeated removal of valid text. Continually removing valid text is a cause for concern, and furthermore making no attempt to justify changes. If bryski made an attempt to discuss I wouldn't be here. LibStar (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you seriously think bryski would even respond to a talk page message? I have made several offers previously including not using a template if Bryski wanted assistance in using an edit summary, yet the behaviour just worsened. What more should I do to engage, you've even just tried to engage and I really do wonder if there will be any response. It's obvious bryski understands English just refuses to engage. This is a problem that should not be dismissed/defended. LibStar (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- As I said...the talk page has still not been used. You do fall somewhat short of exhausting all options if you haven't even begun a talk page discussion and as I said...the burden was on you to cite those claims when you returned them. Look...I am not sticking this all on you but your hands are not clean here so it does make it a tad difficult to say its all the other guys fault. I don't know if Bryski will ever respond...but as long as you try the three basic things, use the talk page, use the user page and attempt to cite your claims...when they don't, it becomes far easier to make the case that they are the one at fault.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I highly highly doubt Bryski is applying WP:BURDEN when removing text with no explanation, that is a big big assumption on your part. WP:BURDEN and WP:CITE are not the issues here. because there are other uncited chunks in the Marikina article that could easily be removed for the same reason. I have now used the talk page... let's see if Bryski engages. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I highly doubt it as well....since the burden rests with those that return the content not those that remove it.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I highly highly doubt Bryski is applying
Again the issue here is not WP:BURDEN, there is nothing to point to the assumption bryski was applying WP:BURDEN. LibStar (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Citizen150
Recently blocked for 31 hours for 3RR, resumed edit war immediately on expiration of block (Diffs included in 3rr Reports)
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Citizen150_reported_by_User:Gaijin42_.28Result:_31h.29
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Citizen150_reported_by_User:NeilN_.28Result:_.29
User has indicated they have no intention of stopping warring "I'm not the one warring. I am providing accurate information about guitars this artist is notable for. Others continue to revert multiple times, surely beyond the revert rule. Will continue until their warring ceases" [42].
Propose page/topic/community ban for willful disregard of policy and consensus.
- support community ban - They need the topic ban, and as a ) 01:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support page ban at least. Appears to be a fairly new editor so perhaps some time getting acquainted with WP policies and guidelines outside of this article will be enough. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Let WP:ROPE if they continue edit warring they'll be blocked for longer periods of time soon enough and eventually indeffed if they refuse to discuss. --NeilN talk to me02:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I saw the ANEW thread and was prepared to block but I saw that he has stopped editing. I watchlisted 2114:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ugh. I expected him to pay attention to what has been said to him, but he didn't. I went ahead and blocked. Let's hope he lears this time that there are no excuses to edit warring. → Call me 2120:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Unwarranted accusations of sockpuppetry by Ring Cinema
After committing 4RR and being warned on his talk page about it, Ring Cinema decided to canvass for support from another editor (link is here [44]). While doing so, he starting throwing out accusations of sock-puppetry, having no grounds for such accusations. I requested he redact the false accusations and he chose not to. In fact, rather than letting the accusations go, he repeated the accusations in an edit summary at an article talk page. Being accused of sockpuppetry is bad enough. Using an edit summary to repeat that kind of accusation without any basis in fact is disturbing. I don't know what can or should be done about this from an administrative standpoint, but at the very least I feel the accusation should be redacted by Ring Cinema. He's ignored my request for him to do so, possibly an administrative action could convince him? Links to the accusations can be found here at an editor's talk page: [45] and here in the edit summary [46]. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Ring Cinema's wildly wrong on the sock puppetry matter and his claims are unwarranted and only came about because he didn't get his own way. But he's severely testing Schrod's and my patience on the matter.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- As the "editor canvassed for support", I wish to make it clear that I have never edited the article in question, Annie Hall, nor have I posted on the Talk page. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- What is the purpose here? I made the accusation for good reason and I haven't stopped monitoring the question of Winkelvi's possible use of sock puppets in cases apart from the current question. The last time I came across sock puppets, it was sufficient to stop the behavior by pointing out that it might be happening. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- 13:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks for the advice. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- That is untrue, SchroCat. In fact, you said that, since I didn't file an SPI, you considered the accusation withdrawn. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Completely untrue, to be accurate. Please correct the record. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Schro isn't the only editor you accused and I don't consider the accusation withdrawn. Especially now since you (unbelieveably) have further accused me of sockpuppetry in this ANI thread ("I haven't stopped monitoring the question of Winkelvi's possible use of sock puppets in cases apart from the current question.") -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
A couple highlights from my exchanges with SchroCat: Diff: "If you weren't a gutless coward you'd have reported it by now. I'm out of this discussion while you're being so childish. I provided the link to report on Gareth's page: use it or shut the [expletive deleted - Ring Cinema] up. - SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)"
Even worse. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- So, Ring Cinema has been doing personal attacks through false, unfiled accusations and that raised the hackles of others. Just proof of why 14:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
SchroCat's unusually foul language
(this sub-section was originally a separate section, but was moved to go along with related discussion) DP 14:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
SchroCat has used bad language and made personal attacks on more than one occasion.
A couple highlights from my exchanges with SchroCat: Diff: "If you weren't a gutless coward you'd have reported it by now. I'm out of this discussion while you're being so childish. I provided the link to report on Gareth's page: use it or shut the [expletive deleted - Ring Cinema] up. - SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)"
Another outburst. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Don't make tit-for-tat filings, they never go well. This situation was closed above - you caused a situation by making personal attacks, they responded. Two wrongs don't make a right, so STOP ffs DP 14:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm well within my rights to file this action and you are out of line to object to it. Thanks for your attention to it, although your response is incorrect. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- You have no "rights" on Wikipedia :-) Here's the reality: you started with the personal attacks. You could be blocked for them. Schro replied with personal attacks, and they could be blocked for them. So, if you would like someone to be blocked, then we would have to block you both ... seems like punishment instead of prevention (WE DON'T DO PUNISHMENT!), because it seems like you both have stopped. However, if you refuse to drop the 09:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- As an uninvolved administrator, let me officially say that the diffs you link to above are clearly 20:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Rights? I tell any five year old melting down on his parents on a department store floor that they should wait to throw a fuss when it involves a car. Any thing less is a let down on one's chums.76.170.88.72 (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm well within my rights to file this action and you are out of line to object to it. Thanks for your attention to it, although your response is incorrect. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Looking at this user's contributions [47] this appears to be a vandalism only account, either that or someone rambling on and on everyplace they see fit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Highly offensive edit summaries from IP editor
Should anything be done, and if so can anything be done, about an IP editor who includes higly offensive slurs in their edit summaries? I am referring to 124.184.193.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has used such edit summaries as [48] and [49] Based on the language, the fact that all the edits relate to same-sex marriage in Scotland, and the fact that all the IPs belong to the same ISP, I believe this to be the same person as 121.216.21.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who posted [50], and 121.218.125.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who posted [51]. - htonl (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm struck by the idea that an immediate block without warning might appear WP:PUNITIVE rather than preventative, but this is disgusting behaviour. Such prolific activity from an account after warnings would deserve an indefinite block, IMO. S.G.(GH) ping!11:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, the second edit makes insulting references to a living person and, I believe, should be dealt with in a similar way to how we deal with 11:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm struck by the idea that an immediate block without warning might appear
- The second IP (121.216.) was warned about their edit summaries. In any case, I see the current IP has now been blocked. - htonl (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm certain that it's the same person. Unfortunately, their offensive edit summaries are often used on what are otherwise fair edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- An admin should redact these edit summaries immediately—they are grossly offensive and shouldn't be made public. Epicgenius (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm certain that it's the same person. Unfortunately, their offensive edit summaries are often used on what are otherwise fair edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- The second IP (121.216.) was warned about their edit summaries. In any case, I see the current IP has now been blocked. - htonl (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Censoring and blanking out on the talk page
User:Ichek has blanked out the talk page discussion I and another editor have done on List of countries by average wage in an attempt to censor the existing consensus, claiming that I "read the consensus" which he censored. This kind of censorship must stop immediately and sanctions must be imposed on this user to stop this kind of horrendous behavior. User:Ichek also appears to be a sockpuppet of Abdulnoir75, appearing out of nowhere only to promote his agenda on List of countries by average wage. Both show very similar agendas, both of them are reverting the existing consensus on that articlce and not joining the discussions. Massyparcer (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- He deleted once and didn't repeat once reverted and warned, so sanctions would be premature. I think you may be overstating that particular issue. If you think he is a sockpuppet, you need to report him to WP:SPI rather than here. Be sure to provide diffs and a paragraph or two explaining the connection. At this time, there isn't anything to do at WP:ANI. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER00:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Impersonation of an admin
- MegaGardevoir68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It has been brought to my attention that this user impersonated me with this edit. When I asked them about this their response was less than encouraging. Impersonating any other user is unacceptable per
- Also peculiar is this "new" user's interest in the accuracy of page protection templates.[52][53][54][55][56][57] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- He did it another time here. I'm just going to go ahead and block. Clearly, he knows he's being disruptive intentionally. We don't need that stuff around here. --Jayron32 16:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- More of them: [here and here. I'm going back and rolling back this silliness. He's already been blocked by me, if he has a good explanation, he can give it in the unblock template. If anyone thinks that this user's behavior is acceptable, feel free to let us all know. --Jayron32 17:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- That editor is not as new as their 231 edits would indicate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed to PrivateMasterHD (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I went ahead and dealt with the underlying IP. NativeForeigner Talk 17:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Could you update Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PrivateMasterHD for tracking this drawer? DMacks (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Talk page access and email access disabled. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Done NativeForeigner Talk 18:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks all for your prompt attention to his matter. talk) 18:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks all for your prompt attention to his matter.
- Could you update Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PrivateMasterHD for tracking this drawer? DMacks (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- That editor is not as new as their 231 edits would indicate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- More of them: [here and here. I'm going back and rolling back this silliness. He's already been blocked by me, if he has a good explanation, he can give it in the unblock template. If anyone thinks that this user's behavior is acceptable, feel free to let us all know. --Jayron32 17:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Work/edits being attacked.
Hello, my work/edits are being attacked on many pages by user SmartSE. This user claims I'm part of a group of sockpuppets, OK fine Smartse is intitled to think this. Until proven I'm a sockpuppet or part of a group this user should stop referring to this in the Edit Summary boxes as the reason for my edits to be removed. Example HERE & HERE & HERE . Now when I undo the edits Smartse then attacks me on the Talk Pages by STILL accusing me as part of a sockpuppet ring Look HERE at the bottom of page Now if Smartse never mentioned me as being part of this sockpuppet ring HERE would the other 2 users left a comment? I think not, I feel that because Smartse added the negative sentance of me being part of this sockpuppet ring it gave the 2 other users a negative view on my edit & a reason to agree with Smartse, very unfair. You will notice [HERE that I have explained to all Smartse questions & he/she is still attacking me when yet nothing has been proven, again the edits/work of mine have never been questioned by another user, this is clearly a personal attack I feel because I'm not playing the Smartse game & shutting up like a good newbie. This is very unprofessional for an experienced editor. Sarah1971 (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, because 1. we are not idiots, and 2. regardless of the result of the sockpuppetry investigation the edits are still problematic. Seek consensus on the talk page rather than edit warring. Given that Smartse has attempted to engage you on the talk pages and you chose to come here instead, please also review ) 19:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia & before I carry out many edits & start new pages I'm concentrating on 1 project to learn this, walk before I run. But while I'm walking & trying to add as much info as possible on my new projects I'm being accused of something. Until proved should all my work be slandered with this new label of being a sockpuppet. Sarah1971 (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have much to say, other than pointing to the diffs I've linked to at the SPI here. It seems extremely unlikely that those accounts aren't linked. As I've already explained - I haven't reverted anything purely because I think Sarah1971 is a sock - it's the content that has been added which is problematic. SmartSE (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- In my role as a Junior Wrangler at the talk) 20:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- In my role as a Junior Wrangler at the
- To be fair, they were directed here from the Teahouse. That doesn't really look like forum shopping to me as much as not getting the hint that the problem is stemming from their behavior. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Sarah1971: I believe that the concerns by SmartSE and others are valid. The investigation seems justified, and if you aren't linked to the people that you are suspected of being linked to, you should be cleared. If you aren't engaged in sockpuppetry, don't worry about a false accusation tarnishing you. Even I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of someone in the past, it's not a big deal if you're cleared. -- Atama頭 21:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- To be fair, they were directed here from the Teahouse. That doesn't really look like forum shopping to me as much as not getting the hint that the problem is stemming from their behavior. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, SmartSE's edits are defending Wikipedia from a nest of sockpuppet spammers. I've seen the fiverr page showcasing subjects such as Graffiti Kings examples of successful promotion. It is clear that you are being paid to advertise certain subjects. These edits are 20:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not worried about temporary having a sockpuppet label as yes the truth will come out. What I'm worried about is the many times Smartse has removed my edits while calling me a sockpuppet in the Edit Summary boxes? Right away Smartse labels me as a sockpuppet & gives me a nagative label, a label for other users not to trust. Its not even been proved. Sarah1971 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- In none of the edits you linked to above did SmartSE use sockpuppetry as a justification for reverting you. Yes, there were links to the sockpuppetry case, but only because the promotional nature of your edits were outlined in that discussion and it would help explain the reason for the revert. We don't generally undo the edits of a sockpuppet, unless the main account is 22:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Theres no reason for Smartse to add a link to the sockpuppet case in Edit Summary boxes & on the talk pages - Example again HERE & HERE & HERE & HERE the only reason would be to give me a nagative label/label me as a none trustworthy user or its a personal attack. Why else mention the sockpuppet case. I find it strange that many other users on here would also call me things? even though its not proven. Granted they can think what they want but by going on record saying they think its true is mind boggling? is Wikipedia their site? do they have the final say? Just asking. Is there any point of discussing my problem here? does anything get resolved by anybody? Is there someone with authority to say agree or not agreed & case closed? if no then can someone please advise to to the correct page please to make a complaint. Sarah1971 11:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Personal attack
In here, user:Zedzem is accusing me of both vandalism and working for a regime. A quick look at the talk page shows my edit was towards the discussion there, in which the consensus voted for removing the material he is trying to include -yet again- in the article. Your help in preventing an edit war is very much appreciated. Also, for the records, I live in the USA and have no association with any government whatsoever.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see that edit as saying that you are working for the regime, to me when it says you are "for the Islamic Republic" the message is only saying that you are biased towards the country, or at least you are editing in a manner that is changing the article's point of view to reflect more favorably on the country. I'm not saying I agree, necessarily, but I'm just pointing out that I'm pretty sure that's what 22:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, this doesn't really belong at the general administrators' noticeboard (which is for announcements and other notifications), this is more suitable for the incidents noticeboard. I'll move it there now. -- Atama頭 22:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Racism on talk:Human
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human#Replace_male_with_a_bigger_penis
Editor Maunus has kindly presented sources demonstrating that race does not exist immediately in the preceding section and now editors are using the word 'Asian' to talk about humans and implying that Asians have small penises. It has been asserted that there are clines and that variation is not correlated, so this is not possible, nor is it possible for there to be "Asians". I demand that this kind of pre 1900s racist terminology not be allowed on the talk page. 118.219.86.71 (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- That discussion was a trollfest. Blocked both this IP here and another (possibly unrelated) one for disruptive editing and trolling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Help with new page please
I'm trying to learn like everyone else new & using a subject I know about (street art), I'm not linked to the subjects I'm working on, I'm just trying to make good of my edits that are being taken down. I'm trying to walk before I run, rather than editing/messing up many other pages. The page I created
- See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles - it isn't 'your' article. I can see nothing in the editing history to suggest anything but normal editing, carried out to improve the article, and ensure it complies with Wikipedia standards. Deletion discussions aren't intended to provide 'approval' for specific versions of an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- See these other related reports about or by the editor who opened this section:
- JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sarah, I can understand exactly why the investigation was opened, but for now I want to assume the best of faith and just address the ownership of articles issue. This is Wikipedia. If you read the WP:Five pillars, you will learn a great deal. The Five pillars trump all policy here. One partial quote from them is "no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed." We mean it. Every article will be edited, over and over and over. Even if you create an article, you have no special rights over it. We all contribute as equals. I know this is a tough idea to get used to for a new user, but it is important that you accept this early on or you won't have a good time when editing. Once you do get used to it, you discover the power of interdependence and will appreciate the help of others. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, it's worth mentioning that an AfD that is closed as keep is not "approving" an article - nobody "approves" content on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Mack Ruled
These articles include Armenian orthography reform [59][60] and Soghomon Tehlirian [61][62].
He's apparently trolling or something. --Երևանցի talk 22:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
He also reverted my last two edits in
22:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)- I'm not up to digging too much, but his first edit is unusual for a new user, blue-linking his user page. This should raise a red flag to anyone who has more bits than I do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Heads up: Reddit's MRAs focusing on Men's rights movement
A user mentioned that Reddit's MRA board has a post regarding Men's rights movement. This page is under 1RR and is semi-protected, but I thought it worth mentioning. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- And... StevieY19 is proxy-editing for non-autoconfirmed users organized through that Reddit thing like here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Ugh, more gender war Reddit brigading. First it's the attempted feminist censorship on Woozle effect, now MRA whitewashing. How tedious. Reyk YO! 23:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like to add, I was mistaken on this, and while I did edit the article, I edited it based on my own writing, and my own use of words. If this is not allowed, I'm ok with that and will not do it again. However, I did edit the article as I felt it was wrong and tried to correct it to a more neutral level. Thanks. steviey19 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevieY19 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Reddit MRA's noticing our article about the MRM happens every few months. A few extra sets of eyes on the article can't hurt (especially admin eyes w/r/t 1rr and the article probation currently in effect,) but it usually dissipates pretty quickly. Our article about the MRM isn't amazingly written, but it does use pretty much all of the
On that note then, if I, someone who is involved in these types of works given my line of work, disagree with how the article is written, how would I correct it if it would be ignored? I feel that this is the problem here. I can come up with the opposite view point, but seeing as how it seems people who are running this page don't want change, what is the neutrality of it? I don't understand what the issue with being shown the article, and actually feeling it is wrongly written, editing it, and trying to better the whole of it. StevieY19 (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to remove any change I've made, as in speaking with people on the talk page of the article, I have been given some good advice, and will do some work before changing things. I jumped the gun a bit, and would like to properly approach things for the futureStevieY19 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
As I said last time--that article is a disaster. It tars a wide variety of movements with an extremely broad brush and while well sourced, has NPOV problems like mad. Many of our more heavily disputed topics end up with well-written articles as the two sides butt heads and improvements get made. This one hasn't had that happen for whatever reason. It's the second article I've read today that suffers from this problem (the other is one about Jews and Communism currently at DRV). Hobit (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be unexpected. The MRM is a fairly recent development and it's attracted mostly negative attention. NPOV means summarizing the reliable sources and giving due weight; if a subject is generally covered in a negative fashion then inevitably our article will reflect that negativity. Although it seems counter intuitive, it would actually be a violation of NPOV to present a balance when one doesn't exist in the relevant literature. Noformation Talk 22:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this to ANI first but the talk page in question has been exhausted and since this involved both conduct and content, I'm not sure where else to go. The gist of it: I have contributed extensively to
Maybe a week ago or so a new account comes along called Amerrycan Muslim who only edits this article. He did a massive POV push, trying to use the article as a soapbox and in the process outed me twice. I requested the edits be suppressed via oversight and they were because I don't want that stuff out there, but I don't feel shy saying that it happened. User:Risker can confirm that the information posted can only be known by someone who knows me very, very well. I don't want to know who they are but suffice to say that based on what they said specifically, they know who I am, are quite angry and see this as some sort of existential battle.
At
I'm here as I'm not sure how to deal with the guy. He isn't edit warring anymore, and he says he didn't know that outing other editors isn't allowed, but I know for a fact there is a bit of battleground mentality with me personally as well as refusal to get the point about the soapboxing and weasel wording he keeps suggesting. He has said twice now he wants arbitration and the discussions are getting a bit more tense. It's difficult to avoid the conduct issue here to be honest. I hope the community can comment and make suggestions as to how this can be solved. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- For those concerned, then one or two diffs would be tough as it's the whole conversations but the major "I didn't hear that" issue is at Talk:Rabee_Al-Madkhali#The_initial_intro. The conduct issue and tense relationship is pretty much all over the page. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi everyone, First off I would like to thank salafismwithin Europe and upon coming across the wiki page of Dr Rabee, I was outraged at what was in my opinion an extremely unbalanced page on someone I have previously researched. I have only edited this page because I feel it needs so much work and I have been so busy going through my old research to bring information and sources to show that the same sources being quoted currently also give positive information which I fail to see on the current page. That's solely why I haven't moved on. And for the record, I do not know Mezzo.
- Hi everyone, First off I would like to thank
- However, Mezzo is extremely wrong in almost everything else he says about me. This is in no way about him, nor a battle against him. It is about balancing a wiki page of someone I have researched. And I am in no way angry. Just perplexed, for reasons which shall follow.
- I did asked Mezzo why sources which are used on other pages of figures which are like-minded and directly connected to Dr Rabee are not allowed, such as Badi' ud-Din Shah al-Rashidi and Muqbil bin Hadi al-Wadi'i. He gave his own personal opinion about why Middle Eastern research was not usually up to scratch while not offering any empirical data to back his claim up, and because of that, books offering an alternative view to what he wrote on the page were rejected. However, sources like this have been added on the pages of Wadi'i and Shah, so I asked why there were sites which he claims to be biased and unprofessional on these other pages. I never mentioned the content, ever. Then he told me about "other stuff exists" and I read that and saw it was about 'content' and not 'citations' so I politely asked him about that. I could continue on, but I wish for all to read the talk page.
- I am more than happy to have moderation on the page of Dr Rabee, as he and I will be unlikely to agree. However, in my defense, as I wrote on the talk page of Dr Rabee's page, I have never EVER attempted to delete criticism of Dr Rabee which was posted without citation. I merely, looked to balance out the page with facts and praise from other Islamic scholars of greater and equal standing with Dr Rabee. It is all about balancing a page regarding a controversial figure based on academic sources as well as opposing view points, which should also include the person in question: Dr Rabee. Thank you for your time. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- While the tone here is much nicer, the comments above are a demonstration on why the the content issue has become muddled with the conduct issue.
- To start with User:Amerrycan Muslim, I never said that I rejected "books offering an alternative view" because of my opinion on the quality of research at universites in the Mideast.
- You asked me my opinion of peer-reviewed research in Arabic.
- I replied with my opinion only, and not with comments on the article. I even made it abundantly clear just a few comments later that I was only giving you my opinion, not advocating any specific changes to Rabee Al-Madkhalior any other page.
- The why that isn't relevant and your dwelling on the point comes off as pointless and argumentative.
- Additionally, your proposal for a new lead before editing the rest of the article contains so many weasel words and soapboxing, it's difficult to ignore; it's about as bad as the original 23,000 bytes you tried to slip in without discussion. I mean, an Arabic language audio recording of a private phone conversation hosted on archive dot org where the subject of the article simply denies he has a movement and calls his group the only true Sunnis? That's a reliable source and valid reason for inserting denial that his movement exists into the lead?
- That, with all the "I didn't hear that" behavior, accusations of me inventing my own policies when I quote and link to actual policies in just about every comment I make, and your two separate attempts to reveal my identity in a malicious way make it real tough to deal with you and make any headway. This is actually overshadowing the content issue at this point, to be honest. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked whether you were aware of peer-reviewed articles and books written in the Arabic language, because much of the currently sourced research relies on it and I intend on including it, not your opinion on its reliability- you added that as a side point saying "keep in mind that reliability is low" and "peer-review consists of yes-men".
When I asked about citations being used elsewhere, it was about using biographical sources such as fatwa-online or the subject's biography written by his students or followers, being fine when sourcing non-controversial factual material, such as lineage. My questions were asked because you explicitly stated that certain sources (fatwa-online and the subjects website) are "biased" and "unprofessional" thereby negating validity of those sources that are key for the subject matter and strongly relied on with current academic sources, such as meijer, lacroix, and others.
I was quite hasty as a newbie, and I'm still learning the rules- there's no need to assume malicious intent. In the interest of fairness and unbiased information, both sides of a story should be told. I never stated that the movement doesn't exist, I said even though the subject denies the claim and some of his contemporaries/followers deny its existence. This is not taking a side, this is showing the subject's denial. If it doesn't belong in the lead, that's my mistake, and it can be moved to a separate section. I do not intend to be malicious, I would just like some balance in the presentation of the information. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- User:Amerrycan Muslim, I know that there is a measure of malice there. Nobody here at ANI has seen what you posted the second time you tried to out me but I remember, so keep that in mind; I know why you're here.
- Secondly, many of us (myself included) have made your newbie mistakes and even more, but the issue now is that you are so combative that explaining politely why such and such suggestion doesn't work out had no effect until things came here to ANI. There is also no assurance, currently, that once we leave this open forum and go back to the talk page without so much attention, you won't revert to the same "I didn't hear that" schtick again. I would assume good faith, but for reasons I have stated several times here, that was obviously exhausted early on.
- Basically what I am trying to find out is where to go from here. WP:3O are for disputes which are solely about content, any conduct mediation measures are too serious for disagreements with newbies, and there isn't much I know of for disputes which are both content and conduct. Some sort of outside assistance is necessary because, after seeing you reply with the same arguments over and over again even after I explain why most of your suggested changes to the article (not all of them) violate multiple policies and guidelines, I honestly have little patience to continue replying. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'll repeat. There is no malicious intent. But, I'm excited that you now why I am here; to simply demand an article that is a balanced and fair portrayal of the subject. Showing the POSITIVE, as well as the negative. Under your recent stewardship I feel that is lacking. While looking through the edit history of the page this seems to he a new phenomenon as previously your stewardship was, in my opinion, excellent. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- User:Tivanir2: Yeah, I guess it is contradictory, though my main concern isn't the contradiction. It's that my fellow editor here thinks that an Arabic-language recording hosted at Internet Archive of someone calling the cult's leader on the phone counts as a valid source, or that random Muslim proselytizing sites with no editorial boards count as valid sources, or that the websites of Madkhalism count as valid sources. And that when I explain how they don't, I am told that I am making up my own policies. This is what I need assistance mediating. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Amerrycan Muslim's largely reasonable engagement above appears to have turned into random vandalism of this page. DeCausa (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- That looks more like what happens when one edits an old revision despite the warning, which could easily be by mistake. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes sorry for that, I'm on my phone and finding it a little difficult. So I will stop until at computer. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- That looks more like what happens when one edits an old revision despite the warning, which could easily be by mistake. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Amerrycan Muslim's largely reasonable engagement above appears to have turned into random vandalism of this page. DeCausa (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- User:Tivanir2: Yeah, I guess it is contradictory, though my main concern isn't the contradiction. It's that my fellow editor here thinks that an Arabic-language recording hosted at Internet Archive of someone calling the cult's leader on the phone counts as a valid source, or that random Muslim proselytizing sites with no editorial boards count as valid sources, or that the websites of Madkhalism count as valid sources. And that when I explain how they don't, I am told that I am making up my own policies. This is what I need assistance mediating. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if this is the wrong place, but I think it is related. Browsing through Wiki 'rules' I came across
HELP
I need some help editing Wikipedia. will somebody plz help? thanks Malayhotgirl (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- WP:Teahouse is where you want to go to get an introduction and ask questions. WP:Help desk is another option. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Dennis, I'm going to go out on a limb and propose that the hot girl isn't here for editing Wikipedia. I'm also going to suggest that the picture they just put on their user page, File:Miss Malaysia 07 Deborah Priya.jpg, might not be of them, and that this picture was placed with another strategic interest in mind. Then, I will announce that I have removed said image from said user page considering all kinds of possible BLP problems. Now, should I block them already, or would you like to ask them for more pictures, maybe some of her sister? Or should I start sipping from the other cup, the one marked "Good faith"? Dr. "Super Hot" Mies (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Now Doc Mies, if I had any suspicion of anything unusual, don't you think I would have done something, such as log into IRC and talk to a clerk? I expected to just AGF and monitor. That said, if I had to wager on one of us, I would bet on you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'd bet on those odds! ;-) (wink and a nudge...knowwhatImean, knowwhatImean?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Now Doc Mies, if I had any suspicion of anything unusual, don't you think I would have done something, such as log into IRC and talk to a clerk? I expected to just AGF and monitor. That said, if I had to wager on one of us, I would bet on you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Edit war on MH370 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.
There appears to be an edit war happening between
- User blocked (talk)06:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- That solves the problem then. It's not really my place to, but this is now resolved. I just realized there is a 3RR noticeboard anyway. Whoops. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just as a note, if you need to post something at ANI again, don't forget to notify the editors in question of the discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- That solves the problem then. It's not really my place to, but this is now resolved. I just realized there is a 3RR noticeboard anyway. Whoops. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
ResolvedReverse Sandstein's false accusations and destructive warnings
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.
Note: I have refactored considerably at the request of Sandstein, to keep the discussion all in one place. My apologies if I have gotten anyone's vote in the wrong place, feel free to move it. —Neotarf (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
In February 2013, four editors -- SMcCandlish, Noetica, Ohconfucius, and myself -- were falsely accused of misconduct by Sandstein. As a result, three have walked out, and a fourth continues to edit, but with understandable bitterness.
I am asking that the community repair Sandstein’s damage by 1) striking the false accusations 2) vacating the actions based on the false accusations and 3) advising Sandstein to recuse in any future dealings with the four editors. —Neotarf (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
1) Remove Sandstein’s false accusations from the case page
The accusations came about in the aftermath of a request filed by Apteva, who, in spite of a topic ban resulting from an RFCU endorsed by 38 editors, was allowed to open an arbitration enforcement case seeking to preempt a pending sanction under discussion against him.
Sandstein was advised by another admin to retract the language about casting aspersions, but refused[65]. To add further damage to our reputations, we were publicly mocked by Sandstein for having been accused by him.
Sandstein has admitted I have not done anything to merit even a warning, but he has steadfastly refused to officially retract the accusatory statements. Another admin removed the accusation, but even after Sandstein acknowledged the accusation was not true, he reverted the other admin's edit to reinstate the false accusation into the case record.
In case someone comes up with the less-than-brilliant idea that it is “impossible” to remove a notification from a case record once it has been placed there (yes, someone has actually said this), here are two recent examples: a notification that was vacated and stricken from the record as a result of community action, and an entry in the case record simply removed by an arb. The world did not end and the Wikipedia did not explode.
Sandstein's false accusations against the four editors SMcCandlish, Noetica, Neotarf, and Ohconfucius should be removed from the case page here. —Neotarf (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Support
- Support. A wrong has been done here, whether intentionally or not, the ArbCom isn't fixing it, and the admin responsible for it steadfastly refuses to resolve the problem, pretending that no problem exists now matter how clearly it's demonstrated. Enough. This can be resolved in five minutes. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 12:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that if it is possible to vacate Sandstein's bizarre attacks on these editors, it would be good to do so. If this could help Noetica and Neotarf and SMcCandlish return as WP contributors, that would be a big win all around. These were very serious, productive, and scholarly editors, and Sandstein's dislike for their style and their positions somehow led to these inappropriate accusations that they rightly took much offense at. Let's fix this if we can. Dicklyon (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
- Past accusations are just that: past accusations. We don't remove them from every page on which they occurred even when they are demonstrably false, and certainly not when there is any doubt. Think of the precedent: from my perspective, nearly every accusation ever made against me by anyone is false. Should the community support me if I began a campaign to have each and every one of the removed? No.—Kww(talk) 14:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- In addition to Kww's comment above, which I agree with 100%, I find it annoying that Neotarf wrote in the question "Sandstein has admitted I have not done anything to merit even a warning" when the linked comment says nothing of the sort, and indeed specifically says "This appeal does not contain any new arguments or evidence that would lead me to reconsider that assessment." This is the sort of behavior that resulted in Neotarf being warned not to conduct a dispute in an inappropriately confrontational manner. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- [66]"In retrospect your statement does appear comparatively tame and would not ordinarily merit a warning on its own."
- [67] "I suppose that's as close to an apology as could be expected from Sandstein.... the warning hasn't been "vacated" or whatever, not by Sandstein and not by ArbCom, but...Sandstein has in practice, and all but technically, withdrawn it in his comment."
- I don't care anything about confronting Sandstein, or the other user, who has now been indeffed. I just want the restrictions against me revoked. —Neotarf (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, there really is no way around that admission, Guy Macon. Neotarf is not making things up, and your accusation that they've done so should be retracted. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 07:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Abstain
- I don't care one way or the other about overturning results in this discussion. But I do care about whether all the so-called "bizarre attacks" were truly bizarre. I was one of the editors who was unjustifiably harassed by SMcCandlish. That led to a boomerang block for his bullying. I don't recall if he apologized or not but it was harassment to me that I shant forget. I didn't ask for any block at the time but I didn't want that to ever happen to me again. The others I have no idea about... but the SMcCandlish harassment solution was not a bizarre attack in my mind. Do I trust him not to do it someone else after all this.... not sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- The result wasn't a block, but the one-month topic ban being retrospectively appealed in 2) below. Kanguole 16:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
- I find the above statement in poor taste, referring to "damage", etc ... nothing like poisoning the well. DP 12:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- NewYorkBrad is fond of quoting Othello III.iii.155 in this matter. If it's good enough for The Bard, and good enough for NYB, it's good enough for me. —Neotarf (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I and others have been personally harmed as editors by this, the project suffers the loss of our contributions, and the community's faith in the equitability of policy enforcement by admins is certainly damaged. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 13:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Personally harmed"? Seriously? Now THAT is inappropriate - nobody dropped by your house and hit you with a rake. Nobody fired you from your job. This is a website, and you got your feelings hurt ... THAT is not the definition of "personally harmed". DP 13:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's the fallacies of equivocation, argumentum ad absurdum, and straw man, all at once. I don't need to argue with you at length about this; the facts of the case are clear, and while you're entitled to whatever opinion you want, you're not entitled to pretend that you magically know who in the real world has noticed this dispute and what effects it may have had or could later have off-Wikipedia, especially with regards to editors who use their real names here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Personally harmed"? Seriously? Now THAT is inappropriate - nobody dropped by your house and hit you with a rake. Nobody fired you from your job. This is a website, and you got your feelings hurt ... THAT is not the definition of "personally harmed". DP 13:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't even care if Sandstein ever admits doing any wrong. I don't care if admins do or don't in the majority agree or disagree with him. It requires absolutely nothing but common sense to delete the logged actions of Sandstein in this case as procedural matter, rectifying that something intended as a warning actually inadvertently included text that is a blatant accusation, which without proof makes it a personal attack and (at least with regard to those of us who use our real names here, like me) blatant defamation. You can even hold Sandstein totally blameless if you want. JUST FIX IT. The WP community has already lost somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 productive edits by me in the intervening year, and I have no idea how many thousands more by the other falsely accused editors Sandstein's actions and Wikipedia administration's collective refusal to correct them has driven off. I'm not going to even get into the pattern of personal harassment of me by Sandstein, and his un-recusal (after recusing because other admins said he was INVOLVED), to personally ban me in a WP:ANI case, etc. If the accusation is voided, and I'm not further harassed by him, I don't have any desire to protract any dispute with him. Clear my name, and keep him away from me. PS: I also want to point out that ArbCom actually promised clarifying action on these "warnings" and their text, shortly after this issue arose, and never actually came through. It is now, a year later, clearly time for the community to act and just resolve this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.
2) Vacate SMcCandlish's topic ban
Two of the editors immediately announced their departure as a result of the Sandstein’s false accusations, but SMcCandlish attempted to continue editing, and was immediately engulfed in dramah. Sanctions were requested against SMcCandlish at Sandstein’s talk page for using a word in ALL CAPS in an edit summary. [68] When that accusation didn’t stick, another request for AE enforcement was made against SMcCandlish saying that comments made at an RFA constituted "personalized remarks". Finally, in yet another action at AE (Fyunck(click)), Sandstein deleted a part of SMcCandlish’s evidence, including diffs, [69] saying it was too long, then topic-banned SMcCandlish, calling his request frivolous since it only had one diff left after Sandstein’s deletions.
SMcCandlish's sanctions here should be reversed/vacated. —Neotarf (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Support
- Support. —Neotarf (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Note: My support of this proposal is secondary to and severable from the one above, concerning vacating from the log Sandstein's false accusations against me and the rest of the affected editors. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 12:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. I have no involvement here and did not notice at the time the actions against the other 3 editors, only at the time against SMcCandlish. I thought at the time it seemed inexplicable, but because I was not aware of the other 3 cases, said nothing, or virtually nothing. From what is visible on the surface (and if it isn't visible it should be made so) there seems to be no clear reason, or benefit to the project, for any of the actions taken against these editors. My natural inclination is to err on the side of discipline in all such disputes, but this case seems egregious and disturbing, and has been bothering me since I noticed it. Without some substantial evidence of a concrete problem a full restore of status for all four editors seems to be called for. (However at this time I am only commenting in this section) In ictu oculi (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support as "How dare you complain..." Verbosity isn't grounds for a topic ban. Raising a complaint against another editor at AN or ANI isn't grounds either – it's what the forum is for. It's necessarily "personal" and I don't think the issues raised in that targeted the individual in "personalised" manner more than was necessary to identify the salient issues. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Alternate
This is not technically an oppose. I have no care if the topic ban is vacated or not. However, if it is vacated, I certainly would not want SMcCandlish to have gone unpunished for his original bullying/harassment. Other admins agreed that a warning was not sufficient at the time. He never apologized to me about it. I can say at the time a Stern Warning would have sufficed for me if he had promised never to harass me again, and I would want that permanently on the record if the temp topic ban is vacated. If he had been simply banned for 3 days, that also would have sufficed at the time. I forget what he was originally asking for my punishment when this attack on me boomeranged on him. What I would not want is to have this swept away as if nothing happened at all. It would stink to high heaven imho. If something can be vacated this far forward, then something should also be retroactively added. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Did you not read my original message upon rescinding the AE request I'd opened against you? I'll quote it in its entirety here:
"@Fyunck(click): I have rescinded this request because the AE admin respondents have concluded that the case is weak. Maybe I even really am flat-out wrong about your posts, too, as you say; if time shows this to be the case, I will owe you an apology. I declined to respond to your rebuttal details because I know AE admins can draw their own conclusions from the diffs (note they're not agreeing with you, only finding that the old diffs are too old and the newer one not actionable), and I'm trying to keep it short, not because I couldn't formulate a response. In reply to your question, I did not examine your editing "ashtray" closely at all to find the evidence I did find, I just looked at your talk page and recent archives of it; that is not in any way unusual or harassing. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 06:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)"
Given that some of the admins in that case did in fact think you were being tendentious on the issue I'd raised, and you'd previously been blocked for it, you'd do well to remember that boomeranging can affect anyone who, seeking "punishment" (your word) against another editor, draws unnecessary attention to editorial conflicts in which they themselves have been deeply and questionably involved. NB: There was absolutely no administrative finding at AE that I had "harassed" or "bullied" you, only that the case I brought was "frivolous" because the evidence was too old and not of a smoking gun character. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 07:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)- You bet I read it. And of course you rescinded it once you saw that others thought it was frivolous and that a boomerang effect was about to happen. And you'll also notice that the block you mentioned was not for that... it was for edit warring with another that was also blocked. And both were removed immediately once we agreed to an RFC. Your bullying/harassing ani towards me still keeps me looking over my shoulder at you. No warning from you no nothing. And the evidence was non-existent for the ani you brought up. Other admins also thought you crossed a line and had been recently warned about doing it to others. I am still pissed about what you attempted to do to me with NO APOLOGY. For you to get off scott-free is unacceptable. All I wanted was a warning, especially once you started piling on more ridiculous accusations. As I said I could care less about topic bans... in general I don't really like them at wikipedia. But I happened across this request and it was looking a lot like revisionist history to me and it brought back the pain I felt at the time of waking up and having to defend myself from you. I can certainly forgive but I would have to see a lot from you before that ever happens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
The duty admin is the judge and can close any complaints that are frivolous or vexatious, and admins often close AN discussions on such bases. Topic banning an editor like what happened to SMcC seems to be justified by "I don't like your face" or "I don't like your attitude, boy" arguments. We are now all familiar with Sandstein's MO; his mobilising Enola Gay was just typical of his usual sledgehammer approach to problems. Such an approach actually deters long-term dispute resolution and forces their escalation elsewhere without resolving them. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed; Sandstein's topic-banning close against me at AE as punishment for raising legitimate concerns at ANI (I won that case) and at AE (my case was rejected only because the evidence wasn't fresh enough) is a direct discouragement to all editors to "dare" to use the dispute resolution mechanisms we have in place, unless they have friends on the inside. If you are not part of the Inner Party, you must just STFU and do what you're told. Sandstein personally turned that AE case (which I filed; no case was filed against me) into pretty much the most forced BOOMERANG case in AE history, instead of just accepting my dropping of the case after being told I didn't have new enough evidence. I have absolutely no doubt that I would win an ArbCom case about this, on the merits. I just have better things to do with my life. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 10:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's notable that Sandstein recused himself from that case after it was pointed out how INVOLVED he was. He then un-recused himself - the first time in any context I've ever seen that happen - and deleted my evidence to make the case against me look sane, then summarily banned me, even though others were saying this wasn't justified, and one of the few who did suggest a ban did so on the totally unsupportable basis that I was somehow "going too far" when I filed an ANI case against someone attacking me in contravention of their own topic ban, and ANI *agreed* - i.e., I properly used official WP dispute resolution processes and that dispute was formally resolved in my favor. I was, however, attacked in my own case for it, and even after others pointed out that the "going to far" criticism made no sense at all, I was summarily banned by a vengeful Sandstein for it. This is the second action by Sandstein that I could have launched a big ol' ARBCOM case about (and he wouldn't been have a lone party in that one), but I'm not a legalist busybody, and was not here to get into disputes, but rather to work on an encyclopedia. Anyone still wondering why I quit editing, and why this issue hasn't gone away a year later? I was publicly abused by multiple admins on the flimsiest of excuses, that undermine faith in the equitability of WP administration processes and dispute resolution. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 12:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Neotarf's summary omits links to the last two AEs, raised about SMcCandlish and Fyunck(click). The critical comments by several uninvolved admins there (and the closure of the first one by User:Gatoclass) contradict the Lone Rogue Admin narrative developed above. Kanguole 19:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Kangole, yes, I did include diffs to the Fyunck(click) request, but I have now added a more obvious link to the entire request page as well. I didn't include the request about the Birds matter, since the outcome was just a reminder. The admins mostly commented on his tendency to be long-winded. Looking at the Fyunck(click) matter again, how was it that LittleBenW, now indeffed, was able to present evidence in violation of his topic ban? Some of the AE admins were actually critical of SMcC for taking the matter to ANI, but two other admins enforced the ban with a block. And SMcCandlish withdrew the AE request, when he was told there weren't enough diffs to make it actionable. At that point, Sandstein was the only admin who was willing to close the case. —Neotarf (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- The first one produced one of the entries on the ARBATC log that you're trying to get removed, after the uninvolved admins criticised SMcC's battlefield conduct, so that's an important part of the sequence. The one initiated by SMcC five days later, alleging a "jingoistic attack on non-native English speakers categorically" was criticised as baseless and frivolous by four admins, one of whom proposed a block while three favoured a topic ban. After that, it's not surprising that he wanted it forgotten. Kanguole 08:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Kanguole, you have quite a talent for reinterpreting events to support your own bias. LittleBenW was violating (not for anywhere near the first time) his own long-standing topic ban, this time in abusing AE as venue for a stream of personal attacks against me, disrupting a case that had no connection of any kind to him. I took the matter to ANI, because AE was at that point all about punishing me rather than enforcing policy (and AE's role isn't policing topic-ban violations, which is ANI's job). ANI agreed that LittleBenW was violating his topic ban, but another admin back in AE said I'd "gone too far". Someone else pointed out that it's nonsense to say I've gone too far when I successfully used WP dispute resolution and administrative procedures in the proper way and ANI *agreed with me* - I won my case there regarding LittleBenW's abuses. Nevertheless, Sandstein un-recused himself to issue a ban against me, for which there was no consensus, after being told he was too involved, and after calls for doing something to me had stopped, and after I'd already dropped the case against Fynuck. Yes, really. It was grossly-INVOLVED, vengeful spite on Sandstein's part. A lot of editors would have escalated this into a successful appeal and then an ArbCom case seeking sanctions against both Sandstein (and not him alone), but I chose not to, because I don't think such fights are productive. Yet now I'm being character-assassinated here for being "out for blood" and being combative! That's a laugh. I'm the least vengeful party on any side of this dispute. You didn't even read the Fyunck case correctly; several admins agreed that my interpretation (i.e. jingoistic attacks) was in fact correct and cause for concern; they decided the case was effectively frivolous because of the age of the evidence (not fresh enough), not on the facts themselves. But feel free to go on misrepresenting these cases, by all means, as if other people can't read and make up their own minds. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 10:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that people should read the comments of uninvolved admins in those cases for themselves. Kanguole 11:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Kanguole, the only admin to claim "battleground" in that request was SarekofVulcan, who is no longer an admin, and who was hardly neutral in the discussion. In fact, it was this exact situation with the four of us that weighed heavily in his last failed RFA. But I can sympathize about being dragged off to AE without so much as a note on the talk page. Apteva did that to me [70] and to Dicklyon [71], and JHunterJ as well, but no one ever suggested any sanctions for that. —Neotarf (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I was talking about the comments of uninvolved admins. You might try search strings like "ad hominem commentary", "clearly and obviously problematic" and "has to stop". Kanguole 11:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:KETTLE. You are not one to lecture on ad hominem problematic debate tactics that need to stop, e.g. your demonzing Kwamikagami (in a style-related dispute, no less): "it's clear he's prepared to filibuster indefinitely, even with complete nonsense", which was clearly incivil, assumed bad faith and borders on a personal attack. There are not too many people who've edited here long who haven't crossed a line or two in stylistic, titling or markup debates. That's completely different from making false accusations under color of administrative authority, and further abusing admin power to ban editors who complain about it. That's what this is about. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.12:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- See
- I was talking about the comments of uninvolved admins. You might try search strings like "ad hominem commentary", "clearly and obviously problematic" and "has to stop". Kanguole 11:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Kanguole, you have quite a talent for reinterpreting events to support your own bias. LittleBenW was violating (not for anywhere near the first time) his own long-standing topic ban, this time in abusing AE as venue for a stream of personal attacks against me, disrupting a case that had no connection of any kind to him. I took the matter to ANI, because AE was at that point all about punishing me rather than enforcing policy (and AE's role isn't policing topic-ban violations, which is ANI's job). ANI agreed that LittleBenW was violating his topic ban, but another admin back in AE said I'd "gone too far". Someone else pointed out that it's nonsense to say I've gone too far when I successfully used WP dispute resolution and administrative procedures in the proper way and ANI *agreed with me* - I won my case there regarding LittleBenW's abuses. Nevertheless, Sandstein un-recused himself to issue a ban against me, for which there was no consensus, after being told he was too involved, and after calls for doing something to me had stopped, and after I'd already dropped the case against Fynuck. Yes, really. It was grossly-INVOLVED, vengeful spite on Sandstein's part. A lot of editors would have escalated this into a successful appeal and then an ArbCom case seeking sanctions against both Sandstein (and not him alone), but I chose not to, because I don't think such fights are productive. Yet now I'm being character-assassinated here for being "out for blood" and being combative! That's a laugh. I'm the least vengeful party on any side of this dispute. You didn't even read the Fyunck case correctly; several admins agreed that my interpretation (i.e. jingoistic attacks) was in fact correct and cause for concern; they decided the case was effectively frivolous because of the age of the evidence (not fresh enough), not on the facts themselves. But feel free to go on misrepresenting these cases, by all means, as if other people can't read and make up their own minds. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 10:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- The first one produced one of the entries on the ARBATC log that you're trying to get removed, after the uninvolved admins criticised SMcC's battlefield conduct, so that's an important part of the sequence. The one initiated by SMcC five days later, alleging a "jingoistic attack on non-native English speakers categorically" was criticised as baseless and frivolous by four admins, one of whom proposed a block while three favoured a topic ban. After that, it's not surprising that he wanted it forgotten. Kanguole 08:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Kangole, yes, I did include diffs to the Fyunck(click) request, but I have now added a more obvious link to the entire request page as well. I didn't include the request about the Birds matter, since the outcome was just a reminder. The admins mostly commented on his tendency to be long-winded. Looking at the Fyunck(click) matter again, how was it that LittleBenW, now indeffed, was able to present evidence in violation of his topic ban? Some of the AE admins were actually critical of SMcC for taking the matter to ANI, but two other admins enforced the ban with a block. And SMcCandlish withdrew the AE request, when he was told there weren't enough diffs to make it actionable. At that point, Sandstein was the only admin who was willing to close the case. —Neotarf (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
3) Declare Sandstein WP:INVOLVED
Sandstein continues to refuse to recuse himself from matters involving these 4 editors, even though other editors see him as
Sandstein should recuse himself in any future matters pertaining to WP:ARBATC, and the four editors SMcCandlish, Noetica, Neotarf, and OhConfucious.
Support
- Support. Sandstein should certainly be prohibited from enforcement, maybe even interaction generally, with the four affected editors in this case. Even aside from the false accusations, and the direct personal harassment, Sandstein makes it clear generally and broadly that he's intolerant of disputes that have anything to do with style and article naming. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 12:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Absolute support. I have noted before, and continue to fervently believe that Sandstein is hopelessly involved and pathologically unwilling to objectively examine his/her own actions in regard to these editors. I have had no direct interaction with Sandstein, and my association with the subject area was as an uninvolved editor (maybe as a closer, maybe via rfcbot invite, I don't remember), and I came away with essentially no distinct feelings regarding the subject area, but an absolute lack of confidence in Sandstein as an admin in any capacity. Sandstein's actions in regards to these editors has damaged the project and damaged his/her moral authority to use sysop tools. VanIsaacWScont 19:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
- God no, impossible, implausible and tremendously inappropriate to suggest DP 12:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
His goals here are not to see disputes resolved in the ways that best serve the readership and the editorship, but to shut people up because these topics piss him off. Probably no admin on the system is less temperamentally suited to having anything to do with ARBATC enforcement. That said, my support of this proposal is completely tertiary to and severable from the matter of clearing our names of Sandstein's false accusations, and voiding from the log Sandstein's bogus ban issued against me. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 12:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I think he is just a binary authoritarian who bullies everybody he considers misbehaving. I'm actually pretty sure that Sandstein feels he is just doing his job, and would apply the same approach to everybody. I just want this affair over with, and not be afraid of going up to say "stop being such a bully" without the fear of his using the discretionary sanctions on this page against me just because he feels he needs to keep his hand permanently on his big rod. -- Ohc ¡digame! 05:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment
For a long time, Sandstein sat like a spider at the centre of arbitration affairs. He/she seemed to function as arbitration's chief executioner, grimly driving content builders from the project. I'm not sure whether Sandstein has ever offered solutions other than blocks and bans. The notion that there might be effective means that could result in resolving problems with problematic but productive editors apart from blocking or banning them doesn't seem to be part of Sandstein's skill set. Hallmarks of Sandstein's style include the use of his/her notorious term "broadly construed" as a catch-all to hammer content builders into the ground, together with demands that blocks on content builders should always be indefinite blocks and additional demands that arbitrators should be permitted to make their decisions in secrecy. It seem to me that Sandstein has unnecessarily driven away many fine content builders, builders who have often made much more substantial contributions towards building the encyclopaedia than Sandstein has. Sandstein's behaviour is part of a larger syndrome which is crippling Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's a bit dramatic but a nice analogy and in my view does sum up the way Sandsteins way of running with ARBCOM, I'd be inclined to SUPPORT all three proposals. talk) 13:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ya'll are not going to get traction complaining about Sandstein here -- the best way to pursue that line of thought is WP:RFC/U. NE Ent16:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah - that's kinda what I suggest below - but I doubt that comes with the desired drama quotient. I sense that only a blood-letting will suffice here, and that's what makes this personality fight utterly inappropriate.
But this is wiki. And why I rarely bother any more. This case just happened to put all I abhor about wiki infighting right up front. So I commented. Mea culpa. I should have settled for repeating "pathetic" under my breath. We live, we learn. Begoon talk 16:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah - that's kinda what I suggest below - but I doubt that comes with the desired drama quotient. I sense that only a blood-letting will suffice here, and that's what makes this personality fight utterly inappropriate.
- Ya'll are not going to get traction complaining about Sandstein here -- the best way to pursue that line of thought is
Superseded discussion
|
|---|
|
This isn't about Sandstein, it's about getting a review of his actions. The
Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.
We were neither presented with diffs nor given a chance to defend ourselves against the accusations. These accusations are all the more serious because they were done in the official voice of Arbcom by an official representative of Arbcom. —Neotarf (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely. It doesn't matter who made the accusations; they were not backed up, and as such they constitute the very definition of personal attacks, against policy. Been saying this for a year, too. The four affected editors should not have had to escalate this matter for this long. It has been obvious since the first five minutes that either Sandstein had to prove the accusation, delivered in his official administrative capacity, was valid, or it has to be retracted. There is absolutely no way around this basic reasoning. It's ridiculous and shameful that it should take a year to get this resolved, all because other admins don't want to be seen as criticizing the decisions of another admin. The fact that ArbCom is effectively delegating its most dangerous role, one that can directly harm people's reputations, to random admins, and institutionally blind and deaf to complaints about their actions, is a very serious problem. It's like a court that decides it would rather let the sheriff determine guilt and hand out sentences. It's a problem that the admin community, if not the entire WP community, has to address, since ArbCom can't fix itself and won't admit that it has any kind of problem. No one but the admins' noticeboard is really in a position to do something about abuses of the ArbCom/Admin interface, especially when ArbCom for its part ignores its responsibility here and won't lift a finger. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 10:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
unproductive discussion
|
|---|
Oh. My. Word. Grow up y'all. That's it. Really.Our feelings were hurt a year ago and we want someone punished or the record set straight. This is an incident requiring Admin attention? You might be "in the right", you might be "in the wrong", but really guys, you think this is a good thing to do - or an appropriate place to do it? This is WP:ANI, not, WP:CENTRESTAGEFORITSTIMEMYGREATWRONGWASRIGHTED-ANDINEEDEVERYONETOSEEIT. Get a room, or a talk page, an RFsomething, or, Bob forbid, a life. This is not the purpose of this board, and you know it. Shame on you. I can't close this, having commented, or we'd no doubt have to have a 6 month debate on the propriety of that. I encourage anyone else to close it as utterly inappropriate for this venue, though. Begoon talk 14:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
|
Discussion
Note the case page
- Again, it's NOT ABOUT THE NOTIFICATION/WARNING. I must have said this 75 times in the last year. It's about the accusation of "continued wrongdoing" in the notification. The notifications today do not have this wording in them, and the "Listing here should not be take to mean...violation" caveat applies. It cannot apply when the very wording of the notice specifically states that a violation is occurring! It's very, very simple; there is nothing complicated about this in any way. It was a false accusation, which needs to be rescinded and cleared out of the log. Sandstein won't do it himself. Just fix it. No one is ever going to be under any pretense that they have been "un-notifed" or "un-warned" about ARBATC. If they did, too bad for them, since ARBATC sanctions will still apply. If you're concerned about it, you could even re-issue a new notice, just one that doesn't have the false accusation in it. The end. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 17:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ent,
- There is *no* trend towards user notifications, in fact, arbitrator Roger Davies just removed one, saying it was "malformed". It has been proposed in the discretionary sanctions review, where it went over like a lead balloon, and has also come up recently in two separate ANI threads, where it was generally regarded as an invitation to POV pushers and trolls, and a potential tool for harassing neutral editors. (See: A Quest For Knowledge's "uninvolved administrator" warning should probably be removed from the case decision and Requesting removal of a stigmatizing ARBCOM case log entry)
- There is *no* trend towards user notifications, in fact, arbitrator Roger Davies just removed one, saying it was "malformed". It has been
- Of course the community can decide this. Nobody elected Sandstein God. His actions are open to community review, just like everybody else.
- I have already taken this to arbcom, where they predictably joined ranks to protect Sandstein. They pay plenty of lip service to the principle of "no casting aspersions" when it comes to blocking and banning non-admins, but when it comes to one of their own inner circle, they are strangely silent. I don't really blame them, I would probably do the same thing, but that's why it needs to be decided by someone with no COI.
- I have already taken this to arbcom, where they predictably joined ranks to protect Sandstein. They pay plenty of lip service to the principle of "no casting aspersions" when it comes to blocking and banning non-admins, but when it comes to one of their own inner circle, they are strangely silent. I don't really blame them, I would probably do the same thing, but that's why it needs to be decided by someone with no
- The last discretionary sanctions review, in 2011, took two years to complete. The current proposals do not contain anything at all to address our situation. In fact, the current proposal specifically says any old situations will be handled under the old rules. So you are trying to tell us we are site-banned for at least two years, and probably indefinitely, waiting for something that no one has ever proposed and no one believes will ever happen. I have a better idea. Decide what is fair now, and get this issue out of the way, so it doesn't cast a shadow over the ongoing discretionary sanctions review.
- Sandstein did not merely use a template which has since been changed. He added his own specific language accusing us of misconduct. There has been no misconduct. He has admitted it. He was asked to change the language about the misconduct, and he refused. I want that language changed. Officially. By community agreement. And closed by a neutral admin. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation. —Neotarf (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- My "dog in this fight" is not exactly the same ad Neotarf's (it was the defamatory accusation being attached to my real name here, and the fact that it turned up in Google searches). Regardless of where the accusatory language came from, Neotarf is correct that Sandstein didn't just unthinkingly use language that happened to accidentally include an accusation of misconduct. He has both defended making the accusation and begrudgingly admitted (at least with regard to Neotarf) it wasn't justified, yes defended it anyway. Is maintaining an air of admin infallibility and unquestionability more important to him than equitable application of policy? It has consistently seemed that way throughout his administrative tenure.
I'm happy that, so far, the proposed solution (at least to the false accusations in the log, one of three separate action items here) is sticking. I understand that it did not go far enough to satisfy Neotarf, and I agree with that editor's insistence that the new "warnings" be purged from that log page. I have no objection to them having been delivered on our talk pages - I suggested it in the first place - but Neotarf is correct that the ARBATC discretionary sanctions log page has a contentious history of being abused. To the extent it serves any legitimate purpose, that purpose is being undermined by its blatant misuse as a shitlist. And the new notifications don't actually serve any ARBATC interests, since they're not in response to any ARBATC concerns at all, but were a side-effect of trying to resolve this dispute in a way that addresses the complaint raised without pillorying Sandstein. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 09:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- My "dog in this fight" is not exactly the same ad Neotarf's (it was the defamatory accusation being attached to my real name here, and the fact that it turned up in Google searches). Regardless of where the accusatory language came from, Neotarf is correct that Sandstein didn't just unthinkingly use language that happened to accidentally include an accusation of misconduct. He has both defended making the accusation and begrudgingly admitted (at least with regard to Neotarf) it wasn't justified, yes defended it anyway. Is maintaining an air of admin infallibility and unquestionability more important to him than equitable application of policy? It has consistently seemed that way throughout his administrative tenure.
Solution
I've just churned the four user's talk page with a pointless second notification-without-allegation-of-wrongdoing about the sanctions, which hopefully will make them happy, and logged such [75] on the arbcom page which will hopefully make the folks insisting there be a record they were notified happy. Does that work for everyone? NE Ent 18:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Works for me. Sandstein reverted the last attempt to change that log (with regard to Neotarf only), but maybe he'll see this is a win-win-win (for him, since it's a log change w/o blaming him, without an RFC/U as people keep suggesting, and without an ArbCom case as people keep suggesting; for the four wrongly-accused editors, obviously, though it may not be enough to mollify all of them in every way; and for WP as a whole since the issue goes away, at least for some of us "plaintiffs"). Hard to see a down-side here, or a good-faith reason to object. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 19:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- The case was closed two years ago, so I'm just confused at receiving the notification because it seemed neither relevant nor necessary. It had me wondering if I had recently done something that might be construed as some violation of the case in question. But I'd just say 04:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sceptical that a RFC/U will change anything. It's always been a talking shop although only occasionally becomes a springboard to an Arbcom case. -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
What is the purpose of these new warnings, Ent? Weren't they destructive enough the first time around? Why am I being singled out? There were 19 editors who commented on Apteva's request, including Apteva and Sandstein. Why are none of them being warned?
All four of us participated in the original ArbCom case (it was my 30th edit ever, as a new user), and no one at the ArbCom found any problem with any of our editing at that time. It is appalling that anyone can now put our names up there on a whim, alongside the names of editors who have been blocked and banned in a formal final decision after having the their diffs weighed by 15 impartial arbs.
Don't forget the real purpose of these notifications. Does anyone really think the four of us have never heard of the case before and we need to be "informed"? Of course not. The notifications are for blocking and banning. They do away with warnings. They are so the admins don't have to actually bother to talk to you if they don't agree with you. Once you get one of those on your record, you are "pre-warned". They can just get rid of you like dust under their shoe.
If you want to use my name
Sandstein has, of course, reverted the attempt at resolution. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 10:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I reverted nothing, as can be seen in the page history. Rather, Neotarf reverted NE Ent's new notifications. I have asked the arbitration clerks on their noticeboard to look at this. Sandstein11:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Noted! I stand corrected; sorry about that. (See? Admitting fault is't that hard to do.) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 12:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- The issues on the table appear are: SMcCandlish's concern, supported by other community members WP:BOLD a possible win-win solution that had at least of possibly of allowing this to wind down with the goal of getting one or more of the affected editors back to building the encyclopedia. As Neotarf has objected to my relogging of their name, I've restored the prior (Sandstein) logging for them and restored my logging of yesterday's notification for SMcCandlish et. al. NE Ent12:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- You might restore my talk page, Ent. —Neotarf (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I reiterate that I'm willing to drop the matter of the false accusations business if the log shows NE Ent's neutral notices, not Sandstein's accusatory ones. This solution does not (as I understand it) satisfy Neotarf, and I agree with but do no insist upon Neotarf's reasons for wanting a tabula rasa solution. Either way, it doesn't resolve my severable concern with the out-of-process block I was subjected to and its prominent appearance as a "badge of shame" on the ARBATC log. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 12:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- The biggest problem for me is the chilling effect on editing. And since has no one has ever been able to point to any edits I made that might be problematic, or for that matter even asked me for diffs, that says to me that there is some other reason I have been targeted. And will be continued to be targeted unless I leave the Wikipedia forever. Why have I been singled out? This is a basic issue of fairness. —Neotarf (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I reverted nothing, as can be seen in the page history. Rather, Neotarf reverted NE Ent's new notifications. I have asked the arbitration clerks on their
- I seem to remember that Noetica said he would not continue to edit if he was subjected to any kind of disciplinary action at all. I have no reason to believe he would return even if the sanction was vacated, but he should be free to return to editing if he so wishes. —Neotarf (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein
About a year ago, while working as an administrator at
I am of the view that these editors are
- Neotarf appealed the warnings to the Arbitration Committee. The Committee declined the appeal in December 2013, just as they declined to act as a result of a previous clarification request about this matter. Because the Committee is our final dispute resolution authority, this settles the matter, whether or not one agrees with the outcome. Repeating these complaints (again) on ANI looks like forum-shopping.
- Even if I were now to agree that the warnings were incorrect, which I am not, and that they can meaningfully be undone, which I think they cannot, I would not agree to undo them as a result of this thread. Arbitration enforcement actions must be contested through the appeals process set forth by the Committee, and not through what amounts to a series of angry shouting matches on public fora. Otherwise, we would give sanctioned editors an incentive to engage in these kinds of shouting matches rather than in an orderly appeals process, which I think would not be helpful. If anything, the aggressive manner in which these warnings against aggressive conduct have been contested (by some of their recipients) indicates, to me, that I was probably on to something there.
- SMcCandlish was topic-banned for a month by me, under the discretionary sanctions regime, for misconduct related to the manual of style. Despite vociferous complaints, SMcCandlish chose not to actually appeal this sanction, probably because they are aware that, for the reasons Kanguoleexplains above, an appeal would have been meritless and without success. Now that the ban has long expired, an appeal against it is moot.
- A particular concern of (some of) the four editors seems to be that I should declare myself "involved" with respect to them. However, per the policy WP:UNINVOLVED, "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role (...) is not involved (...). This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, (...) do not make an administrator 'involved'". That is the case here. You can't gain immunity from future administrative actions merely by contesting an administrator's decisions, no matter how often or loudly.
This section should therefore be closed without action.
I would like to note some procedural problems with this thread, because they illustrate how unsuited an essentially unmoderated forum like WP:AN(I) is to processing appeals or doing any sort of dispute resolution:
- I was not notified of this thread.
- Nothing prevents long and repetitive walls of texts being posted, which has already commenced above and will probably continue for weeks, making it difficult for editors who are not already emotionally invested in the issue to form an opinion.
- The complaints and proposals are unsigned, as is the section below incorrectly accusing me of wheel-warring.
- One of the involved editors, Ohconfucius, hides a comment on this page that is critical of their complaints.
- A non-admin editor, NE Ent ([77]), and one of the involved editors, Neotarf ([78]), are removing log entries from the arbitration case page, including the log entries of the warnings against which the Committee declined an appeal. This appears to me to be a disruption of the arbitration process. (I am asking arbitration clerks to determine which if any version of the page should be restored.)
I am writing this mostly from memory and have not included links to all previous discussions or events mentioned above, because I do not have the time to look for them. But if an editor asks me to link to anything in particular I'll do so. Apart from this, I don't think that I'll comment further about this matter. Sandstein 10:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sandstein is very good at shielding himself with technical arguments why he cannot withdraw the original "warning", why some are moot and thus the editors are beating a dead horse. That is the reason why an increasing number of editors seem to be up in arms about him. Nothing has changed.
Sandstein's remark that "Ohconfucius hides a comment on this page that is critical of their complaints" is quite ironic. It is precisely the type of comment which I believe Sandstein would have found objectionable, and which would have resulted in the type of warning that he had issued against me in the aforementioned action. I contend that if Sandstein wasn't the subject of this affair, he would himself collapsed the very personal snarky comment included by one editor posted with the specific intention of provoking a response. There's not a lot more to be said. I wasn't expecting any change in behaviour from Sandstein, so I cannot say that I'm disappointed. -- Ohc ¡digame! 11:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not hiding behind technical arguments. I'm just saying the discussion has to stop at some point. The arguments on the merits for and against the warnings have been exchanged multiple times, including in a declined appeal to ArbCom. Just because you don't agree with the outcome doesn't mean you can expect to have the same discussion over and over again until you obtain the desired outcome. Sandstein 11:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion should stop at some point, namely the point where you admit you made false accusations and retract them, and admit you make an INVOLVED ban, and remove these bogus scarlet letters from the ARBATC log. When you finally do something ethical, something that isn't just self-serving, and haughtily dismissive of everyone's concerns but your own, to resolve this issue, then it will naturally resolve itself quickly and easily. Or you can keep on pretending there is no issue, that it's all just a bunch of noise you can ignore. Clearly other people already disagree with that notion. The issue isn't going to disappear because you pretend it isn't there. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 12:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it's "technical" to say that something that is past cannot be undone, and that's exactly what you did. Just because you "warned" doesn't mean you can't retract; and just because the topic ban has expired doesn't necessarily mean you can't at least attempt to undo the underlying injustice. To use a real life parallel, just because somebody has been executed doesn't mean he/she cannot be cleared/pardoned posthumously. It's about natural justice, yet you keep saying that SMcC is flogging a dead equine. Part of the problem is your poor handling of the original complaint form SMcC et al. Instead of making a small retraction, you backed yourself into a corner by running to Arbcom for endorsement of your action. Now you can't retract without a severe loss of face.
On the other matter, you continue to attack and insinuate, but I'm not letting you off the hook so easily. So answer me this: if you were to apply your standards consistently – which I sincerely believe that you do try your best – would you not have issued a warning for this? Instead of insinuating that my collapsing of that thread was somehow trying to hide legitimate criticism, would you not acknowledge that the above was a perfect example of baiting and trolling that is not conducive to a health discussion? -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it's "technical" to say that something that is past cannot be undone, and that's exactly what you did. Just because you "warned" doesn't mean you can't retract; and just because the topic ban has expired doesn't necessarily mean you can't at least attempt to undo the underlying injustice. To use a real life parallel, just because somebody has been executed doesn't mean he/she cannot be cleared/pardoned posthumously. It's about natural justice, yet you keep saying that SMcC is flogging a dead equine. Part of the problem is your poor handling of the original complaint form SMcC et al. Instead of making a small retraction, you backed yourself into a corner by running to Arbcom for endorsement of your action. Now you can't retract without a severe loss of face.
- The discussion should stop at some point, namely the point where you admit you made false accusations and retract them, and admit you make an INVOLVED ban, and remove these bogus scarlet letters from the ARBATC log. When you finally do something ethical, something that isn't just self-serving, and haughtily dismissive of everyone's concerns but your own, to resolve this issue, then it will naturally resolve itself quickly and easily. Or you can keep on pretending there is no issue, that it's all just a bunch of noise you can ignore. Clearly other people already disagree with that notion. The issue isn't going to disappear because you pretend it isn't there. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 12:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Actually it won't be a "severe loss of a face" for Sandstein to retract his false accusations and wrongful ban; it'll be a show of maturity, good faith, and being committed to Wikipedia being a collegial, cooperative environment, instead of a pseudo-legal roleplaying game, and it'll be fast and painless, unlike months of protracted RFC/U and ArbCom proceedings, which will draw forth a large number of additional grievances against Sandstein. The principal problem here is Sandstein's constant return to the idea that people are trying to get "un-warned", as if no matter how many times this notion is dispelled, if he keeps repeating it everyone will believe it. No one believes it any longer. No one possibly could at this point. This has never been about anyone seeking a magical retraction or erasure of the fact of being notified or warned of the ArbCom ruling at at WP:ARBATC and of the discretionary sanctions available under that case. It is only and entirely about the false accusations latent in Sandstein's particular wording, delivered under color of his acting as an official administrative messenger of the project, his unrelenting insistence on promoting in the ARBATC log his false branding of four editors as engaging in "continued" wrongdoing, and (in my case) his out-of-process, vengeful topic-ban and further branding of me with it, again at the ARBATC log. No one who did not have a vested interest to covering Sandstein's backside out of an urge to protect admins from criticism at all costs could honestly fail to acknowledge this. No amount of wishy-washy wiki-lawyering wordplay, revisionism and equivocation can escape these simple truths. The dead horse being flogged here is "I didn't do anything wrong, and these four editors just need to shut up, there is no remedy available for them." The remedy has been made very clear, many times. Again, it doesn't even require that anyone agree Sandstein did anything wrong, only an a consensus that abusing pillorying four good editors at the ARBATC log is unjust and unproductive, outweighing Sandstein's personal or administrative desire to be felt to be right and unquestionable in every way at all costs. Just fix it, please. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.06:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Actually it won't be a "severe loss of a face" for Sandstein to retract his false accusations and wrongful ban; it'll be a show of maturity, good faith, and being committed to Wikipedia being a collegial, cooperative environment, instead of a pseudo-legal roleplaying game, and it'll be fast and painless, unlike months of protracted RFC/U and ArbCom proceedings, which will draw forth a large number of additional grievances against Sandstein. The principal problem here is Sandstein's constant return to the idea that people are trying to get "un-warned", as if no matter how many times this notion is dispelled, if he keeps repeating it everyone will believe it. No one believes it any longer. No one possibly could at this point. This has never been about anyone seeking a magical retraction or erasure of the fact of being notified or warned of the ArbCom ruling at at
Response to Sandstein by Neotarf
Sandstein, there was no "dispute". There was one individual, now indeffed, who tried over and over to revive an old edit war over hyphens, and who filed a complaint against a long-time good faith editor in violation of their topic ban. They are gone, and the topic is now quiet. Except for you.
This is not the first time you have gotten mixed up in this subject matter and been asked to step aside. Back in 2011, you referred to MOS discussions as "lame" and a "waste of time". That is not anyone's definition of "interacting purely in an administrative role". In that case, you were asked to step aside by the same people who had initially asked for your help, after you threatened to ban all the editors. Ultimately the issue was settled by an RFC endorsed by 60 editors, who did not find it a "waste of time", and who were able to end the edit war without collateral damage to good-faith editors.
Sandstein, you have done a lot of good work, and a lot of people admire what you do here, but let's face it, hyphens are just not your strong suit. Several people have asked you to step aside from this topic, to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, and to let someone else handle this. I am asking you to do so as well.
Your other points about the wordiness of some of the responses I have taken on board, and refactored some of the discussion, as well as adding more time stamps to my own comments, which seem to have gotten spread out some in the expanding discussion. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Collect
As far as I can tell the page above is mainly about several possible positions:
- Wrongs once found can be reversed by the community
- Wrongs can never be reversed by the community
- Wrongs once found can be reversed by the original creator of the wrong
- No one is ever under any obligation as a creator of a wrong to do anything whatsoever about it
as general statements (and not judging whether the case at hand represents an "actual wrong." The side cavil that "injury" only accrues when physical effects occur is very tangential, and has nothing to do with my use of the word "Wrongs" at all. The first two possible outcomes are, I suggest, quite within the ambit of the Community to decide on its own - just as the traditional "Town Meeting" has quite strong powers even to the extent of removing powers and contradicting actions of those empowered under the aegis of the Town Meeting despite the Town Meeting having officially given powers to its agents. In the case at hand, the analogue would be that the Community through normal process can, indeed, override any agents empowered otherwise to act on its behalf, and to reverse actions taken by such agents.
I rather think this opens up a very interesting topic far vaster than whether Sandstein committed any wrongs in any venue, and whether he can or ought be under the direct control of the Community is a broader discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps, you may have missed a few?:
- Something happened a year ago, that almost no one outside the principals cares anything about.
- Something was done a year ago, that has been talked to death in every conceivable forum.
- Life's too short -- forgetaboutit.
-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay:
- Some arbitrary amount of time passing doesn't make wrongs magically right, and it's almost universally the case that people wronged care more about those wrongs that people who were not directly affected by them.
- Repeating a point doesn't make it more valid; that's called the fallacy of agumentum ad nauseam. More importantly, the fact that some people who don't care about an issue (or who may even have an active interest in ensuring that an issue is not settled justly, e.g. a bias toward the other party, such as admins protecting admins from criticism) with that discussion of an issue would stop doesn't mean that it should stop. The failure of one avenue of appeal to resolve an issue does not mean that the issue is unresolvable or that those who have been wronged should stop trying to have it resolved equitably.
- Life is indeed too short for many things, like CYA pretense that admins cannot and should not be held accountable for their actions by the community simply because it's inconvenient and you don't want to hear it. It's easy for someone unaffected by something to forget about it. Meanwhile those who have been treated unjustly are not in a position to forgive much less forget if the wrong is never rectified, if the perpetrator maintains their righteousness, and people who should bring a neutral position of desire to resolve issues amicably and fairly instead arrive pre-disposed to unilaterally support one side, and to denigrate and mock the other simply for daring to complain about their mistreatment. If you think ANI and its use to resolve disputes about administrative actions is a waste of time, there are lots of other things you can be doing.
- Now, did you have any other patently invalid, dismissive arguments to make, just in case you want to help ensure that we all get an extra-thorough sense of admin entitlement and good-ol-boy protectionism at the expense of other editors? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 08:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay:
- Why are separate "statement" sections forming? ANI isn't Arbcom, nor should it try to pretend to be. All this seems to be is incessant caterwauling by people that received warnings some time ago. Boo hoo, get over it, go back to editing somewhere. Tarc (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting -- I suspect the "formality" was initiated by Sandstein -- and as my statement is a much more general essay than anything purely on the subject posed by the OP, I felt it was reasonable to so describe it. Collect (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Per Tarc. This was what? A year ago now? Pointless dramamongering. Resolute 19:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- My post was not about any specific "wrongs" but about wrongs in general, and the role of the Community in addressing them. I apologize if I did not make that quite abundantly clear when I wrote not judging whether the case at hand represents an "actual wrong." Collect (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Collect, yes it was Sandstein's observation that there was a large amount of text; I have taken his comments on board and refactored.
- Tarc, even the most insidious blocked and banned trolls have a time limit to their restrictions. They also have a chance to have diffs presented and to defend themselves against accusations. Why should proven good-faith editors who have done absolutely nothing have their names placed on a list with these other names, as a badge of shame and a chilling effect on their editing, in perpetuity? —Neotarf (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- And that time limit is "until the community decides otherwise". As for the "list": it's only a "badge of shame" or a "chilling effect" if you let it be one. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Only someone not on the list would say that. Anyway, the fact that the community can decide otherwise is precisely the point. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 08:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Did Sandstein wheel war?
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.
Definition of wheel warring:
) 08:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)- No, I didn't. Editing log entries does not require admin tools or invoke admin authority. As I explained in the section above, the Arbitration Committee has declined an appeal against the warnings whose log entries I restored in this edit. Also, whoever wrote this, please sign your comments and notify me if you mention me on this board, as per the instructions at the top. Sandstein 10:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- For the record, it was Neotarf (talk · contribs). - The Bushranger One ping only 12:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
4) Remove ARBATC notifications section abused as selective "wall of shame" dirtlist
Something that hasn't been raised that (so far that I've noticed) is that the entire section at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Log of notifications is a blatant violation of policy in several ways and should be deleted immediately. This log, which is not required in any way for the administration of ARBATC, and does not serve any legitimate purpose, is ostensibly a list of all editors who have received ARBATC discretionary sanctions notices. But it's isn't. It's a list of a handful of editors that Sandstein and a few other admins wants to brand/shame in public, while the majority of editors receiving ARBATC warnings/notices, on their own talk pages or otherwise, are never listed here, by anyone.
Here is proof that Sandstein has himself issued such warnings and decided to not update this list: [82]. Here we have two cases, in series, of Sandstein responding to official requests to warn someone of ARBATC sanctions, and doing so administratively, yet not adding them to that log. Sandstein, or anyone else, cannot possibly make a reasonable claim that this list serves a legitimate much less essential purpose at ARBATC any longer, if it ever did at all.
The ArbCom, in the wake of deciding that anyone, not just admins, can issue such notices has also made it impossible for the list there to ever be accurate anyway, because there is no way of forcing those who issue such warnings to also update that list, nor even figuring out who has or has not been warned (probably hundreds of editors by now; I know that I myself notified several editors, somewhere around a dozen, of ARBATC discretionary sanctions in various discussions, and none of them are in that log either). ARBCOM's needs at ARBATC are served adequately by the "Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions" section there. The "Log of notifications" serves no interest other than strife and the generation and maintenance of ill will. ArbCom has never even said it needed such a list; some admin simply decided it was a good idea, and this decision has never been reviewed, until now. It's dismal failure is self-evident.
This notifications log is nothing but a shitlist targeting particular editors opposed by certain admins. This is a contravention of previous ArbCom decisions against using Wikipedia pages for the dirtlisting of other editors for possible future targeting, as well as a violation of Wikipedia policy on several levels, the most obvious being
This is a entirely separate and severable reason to vacate not just our four, but all log entries in that section and remove that section entirely; it's unrelated to the issues raised by Sandstein's false accusations and other abusive actions (see subsections, #1 and #2 above). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 07:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is not a "wall of shame list", it's a warnings log, and yes, there is a difference; the statement it's a "shitlist targeing particular editors opposed by certain admins" is both a gross personal attack on the admins in question. I'm honestly completely neutral heading into this brouhaha, having not previously encountered it (beyond, perhaps, skimming past the occasional ANI threads), but I will say this: regardless of who has or has not been wronged, the four editors opposing Sandstein are not covering their cause in glory with their conduct here; if anything, the combative tone and escalatingly hyperbolic accusations and statements are having the opposite effect. Wikipedia would be a much better place if, instead of being desperate to have "scarlet letters" expunged, people looked at block logs, warning logs, etc., said "so freaking what", and got on with improving the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only07:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Mmm, yeah, except that I've proved with evidence you can see with your own eyes, that Sandstein himself uses the list to only target certain notified editors, not all of them. You're also ignoring the broader logic, which has nothing to do with Sandstein: Not just admins can issue such notices, and there is no way to ensure that they get logged, so the log can never be accurate, and is only used when someone (so far, admins) want to draw particular attention to other editors in an ARBATC context; this is a canonical example of shitlisting (or dirtlisting or whatever you like to call it). Finally, you're also making the false assumption as several other are here, that you and the project are entitled to our volunteer efforts; that no matter how much our names are abused with false accusations that you';re in a position to tell us to zip it and get back to work for free. Editors have quit the project over this. Editors are leaving WIkipedia in droves over administrative abuses generally, but this is an especially clear case in point, where it costs the project and its administration nothing at all to make matters right. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 08:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
User vandalism for extended period of time on Physics topics
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 Chjoaygame (talk) is changing very frequently Physics topics, often removing valid content and adding less meaningful or even confusing information (See another user finds his edits confusing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chjoaygame#Iontophoresis_and_electrophoresis or here hes accuses someone falsely to be a sock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Douglas_Cotton . See his contribution page for all his edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chjoaygame, discussion on his edits need to be on a case to case basis - example edits: User removes important content and adds his own without providing reference https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internal_energy&diff=prev&oldid=598849626 User adds confusing definition https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maximum_entropy_thermodynamics&diff=prev&oldid=598712167, the reference is citing a part of a book covering speculations and remarks (Chapter 8) http://press.princeton.edu/TOCs/c7688.html Here he removes historic quotes (cited by Princeton) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_law_of_thermodynamics&diff=prev&oldid=598531366
Recently, the user moved a page without discussion and removed valid content https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dissipation_(thermodynamics)&diff=599723963&oldid=599719584, which after his page move didn't fit the article scope any longer. The user is unresponsive, not replying to talk page entries.
Last September i edited his contributions to
- It appears that vandalism. If there really has been vandalism, provide evidence. Otherwise, use a more reasonable section heading. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- It appears that
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.
I was reluctant to post this, thinking I should continue ignoring it, but I simply don't see the consistent and increasingly disturbing personal attacks against me stopping anytime soon. Over the past two weeks at an AfD, I was inferred to as being an anti-semite, racist, or conspiracy theorist and today was alleged by
- If ) 22:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I gave Atlantictire an "only warning"; I would have removed the entire comment had you and someone else not already commented on it. If you want to redact, or redact partially, go ahead. If another admin finds it instantly blockable, that's fine too. I'll look at the other later. Producer, your family history is not relevant here, and I say this with all due respect, but you don't need to bring them in here to bolster your case. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see a personal attack in IZAK's comment: it speaks of a hypothetical reader, not the creator. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Atlantictire's comment is a bit problematic, though I do not think he directed this at anyone. Regarding IZAK, I agree with Drmies - there's nothing wrong with it. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Of course. Who could it possibly be aimed at? When I say an article was "created by some anti-Semitic crank", I don't mean the article's creator is actually an anti-Semitic crank. Why, that would be ridiculous.. (*sarcasm*)
- Atlantictire's comment is a bit problematic, though I do not think he directed this at anyone. Regarding IZAK, I agree with Drmies - there's nothing wrong with it. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Producer has been subjected to a veritable barrage of semi-concealed "antisemite" insults. For example, in posting a deletion request, talk) 05:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- No. He did not use the words "attempting to prove" as you quote him as saying. Be cautious when making misleading incitements about other users. 'The Four Deuces' said "While Jewish Bolshevism is about the conspiracy theory that Communism was a Jewish movement for world domination, this article attempts to prove that." - a huge difference. He talked specifically about the article itself, meaning its content, style, tone, etc. There's no mention of the article's creator (PRODUCER) and definitely not any implication that he's a "Nazi". I see your above comment as a personal attack against 'The Four Deuces'. Shalom11111 (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Producer has been subjected to a veritable barrage of semi-concealed "antisemite" insults. For example, in posting a deletion request,
- Regarding your first point: Sorry about that Drmies. It just really got to me on a personal level.
- Regarding your second point: Strictly? No. I believe IZAK (also TFD) is purposely relying on such absurd and unnecessary statements to make inferences that'll TALK) 09:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Jews and Communism":
- http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pYvbIAXveVk
- Internet bigots are very good at using points of order against anyone who expresses legitimate outrage at their bigotry. I would ask that Wikipedia editors be smart and not indulge this.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, they probably are, and what you're doing is suggesting that the article creator is a bigot. Well, I don't indulge in antisemitism anymore than I do in baiting, and since you seem to have no clue that your commentary is disruptive, I will make sure that you will make no more such comments in the next 24 hours. This subject matter is already heated enough, and what we don't need is this kind of provocation. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Continued harassment of a Wikipedia editor
Will some uninvolved admin please look at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Marian_Dawkins and decide on a course of action? The IP in question is a hopper waging a lengthy campaign against DrChrissy. It appears Johnuniq is also part of a gang of racist liars. Ahem. IP 124.168.48.21 has been duly notified. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- The IP's range is quite large, such that a single rangeblock wouldn't be enough. I suggest semiprotection of Marian Dawkins, talk:Marian Dawkins, User:DrChrissy and User talk:DrChrissy. We're not going to semiprotect the DRN; however, frivolous reports can easily be closed. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- The IP's latest incarnation is Special:Contributions/124.170.231.48. As unsavory as the prospect of playing Whac-A-Mole by blocking individual IPs is, this plus the page protections outlined above may be the best defense we can muster. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is always the L.A.R.T. method: apply a range block and then notify iiNet Limited that one of their users has caused X number of their IPs to be blocked. Having your ISP cancel your account is an effective Luser's Attitude Readjustment Tool. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I blocked the IP before I saw that there was a discussion here and reverted some of their edits. I believe I've blocked a couple of dozen of the IPs individually. I've had some success with carefully targeted rangeblocks in individual /18 ranges for short terms, but am reluctant to block large ranges for long terms - that would best be done, if at all, with CU help. I'll revisit my calculations when I'm more awake. Acroterion (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is always the L.A.R.T. method: apply a range block and then notify iiNet Limited that one of their users has caused X number of their IPs to be blocked. Having your ISP cancel your account is an effective Luser's Attitude Readjustment Tool. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I just looked, and 124.168.48.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who opened the now-closed DRN, is not currently blocked. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not much point in blocking that one, as they've already moved on to another IP, which I blocked. It is, however, a data point, and I'll work on some rangeblocks a little later. Acroterion (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, sounds good. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- 124.170.192.0/18 range blocked for a week. Other ranges can be blocked if warranted. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- For the record, previous ANI threads include WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive815#Disruptive editing on Animal welfare, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive815#CI, OWN etc. of user DrChrissy on animal welfare, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive816#Repeated personal attacks on Talk:Animal Welfare, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive816#Discrimination , WP:BIAS and racist admins and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive258#Johnuniq and Nil Einne's removal of other comments on talk pages. There were some /16 blocks set in January as a result, but only for a short while. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, sounds good. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Formal imposition of a community ban
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The person who uses the IP 124.170.231.48, among others, and has engaged in disruption as described here, is banned from Wikipedia by community consensus. Sandstein 17:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Be it hereby resolved that the user whose latest IP today is 124.170.231.48 is banned from Wikipedia indefinitely. His IPs/accounts may be blocked and reverted immediately, and page protection used when necessary.
- Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- This might be a somewhat unusual request, as there is actually only 1 IP listed on the " 07:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an indefinitely blocked user with some relation to this situation. I have no idea whether the IPs are the same person. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Has there been a SPI? While a CU will not publicly link a named account to an IP address, there is behavioral evidence to be considered. And that account has edited recently enough to compare with suspected socks. Doc talk07:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is no chance that CYl7EPTEMA777 and the IP are the same person. The former is genuinely unable to communicate in English (they are from ru.wikipedia), and the latter is quite fluent; the connection is simply coincidental in that the IP is attacking a certain editor and noticed that CYl7EPTEMA777 was opposing (not attacking) the same editor in another article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I concur with Johnuniq. The users are on different continents with widely differing competencies in English, something that's hard to fake. Acroterion (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps a list of suspected IPs then, if no SPI is needed before resorting to a ban? I'm seeing a bunch that are from one particular part of the world (and it isn't Russia). Doc talk 09:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is no chance that CYl7EPTEMA777 and the IP are the same person. The former is genuinely unable to communicate in English (they are from ru.wikipedia), and the latter is quite fluent; the connection is simply coincidental in that the IP is attacking a certain editor and noticed that CYl7EPTEMA777 was opposing (not attacking) the same editor in another article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- This might be a somewhat unusual request, as there is actually only 1 IP listed on the " 07:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support ban It is very unusual to ban the person behind an IP under circumstances like this, but I have spent quite a lot of time trying to explain (calmly and politely) that they really have to stop raising issues with headings and edit summaries that attack other editors. I explained that it is fine to raise issues and say some other editor is wrong or whatever, but the attacks have to stop. I just tried finding the ANI report where I provided some diffs but I can't locate it. The current IP has repeated the attacks, for example see this diff of three edits—as far as attacks go, that is pretty minor, but the first link points to more attacks where an editor is repeatedly named in headings with inflammatory and unsubstantiated commentary. If the IP user were banned, removing their rants would be easier. If anyone is interested, the underlying issues relate to the interpretations of animal behavior, and to the treatment of animals—in other words, there is plenty of scope for emotional reactions. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment/question - The IP appears to be unable to reliably distinguish between irony and seriousness judging from the repeated references to gangs and sockpuppetry, accusations that are substantiated by [87] and [88] from their perspective. Given that, aren't they likely to just carry on and feel fully justified in doing so ? Has anyone tried to help them understand that their views are based on misinterpretations ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- A ban is kind of pointless when talking about someone unstable, using an IP that rotates frequently and can't be blocked effectively. Range blocks would have too much collateral damage as well. It won't change their behavior nor will the lack of a ban limit admin in how they deal with the culprit. The only solution is aggressive article protection, which will still only provide limited success. For all intents and purposes, the IP is already de facto banned by their actions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think that we're dealing with someone who's open to reason: they are on a crusade. Unfortunately, I think the present course, to manage and limit disruption, is the only option. I doubt a formal ban would have an effect on the user, but it might simplify the inevitable reappearances at ANI. Acroterion (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Background is available in ANI archive 830 where my comment at 02:26, 27 February 2014 has several links to prior discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I fully trust your take on the situation and won't oppose a ban, but I just don't see the utility in it. It isn't hard to get an IP blocked around here for causing disruption (in spite of the many essays claiming otherwise). I did indef semi-protect CYl7EPTEMA777's users page and willing to do more. The best bet is to force him to exert more effort than the reward is worth. ie: to impede him from what Acroterion accurately described as a crusade. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's fine by me, and I'm very glad that Acroterion has taken decisive action on several occasions because it would not be acceptable to tolerate a campaign of attacks against an editor. One irritation is that the IP looks for safe havens for their polemics, and I am hoping that this edit (by Acroterion to remove a minor rant) is not reverted by the talk page "owner". Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I fully trust your take on the situation and won't oppose a ban, but I just don't see the utility in it. It isn't hard to get an IP blocked around here for causing disruption (in spite of the many essays claiming otherwise). I did indef semi-protect CYl7EPTEMA777's users page and willing to do more. The best bet is to force him to exert more effort than the reward is worth. ie: to impede him from what Acroterion accurately described as a crusade. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Let me repeat what I said last time I saw someone propose a formal ban of an IP. While it may be difficult to enforce it, there's nothing wrong with banning someone without an account, and an Arbcom case even officially ordered such a ban. Whether it's wise or foolish in this case I can't say, but opposition purely because it's an IP editor probably isn't a good thing. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support Ban. Editors should not have to put up with this kind of crap, and the IP is clearly not here to create an encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- My thanks to everyone involved here, esp. Acroterion. I also don't know what the good of a "IP hopper ban" would be. I would like to see as much range blocking as possible, coupled with semi-protection. But, ban de jure or not, I see enough of a warrant in this discussion already to simply revert. I was not so sure of that last night or I would have nixed that forumshopping DR discussion already--but this de facto ban, or not ban but agreement that the edits are disruptive, should be enough to warrant any admin an immediate revert of this editor's commentary, anywhere in the project, if it serves only to incriminate DrChrissy and her "gang" and to disrupt the articles DrChrissy is working on. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support per Dbrodbeck. On the meta issue, the reason for a ban as against a defacto whatever, is so the same facts do not have to be discussed over and over again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support per Dbrodbeck, Alanscottwalker, and that we simply can't tolerate level of harassment of editors. I am One of Many (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support, at least to the extent that it facilitates other actions, such as semi-protection and whatever blocks are practical. I'll note for the information of administrators here that I reported one affected page (Animal welfare) at RFPP because of this, and my request for semi-protection was turned down; shortly later, Acroterion, who understands what is going on, put the semi-protection in place. Perhaps a ban, on the record, will provide something that can be cited, to help anyone unfamiliar with the history quickly see what we are dealing with. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose for that reason it would make sense. Some admin are more reluctant to protect than others. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. But not because they don't deserve to be banned: because it's obviously very unusual to ban an editor only known by IPs. Even one named account tied to the hopper would make a ban more in line with how it's usually done. If this becomes the second IP on the banned user list, I see it as a rather slippery slope. Block their IP's that pop up, revert their edits, and semi-protect where and when necessary. Doc talk 23:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment As the editor who has received the most harassment from this IP hopping Troll and who now has their username associated with several totally spurious negative accusations on multiple talk pages, I am totally fed up with this. Please think about this. Look at my user page for my contributions. Hopefully, you will see that I have made multiple positive contributions to the project. Would people rather protect an IP hopper or adhere to some abstract wikipedia process I fail to understand, or would people rather lose an editor who tries their best to play by the rules and wants to help the project? __DrChrissy (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- In any case, if we don't like adding IPs to Wikipedia:List of banned users, then we can assign a pseudonym for the banned editor. I suggest using "John Doe 2", and using "John Doe 1" as a reference to the existing IP in the list of banned users. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Having worked with DrChrissy a lot, and having seen what this IP keeps doing, I'd go so far as to say that I would support a rangeblock even if there were a modest amount of collateral damage. It seems to me that this is a perfect case of where WP:IAR applies, if anyone object because we usually don't ban IPs. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) Failure to enact a community ban in this case would not be "protecting" the hopper at all, nor should it be something that would make DrChrissy resign over were it not enacted. They are already persona non gratis here, and that is clear. So block them back to the Stone Age when they appear. I and others have corralled at least one particularly obnoxious IP-hopper through 01:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Having worked with DrChrissy a lot, and having seen what this IP keeps doing, I'd go so far as to say that I would support a rangeblock even if there were a modest amount of collateral damage. It seems to me that this is a perfect case of where
- In any case, if we don't like adding IPs to Wikipedia:List of banned users, then we can assign a pseudonym for the banned editor. I suggest using "John Doe 2", and using "John Doe 1" as a reference to the existing IP in the list of banned users. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment As the editor who has received the most harassment from this IP hopping Troll and who now has their username associated with several totally spurious negative accusations on multiple talk pages, I am totally fed up with this. Please think about this. Look at my user page for my contributions. Hopefully, you will see that I have made multiple positive contributions to the project. Would people rather protect an IP hopper or adhere to some abstract wikipedia process I fail to understand, or would people rather lose an editor who tries their best to play by the rules and wants to help the project? __DrChrissy (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- DrChrissy, I can assure that no one wants to protect the IP here. Those of us that generally are against banning any IP do so for administrative and technical reasons. It doesn't change the fact that if we see them, we will block them, it has to do with the formal "banning" having little benefit to administrators when dealing with them. Banning is only effective in limited circumstances, and only with named users. I will just say that as an admin, it is sometimes easier and faster to block someone who isn't a sock or banned user, as you don't have to demonstrate linkage. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ladies and Gentlemen, the words of DrChrissy have not typed themselves onto this page. Behind the characters, punctuation, intent of the message and the signature, there is a human being. The human being is sentient and is trying to be involved in a hugely valuable educational tool whilst adhering to the policies of Wikipedia. However, when I open many pages that I have on my watchlist, I now see messages that falsely brand me as a liar, disrespectful, disruptive, owning pages, etc. As a human being, this hurts. Why should I voluntarily keep exposing myself to such a negative experience? In considering actions to be taken, please remember there is a human being that is being attacked, not just a username.__DrChrissy (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- The notion that a user who hurts another's feelings must be community banned or else the offended editor will resign, is, IMHO, frightening. Doc talk 04:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- DrChrissy is saying that there are now pages with false personal attacks—that should be investigated and rectified. The community should protect good editors, not introduce meta commentary based on projections from their perfectly reasonable comments here. Let's list the pages concerned and remove attacks, perhaps replacing inappropriate comments with something like
redacted, see [[Special:PermanentLink/599966274#Continued harassment of a Wikipedia editor|ANI]]@DrChrissy: Despite the above comment, everyone here is in agreement that the harassment will stop. If you notice a new eruption that is not handled within a reasonable time, please contact someone here; email me if you like, and I will hassle an admin. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- DrChrissy is saying that there are now pages with false personal attacks—that should be investigated and rectified. The community should protect good editors, not introduce meta commentary based on projections from their perfectly reasonable comments here. Let's list the pages concerned and remove attacks, perhaps replacing inappropriate comments with something like
- The notion that a user who hurts another's feelings must be community banned or else the offended editor will resign, is, IMHO, frightening. Doc talk 04:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support I don't actually see any disavantages coming from a ban since I haven't seen any reason offered for why the existance of the ban shouldn't harm efforts to deal with the editor. Yet I do see possible benefits to a ban even if others feel they they don't exist. So at most this discussion may be pointless, but even if it is, that may be a reason to have a wider community discussion about pointless bans or simply not take part in it, but it's not a reason to oppose it when it has already started. Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
|
Disruptive editing by User:TheAirplaneGuy
On just one article (
) without any obvious justification, and in several cases has reverted clear improvements. It's either a case of unreasoningI wonder whether a gentle warning would elicit better behaviour.
Shem (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I will handle this on his talk page. His actions aren't particularly disruptive but he is past the limit and I agree that a gentle warning is the exact correct approach at this time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Death hoaxes from spoof sites
Just a heads-up to editors: Someone is spoofing US Magazine with the domain usmagazine.us and has created numerous death hoaxes (Wayne Knight and Brian Bonsall are two I've seen already pop up on Wikipedia) at that address. I've also seen indirect evidence that the hoaxer also created a spoof of TMZ to spread death hoaxes. Obviously the authentic US Magazine and TMZ are marginal sources at best (although IMO TMZ has proven itself reliable for deaths), but these spoof sites are completely unreliable. I've posted this to the BLP noticeboard, but am posting it here as well to get more eyes on it. --NellieBly (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @Poke me17:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- @) 17:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- These sites just pop up like the living dead, don't they? Thankfully I got the infamous MediaMass and Necropedia sites blacklisted a few months back, but I wish these people would stop doing it. Thanks to everyone on top of this. chatter) 18:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- These sites just pop up like the living dead, don't they? Thankfully I got the infamous MediaMass and Necropedia sites blacklisted a few months back, but I wish these people would stop doing it. Thanks to everyone on top of this.
- @) 17:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
(
- There has been a similar hoax about Wayne Knight: [95] bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Bobrayner
Bobrayner (talk · contribs) is currently editwarring on Balkans related topics on a matter that is not a case of reverting vandalism or being constructive. On 15/03/14 he made this "innocent looking" tendentious edit[96] whereby, yes he added a valid point but in doing so he removed a piece of sourced information, the purpose being to conceal documented atrocities committed by NATO in the Kosovo War of 1999 and replace them with some form of "positive matter". If you examine this next revision[97], you'll see that the HRW-based information he insterted has not been removed, but the sourced information he removed without explanation, consensus or reason was something I restored. The user at this point, knowingly unable to articulate a valid response to the counter-edit, reverted on the false baseless pretext that I am a 'sock'. I then explained that was not the case, but he is continuing to ignore that ad infinitum[98], [99]. If he suspects a "sock" account, I believe he need only cite the alleged master and even then still request an investigation to which the result must be confirmed, and then he would be free to burn books. Editing is free to all persons without the need for an account and the notion that one may edit as such does not imply he/she has an account but is not using. Even so, it doesn't become the activity of a "sock" until it is being done in an attempt to pose as a different person in cases where one party to an editing dispute may have exhausted his daily round of reverts. In this case, there is no editor to have stepped forward to restore the wrongfully removed sourced information so I cannot be a "sock" but even if I were an unlogged editor, to qualify as a sock it can only realistically be the person to have originally posted the information, and even then, only when he/she has "returned" to add to the IP contributions. As for my number-switching, I have no control over that, that just happens whenever the system is rebooted and even when staying on it changes after so much time. --94.250.109.57 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- 1. It does not appear to an outside observer to be "edit war." 2. It would make your posts have more weight were you to register a specific username of some sort. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am confident that 94.250.109.57 is a sock; but this being the Balkans, I'm not 100% sure which sockmaster - I have two in mind, although I could make a pretty good guess based on a couple of "tells".
- Anyway. As far as content is concerned, I toned down some rather exaggerated content which was nominally based on a website that would never pass ) 20:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that is not a reason to cry "sock". You neither specified any of this in your summaries (which you have made matters easier) nor did you revert every single contribution made by the alleged "sock". That was the basis of your reverts. Your "assumption" that I have an account or that I may be "one or the other" does not equate to solid proof. As for me, well there can't be two ways around this one. If I am a sock, I should be blocked permanently forthwith - if I am not a sock, I should be free to edit without labels created to legitimize your behavior. --94.250.109.57 (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hello good people (well, most of you), I am also anonymous contributor and I would like to add that bobrynrr deleted my comment from a talk page for no good reason. Well, there is good reason, but......anyway see for yourself....
- Sorry, but that is not a reason to cry "sock". You neither specified any of this in your summaries (which you have made matters easier) nor did you revert every single contribution made by the alleged "sock". That was the basis of your reverts. Your "assumption" that I have an account or that I may be "one or the other" does not equate to solid proof. As for me, well there can't be two ways around this one. If I am a sock, I should be blocked permanently forthwith - if I am not a sock, I should be free to edit without labels created to legitimize your behavior. --94.250.109.57 (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKosovo_War&diff=599898642&oldid=599894493 212.178.255.107 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, he dropped manure over it to make it impossible to restore without removing his edits. Still, first come first serve? I have restored yours and he can do the donkey work of manually replacing his rant. --94.250.109.57 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- What a coincidence! We now have two editors who swear they don't use accounts and who are both angry about similar topics in the Balkans. Anyway. In addition to the sockpuppetry problem, we can add outright lies. 94.250.109.57 says "You neither specified any of this in your summaries (which you have made matters easier)...". My original edit summary said "Not appropriate as a source or an EL, although this specific text may well be right...". Still, if anybody wants to discuss improvements to content or sources, whilst logged in, I'm happy to do this on the article's talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Anyway. 212.178 has also used IPs in the 109.106 range. Some were previously blocked by Mark Arsten and DoRD, I believe, around the time that Evlekis was last active, although folk are wary of directly connecting editors to IPs. This kind of canvassing fits the same old pattern. bobrayner (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- And yet you mention nothing about deleting my comment on talk page LOL. And the fact that only you declared me a sockpuppet. "A lie said a thousand times becomes the truth"...eventually I guess :D 212.178.255.107 (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- No. Multiple editors have called your previous IPs sockpuppets. However, if you stalk my edits, then I'm obviously the first one to call you out each time. bobrayner (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Multiple....two or three of your friends and protectors aren't multiple...and if you look here you will see multiple editors agreed with me (I am the struck out one)
- No. Multiple editors have called your previous IPs sockpuppets. However, if you stalk my edits, then I'm obviously the first one to call you out each time. bobrayner (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo_War#Very_POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.255.107 (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I would just like to add that I've noticed some issues as well, a bit of criticism that I stated can be found in the recent move debate at Talk:Kosovo. There are several examples of problematic behaviour outside the Kosovo topic itself, which I mentioned on that talk page, and it might be of interest to have a look there. - Anonimski (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Glad you could join us, Anonimski. I'd agree that there was a canvassing problem around the recent discussion at Talk:Kosovo; however, I believe the IPs behind that are controlled by a different account to the IPs here. Although you did criticise me for reverting Evlekis socks, and there are more Evlekis socks active now. bobrayner (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, stop shoving words in my mouth. My criticism against you was not related to your interaction with Evlekis. I commented on the lousy attitude that you have displayed in Balkan-related discussions, especially those that are related to ethnic Serbs. It is obvious that Evlekis should be blocked whenever he is doing sockpuppeting, but his violations aren't really an excuse for you to go on with the nonconstructive behaviour that I presented as examples on Talk:Kosovo. - Anonimski (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- (And why was this comment removed by User:Collect??) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=599930160&oldid=599929903 - Anonimski (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Clearly we hit the "edit conflict" bug well-known on Wikipedia as my edit was not anent yours in any way or form. Try fixing such accidental elisions by the Wikipedia servers before making non-accidental accusations about other editors. Had I removed anything, I would have placed a note to that effect per Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oddly, a previous 212.178 IP was reported by a previous Evlekis sock. This is our Balkan problem writ large; it's hard to tell the difference between real accounts, sockpuppets, sockpuppets which report/revert other sockpuppets, sockpuppets of the same person which report/revert each other, seemingly legitimate accounts who appear in discussions after being canvassed offsite, and so on. 94.x.x.x, you wouldn't have any connection to the offsite canvassing by another 94.x.x.x IP, would you? bobrayner (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- So.....why did you delete a comment that was constructive?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKosovo_War&diff=599919203&oldid=599915649
And you also stroke out comments that pointed towards biased and REALLY suspicious parts of the article....
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKosovo_War&diff=584135506&oldid=583425048 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.255.107 (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Enough socks and conspiracy theories already. Apparently I'm biased for citing a reliable source on a different page - a book published by a university press which discusses the topic at length - but our IP friend is neutral because they cite websites like this and rant about "atrocities committed by NATO".
- As I've said before; if anybody wants to discuss improvements to content or sources, whilst logged in, I'm happy to do this on the article's talkpage. Although any such discussion is likely to be tainted by the rampant canvassing, I have few other options here since the community seems have few effective tools to prevent the systematic use of socks to revert, cheat, and distort in this area. bobrayner (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Strange I never used natosued.org, oh well. What else.....ah I wrote to those editors asking for their opinion and telling them you decided that UN Resolution 1244 expired, wow I did not know you work in Security Coucil bob lol! Third wikipedia is also edited by anonymous users. Some of us are, dare I say modest people with busy and productive lives so we prefer to stay humble and unimportant :). I never edited Crni put, Niš that was someone else. And lastly....Why did you delete my comment on a talk page of Kosovo war, it was valid and it pointed to your previous edits, the one which other users found to be very biased and just propaganda.:)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo_War#Very_POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.255.107 (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ahh, yes, the totally independent and unbiased User:Zavtek also agreed with you. Thanks for proving my point. I'd point out to uninvolved editors that this IP previously used 109.106.252.120, which was also blocked as an Evlekis sock. And there's the Cognoscerapo connection, and the stalking, and the canvassing, and the previous SPI and various previous blocks...
- If anybody wants to discuss improvements to the article's content or sources, whilst logged in, let's do this on the article's talkpage.bobrayner (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I meant Antidiskriminator (the one you chased away, as you can read in his comments), 23 editor and FkpCascais. So, why did you remove my comments bob? :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKosovo_War&diff=599898642&oldid=599894493 oh and you stroke out this old one too, even thought 3 editors agreed with my statement http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKosovo_War&diff=584135506&oldid=583425048 And why do you keep mentioning Crni put, Niš????? I did not edited that one....:/ nvm, just answer the first question :D 212.178.255.107 (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Well it looks like bob left us :(. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobrayner#Someone_needs_to_let_you_know What's important is that he failed to answer these simple questions and simply bailed out. I also am leaving the wikia, good luck to the rest of you. This discussion will remain archived but I doubt anyone will read it, let alone take some action as an administrator. TaaTaa 212.178.255.107 (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've just blocked 94.250.109.57 (talk) and 212.178.255.107 (talk) two weeks each for sockpuppetry. If there are any articles that need semi-protection, let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Shalom11111 again
Canvassing
I previously reported
- Wow, the opposite of what he said is the truth. When PRODUCER realized that the responses of this deletion discussing were mostly in favor of deleting the article while he wanted to keep it, he decided to over-apply deletion sorting pages to countries that had nearly nothing to do with the subject of "Jews of Communism", hoping to get more votes in favor for his side. I find it important to note that PRODUCER was accused of canvassing by Jews and Communism ARTICLE TALK PAGE, asking "Everyone who participated in that deletion discussion" to participate in the current new deletion review discussion. PRODUCER is again playing tricks, this time on me, and this cannot continue and must be enforced by admins. -Shalom11111 (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- You had two uninvolved users very clearly explain to you that "Deletion sorting is not canvassing in any way, shape, or form. Even inapproppriately overapplied deletion sorting, if that was the case here, is not canvassing" and that "nothing wrong with applying deletion sorting". This is just more evidence of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. One can only assume posting Carol was a clumsy mistake when one looks at all the others you diligently cherrypicked to canvas in effort to delete an article by any means:
- Dougweller [102]
- Antidiskriminator [103]
- Altenmann [104]
- Binksternet [105]
- Steeletrap [106]
- Marokwitz [107]
- USchick [108]
- Hot Stop [109]
- AndyTheGrump [110]
- Topdiggie [111]
- Evildoer187 [112]
- AnkhMorpork [113]
- Nomoskedasticity [114]
- Dralwik [115]
- GHcool [116]
- Anonimu [117]
- Johnuniq [118]
- Galassi [119]
- Hate to break it to you, but caps and bold do not make your points any more valid. The only tricks being played here are by you and are incredibly mischievous ones at that. I think a ban from AfDs is in order given your consistently inappropriate actions. --◅ TALK) 20:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- You had two uninvolved users very clearly explain to you that "Deletion sorting is not canvassing in any way, shape, or form. Even inapproppriately overapplied deletion sorting, if that was the case here, is not canvassing" and that "nothing wrong with applying deletion sorting". This is just more evidence of
- You used selective quotes from that discussion in order to try proving your point. I can also quote those disagreeing with you. The act of over-applying pages may not be considered a clear canvassing attempt, but looking at the unrelated pages you constantly linked the deletion discussion to, one has to wonder about your intentions. Adding Carolmooredc was not a "clumsy mistake" which you all of a sudden claim and want everyone to believe, just like posting an open invitation on the main Jews and Communism article talk page and inviting everyone to join the discussion was not done by a mistake. To make this clear, I wrote on the talk page "Hi, there's an ongoing discussion on the previous controversial deletion proposal of this article, Jews and Communism. Here is a link to it. Everyone who participated in that deletion discussion, or would just to like to voice your opinion on the matter, you're welcome to do so. Thanks" (I know, the grammar there wasn't so great. and needless to say, I wrote this before you decided to make this report). Also, of those 12 users who voted to keep the article, a few had already commented on the deletion review discussion before I even wrote that comment. So were you expecting me to tag them too? Distorting reality will not win this for you, and just to let you know, this will soon be given more attention. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Once again you are reminded that frivilous accusations of sockpuppetry are considered personal attacks. Don't make them. - The Bushranger One ping only01:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- How many times is it necessary to warn someone not to post the same personal attack? I'm sure he's perfectly aware he's being insulting and trying to threaten others, that's the whole point.. -- talk) 05:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- How many times is it necessary to warn someone not to post the same personal attack? I'm sure he's perfectly aware he's being insulting and trying to threaten others, that's the whole point.. --
- Once again you are reminded that frivilous accusations of sockpuppetry are considered
- You used selective quotes from that discussion in order to try proving your point. I can also quote those disagreeing with you. The act of over-applying pages may not be considered a clear canvassing attempt, but looking at the unrelated pages you constantly linked the deletion discussion to, one has to wonder about your intentions. Adding Carolmooredc was not a "clumsy mistake" which you all of a sudden claim and want everyone to believe, just like posting an open invitation on the main Jews and Communism article talk page and inviting everyone to join the discussion was not done by a mistake. To make this clear, I wrote on the talk page "Hi, there's an ongoing discussion on the previous controversial deletion proposal of this article, Jews and Communism. Here is a link to it. Everyone who participated in that deletion discussion, or would just to like to voice your opinion on the matter, you're welcome to do so. Thanks" (I know, the grammar there wasn't so great. and needless to say, I wrote this before you decided to make this report). Also, of those 12 users who voted to keep the article, a few had already commented on the deletion review discussion before I even wrote that comment. So were you expecting me to tag them too? Distorting reality will not win this for you, and just to let you know, this will soon be given more attention. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
You see, a few hours have passed 'Director' appears again, which is why, considering other editors' concern and the results of the 'Editor Interaction Analyzer', I brought up this issue. Saying "and just to let you know, this will soon be given more attention" is not an a personal attack but merely informing him of a possible future report in a very legitimate way - and to be honest - it's even a nice thing to let the user know about it other than doing it behind their back. Ask anyone and they'll say these words are not personal attack, 'The Bushranger', don't you see I'm again being targeted for no justified reason here? It's now evident that Producer and Director are attempting to get me and a few other users (Atlantictire (talk · contribs), IZAK (talk · contribs), and The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)) blocked, just below this very thread! Shalom11111 (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Shalom11111 repeatedly makes sock accusations
This user is repeatedly accusing two users of being the same person, a matter that appears to have been long-settled at a 2010 SPI.
Examples;
- But for now, you'll be reported for Sock-puppetry.
- I agree. Urgently (in response to Galassi's "Also, check the PRODUCER and the DIREKTOR for sockpuppetry" post). Also note the disingenuous rebuttal.
- and just to let you know, this will soon be given more attention ("this" being a link to a toolserver.org report of Producer/Direktor edit overlap.
- You see, a few hours have passed 'Director' appears again
Warnings have been given (once, twice), and ignored. The user merely rebuts with "but I was just putting it out there..." types of responses.
Proposal; Shalom11111 is banned from inferring or implying in any manner whatsoever that users Producer and Direktor are socks of one another, or from concurring with (i.e. a "me too" posting) with any user who makes such inferences or implications. An exception can be made for one new sock-puppet investigation , if Shalom11111 wishes to present actual evidence to be judged by the checkusers, but that will be the final "put up or shut up" moment for this affair, if said investigation is filed.
- Support as proposer. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support, as the very annoyed party. -- talk) 15:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support as uninvolved, with the caveat that it's clear Shalom11111 cannot just threaten to file, or "warn" that s/he "may file" in the future. Either an SPI is opened or nothing more should be said. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support as an uninvolved observer. Repeatedly threatening to file or issuing warnings to one or the other editor has a chilling effect and is considered a personal attack and needs to stop. Valid sockpuppet concerns should be raised only at the proper venue (SPI) and even then only with more solid evidence than an overlap in editing interests. FWIW, after many years of seeing Direktor and Producer disagreeing about content and behaviour on this and other pages over the years, I find the sockpuppet accusation not credible and almost laughable. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Its the damned usernames... Mine, spelled with a "K", comes from the Serbo-Croatian word meaning "manger" or "executive": talk) 18:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Its the damned usernames... Mine, spelled with a "K", comes from the Serbo-Croatian word meaning "manger" or "executive":
Neutral? Those diffs Tarc calls "warnings" were simply suggestions by editors that I discuss the topic in a different place. I really don't know how I should have expressed what I think if I'm attacked every time I say any controversial statement. I don't think Producer and Director are the same person and believe them that one is from Serbia and the other from Croatia, it's not the case, forgive me but my concern was Wikipedia:Tag team (I just found this appropriate page now), not sock puppetry. So again, I do not accuse anyone, but am asking: Where should I report editors if I suspect there's a "tag team"? If this proposal succeeds, which seems likely, will I be allowed to make that future report? Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Whichever report you like, Shalom11111, have fun. Just please don't try and sell the idea that you weren't trying to threaten Producer with accusations of sockpuppetry. Analogous to what you're doing now, really.. As I told you earlier: people are not quite as stupid as you seem to think. -- talk) 23:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Consider that may what look like tag teaming to you looks to me like agreement. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support - As someone who has had to point out that these are two different people, multiple times over the years, it is incredibly annoying for someone to insist that these two editors are the same person after it's pointed out that their similar usernames are a coincidence. To do so after being shown that CheckUser already cleared them is a mixture of 18:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support per the above. I thank Tarc for taking the initiative to halt these baseless threats, but I feel that the far greater issue at hand is Yam's repeated misconduct at AfD discussions. --◅ TALK) 22:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support, per the summation given by Atama which sums it up nicely. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Johnbod attacking everyone at Talk:Yixian glazed pottery luohans
Per WP:BOOMERANG, I'll take the hit on this and I'm totally cool with that, but an admin needs to jump in at
- Yes it would be nice if an admin could remove the gross personal attack (with no content relevant to the article) on me by another editor (diff), which Kintetsubuffalo has twice reverted the removal of (once and twice). He is I think no stranger on this page (ANI I mean). He started this off by removing two quoted words, referenced at the end of the sentence, which it became clear he had not noticed, from a DYK then on the main page. When I saw this some 12 hours later, I reverted with an explanatory edit summary. He then added two cite tags (for what was already cited) with an abusive edit summary, and continue to edit war and rant on the talk page despite being told many times on the article's and his talk pages that they were referenced at the end of the sentence, and always had been. User:Andy Dingley then joined in, also repeatedly demanding the refs that were already there, and soon joining the matter to his long-standing crusade against Wikimedia UK with a purely personal attack. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think people bringing up the WMUK stuff helped anything but where did Andy Dingley demand refs? I only see comments that the location of the refs and the wording was confusing. Nil Einne (talk)`
- es: tag cn - if this is so obvious, it will be easy for the most knowledgeable editor to add a citation to the appropriate existing ref and resolve this issue amicably
- re-adds cite tags, with es: rm peacock tag. Sourced statements further down indicate that these terms aren't unexpected or unreasonable, merely that we still need to cite their provenance)
- reverts to restore citation needed tags
- Lengthy response on his talk page, in response to my pleas that he actually look at the article; "Now I think they're probably fine to be there, but they should have cites close enough to them to support those specific terms, if they're being used as direct quotes like this, contra to PEACOCK. I believe that you are able to add such cites. I am not. The source ref is apparently an hour-long YouTube video, which I simply don't have time to watch, but I believe that you already have..." - he is confusing the next ref (to the lecture on You Tube), at the end of the next sentence, because he just hasn't looked with any degree of attention, but continues to revert, and at the end of this diff begins his personal attacks.
- I don't think people bringing up the WMUK stuff helped anything but where did Andy Dingley demand refs? I only see comments that the location of the refs and the wording was confusing. Nil Einne (talk)`
Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Admins, why is there no action against this editor? They think they are better than others and think it is acceptable to talk down to everyone. Lesion (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Disruptive editing of the reference desks
The User:Sagittarian Milky Way is a longtime "user" of the reference desks and aware we don't provide legal, or other professional advice. After posting this question about how not to break the law by viewing child pornography on the internet, which I hatted, he has posted the pointy question, "Have any human-like creatures ever commented on the legality of viewing bad things?" which he admits is a request for legal advice, and which I have removed. Please admonish this violation of the ref desk guidelines: "We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice". Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- The disruption is caused by Medeis's acting as self appointed censor of the Reference Desk. A general discussion of whether something is legal isn't legal advice per se. (I've removed the unsigned hat per WP:SIGNHAT). NE Ent03:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I did not ask how to view child pornography on the internet. I more than many childless people sympathise with minor victims. My question was more of how do I make sure I don't actually see illegal things example: child pornography, jihadist websites(?) if I researched those things out of curiosity or some neer-do-well might theoretically pull a nasty joke by making illegal links show up on innocuous search terms. Okay, maybe the pointy human-like creatures post is less humorous than it seemed at the time. I was just making pointy humor, but not just pointy, I wouldn't have disliked an answer. I wouldn't have persisted in further pointiness. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Medeis's inappropriate editing other user's comments has been a long-term problem, including one block for editing others comments after warnings followed by an unblock with the edit comment "Medeis has agreed to cease editing others' talk page messages." Medeis' latest block for disruptive editing at the reference desk was less than a week ago. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis
- Examples:
- Deleting an editor's comment complaining about the way Medeis edited the editor's previous comment.[122] Moving it to talk would have been a better choice. Also labeled the deletion as a merge,
- Deleting a question by a blocked sock and taking out answers from other users with it, two days after the discussion ended.[123]
- Deleting a question that isn't medical advice:[124] (and what's up with the deleting and hatting?)
- Editing (not just deleting) another user's comment[125]
- And, of course there is this deletion, discussed above.[126] even if it deserved to be deleted, the person the comment is criticizing has a conflict of interest and should leave the deleting to someone else.
- Also see: User talk:David Levy#User:Medeis and this warning.
- I propose a narrowly focused ban prohibiting Medeis from changing, deleting, collapsing, striking, or in an other way editing other people's comments on the reference desk pages. This would solve the long-term problem, allow Medeis to continue participating in the normal way (answering questions), and would have very little downside, given the demonstrable fact that there are quite a few editors who watch for and collapse any inappropriate questions on those pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'll second the "changing" part. That's the most atrocious. Nobody should do that (not to be confused with "nobody"). If something needs to be hatted, deleted, burned or salted, it should go as it was. No opinion on the other things. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I propose a narrowly focused ban prohibiting Medeis from changing, deleting, collapsing, striking, or in an other way editing other people's comments on the reference desk pages. This would solve the long-term problem, allow Medeis to continue participating in the normal way (answering questions), and would have very little downside, given the demonstrable fact that there are quite a few editors who watch for and collapse any inappropriate questions on those pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like Obama could have done something about the referendum in Crimea, he could have sent Medeis there to hat it. :). Count Iblis (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Per User:Guy Macon, there has been notable disruptive behaviour and perceived ownership of the reference desks going on for several months, at least a dozen editors have commented as such. I was reliably informed by the administrator User:Georgewilliamherbert (who blocked me erroneously without noting it in the block log or apologising for doing so) that I needn't lodge an RFC about such disruptive behaviour as "any other administrator in the world" would be fully capable of running without {me} Yet this hasn't happened. I'd advocate an independent look into this ongoing disruption. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the vast majority of the disruptive behavior can be prevented by the simple step of only allowing Medeis to alter her own comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion, and in those of at least a dozen others, something should be done here. I hope someone like the reliable User:Georgewilliamherbert (as he suggested, "any other admin..." could do this) or perhaps you Guy can do something to stop this ongoing disruption. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The editor was asking for legal advice, which we are not allowed to give. Your deletion was proper. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- The editor was not asking for legal advice. Even if the editor was asking for legal or medical advice, where in the list of when it is allowable to change someone's comments does it say "asking a question that we are not allowed to answer"? I could see deleting an answer that gave legal advice, but deleting the question? Why not simply reply with "We cannot give legal advice" and apply Template:Archive top and Template:Archive bottom? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- The editor was asking how not to break laws, i.e asking where the boundaries of the laws are. That qualifies as a request for legal advice. Hatting (or deleting) would probably be better than messing with the entry - and then the malcontents would yell at Medeis for (properly) hatting or deleting it. The ref desks are frequently assaulted by a subset of regulars who don't respect the rules about medical and legal advice, nor about BLP violations... and they threaten banishment for those who do respect those rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, dear lagomorph, that is not an accurate definition of the situation.
- There are a number of trolls who take delight in provoking the more vigilant ref-desk regulars into heightened activism, much to the boredom of the less vigilant, more laissez-faire inclined regulars. There are, moreover, editors who act as non-appointed hall monitors of the desks, yelling at querents and responders and hatting threads, and, in a few cases, there are contributors within this subset of vigilant editors who have no problem derailing threads on topics they find offensive (even when the question is factual, albeit on a controversial topic) or adding their own jocular off-topic comments when they so see fit.
- This shrill juxtaposition of policing the desk on the one hand, and occasionally subverting it, on the other hand, is what actually turns people off, to the point that informed, helpful, competent volunteers have reduced their activities, in some notable cases down to zero. At the same time, it is very unpleasant criticizing these editors, because they either react with sticking their fingers in their ears, singing "LA LA LA LAAA LAAAA LAAA" or respond with a joke, or play innocent, or a combination of everything. This is why I won't get involved in these discussions on said editors, when they bubble up, time and again, but your statement beginning with "The ref desks are being frequently assaulted by a subset of regulars ..." does not address the heart of the matter at all, in my opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk03:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- The heart of the matter is a core disagreement over what constitutes valid vs. non-valid questions on the ref desk. That's been going on from day one, so it will probably never be resolved (no matter who you try to ban), but it's important to raise attention to it. Just like someday maybe Wikipedia will join the 21st century and require user registration. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- The editor was asking how not to break laws, i.e asking where the boundaries of the laws are. That qualifies as a request for legal advice. Hatting (or deleting) would probably be better than messing with the entry - and then the malcontents would yell at Medeis for (properly) hatting or deleting it. The ref desks are frequently assaulted by a subset of regulars who don't respect the rules about medical and legal advice, nor about BLP violations... and they threaten banishment for those who do respect those rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- The notion that collapsing and then deleting a repeated pointy request for legal advice ("We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice") would be criticized as "changing" someone's "comments" is absurd. The OP "asks":
Note that User:Writ Keeper has warned one of the users above who calls removing this material "disruption" above for evading an interaction ban, and another opponent has quoted an ANI that was ultimately decided by two-to-one to result in no topic block against me or others for edits at the reference desk. This is not about me. This is not about doing away with the reference desks. Snide remarks by users with the name "devil" whose talk page begins with the decree he "rejects most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He just edits in any way he sees fit" are unhelpful. This is about enforcing existing reference desk rules, in spite of opposition from users who believe there she be no such rules and users who would attack those simply bringing relevant issues here for enforcement. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)How can you ensure that you can't do anything illegal on the Internet?
Where does the "safe part" of the Internet end with regards to US "look-crime**"? Anything one click from Google? Anything on Google Images? What was the least number of clicks from Google to Silk Road? The funniest phrases on Internet Oracle oracularities*** often have like 3 results, for example. (when searched in quotation marks) Could I theoretically say yay, this is not an oracularity mirror for once, click on it, and find out that some jokester made a website with child porn on it?
Even if some things are too repulsive compared to my desire to know for me to personally near the line, I'm still curious to know how far you could click from Google before you might see something illegal even to look at.- Except that Wikipedia has the WP:IAR rule while there is no such equivalent rule in International law. Count Iblis (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Except that Wikipedia has the
- Compared to the hypocrisy and malice of others, Yours is relatively harmless, Your Lord, Satan. But mentioning your penchants is relevant when you, as a stated enemy of rules, deign to speak on them. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- First, please mind the commentary, even if it's meant in jest you're skirting close to Count Iblis. - The Bushranger One ping only11:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- First, please mind the commentary, even if it's meant in jest you're skirting close to
- Compared to the hypocrisy and malice of others, Yours is relatively harmless, Your Lord, Satan. But mentioning your penchants is relevant when you, as a stated enemy of rules, deign to speak on them. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
My point is really that the rules are relative, that bad things can sometimes when you enforce the rules without considering whether it is appropriate (where any notion of "appropriateness" is then, of course, based on more fundamental ideas and not on the rules themselves like e.g. the fundamental goals of Wikipedia). So, by default we do apply the rules as most of the times they implement what we want to do automatically, but there are exceptions where they don't work. That's why it's best to look beyond the rules in case of disputes that arise when you attempt to enforce the rules, especially if this happens frequently. Count Iblis (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
In need of a range 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.
Can someone sort out a range block to stop a vandalising IP? 166.170.23.2 (talk · contribs), 166.170.21.153 (talk · contribs) and 166.170.21.44 (talk · contribs) have all been blocked in the last half hour. Clearly not here to do anything productive. SmartSE (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done 166.170.21.0/22 for 48 hours. That might be a little tight, covering only 21.*-23.* but can be changed to a /21 or 20 if needed. That is parked on a Class B, so hard to nail down the exact range. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could somebody please have a look at the latest edits on the Soka Gakkai page and most of all by the comments left behind on the respective talk page - those are insults. user:Naveen Reddy got informed via template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catflap08 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the most recent comment by dispute resolution if that seems more appropriate. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪05:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Tranquility of Soul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This guy showed up in all of the CensoredScribe nonsense and at the time I had thought he was a sockpuppet account, but that was never proven. However, he is still problematically creating new categories as CensoredScribe did, with Category:Incorporeal undead, Category:Fictional liches, and Category:Fictional shapeshifters by franchise just in the past few days. We need to nip this in the bud now before it gets out of hand like it did with CensoredScribe.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've emptied those categories and deleted them as clearly nonsense or over-categorisation. All liches are by definition fictional. Warning placed on user's talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Palermo boca viatri 9
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.
Vandalism-only account [127]--
- Not exactly traditional vandalism, but close enough. They haven't edited since the last warning, so I would hesitate to take action. I think the editor might could be educated a bit and start contributing normally, as their first few edits were ok, but then they seemed to develop some bad habits. Maybe. Regardless, I think we have to wait until they edit after the last warning before we use sanctions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I also left a more detailed message for them on their talk page. If that doesn't work, then escalating blocks would certainly be justified. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Indef block via 13:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Great Flood of 1881 Plagiarism
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.
Large portions of Great Flood of 1881 appear to have been plagiarized without attribution from A.T. Andreas' 1882 History of the State of Nebraska [128].--Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Administrative intervention isn't needed. Moreover, if text is properly attributed, there are no problems whatsoever; we're free to reuse text from public-domain sources. If text isn't properly attributed, the only problem is that the source isn't properly cited. Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Point of clarification?
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.
Copying material without permission would be copyright violation. Which I understand does not apply to pre-1923 materials (more or less). But what was complained of here — plagiarism — is copying (use) without attribution, which is independent of copyright. If the problem is to be resolved elsewhere (e.g., "article talk"), fine, but we should avoid the implication that public domain material need not be attributed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- As I said above, when text is taken from a PD source, the worst possible scenario is insufficient citation. It's no different from someone adding self-written text without a citation; both of them are problematic on the same level. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK. I can see why a point of clarification was asked for.
- The initial matter here was "Large portions of Great Flood of 1881 appear to have been plagiarized without attribution from A.T. Andreas' 1882 History of the State of Nebraska". (emphasis mine)
- The text was substantially copied from a work that in the public domain
- It was correctly attributed to that work
- By adding the attribution, the editor did not seek to pass off this as their own work
- There's nothing blockableor requiring other admin action here.
- That said, I think it would have been arguably the ethically right thing to do for the editor to have re-written the public domain text in their own words.
- Does that address this point of clarification to your satisfaction?
- Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Threats to disrupt Wikipedia and attacks on editors (and their families)
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.
- Higuiseiloveyou
- User:Higuiseiloveyou/sandbox
- initial post to Aggie80's talk page
- follow up using WikiLove to attack
I do not intend to notify the user as their threats of violence against other volunteers (and their families) when they are called to task for their misuse. Please exercise the banhammer. Hasteur (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Phoenix 123 abc
Their contributions are endless
- Well, journal article spam, I suppose. They've been warned and summoned to the drama board. Chances are they won't show up and simply cease editing; if they do continue editing that would be great but if they continue editing like this they'll be blocked, simple as that. Thanks, and thanks to the other reverters--I saw Binksternet and DMacks were on the case. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is journal article spam, putting forward the name of Dr. Tanya Sammut-Bonnici of the University of Malta. I'm certain that Sammut-Bonnici has a few interesting and useful insights that we can use to expand articles, with her writings as reference. We are not trying to prevent Sammut-Bonnici from having a presence on Wikipedia! However, the spamming of her name in "Further reading" sections is not appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Dispute in LGBT rights in Pakistan
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is currently a dispute going on over inclusion of an excerpt from a speech from Hina Jilani which does not relate specifically to LGBT rights in Pakistan instead it was general speech about overall situation in the World. My stance is that it does not have a place in that article. Lilpiglet disagrees. Already raised the issue at Talk:LGBT rights in Pakistan to no avail. I want someone to look at that last edit and decide whether it stays or gets removed. I am not asking for a decision in my favor. I am requesting an impartial decision in this matter. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- ANI is not the place for content disputes, as the notice says. Try ) 20:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
India Against Corruption disruption again
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.
A long-running dispute about India Against Corruption ended up with this thread and the blocking of HRA1924 (talk · contribs). One of the issues at the time, and for months previously, was legal threats; another was obvious meatpuppeting/tag teaming. They were told to take it all off-wiki.
I'm afraid they are back there under a new guise, mostly recently with this edit and a comment on the article talk page that I collapsed. I had earlier given a broad outline of the issues at User_talk:ColSodhi#India Against Corruption. They have used open proxies and numerous IPs in the past, as well as various registered accounts. This plus the fact that SPI has been backlogged of late makes things messy. I'm wondering whether someone can do the needful now before things get out of control again. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have super briefly fully protected the article in question in hopes of getting ColSodhi to engage on the talk page. If he breaks well... Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's ok, thanks. I'm a bit more heavy-handed with templates etc than you but then I've been dealing with this for well over six months now. We'll see what happens but my fount of good faith is pretty dry on this one. - Sitush (talk)
- Oh, so's mine. It just pays off once in a bloody blue moon in situations like this, so I prefer trying. However, having seen the below comment, well... incoming. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- It has been subsequently clarified with the WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION as follows. That the WMF communicated that the local policies of the English language Wikipedia project preclude and prohibit IAC from participating as a "group" (UDRP), and that both the well known and respected authors cited in the article are appalled at misuse of their scholarly books by Sitush to LIBEL (which is a core Wikipedia policy with legal implications) India Against Corruption and to promote IMPERSONATION of the India Against Corruption (which they both acknowledge is not Team Anna) and thereby engage in FRAUD and violation of IAC's copyright's marks and names, it is open to any individual account to edit the article to implement WMF core policy (and subordinate Wikipedia policies). NB IAC has not made any 'complaint" to WMF or the Legal-OFFICE at any stage of this content dispute. It is the responsibility of the Wikipedia Community to see if it is competent to resolve content disputes with legal implications for WMF as a hosting intermediary and Registrant of the domain names in question. PS: It had been always been clarified that "HRA1924" was an official "role" account for IAC, so let us take these allegations of meat-puppetry elsewhere. ColSodhi (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I have no prior knowledge or involvement in this dispute but I looked over some of the earlier DR including the mediation. My summary (feel free to point out any errors) is:
- There was historically an organization called India Against Corruption, associated with Mr. Anna Hazare, that I'll call IAC1 for disambiguation purposes. IAC1 was also sometimes called Team Anna. There is lots of sourcing about this organization and the article India Against Corruption is about almost entirely about IAC1.
- There is currently an organization using the same name India Against Corruption, that has at most tenuous continuity with IAC1. I'll call this organization IAC2. IAC2 is opposed to the politics of Anna Hazare, that IAC1 supported. ColSodhi is affiliated with IAC2.
- ColSodhi (in various Wikipedia incarnations) and other IAC2-affiliated people have gotten into conflict on Wikipedia, basically claiming that the India Against Corruption article is about IAC2, and misrepresents IAC2 since it describes a pro-Anna organization (that is, IAC1). Thus the noise about libel and so forth.
- The second paragraph of the article (current revision) refers to the IAC1/IAC2 split, saying "...the present group of people who refer to themselves as IAC are no longer promoting the Lokpal agenda a and have instead turned to promoting Right to Information."
- IAC2 folks have gotten in trouble on Wikipedia mostly regarding two policies: role accounts (multiple IAC2 people sharing a Wikipedia account), and legal threats.
- The role account problem can be solved rather simply and I haven't seen any indication of why it's difficult. The solution is for each IAC2 person to make a separate Wikipedia account, and put a message on their user page mentioning the affiliation and the connection with other IAC-affiliated editors. Unless I'm missing something this shouldn't be a big deal.
- The legal threat problem is more serious in that it reflects an attitude that might be hard to change, but one way or another it has to stop because it will always be met with blocks if it doesn't.
- According to Sitush, IAC2 doesn't have much coverage in the article because there is not much sourcing available for it.
- Still, it seems to me, that the distinction between IAC1 and IAC2 could be made more clear in the article, maybe with a hatnote saying something like "this article is about the old group affiliated with Anna, not the current group using the same name".
- If there is actually enough documentation about IAC2 to establish notability, a separate article can be written (or a new section of the current article), with suitable disambiguation links.
- If ColSodhi could adopt a less belligerent attitude, maybe some kind of accomodation like this can be reached through the talk page. Sitush is also very heavily involved so it might be useful to get more outside help. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Dwy misrepresenting sources again
Dwy (talk · contribs) inserted a line of text into the Yamanoue no Okura article and provided a 14-page citation for it.[130] The text didn't look like it required such a lengthy citation, so User:Sturmgewehr88 and I requested on the talk page that he tell us which page was relevant.[131][132] He admitted that in fact most of the content of the chapter he cited is unnecessary to the article, but refused to tell us which page needs to be cited, and gave me the hypothetical finger while doing so.[133][134] The book in question is 40 years old and long out-of-print. This is problematic because Dwy has misrepresented the content of this book on at least two other occasions in the past few weeks ("not supported by historians" is clearly not in there, and Nakanishi's theory that Okura was not descended from Emperor Kosho is not "based on" the Shinsen Shojiroku), so there's pretty good reason to believe he's up to the same tricks here.
(Note: This isn't a content dispute or about the reliability of the source itself, as all parties basically agree that the information itself belongs in the article.)
182.249.241.23 (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are both being too belligerent and spiteful. Typing "Yamanoue no Okura" into Google Books instantly finds multiple references for the dates in question, with scans of the relevant pages. Just pick one and cite it including the page number. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Do those books say "most scholars" and "based on such and such line in book 5"? What pages are they on? Why can't the user who added the reference fix it himself? He already admitted he doesn't want to because like me. 182.249.241.40 (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- He's also referred to me as "his opponent" and falsely accused me of mistranslating his attacks on me and Sturmgewehr88.[135] 182.249.241.40 (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- User:Dwy has resorted to being uncooperative in an attempt to spite User:Hijiri88. We've been arguing over this for almost three months because Dwy has been antagonistically beating around the bush. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Do those books say "most scholars" and "based on such and such line in book 5"? What pages are they on? Why can't the user who added the reference fix it himself? He already admitted he doesn't want to because
Ryulong constant edit warring with other users
ryulong reverted me on my own talkpage when i removed his notice which i considered vandalism. he is acussing me of edit warring while he constantly edit warred on the soviet union article and other pages, it is much easier to refer his edit warring by simply looking at the edit history because you will directly see all his mass reverting and one can notice it by simply as said looking at the edit history
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ryulong
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&action=history
- i have also notified him on his talkpage see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&oldid=600171454 Anignome (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Edit warring by User:Ryulong at Ultraman reported additionally by Medeis
I hadn't gotten around to filing a 3rr report yet, but Ryulong reverted me four times at Ultraman on March 15, and reverted other users as well:
- As well as reverting my own edits on my own talk page the same day:
- While removing my warning of 3rr from his talk page.
- The user, in addition to
has demanded on my talk page that I find images he prefers in his desired format from the same source. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note also the user's extensive block log, and the appearance of two recent possible sock puppets at Ultraman making the same edits. μηδείς (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- This does seem consistent with behaviour I've observed from him in the past. He has a major WP:OWN issue over anime and manga. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- This does seem consistent with behaviour I've observed from him in the past. He has a major
← I've blocked the original poster as a sock of banned user Chaosname (talk · contribs). Tiptoety talk 16:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- The behavior still exists, User:Tiptoety. Should I leave this here in hope of action, or file a separate 3RR complaint? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Users are entitled to remove messages/warnings etc from their own talk page, Ryulong has no right to forcibly reinstate comments or discussions. And this isn't the first time, it's a common issue. It does seem that Ryulong simply can't help themselves when they get into a dispute and they continue to the bitter end. Their list of edit warring and disruptive editing is getting longer and longer, they are quite aware of the rules. Canterbury Tail talk 16:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'll agree that some of Ryulong's behavior is troublesome, and similar to past behavior described at 17:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Anignome was looking suspicious, and all this because he thought <sup>1</sup> was a better idea than {{ref|1|1}}. Thank you Tiptoety.
- Onto Medeis's issues, I attempted to engage in discussion with him but he refused to respond, even when I brought the discussion to the article talk page per his requests. Medeis has been edit warring to restore his preferred set up of the WP:POINTy. It just shows that Medeis is not as acquainted with policy as he thinks he is.
- And regarding the issues that Tiptoety messaged me about (the reverts on the templates), I had meant to inform ScottKazama of my issues regarding the multiple edits he had done succession (I did somewhat address it, though) but it slipped my mind after something else came up. I have my own issues regarding this editor (he doesn't seem to meet WP:CIR), but that's a different story.
- And I find Adam Cuerden's generalization completely out of line. He is basing this off of a handful of single reverts I have made to pages when editors perform drastic changes without discussing it first. I edit a range of pages and I try my best to make sure that they're up to par with the site's overall standards because more often than not these are fancruft laden monstrosities that need reigning in, and I'm the big bad guy whenever other editors in these areas come across me trying to make sure that happens.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ryulong, you are "the big bad guy" if you continue to edit war to "protect" these pages. I commend your efforts in spirit, but it really does seem a bit like WP:OWN at times. Maybe you've taken on a bit too much? I think my head would explode if I had a huge swath of articles on my watchlist and tried to maintain quality standards on them. I think that's one of the big reasons why you continue to show up on this board. I declineda request from you yesterday to protect an article that you were in an edit war with, and you improperly called the other editor a vandal. I think you can't keep perspective over your "domain" and I think your self-appointed role as defender of those articles is doomed and ultimately in violation of our policies and guidelines.
- Ryulong, you are "the big bad guy" if you continue to edit war to "protect" these pages. I commend your efforts in spirit, but it really does seem a bit like
- I'll agree that some of Ryulong's behavior is troublesome, and similar to past behavior described at 17:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, even though it turns out that Anignome was a sockpuppet (which doesn't shock me, really, "AN/I gnome" as a username?) you still should not be reverting another editor at their own user talk page. WP:BLANKING has a very limited list of notifications that an editor is not allowed to remove from their user talk page and vandalism warnings are not among them (and I'm sure you know that). -- Atama頭22:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I never used the word "protect" to refer to any of my actions. And the only thing I reverted on anyone's talk page that's involved here are a series of messages that were never heeded because the editor (Medeis) deemed them related to article improvement rather than being directed towards him and he has a request at the top of his page demanding such content go to article talk pages rather than his user talk. Unless you're referring to my removal of Medeis's "you are edit warring" warning, which appears to be in line with things users are allowed to remove from their own user talks. Also his labeling of this as a "demand" is laughable.
- All any of this teaches me that if I cross paths with one sockpuppet of a banned editor, anyone who feels I've slighted them in the past week decides to try to drag me through the mud and likeminded people enable them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, the word "protect" is my own, it's how it looks like you are treating these articles in my perspective. And I'm referring to the revert on Anignome's user talk page, seen here, which you should definitely have not done. Let me repeat, you cannot do that, and you cannot edit war with an editor. I'm concerned that you have such a difficulty differentiating between what is and isn't vandalism; vandalism is not an edit that reduces the quality of an article, or that you simply disagree with. It has to be a deliberate attempt to damage a page. The burden is on the accuser to make that clear if the vandalism isn't obvious. I'm not trying to crack down on you here, I'm trying to give you advice to help keep you out of trouble, but your insistence on continuing this behavior is leading you further down a bad road. Just think, if you continue down that path, all the sockpuppets and other malcontents you deal with will be able to enjoy watching you sanctioned, is that what you want? -- Atama頭 23:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, yes. Well, he was wrong in labeling my warning as "vandalism". And it is a bad habit to just hit the red revert link in regards to just bad content rather than someone replacing half of the article with an ASCII penis that the MW formatting won't display properly. I try not to do this, unless it's deleterious edits all by a single editor after which I use the "don't leave an edit summary" revert and try to leave the user a message as to why I did what I did. I apologize that I forgot to do it re:ScottKazama's edits as Tiptoety pointed out on my user talk. I'm fairly sure I did do it on the article you declined protection on (although I probably could have been slightly kinder to the IP whose edits I was trying to clean up). I'm just tired of getting listed here like once a month because of sockpuppets or editors who insist that I'm violating WP:OWN after I revert them once. It's always something and I can't avoid it. I would not have thought that a reality show's unaired and unmentioned corrections would have been such a divisive issue, nor infobox formatting, but I'm entrenched in those.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, your warning was definitely not vandalism (obviously) and should not have been labeled as such. And you've been around Wikipedia enough to know that 03:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, yes. Well, he was wrong in labeling my warning as "vandalism". And it is a bad habit to just hit the red revert link in regards to just bad content rather than someone replacing half of the article with an ASCII penis that the MW formatting won't display properly. I try not to do this, unless it's deleterious edits all by a single editor after which I use the "don't leave an edit summary" revert and try to leave the user a message as to why I did what I did. I apologize that I forgot to do it re:ScottKazama's edits as Tiptoety pointed out on my user talk. I'm fairly sure I did do it on the article you declined protection on (although I probably could have been slightly kinder to the IP whose edits I was trying to clean up). I'm just tired of getting listed here like once a month because of sockpuppets or editors who insist that I'm violating
- Sorry, the word "protect" is my own, it's how it looks like you are treating these articles in my perspective. And I'm referring to the revert on Anignome's user talk page, seen here, which you should definitely have not done. Let me repeat, you cannot do that, and you cannot edit war with an editor. I'm concerned that you have such a difficulty differentiating between what is and isn't vandalism; vandalism is not an edit that reduces the quality of an article, or that you simply disagree with. It has to be a deliberate attempt to damage a page. The burden is on the accuser to make that clear if the vandalism isn't obvious. I'm not trying to crack down on you here, I'm trying to give you advice to help keep you out of trouble, but your insistence on continuing this behavior is leading you further down a bad road. Just think, if you continue down that path, all the sockpuppets and other malcontents you deal with will be able to enjoy watching you sanctioned, is that what you want? -- Atama頭 23:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, even though it turns out that Anignome was a sockpuppet (which doesn't shock me, really, "AN/I gnome" as a username?) you still should not be reverting another editor at their own user talk page.
Edit warring, accusations of vandalism
Kmoksy (talk · contribs) repeatedly removes the Armenian name from the lead of Erzurum. He's done it four times in the last two days: [136] [137] [138] [139]
This user claims "The city is an Turkish city and the Armenian name is vandalism!"
I invited him to the talk page explaining why the Armenian name is relevant and should be in the lead (per
When I warned for edit-warring and invited him to discuss the issue, he removed my comment from his talk page with the edit summary "vandalism".
He was also warned by another user,
19:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)- The edits do not fall into the definition of WP:3RR but perhaps the spirit of it since more than one editor has tried to restore the content. The editor also has the right to maintain and organized content on their associated talk page. Essentially you're looking at a content dispute and both parties have engaged in the talk page (albeit minimally in some cases). I would recommend some sort of dispute resolution and if nothing comes of it then you could re-report it has disruptive editing against consensus (if it is found). Mkdwtalk19:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'll have to disagree. The user clearly refuses to engage in talk page discussion. I have not heard any reasonable argument from the user. All he does is claim that the inclusion of the Armenian name (which completely falls within 19:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. Yes, any user has the right to remove another user's comments from their talk page, but calling an invitation to discussion "vandalism" and a warning "terrorization" is quite unacceptable and shows their 19:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree with what? That you should take it to dispute resolution like others have also said you should? So far you've made a statement about multiple things and we've either replied or suggested the recommended next step in escalating dispute resolution. If you're seeking a block that's not likely since you've only experienced a few reverts and a bit of discussion that hasn't gone very far. Blocks are also preventative not punitive and even then WP:CIVIL does not recommend blocks for misidentifying vandalism or being difficult to deal with. Mkdwtalk21:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree with your statement that "both parties have engaged in the talk page". Kmoksy has clearly refused to engage in the talk page. And has called my invitation "vandalism", and EtienneDolet's warning "terrorization". If this isn't enough to block him, then I have nothing else to do here. Thanks for your help. --Երևանցի talk 21:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree with what? That you should take it to dispute resolution like others have also said you should? So far you've made a statement about multiple things and we've either replied or suggested the recommended next step in escalating dispute resolution. If you're seeking a block that's not likely since you've only experienced a few reverts and a bit of discussion that hasn't gone very far. Blocks are also preventative not punitive and even then
- As per 19:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- What am I suppose to do when the user who removes it constantly calls it "vandalism" and doesn't show any willingness to discuss, yet alone reach consensus? --Երևանցի talk 20:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- 20:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've invited him to discuss the issue, he removed my comment from his talk page. The only thing he's commented on the article talk page is this: "The city a Turkish city, not Armenian city". --Երևանցի talk 20:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- 20:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- What am I suppose to do when the user who removes it constantly calls it "vandalism" and doesn't show any willingness to discuss, yet alone reach consensus? --Երևանցի talk 20:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history for the article, there is an edit war going on but no one has violated 3R and looking at number of reverters, opinion seems evenly split (no consensus). I think you have policy on your side, Երևանցի but I recommend patience and having a fuller discussion on the talk page to establish a consensus from a larger group of editors than the four or five who are reverting this one edit. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Constantly stalked and harassed by a user
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm constantly being harassed by
Alas, this turned out to be impossible: the user continues to follow my edits everywhere and reverts them no matter what topic I edit [144], [145] (note I was notified of the last edit with the automatic message 'Your edit on 2014 Ukrainian revolution was reverted by Dougweller', so he intentionally used the 'undo' feature concerning my previous edit). He's simply following my edits and reverting anything he either does not like or simply considers worthwhile reverting for causing trouble. His apparent aim is to
This is really shameless, especially if you consider that the user concerned is an admin. Last time here on noticeboard I was basically told Dougweller is a goody and I'm the baddy so he has the right to violate Wikipedia's policies in impunity. No-one even denied Dougweller was stalking my edits (the fact is quite obvious and undeniable). It is my view though that policies such as
Edit warring and NPOV at Logan River Academy
Logan River Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
67.177.32.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
1LastManStanding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
209.6.193.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is an interesting little squabble that has been going on for months. The page started as largely a smear campaign at the beginning of November created by SPA Mgottesfeld. 67.177.32.215 started whitewashing the page the other way. At this point. 209.6.193.140 reverted him. Then the page creator began edit warring over the article, until he stopped after a 3RR report. Everything stayed this way until early February when another SPA 173.14.238.190, now inactive, white washed it again. After he goes inactive, 67 comes back, lo and behold, and carries on his work. 209 reverted once during this time. From Feb. 25 until the 7th it stopped, until 67 again just reverts some constructive edits, and continues to edit-war until the 11th. Then a fresh SPA, 1LastManStanding, comes into the picture and begins to whitewash. 209 asked WPPilot to check out the article and he made one edit. Now 67 and 1LastManStanding are both tag team edit warring over the article, with 209 reverting them. 209, incidentally, is now at 5RR.
All of this article is NPOV one way or another, and it may7 just need to be nuked and started over. KonveyorBelt 19:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- While on the point of nuking and starting over, I suggest full protection as well as another report directly to WP:ANEW. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I was asked by a IP user to review the page and boy does it have issues. To me this page has been a tool to attack the subject and not much more. I am trying to avoid conflict, when I added something that I felt improved the Wiki it was promptly reverted. I had also requested a page lock but that was denied? WPPilot talk 21:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- As the major warfare has been waged by I.P. numbers I really think that a semi protect is in order. Granted that named users have been a part of the battle, the IP semi block would at least put the edit warring to rest as far as the IP numbers listed above are concerned. WPPilot talk 03:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Post to prevent archiving—this still hasn't been fixed and the edit war is still ongoing. KonveyorBelt 16:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose I can step in since this hasn't had much attention. So there are a couple of different issues here.
- First off all, there are behavioral issues that need to be resolved. I guess the question is, what administrator intervention is needed? Activity has been relatively low on the page (especially in the last few days) so any kind of protection seems unnecessary (which is probably why the WP:NPOVafter repeated warnings can lead to blocks, and it doesn't matter if the POV being inserted is positive (spamming/whitewashing) or negative (turning it into an attack page), either is an example of disruption. I can give it a review to see what I can determine, though if anyone has examples of diffs with particularly problematic edits, and some explanation as to what specific concerns the diffs raise (aside from a generic "whitewash" or "attack" accusation) that would be helpful, and may help generate interest from someone other than just myself. The other possibility is that we have socking, which probably will have to be determined behaviorally unless we have multiple named accounts who have edited within the last few months to tie together for CheckUser. I can look for behavioral patterns to indicate sock puppet evidence, though as before diffs could speed this up.
- Secondly, it sounds like the article itself has been a casualty of this whole process. Sometimes it's good when you have biased editors with strong opposing points of view working on an article. Editor A wants to paint the subject in as positive a manner as possible, while Editor B wants the article to reflect how awful the subject is. They argue, they debate, and they dispute one point after another, challenging each other to back up their opinions with reliable sources. If the editors are able to keep things civil, and if they follow policies and guidelines, the end result can end up being a compromise with an article that is balanced (a mix of both A and B's views) and well-sourced. But when you just have edit warriors who try to bomb the article with sweeping changes and don't discuss anything, you instead have a mess of unsubstantiated claims both positive and negative. In a case like that, neutral editors need to sort through the mess and fix things up. It's probable that the article isn't going to be salvaged until the disruption is ended (either with blocks, a change in behavior, or the editors giving up and going away).
- Finally, is the subject notable? There are a lot of references in the article, to some pretty reliable sources, but I haven't had a chance to check how relevant those sources are, and how much coverage the facility has actually received. The answer to disruption at an article shouldn't be to delete it, but if the article doesn't actually merit inclusion, it's a pretty easy fix. -- Atama頭 17:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- To add a quick update, Mgottesfeld has outed himself as "Marty Gottesfeld, Community Organizer" and cites "#ShutLoganRiver" and "www.shutdownloganriver.com" in this edit at Talk:Kids for cash scandal. So this editor clearly has a conflict of interest, and probably should not be editing the Logan River Academy article directly. -- Atama頭 17:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. The editor's different versions of the same article are too biased to blend well. I would suggest blocks, but they'd just make more socks and come back again. KonveyorBelt 16:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Now we have the IP 67 tag team editing with the sock to revert my edits. KonveyorBelt 17:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- When I received the rather "random IP request" and reviewed the page, it was clear that this was going to be a hot potato...I too would suggest blocks on the known COI user and again suggest that a semi protect is put in place to force the IP battle to stop. As mentioned on the talk page the place seems to have a little notability but any non biased user that goes wading through the stuff to edit it into a article that is not effected by the above mentioned battle is useless. That will never happen unless action is taken. WPPilot - talk 01:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Paul Gaskell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor has been involved in very suspicious behaviour and a sort of "
HOW DARE YOU HAVE THE EFFRONTERY TO RE-INSTATE MATERIAL WHICH I HAVE PREVIOUSLY WITHDRAWN DUE TO CONSTANT INTERFERENCE BY WIKI EDITORS ! THESE COLOUR PHOTOS WHICH ARE MY OWN AND THEREFORE MY COPYRIGHT, TOGETHER WITH ACCOMPANYING PHOTO AND BODY TEXT WERE REMOVED BY ME SEVERAL WEEKS AGO BECAUSE OF THIS.
I AM SICK TO THE BACK TEETH OF INTERFERENCE BY WIKI 'EDITORS' WHO SEEM TO CARE MORE ABOUT THEIR OWN AGGRANDISMENT WITHIN THE ORGANISATION THAN THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF SUBJECTS AND GENUINE LOCAL PROVIDERS OF SUCH - THEREFORE QUASI-VANDALISING THE ORGANISATION THEY PURPORT TO SERVE.
AS A RESULT OF THIS, I WILL BE PROVIDING MY WITHDRAWN INFORMATION TO AN ALTERNATIVE UK WEBSITE WHOSE PRIMARY INTEREST IS IN THE HISTORICAL CONTENT OF THIS MATERIAL AND NOT ANY CONSTRUCTIONAL MINUTIAE. RESTORE THE PAGE IMMEDIATELY TO WHAT IT WAS WITHOUT ANY OF MY SUBMISSIONS. WIKI HAS ONLY ITSELF TO BLAME FOR THIS NEGATIVE RESULT, WHICH IN A BROADER PERSPECTIVE DOES NOTHING TO ENCOURAGE FUTURE GENUINE WIKI CONTRIBUTORS - GET THE BALANCE RIGHT !
I think someone needs to take a look at this. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- The problem I foresee is the fact that in this case the uploader was not contacted with regards to the uploader's wish of whether he desired to keep the images local or move it to commons. (He preferred the images to be local, but when Sfan00 IMG tagged the 4 images afterwards for {{keep local}}, he was never told about it; I assume this is why the editor is upset since someone keeps changing the page without consulting him.) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- He also needs to be reminded that clicking 'submit' irrevocably licenses the submissions; there are no "take-backsies". - The Bushranger One ping only 07:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- The images were originally tagged for Commons, those tags were removed. The tag was removed. So based on past experience with other editors, who didn't want material on Commons, the image were tagged {{keep local}}, in line with the view that was apparently expressed by the uploader. The keep local tag was subsquently removed. The images concerned are now at FFD as they appeared to be unused. following changes to the article.
- To make an allegation of "vandalism" against contributors acting in good faith, is bit harsh. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I also note that the uploader (on their talk page) got annoyed when File:Local passenger train at old St. Helens Central GCR) station.jpg was queried as to it's exact status. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Further to the above, the uploader claims that on or around the 27th they got 6 e-mails from me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paul_Gaskell#St._Helens_Central_.28GCR.29_Railway_Station). I've never sent them any e-mails. All I did was query stauts, or tag for Commons transfer WITHIN the Mediawiki interface. I'd also like to request a checkuser so that it's clear once and for all that Stefan2/4 is not me. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
This editor is apparently not going to be continuing to edit on Wikipedia so warnings and such would have no effect on him, if they were warranted. Is there a problem with honoring his request and simply not using his images? It sounds like they are up for deletion any way. Liz Read! Talk! 16:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I tried interacting with this user, with some success at first, and even tried to explain the position regarding image licensing; but my last two posts seem to have been ignored. Unfortunately this user - like so many others - seems to be under the impression that having a copy of a photograph in their possession means that they own the image and therefore the copyright. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Support Paul: He's just totally fed up with all the templating he's been receiving. I do sympathise. He's a good-faith editor and a local historian doing just the sort of thing we should be actively supporting at Wikipedia. As far as I can see he's going to withdraw from editing and that strikes me as a real shame. It seems to me there's a "culture" problem at
- ) 23:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Stefan2 (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Stefan. First of all (but I do I know that you have high proficiency in English) you ought to know that your use of "this guy" in British English (and Paul is British) suggests contempt. Secondly our disagreement is not just about NFCC, as you know. Thirdly I assumed there was no need to notify you of my comments because I had wikilinked your username.
- You did template Paul once, but your complaint is legitimate because indeed I confused you with Sfan00 IMG, with whom I have also had an issue in the past as recorded on my Talk page: just a momentary confusion, so sorry. So I've edited my remarks and apologise. If you want to me to strike instead I'll do that. I would like my remarks about NFCR to stand though. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi,
- Paul seems to be upset because he has received several e-mails and because file information pages have been modified. He removed the templates added by User:Sfan00 IMG, which to me suggests that he did not understand what the templates meant and that he hoped to avoid any potential "problems" by removing them. New users do not necessarily know what Commons is, so adding templates that a file should be, shouldn't be or has been moved to Commons could be confusing.
- Paul was also upset because a file was tagged as missing permission. Looking at his recent edits, I see that he has mentioned this on Stefan2 (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I would say you (and Sfan) did a poor PR job here, Stefan. You should be doing better than this as ambassadors for Wikipedia. This is what I mean about the "culture" problem at NFCR.: the idea that all these "guys" out there are trying to pull a fast one. But mostly they are good faith editors and they should be nurtured and cherished more carefully. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think I've heard enough in this thread. Perhaps it's time that some of us took a break from doing image work?.
(I note that some concerns were also raised at Commons about over-vigorus copyright policy enforcement). I like to think I do things in good faith, but it seems there is a perception about competence.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Naveen Reddy has been warned about his style on the Soka Gakkai talk page. Disruptive editing behaviour on that page and others though continued today. Can a Block be considered? Please notice that the issue was raised just yesterday.--Catflap08 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Catflap08, do you have specific examples (diffs) to share that illustrate behavior you think is disruptive? Liz Read! Talk! 16:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Why did you block Catflap08? Catflap08 is one of the few non-advocate editors on the pages in question, and the last thread on the talk page readily shows the problems with Naveen's conduct. I haven't looked through the recent talk page in detail for conduct problems from Catflap08, but I also see absolutely none described here. Is that the proper way to block people from editing?
- I should note that there was a thread posted before this one which is still live and can be viewed above, where Mr. Stradivarius was the only uninvolved person to comment.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Catflap08 violated WP:3RR, which can and often does lead to a block to stop the edit war. Not only did they violate 3RR, but unlike their opponent they didn't even bother with edit summaries throughout that process. All that Catflap08 really needed to do was ask for an unblock and promise to stop reverting at the page, and any reasonable admin would probably have unblocked them (I probably would have). Instead, they insisted that the block was improper and made no suggestion that they would stop reverting, and by insisting that the reverts were proper, they at least implied that they would continue the edit war if unblocked. To be honest, edit-warring is unacceptable from anyone, and Catflap08 doesn't have some kind of special immunity because they are editing an unpopular article. -- Atama頭21:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Atama summarises my approach accurately. This looked like blind reversion, and the only time that's permitted is extreme circumstances such as blatant vandalism (e.g. replacing the page with obscenities) or copyright infringements. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I see. Was he at least warned about the edit warring, though? I can't see whether he has a history of edit warring related blocks.
- At any rate, he has no "Retired", and those articles are seriously problematic--almost as much as Judiasm/Zionism articles--with advocates posting advocacy material continually. I don't have sufficient time to monitor them myself, though I have made a couple edits, etc. The point is that it is important to evaluate and engage such editors, because Wikipedia needs them.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- If Catflap08 isn't willing to abide by one of Wikipedia's most core tenets, which is that we don't get involved in endless edit wars and we instead discuss matter with other editors (even editors who aren't particularly 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Atama summarises my approach accurately. This looked like blind reversion, and the only time that's permitted is
- Catflap08 violated
Well done then. Not my problem any more. I reported the problem since REFERENCED material got deleted by an editor clearly with a COI problem. You're blocking procedure works faster than calls to warn editors who missuse articles and corrupt them. Seems that the quality of articles ain't top of the agenda (so much to “core tenet “ ).--Catflap08 (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
interaction ban request
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.
- )
- Unscintillating (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I think it is time a there was officially a wall between me and this user. We don't agree on some issues, and whenever I state my disagreement he becomes extremely agitated and attacks my motivations. This all began because I dared to suggest that the Article Incubator was not working and we should close it. At the same time that I was proposing this he was trying to expand it by adding a portal and an entirely new process called the "incubator greenhouse". Both of those areas were deleted and the incubator was in fact finally closed in favor of the new draft namespace. So, I thought we probably wouldn't run into one another again and that we would have no more unpleasant encounters until I was pinged at
And this isn't the first time:
- AN thread in which he repeatedly says I am delusional and should be banned from the incubator
- Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Archive 4#Proposal to mark as historical, a discussion in which he repeatedly implies some sort of sinister motivations on my part
- There's more, but it is fairly repetitive. Every time I comment on something he assumes the absolute worst and implies I have some hidden agenda when in fact my agenda was not hidden at all and I was entirely upfront about my positions and why I took them.
I wish he could just let it go and stop smearing my name at every possible opportunity, but that seems to be too much to ask, so I ask for an interaction ban. It need only be one way as I have not and do not plan to go looking for opportunities to mention his name, but if folks think a two-way is better that's fine with me.
- Normally, these belong at WP:AN rather than WP:ANI but I won't labor it. As for supporting it or not, I would lean not simply because I've never seen an Arb request an interaction ban and it strikes me as rather odd. I would have to let that roll around my brain for a while... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not asking as an arb, I am asking as a member of this community who would prefer that another member of it stop their talk) 20:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that and respect the difference, but it still is unusual and people still see it as "an arb" (just a small part of the price you are paying for the glory, I'm sure). Not sure if it is a precedent, or if there are unintended consequences. One expectation is that Arbs are expected to be able to handle dispute resolution, and (as pointed out below) I would want to see what has been tried before this radical step. It is no secret that I'm not a fan of interaction bans and only support them if there really is no other way to deal with an issue. Enforcement is always a pain, for starters. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Let me add: IBs usually work ok if the dispute is two sided and two people just grate each other and both are on equal footing. If it is a one sided problem, IB is the wrong answer, as it must be enforced equally on both sides, and it makes it easy for the problem side to game the system, or just eat up time at ANI. In other words, they grief you by causing more process over the IB. RFC/U might be a better answer, although I'm not a fan of that process either, as it has no teeth. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that and respect the difference, but it still is unusual and people still see it as "an arb" (just a small part of the price you are paying for the glory, I'm sure). Not sure if it is a precedent, or if there are unintended consequences. One expectation is that Arbs are expected to be able to handle dispute resolution, and (as pointed out below) I would want to see what has been tried before this radical step. It is no secret that I'm not a fan of interaction bans and only support them if there really is no other way to deal with an issue. Enforcement is always a pain, for starters. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not asking as an arb, I am asking as a member of this community who would prefer that another member of it stop their
- Token Objection: What DR steps have you tried prior to requesting this interaction ban? Somewhat in jest, but if one of the members of the highest form of DR isn't following the prescribed checklist, what does that say about Conduct DR? Hasteur (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Where would you suggest? There isn't an article that is the locus of the dispute, the entire project that was at the center of it has been gone for a while now. There is no dispute so far as I am concerned. It is a dead issue and I would like it to be buried. I am not interested in having a discussion with him, I just want him to leave me alone and to stop making accusations about my motivations. If he can promise to do that we can be done right here and now. talk) 20:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unscintillating is still a redlink (as Dennis Brown indicated). That indicates that you haven't tried the lower avenues of DR. Imagine if this were brought to ArbCom in it's current state. The request would have been bounced because as a Conduct Dispute, the lower forms (such as RFC/U or talk page requests) don't appear to have been attempted by you, whereas requests on your talk page were met with significantly less than good faith. With great power comes great responsibility, and being an Arbitrator is just about the highest responsibility that you can have an enWP. Hasteur (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- @
- Where would you suggest? There isn't an article that is the locus of the dispute, the entire project that was at the center of it has been gone for a while now. There is no dispute so far as I am concerned. It is a dead issue and I would like it to be buried. I am not interested in having a discussion with him, I just want him to leave me alone and to stop making accusations about my motivations. If he can promise to do that we can be done right here and now.
- Comment- Agreed, that was not a personal attack and Unscintillating had no business redacting it. For someone who spends so much time making wildly speculative criticisms of others he is very touchy when it comes to scrutiny of his own behaviour, but Unscintillating's attitude towards the project and fellow editors has always been very poor. This protracted whinge campaign against Beeblebrox is nothing new; he did the annoying as possible. His mode of operation is to wikilawyer endlessly, playing pointless semantic games and acting as self-appointed tone police, often with fancy custom templates and high-sounding officialese. The intent is to get an exasperated response from people, which he then holds against them. Reyk YO!20:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- If this is the case and it is an ongoing issue with other editors, then an RFC/U is more appropriate than an interaction ban. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- non admin comment I think Beeblebrox's actions in the past regarding the incubator are quite correct, and Unscintilating is perhaps too emotionally attached to that part of the project to think clearly. But if the recent AFD comment is the extent of recent interaction, then I think an iBan is un-needed at this point - a single comment in 6 months does not require intervention. If hes hounding you more than that, then show the diffs, and there is something to discuss. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely oppose after considering. What if he posts a legit notice on your page, you respond snippy, he does the same, three comments later he calls you a fucktard and gets blocked. Now it might look like favoritism because you are an Arb. We get claims like that as admin, you know it will happen more so to an Arb. Or the other way around, and the admin hesitates to block because you are an Arb. (Many admin would be reluctant to block an Arb, you know this) The problem is that this would be completely uneforceable without causing major drama and questions over fairness. No matter what any admin does to enforce, some in the community may see it as favoritism, so many admin won't want to enforce it at all because they don't want the hassle. You need to consider an RFC/U or other process if this is an ongoing issue. I hate it for you, but that is part of the burden of the bits. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- As an uninvolved party, I'd agree with others that an IB seems premature. However, a warning for the inappropriate removal of Beeblebrox's comment, as well as an admonishment against dredging up past disputes, would be about right. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- The edit which is disputed here is when I said that "two admins intent on moving articles from the incubator to deletespace did a number on a properly improved Wikipedia article with references showing national and international attention." I have objectified the slang here so that the sentence now reads, "two admins with a history of deleting articles in the incubator deleted a properly improved Wikipedia article with references showing national and international attention." Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- It has been exactly seven days since Beeblebrox was previously at ANI because of WP:NPA. As I said then, there are exactly two editors at Wikipedia who have banished me from their talk pages, those being Reyk and Beeblebrox. Reyk has also tried to obtain an interaction ban against me. Here is the one time I posted to Beeblebrox's talk page. I was first told that my post was "booooring....". After initially talking about "...a magic sky castle staffed by monkey butlers and magic unicorns", the reply was amended a couple of hours later to tell me not to post there again. Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- At the ANI seven days ago, I asked a question and didn't get an answer. What is the procedure to remove an editor from the oversight committee? Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- First, there is no set process for removing an arb.
- Second, when one finds themself in a hole, it's generally a good idea to stop digging. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 08:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Unscintilating, while I agree that there might have been some initial justification to your complaint, Wikipedia has no right for you to demand satisfactory enforcement or apology. To the contrary, you appear to be trying to bait him into another confrontation. Please drop it. There are only so many buttons you can push in so public a manner before either an uninvolved admin reaches for the "block" button or an interaction ban passes community consensus. Please stop now while it's only a temporary ding on everyone's reputations. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Unscintilating, while I agree that there might have been some initial justification to your complaint, Wikipedia has no right for you to demand satisfactory enforcement or apology. To the contrary, you appear to be
- Perhaps now that he has joined the discussion it is more clear what it has been like to be on the receiving end of this.The talk page edit he points out was from a year ago. In it, he complains about AFDs we both participated in one and two years before that. This guy holds onto to every little comment he doesn't like and saves it in his "grudge file" so he can trot it back out a year or two later. As for the incident from just last week, another user, who also had trouble dropping the stick, brought me here because of a comment I made during a content dispute. Next thing I know Unscintilatiing is asking how to give me the boot from oversight, despite the fact that the content dispute had absolutely nothing to do with the use of advanced permissions.
- @talk) 17:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox, thank you for the offer that I continue to not talk to you, as I have been doing since last Fall, when you led a successful effort to destroy the work I had been doing to improve the incubator. You give me the novel choice either of being uncivil, by not responding to your proposal; or refusing your proposal. At Wikipedia, discussion is required, so it is an easy choice. Are you ready to continue the discussion that I started on your talk page? Unscintillating (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, the choice I presented was to agree to drop it or to not agree to drop it. I don't see what purpose there would be in having a discussion about old, dead issues that keep wanting to bring back up, that is rather my whole point here. talk) 17:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, the choice I presented was to agree to drop it or to not agree to drop it. I don't see what purpose there would be in having a discussion about old, dead issues that keep wanting to bring back up, that is rather my whole point here.
- Beeblebrox, thank you for the offer that I continue to not talk to you, as I have been doing since last Fall, when you led a successful effort to destroy the work I had been doing to improve the incubator. You give me the novel choice either of being uncivil, by not responding to your proposal; or refusing your proposal. At Wikipedia, discussion is required, so it is an easy choice. Are you ready to continue the discussion that I started on your talk page? Unscintillating (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- We have found out in this discussion that some people don't know the difference between arbcom and the oversight committee. I have asked twice recently, and still have no answer as to the process to remove an editor from the oversight committee. Unscintillating (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- While Beeblebrox earned the OS bit before he became Arb, the bit is required to be an Arb, which is why it is granted upon election. As such, to remove the OS bit is more or less requires he would removed from Arb. In order to get the OS bit removed (Arb or not) requires you file at Arb itself, as they are over the OS and CU bits directly. Email them if you must. We have no authority at WP:AN and WP:ANI to address or discuss that concern. I don't recommend pursuing this at Arb unless there is a lot of evidence of abuse that I haven't seen. Without clear and ample evidence, the request will just look vindictive and subject to a boomerang. I think you both just need to avoid each other, which doesn't require an official declaration from anyone. It is pretty clear that an IB isn't going to happen, but you are both adults and are capable of staying away from each other with the force of a formal ban. Since he has made it very clear he wants an air gap between the two of you, you need to simply avoid him, else you run the risk of your actions (rightly or wrongly) being interpreted as hounding. Just "pretend" there is an IB and avoid each other completely. Each of us have someone(s) we simply can not get along with, but we all are expected to still act like professionals when dealing with each other. You both are fully capable of this, which is why no administrative action is needed here, just a little discipline on both of your parts. This will avoid either of you getting blocked in the future. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Err... You (Unscintillating) keep referring to "the oversight committee". There is none.
- Oversight is a special administrative permission to make an edit dissapear from the public record, should it include threats or libel...
- What have you been talking about, precisely?
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am also at a loss as I don't recall using suppression, or any other advanced permissions, in any of the areas that have been the subject of our previous disputes. This is why this feels more to me like a campaign of harassment than just a normal minor disagreement between editors. However, if you have a legitimate complaint about my use of oversight you should contact talk) 17:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am also at a loss as I don't recall using suppression, or any other advanced permissions, in any of the areas that have been the subject of our previous disputes. This is why this feels more to me like a campaign of harassment than just a normal minor disagreement between editors. However, if you have a legitimate complaint about my use of oversight you should contact
For the record, this discussion was closed while I was preparing a response, and the closing complicates any response I may make. Sorry, but I have a RL. Unscintillating (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
MEAT at Vassula Ryden
There is some serious meat puppetry going on at
- Related: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arkatakor#Comments_by_other_users, Second Quantization (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ok first a few corrections to your opening statement:
- RE: to insert material to imply the Catholic church accepts Vassula Ryden. This is not the case, the editors are simply discussing including the dialogue with the CDF as part of the chronology of events. Read the discussions in the talkpage.
- RE: based on primary sources. The CDF dialogue is not only backed by the insidethevatican source written by a Cardinal who corresponded with Ryden on behalf of the Vatican, its further supported by an RSN approved Oxford University Press source written by a subject matter Niels Hvidt, who provides context for the CDF dialogue. This source was also mentioned in the discussions. I do not see how you can call both of these primary sources. Arkatakor (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not here to debate the content (once again) (RSN: "There is no reason to consider use of this source", RSN approved does not mean mean anything since its a noticeboard, Grech is a primary source for his own opinions about an incident he was involved in), I'm here to discuss the concerns with the MEAT puppetry, Second Quantization (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- RE: "RSN: There is no reason to consider use of this source". If you are going to quote the RSN, quote the full sentence: "RSN: Swiss journalists are not experts in the structure of internal Catholic disciplinary limitations against external texts, Hvidt already supplies a scholarly account. There is no reason to consider use of this source.". Fifelfoo was referring to the Swiss publication, not Hvidt's source. What is alarming is that you are full aware of this as you participated in that discussion (under the name of IRWolfie). This makes it your 3rd attempt to mislead readers in this discussion alone.
- RE: RSN approved does not mean mean anything since its a noticeboard. I invite readers of this conversation to read the full RSN being discussed here, particularly Fifelfoo's reaction towards IRWolfie's (now Second Quantization)'s treatment of Hvidt's work. It should not be a surprise therefore, that he continues to undermine the RSN findings in this discussion.
- RE: I'm here to discuss the concerns with the MEAT puppetry. Is opening the discussion with misleading statements part of your strategy? Arkatakor (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not here to debate the content (once again) (RSN: "There is no reason to consider use of this source", RSN approved does not mean mean anything since its a noticeboard, Grech is a primary source for his own opinions about an incident he was involved in), I'm here to discuss the concerns with the MEAT puppetry, Second Quantization (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- RE: to insert material to imply the Catholic church accepts Vassula Ryden. This is not the case, the editors are simply discussing including the dialogue with the CDF as part of the chronology of events. Read the discussions in the
- Ok first a few corrections to your opening statement:
I am copying the same response to the two places this matter seems to have been placed. Please understand that I do not understand the complex 'machinery' of Wikipedia! This matter is being raised by 'Second Quantization' who, until a few weeks ago operated under the name 'IRWolfie'. Why he has chosen to change his name seems very strange to me to say the least! The recent attempted edits to the Vassula page are as a result of the appearance, in January, of an important review of a recent book by Vassula in a long established magazine, Inside the Vatican. The review was written by a Cardinal who played an important role in the Vatican's only dialogue with Vassula. A group of editors have consistently blocked reference to this dialogue on the WP page. The result of the relentless editing of the Vassula page by the same group of editors has resulted in a ridiculous collection of negative material with almost no positive material. Sasanack (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- The background to this ANI discussion is that Mannanan51 worked to clean up the article. This started a flurry of activity lasting through March 2012, then there was another round of back-and-forth editing from May to July 2012. At that point, several veteran Wikipedia editors (Lucky Louie, IRWolfie, Dominus Vobisdu and myself) had taken the article in hand, to prevent an imbalance of too much positive information from appearing, and to make certain that the well-referenced negative information was kept. Especially important was that the Vatican's negative Notification against Ryden was to remain a prominent point in the biography, despite the efforts of Ryden and her fans to put a positive spin on the Vatican communications.) 17:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The new development in the biography was in January 2014 when Ryden announced a new book. Webwidget added some positive text, then Oct13 added some negative text, poorly sourced. Finally, Sasanack added some positive text in the old vein of putting a positive spin on the Vatican communication. So now we're back at ANI discussing the same old themes. Binksternet (talk
- Also related, Sasanack self-outed as the registrant for Vassula Ryden's website [147] so there has been an ongoing concern about recruitment and off wiki coordination by Ryden followers and members of her organization. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Kinda baffled here seeing my name in a post outside the Talk page where I posted yesterday – as a relative newbie to Wikipedia (tried making a few edits a couple of years ago, but found the formatting/editing text a bit beyond me – more complex than I’d figured!) – thought I’d maybe give it a try again when I saw that ‘Inside the Vatican’ article. Saw the article briefly referenced in the Rydén article hence my visit to the Talk page where I posted for the 1st time ever adding my 2 cents… (how to actually post in the Talk page took me a while to figure out!) Appreciate I’m new to this but thought that Wikipedia was open to anyone to volunteer… will hang in here & hopefully learn more! ☺ Siamsiocht (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamsiocht (talk • contribs)
Binkstrnet, many of your points regarding the article, such the notification (which you have incorrectly interpreted as a condemnation) as well as your opinion that the article is balanced and using reliable sources, is subject to debate. I will refrain from commenting further on these points as I understand that this is not the main theme of this topic.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight that, even though the Ryden article has gone many months (sometimes even years) without activity, as soon as there is any level of debate in the talk page of the article, Binksternet, IRWolfie (now Second Quantization) and LuckyLouie all seem to show up and join these discussions at the same time. I do not know if this is indicative of some sort of coordinated effort, but it could be worth making an investigation in the reverse order. In any case, since May 2012, these 3 users alone have largely contributed to turning a relatively informative version of the article, into a virtually
The Ryden article was the main article I got involved in a few years ago and I had that many rules thrown in my face that I learnt a lot and after a while I gave up, I remember an article on badgers that I helped someone with around the same time who had asked for help on a notice board as they declared a COI and the experience was like night and day to working in the Ryden BLP, there was a huge heated debate on the Ryden BLP at that time, RFC/RSN/DRN and its interesting to see above about consensus over weight of numbers as there was an OUP source a couple of years back that seemed that it should have been included but simply was not allowed in Rydens BLP. What appears to me to be a united front of Binksternet, Second Quantization and LuckyLouie in not allowing for balance or any other point of view to be represented in Rydens BLP and it is like a battle to get anything that has a remotely positive pov added. "No. Simply no. There is no way to game this book review to make the Ryden story a positive one" [Binksternet] The facts are the facts and they are reported in a reputable source but that's what my experience has been like with the Ryden BLP. I also saw the Cardinal Grech article and given that the current BLP is so horrendously biased and bears witness to approx 20,000+ page views per annum came back for another go. When I saw the same old fight starting again I tried to start an RFC on the Grech Article and I dont know if one of the above 3 removed the tag or a bot did as I could not then find it on the RSN board, fair enough maybe it was due to the title I used for the RFC and something more general which I renamed to "Grechs comments" would have been a better tag to start with and I fully expected to be back at RFC today and although surprised when I saw the email about this this morning, now I am not, these 3 users use their superior knowledge and experience to maintain the BLP in its current negative state and go to extraordinary lengths to keep it that way Webwidget (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I now notice that Second Quantization/IRWolfie who posted this 'complaint' only yesterday is now "taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia in August or so" according to his talk page! Doesn't this editor's behavior speak for itself? Sasanack (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- As for taking a wikibreak, that says nothing but that the editor feels he needs a break. Breaks are sometimes a really good idea and can prevent burnout. As for "as soon as there is any level of debate in the talk page of the article, Binksternet, IRWolfie (now Second Quantization) and LuckyLouie all seem to show up and join these discussions at the same time.", that's almost simply because these editors have the page on their watchlist, so activity on the talk page or article is obvious. talk) 10:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am very surprised by Dougweller's response about Second Quantization/IRWolfie's 'wikipedia break'. Of course people need breaks, but to take a 5 month break just one day after accusing a group of editors of foul play is not reasonable. Sasanack (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Since none of us actually know the reason for this break then I don't think we can say whether it is reasonable or unreasonable. There is no Administrative action to be taken here, can we please just drop this? He has been given a self-requested block so he can't even reply here if he wanted to, which I doubt that he does given that he's on a break. So please drop this unless someone has a specific request for a specific action to be taken against a specific editor. talk) — Preceding undatedcomment added 17:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Since none of us actually know the reason for this break then I don't think we can say whether it is reasonable or unreasonable. There is no Administrative action to be taken here, can we please just drop this? He has been given a self-requested block so he can't even reply here if he wanted to, which I doubt that he does given that he's on a break. So please drop this unless someone has a specific request for a specific action to be taken against a specific editor.
I have done some thinking on this topic. Whilst I would like to have had some external feedback on his opening statement, I do not see the point in pursuing this in the light of his absence. If he decided to leave, I will respect that. For this reason I have also removed my previous comment where I stated he should be held accountable for his misleading statements. I will keep this discussion in mind however, should another debate involving Second Quantization/IRWolfie resurface at some point in the future. Hopefully it won't come to that. Arkatakor (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. talk) 13:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
User talk:STATicVapor
I would like STATic to be barred from contacting me and vice-versa. Lately he's been reverting a lot of my edits and I wish he would just simply leave me alone, especially since a lot of the edits have sources. Judging by his talk page, I don't seem to be the only one having issues with him. Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Can you provide links to show he's said anything inappropriate or out of line to you? I mean, you're free to remove most comments from your talk page, so you can delete his comments, but he shouldn't really be "barred" unless he's doing something wrong. So far, most of them I've looked are him warning to follow crucial/major like WP:OR, which strikes me as good, solid advice. Sergecross73 msg me16:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, if I were to take any issue with anyone's talk page messages, it would probably be Jgera's. That's civilly here. Sergecross73 msg me16:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- If you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, any user may revert or otherwise challenge that material per our WP:Verifiability policy. You've provided no evidence that STATicVapor has been interacting with you in an inappropriate manner. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- STATicVapor should not template the regulars. That being said, your reaction is a much more actionable diff. I certainly don't see enough to enforce a dual ban on editing each other's talk pages over what I've seen. Best to move on and avoid each other and when you do focus on the content and how to make it better than taking it personally. Mkdwtalk 18:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- If the user was a knowledgeable regular editor, they would not be frequently violating WP:NOR and adding speculation. Example of recent disruptive edits include [148], [149], and [150]. That is clearly blockable criteria, my actions though not in the slightest. In no way have I ever attempted to harass or torment you, but this looks like clear harassment to me. I liked how you quickly replaced it when you started this thread too. STATic message me!19:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, those edits are awful. Especially that first one, which is both unsourced, original research, and terribly worded. Static was right to warn Jgera. If he doesn't like warnings, he needs to follow our policies better. (That may sound harsh, but Jgera is no newcomer. He should know by now.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I completely agree. You should warn, revert, discuss, etc. with editors that are clearly not newcomers who are not following the policies and guidelines as you interpret. That is the collaborative and cleanup process. I am not disputing that nor criticizing you for that option which you rightly have available to you. I pointed out WP:DTR because the base warning templates are specifically for newcomers and using them on editors that have been around for awhile (regardless of their competence) is not only an incorrect usage of them as directed in their instructions, but it time and time again causes frustrations to flare which is exactly why we have that heavily cited essay. Mkdwtalk21:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I completely agree. You should warn, revert, discuss, etc. with editors that are clearly not newcomers who are not following the policies and guidelines as you interpret. That is the collaborative and cleanup process. I am not disputing that nor criticizing you for that option which you rightly have available to you. I pointed out
- Yes, those edits are awful. Especially that first one, which is both unsourced, original research, and terribly worded. Static was right to warn Jgera. If he doesn't like warnings, he needs to follow our policies better. (That may sound harsh, but Jgera is no newcomer. He should know by now.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- If the user was a knowledgeable regular editor, they would not be frequently violating
- While Jgera5 was completely out of line with his initial comment on Static's page, I completely disagree with other comments being made about Jgera5's edits. Not one of those was disruptive, WP:OR maybe on the second one. But the others were sourced. The first one is always involves some sort of speculation when in progress, and Bleacher Report is not the only site out there calling it a face turn (I will save this argument for the appropriate talk page). And as for SummerSlam thing, that edit is still live using a reliable source so why did you cite it as an example of disruptive editing? Static has his own problems as much as he acts otherwise. Last night, he reverted a very reliable editor's addition of a new theme for WrestleMania without even trying to confirm or disprove the information. It took me less than 10 seconds to confirm the information he reverted and removed. And less than 2 minutes to re-add it and source it. Now granted, my comment on his talk page may have come across as harsh, and I apologize to you for that, but he's not one that needs to be acting like he's perfect, or even close. Static, you have a habit of reverting now and asking questions later. Now with a new or "vandalous" account, that's fine. But when you revert a respected and reliable regular, you need to re-evaluate your methods of how you browse for errors. Your excuse on your talk page I find insufficient. In short, I disagree with the ban from each other's talk pages, BUT Static needs to improve himself as much as Jgera5. Head90 | #WelcomeHome22:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Another editor that does not understand our policy on reliable source for all their additions to a encyclopedia, then they are not very "reliable" (do not know how an editor can be reliable) and should not be as "respected" as you presume. You can say my response to you was insufficient, but I was nothing but polite in response to your combative message. I do not believe there is a single thing I need to improve, but your attitude and viewpoint does definitely need improving. STATic message me!23:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, you did nothing wrong, and I would have done the exact same thing had someone made similar edits on my watchlist. (In fact, I pretty much just did.) The burden is on the person trying to add information to get it up to standard, if its not, you're free to challenge it. But anyways, Jgera says he's willing to drop it, so I suppose we're fine now. Sergecross73 msg me12:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, you did nothing wrong, and I would have done the exact same thing had someone made similar edits on my watchlist. (In fact, I pretty much just did.) The
- Another editor that does not understand our policy on
Look, I acted in anger this morning and was sleep-deprived, and I do apologize for that. With that said, I do have other, more important things to worry about in reality. I think @Mkdw said it best: instead of banning each other and banning contact, let's just try to avoid contact where possible and try to collaborate peacefully on improving Wikipedia when we do need to contact each other. This is perhaps the first major dispute I've had on Wikipedia in nine years and I plan on it being the last. @STATic, I'm willing to put this behind me if you're willing to do the same. Jgera5 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
User:BruceGrubb editing in 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.
User:BruceGrubb is topic banned form articles related to Christianity [151] and articles about fringe theories [152]. Today he has made a series of edits to Talk:Christ myth theory, an article on a fringe theory about Jesus: [153] [154] [155] [156] [157]. Bruce has really never left the talk page, but has edited at intervals from various IP addresses: [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166] and see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BruceGrubb/Archive. Many of these talk page posts recycle material he posted before he was topic banned. Not much can be done to prevent his IP edits short of a range block, I suppose, but the main account can be blocked, and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin would do so. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Being that these are rather blatant violations, I have blocked BruceGrubb for three months. Tiptoety talk 23:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Crimea 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.
Crimea article is under attack from vandals. Can we please have some admin oversight? Thank you. USchick (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Already protected. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- For the record there was very little explaining when it came to edit summaries in the reverts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Fast tracking RM for "Crimea" 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.
We need to fast track the requested move of "Crimea" → "Autonomous Republic of Crimea". People are getting confused to what does "Crimea" mean in the article title and they believe it refers to the "Republic of Crimea" and start making inappropriate changes to the article. You can make "Crimea" a redirect to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" but the move needs to be fast-tracked so that the article's title reflects unambiguously that it's about the Autonomous Republic and not about the newly formed "Republic".
What we do at this moment with
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. I already made mention of this at WP:AN. RGloucester — ☎01:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is consensus for all three articles. How about locking them down and only allowing admin approved edits? USchick (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- It might be worthwhile, but it is best to get on with it. Let's get a third party admin in here, and get it done before more damage is done. RGloucester — ☎
- Actually several editors have expressed concerns that this request is too soon. We have to use the most Common Name for this article and it's a bit too soon to make that determination. JOJ Hutton 02:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Crimea" right now refers to three different things. Hosting the Autonomous Republic at "Crimea" is causing unintended WP:COMMONNAME, this is about preserving the essence of Wikipedia which seeks to portray encyclopedic information. If this article stays hosted in "Crimea" we won't be able to upkeep that essence. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Several editors" (with regard to the move to "Autonomous Republic, not the "Peninsula" bit, which is best kept for later) being a tiny minority of the opinions expressed, which were diverse. It is not too early to make this determination. That article refers only to a state, just as Republic of Crimea refers only to a state. As there are two states claiming the title, then we surely can't make the choice between which one gets to be "Crimea", which would grievously violate NPOV. RGloucester — ☎ 02:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- The large number of editors commenting only goes to prove that with all of the attention the article is getting, there will be people wanting to change the article name as a "knee jerk" reaction based on passion, rather than on what the guidelines at
- "Crimea" right now refers to three different things. Hosting the Autonomous Republic at "Crimea" is causing unintended
- Actually several editors have expressed concerns that this request is too soon. We have to use the most Common Name for this article and it's a bit too soon to make that determination. JOJ Hutton 02:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- It might be worthwhile, but it is best to get on with it. Let's get a third party admin in here, and get it done before more damage is done. RGloucester — ☎
- There is consensus for all three articles. How about locking them down and only allowing admin approved edits? USchick (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
"This page explains in detail the considerations, or naming conventions, on which choices of article title are based. It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view."
We must hold to
- Well, an admin could add a page notice about the differences. So when someone goes in to edit, it would appear. But honestly in this case I'm not sure if there is value to doing that. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
At what point in time did Wikipedia become a Russian propaganda tool? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- What are you referring to? We must hold to neutral point of view. At present, the territory is disputed. There are two separate state entities that claim the territory. We cannot favour one or the other, as that would not be neutral. That would be taking a side. It also ignores the actuality on the ground. RGloucester — ☎ 03:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
We've had move-warring on these articles. The last thing we need now is hastily implemented further moves triggered by discussions on admin noticeboards, without secure consensus, side-stepping the normal processes. There is a requested move, which was only opened two days ago an is drawing a lot of participation. Let it play out normally. There is no need to "fast-track" anything. We can wait a few days more until the consensus there is clear. Please stop debating the content issue on this board. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. Fast-tracking and not following the proper procedure will potentially illegitimise the requested move and cause more damage. We are not favouring one version over another, we are preserving the status quo until a consensus has been established. —Dark 08:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- What do we do about the flow of edits in the meantime? Consensus with regard to the move to "Autonomous Republic" has been established at a much higher level then is usual for most request moves. RGloucester — ☎ 14:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Our coverage of the Crimean crisis is now a total mess. Presently, we have the following articles Republic of Crimea (country). It is getting more confusing by the second, and I'm not sure what to do about. We need administrators to monitor the situation so we don't end up with the mess we have now, as with the two separate Republic of Crimea articles. RGloucester — ☎20:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- *snicker* You think that's bad, check out the Ireland articles sometime… --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I swear, it is quite a good thing that the break-up of the Russian Empire didn't happen in realtime on Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 20:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- This [167] just appeared in the news regarding the craziness here on wikipedia do we really want more headlines to come or can we make the Crimea article more neutral? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I support speeding up the move process. There seems to be a general consensus in favour of it. And now there is also a discussion on the talk page about whether to change the topic of the article. We can't have both; either we move it, or change its topic. So we need to decide, and hopefully soon. talk) 23:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I once again voice my support for a fast track of Crimea to Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The situation at present is untenable, especially with Crimea] fully protected despite rapidly evolving events. RGloucester — ☎ 23:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I support having an admin close the move discussion quickly. There's already plenty of input in the thread. The 7-day waiting rule was not designed for current events.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I too strongly agree the move process should be sped up. We can have a more extensive debate as to whether Crimea should be a disambiguation page or direct to the geographical area or something else, but for now, Wikipedia is in violation of its own NPOV guideline by hosting the article for Autonomous Republic of Crimea under the Crimea article name. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The Biggest Loser Australia: Challenge Australia
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_Herald
He keeps adding in fake and unsourced information the page
Gbold1 (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Persistent upload of copyright 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.
User:SergeiXXX has uploaded several files locally which he claimed were his work, as this one for example, where the source is given as "Took photo myslef" in "February of 2012". As it happens this file had been uploaded to another website on 29 July 2011, so several months before it was supposedly created. I checked a second file (File:Na Dony.jpg) which also turned out to be a copyvio, and his talk page is littered with notices about copyright violation, so as a precautionary measure it would be better if all his file uploads were deleted as likely copyright violations.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl civility complaint
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.
Formerly: I think BrownHairedGirl needs a talk
BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
In current stage 3 on Move review, BHG first contributed this [168] with wording "falsehood" and "dishonest", which lead to this subthead [169] with me asking to withdraw these unproven and bad faith accusations, and to return to rational content discussion. In another subthread in the Move review, after a contribution by co-accused feline1 [170], this accusation [171] followed, again unspecified, blanketing two editors, and a noreply suggestion "enough". This thread followed: [172].
From stage 2, this background. In the aftertalk on closer's talkpage, BHG made unspecified accusations against two editors in one statement [173]. Right after that post the discussion was closed [174] with a noreply status [175]. (Though
Stage 3 is on a Review page, which requires a serious level of discussion. Still it has two castings of accusations by BHG. (Interesting sidenote. I read the
- See the section below, which I posted about the same time as DePiep opened this section.
- I have been subject to a bizarrely lengthy wikilawyering exercise by DePiep, who has repeatedly quoted my words out of context in order to misrepresent me, while Feline1 makes a long series of personal attacks.
- The substantive issue is quite simple. A malformatted move request ended up being discussed at two locations, which is procedurally disruptive. Taking both discussions as a whole, 3 editors opposed the move, while the nominator and one other editor supported it. I judged that on both procedural and substantive grounds, there was not a consensus to proceed with the move,
- I tried to explain my closure to the two editors who supported the move, who are quite entitled to reject my explanation and seek a move review. However, it is unacceptable to subject the closing admin to raw personal attacks (as Feine1 has done), or to abuse the explanations of the closing admin by repeatedly quoting them out of context in order to misrepresent the closer's reasoning. If a closing admin's explanations are abused in this way, then the simple solution is to say nothing beyond the closing statement, which I think would be a sad outcome.
- If a closing a discussion and explaining the reasoning leads to this much drama and attack, is at any wonder that ) 12:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- re BrownHairedGirl. So now for the occasion you are going into content reasoning. If it is about quoting wrong or reading wrong, then cut out the backhanded bad faith smears I diffed and stay within ratio talk. You can do that right now in your earlier contributions. -DePiep (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- @DePiep:. In response to your questions on my talk page about the closure, I put in the time to provide as full an explanation as possible. Instead of treating my explanations as an aid to understand my reasoning, you have been mining them to try to find any glimmer of inconsistency which you can use in a wikilawyering sense to undermine the integrity of what was in the end a fairly simple closure; a closure supported so far by every uninvolved editor who has expressed a substantive opinion in the review.
- In the course of doing that, you sadly chose to repeatedly take my words out of context and misrepresent them. As I have noted before, if those misrepresentations were good faith errors on your part, then you are free to correct or strikeout the relevant parts of your contributions. But so long as you let them stand, I am unable to assume that you have been acting in good faith. If you make open smears on me by misrepresenting through misleading quotation, then it's a bit rich to complain of "backhanded smears" when your allegations are exposed as false.
- 3 editors opposed the move, and 2 supported it. Rightly or wrongly, your proposal did not attract the support needed to pass, and the drama which you and Feline1 have created all stems from your unwillingness to accept the fact that your reasoning did not win the support you hoped. In pursuit of your desire to proceed with the move despite the lack of support, that you have chosen to mine my explanations in the hope of finding any little thing which allows you to throw muck at me. That probably sounds harsh and judgemental, but I can see no other explanation for (as one example) your attempt to claim here that I wrote that a even "deliberate exercise in disruption" would not matter. For a start, that was a theoretical point unrelated to the actual closure, and it didn't belong in the move review. But even if that was a relevant point, it was false. As I pointed out to you in my reply, that was a complete inversion of what I wrote.
- Yet after mudsliging irrelevant falsehoods at me, you refuse to retract this nonsense, and now demand that I "stay within ratio talk". Isn't it time for you to cut the drama? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl
If you want to discuss about arguments, then first remove those accusations, wholeheartedly. If you want to show that I quoted wrong, first remove the bad faith accusations I mentioned. Clean up your edits. BF accusations are not needed nor helpful to make any point you want to (in other words: you're supposed to can do without). Even in your post here, you mix up arguments and accusations. I am not going to argue with you under the cloud of those accusations. It is not up to me to sort out which arguments are serious to respond to, and which are judgements I should ignore. I find puzzling that it looks like I am the first person to say this to you. It is basic discussion behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl
- re BrownHairedGirl. So now for the occasion you are going into content reasoning. If it is about quoting wrong or reading wrong, then cut out the backhanded bad faith smears I diffed and stay within ratio talk. You can do that right now in your earlier contributions. -DePiep (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alfons_Mucha_-_Medea.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Izrada_web_stranica_Tabitha_oblikovanje1.jpg){kind=link}
_station.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I have reviewed this complaint and, like a number of other editors and administrators who have commented on the move review about this dispute have said, I see nothing wrong with BHG's comments. DePiep, you have made your case and should step back and let the community comment at the move review. Separately, I was strongly considering blocking User:feline1 for personal attacks and disruption (if you don't want to click through to the MR, then all the evidence you need is in that collapsed comment above), though ultimately I decided not to. NW (Talk) 13:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Re DePiep, you have made your case: Dpmuk said something alike [178]. At least Dpmuk noted how they [BHG's posts] came across that way (bolding and calling it a falsehood didn't help). To clarify, for Dpmuk too: apart from my OP there, my contributions were not about content (as you seem to think), but about BrownHairedGirl's bad faith accusations. That was my point (twice). I'm not sure which other 'editors and admins' you refer to, AFAIK none referred to this point of bad faith accusations (except feline1). About this topic of bad faith accusations I said that it prevented entering the rational and content discussion. -DePiep (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- So far as I can tell, other editors who have participated in the move review have focused on the determination as made, and have exhibited no influence from the comments of which you complain. bd2412 T 16:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
That is my perception too.NuclearWarfare/NW is invited to give diffs and maybe tell more about that curious 'editors and administrators' detailing which appears to matter on the review page. -DePiep (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)- My apologies then; perhaps I misread Dpmuk and Xoloz's comments on that page. My earlier statement perhaps should have read "I see at most minor fault by BHG. It was certainly not sanctionable, even given the higher standards I would hold experienced editors and administrators (who know what the community considers to be acceptable editing norms) to. Furthermore, your tone did not serve to calm matters down but instead has unnecessarily escalated this rather minor conflict into a sprawling discussion across two pages. Your point about the merits of the move review was made clear by perhaps your second or third post to Wikipedia:Move review. Let's just leave it at that." NW (Talk) 17:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think you may have partially misunderstood what BD2412 is saying (and if it isn't what they were saying I would make the point myself).
- From what I understand their primary point is not whether or not NW is correct (which is a valid question but they were replying to you not NW), but that contrary to your statement above that the "bad faith accusations I said that it prevented entering the rational and content discussion", the accusations had little bearing on how people saw the closure.
- Therefore there was nothing "prevent"ing you from "entering the rational and content discussion". If you had some important points that you failed to make that you feel would have influenced how people saw the closure, this is really your fault.
- Even if I accept that bad faith accusations were made, your best bet would have been to ask for them to be withdrawn and then either dropped the issue or take in to an appropriate place like ANI if you did not get a satisfactory outcome. There was nothing forcing you to continue the fruitless discussion nor anything stopping you "entering the rational and content discussion". (Heck even if you continued to complain there as you did, you could still have seperately "entering the rational and content discussion".)
- And since the accusations didn't influence people either way, the fact that they were there didn't seem to effect the move review in any other way.
- (In other words, while presuming your claims are correct, you may have a legitimate complaints about the unfairness of the comments, they were not turning the move review againt you.)
- I don't really understand what "rational and content discussion" you are referring to anyway. The dispute relates to a WP:RMwas proper considering the discussion that had already taken place.
- Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)re NW. My tone. How could I forget. Sure that must be all there is then. (Note: "your point about the merits of the move review". That is still a misreading of my posts, after my 15:22 post here. Which music do you need with it?). I disagree with your opinion that I "unnecessarily escalated this rather minor conflict". I find bad faith accusation not minor, ANI is the proper route to go, and clearly some form of escalation was needed to get things clear. -DePiep (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- re Nil Einne. That clarifies, thanks. I struck my misunderstanding. To be clear: wording "rationale and content discussion" I used as opposed to a 'discussion' by hurling unproven accusations and personal attacks.
- On why I wrote prevented entering (the rationale discussion). The 'prevention' is by reasoning. Here it is. Assumptions about (bad) intentions are neigh impossible to address or deny (like gossip). Maybe it is possible to enter the discussion about rationale arguments when arguments are wrapped in personal attacks. One also can try in the reply to talk around words like "dishonest". (I do not know of WP advice or examples for these). But that gives some weight to the whole statement and it is not up to me to disentangle serious and bad from a contribution. The contributor is the one to clear their post. For this, it is my sound choice to stay away from any argument discussion as long as the accusations therein are maintained. It is not up to others to require that I engage with a bad faith (BF) accusor, even if only for the good parts. Simple: I want the BF accusations away before I engage. Remember that it is still the BF accusor who is spoiling the discussion, not the responder. I agree that other editors on the page are not involved, and I could engage with their arguments. Of course I have no beef with those uninvolved editors, it's just that I won't respond there. Because the whole discussion remains spoiled elsewhere. And I wanted to know clear on whether these edits is allowed to pass, and stay in place until closing time. Would I reply without questioning, I do not know whether the closer would reject accusations or give them weight.
- Re "Even if ... your best bet would have been ...". Isn't that exactly what I did? I asked withdrawal there first (diffs above), and then take it to ANI: here we are :-). -DePiep (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- What all this thread comes down to is simply that DePiep has repeatedly used out-of-context quotation to misrepresent me (5 specific instances are detailed in the discussion), and demands that criticism of that extraordinary run of misrepresentation be withdrawn before DePiep will provide any explanation of that misrepresentation, let alone withdrawal of it. Meanwhile, Feline1 was hurling a barrage of straightforward personal abuse at me, for which they have now thankfully been blocked.
- This is all about a malformed discussion where 2 editors advocated a move and 3 opposed it. There is no sign at all that any uninvolved editor sees any reason to agree with DePiep's bizarre demand that it be treated as a consensus to move, so DePiep based the request for move review on a pile of misrepresentations, including repeated false allegations that I miscounted.
- Despite this barrage of nonsense-on-stilts, DePiep is still keeping up the FUD campaign, by escalating it here to demand that DePiep-the-serial-misquoter be treated as hard-done-by. All because DePiep doesn't want to accept that a well-founded proposal was rejected by editors using well-founded counter-arguments, and because Feline1 believes that a) the closer should have imposed their own personal views on the discussion, and b) the closer should have made sure that those views accorded with those of Feline1.
- As I noted elsewhere, when closing a discussion creates so much manufactured wikidrama, why bother? Why not just let ) 19:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Take care. NuclearWarfare might not like your tone. -DePiep (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Bad faith accusations with battle attitude.
- Is there a reason this rant is tolerated on this page? Why can't BHG write a coherent reasoning without resorting to emotional judgements and uncivility? Does BHG let this happen in other places too, in admin performances even? Can some admin with a clear head hat this, with that applicable "more heat than light" title? For me, I want BrownHairedGirl to stop and withdraw this ranting. As is the topic and original title of this thread. -DePiep (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I know, you want to divert the issue away from your series of unrepentant misrepresentations of a closing admin who was kind enough to take the time to explain their closure.
- Having gone into battle on my talk page, battle on move review, battle here, you now complain that you feel you in a ... battle. Surprise!
- You have the option of winding the whole thing up by withdrawing your misrepresentations, if you choose to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Take care. NuclearWarfare might not like your tone. -DePiep (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)re NW. My tone. How could I forget. Sure that must be all there is then. (Note: "your point about the merits of the move review". That is still a misreading of my posts, after my 15:22 post here. Which music do you need with it?). I disagree with your opinion that I "unnecessarily escalated this rather minor conflict". I find bad faith accusation not minor, ANI is the proper route to go, and clearly some form of escalation was needed to get things clear. -DePiep (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- So far as I can tell, other editors who have participated in the move review have focused on the determination as made, and have exhibited no influence from the comments of which you complain. bd2412 T 16:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Re DePiep, you have made your case: Dpmuk said something alike [178]. At least Dpmuk noted how they [BHG's posts] came across that way (bolding and calling it a falsehood didn't help). To clarify, for Dpmuk too: apart from my OP there, my contributions were not about content (as you seem to think), but about BrownHairedGirl's bad faith accusations. That was my point (twice). I'm not sure which other 'editors and admins' you refer to, AFAIK none referred to this point of bad faith accusations (except feline1). About this topic of bad faith accusations I said that it prevented entering the rational and content discussion. -DePiep (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- So far, one admin has responded earlier (and one more replied on a detail). I'd like to read from more uninvolved admins here. -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the interactions and do not find BHG's comments to be anything but fully appropriate responses to your own, Piep. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just a general comment, I have come into a few brush-ups with BHG, but they were almost solely to my misunderstanding of arcane Wikipedia processes and guidelines. They remained civil and patiently tried to show me where I was missing some points of information. I'm not saying BHG is an expert but they were kind enough to work with my gaps in knowledge so I'm willing to give them a pass if they in any way lost their cool. I don't see a pattern of abuse. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Reviewing the diffs, one can see BHG's frustration at times, but she does not seem to be rude or abusive or warranting other administrator review. Does not seem actionable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I just wanted to echo's Sportfan5000's opinion. I've been corrected by BHG several times, especially when I started becoming a more active editor months ago, and I guess I would describe the interaction as business-like. She always had policy and experience on her side and I generally learned a lot about Wikipedia procedure in the process. We don't always agree but I believe she is incredibly fair, especially in her admin duties. I definitely don't believe there are any valid claims of "abuse" as BHG goes to great lengths to explain her decisions, should any editor have questions about them. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also agree. There's nothing actionable here, and I suggest we close. I'd suggest a trouting for DePiep, if anything. Jusdafax 03:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that
fouradmins base their conclusion on personal experiences in other situations. Since there is "no pattern", there is no incident? Weird logic. -DePiep (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)- It's only weird because you have misquoted it. There is no incident; That assertion stands alone, on the evidence. The pattern gives some further degree of comfort; We wouldn't expect there to be an incident. But the main point is that the allegation of an incident has itself been weighed in the balance and found wanting. We're not relying on the pattern in forming this conclusion. Andrewa (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Make that one, plus three non-admins. Only Andrewa, Someguy1221 and Georgewilliamherbert are on the list. -DePiep (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that
User:Feline1
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.
A wikilawyering move review at
The first interaction I had with this editor was on my talk page after closing an RM discussion, where Feline1's first post accused me of "obtuse daftness". When I tried in good faith to explain Wikipedia procedure and the role of a closer and how I reached a decision by trying to implement long-standing principles about consensus-formation, Feline1's subsequent posts on my talk page involved yet more abuse "a cult member" and asked "With admins like these, who needs vandals".
In the move review, Feline1's personal attacks include: "Are you quite sure you're an admin? And not typing whilst drunk?", "cult-member who can only parrot cult-speak phrases!", "a complete mentalist", and "What are you in real life, a traffic warden?".
The move review has been open for only 20 hours, and it has already been used to subject me to more personal attacks than I have received in my previous 8 years as an editor. It is very important that admins are held accountable for their actions, and having closed the move request, I was happy to explain my actions. However, in this case I have found that every step I have taken has opened me to personal abuse from
). The latter has been engaged in a repeated game of taking out of context quotes from my explanations of the closure, and using them to misrepresent my reasoning.Please can an uninvolved admin review the situation?
The move request was at
The discussion on my talk page is archived at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 030#Closing_RM_Period_1_element and at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 030#Closing_RM_Period_1_element_.28take_2.29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think any objective human being will see that my remarks to BrownHairedGirl were valid, balanced and justified by the political climate at the time. Moreover, she has only raised this incident report to deflect from the one already raised about her own conduct, immediately above on this noticeboard. She could easily avoid me having to complain about her obtuse daftness by not being so daftly obtuse, but she vehemently refuses to, and therein lies the problem.--talk) 12:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think any objective human being will see that my remarks to BrownHairedGirl were valid, balanced and justified by the political climate at the time. Moreover, she has only raised this incident report to deflect from the one already raised about her own conduct, immediately above on this noticeboard. She could easily avoid me having to complain about her obtuse daftness by not being so daftly obtuse, but she vehemently refuses to, and therein lies the problem.--
Feline1 has responded above with yet another dose of personal abuse. I notified Feline of this discussion, and the response was Oh grow up. Is
) 13:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)- Yes, I gave you some good advice. And did you heed it? Did you, as it were, "grow up" (i.e. stop this pointless bickering, calm down, behave yourself, etc etc)? No! You didn't. You come back bickering all the more. You're really quite incorrigible.--talk) 13:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I gave you some good advice. And did you heed it? Did you, as it were, "grow up" (i.e. stop this pointless bickering, calm down, behave yourself, etc etc)? No! You didn't. You come back bickering all the more. You're really quite incorrigible.--
- And at the move review, Feline1 has posted a personal attack[180] at the uninvolved admin User:Dpmuk, who commented on the conduct of the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I provided an analogy to characterize the situation which I feel was apposite, balanced, fair, valid and made in good faith. I stand by it, and would happily grant the film rights to any who wanted them.--talk) 13:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I provided an analogy to characterize the situation which I feel was apposite, balanced, fair, valid and made in good faith. I stand by it, and would happily grant the film rights to any who wanted them.--
Also note another personal attack on me by Feline1 in the section above [181] accusing me of "willful irrationality". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well for the love of god, could you not maybe stop being willfully irrational? What you need to understand is that talk) 13:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Criticism of an editor's actions is fine, and I happily that it is part is part of any admin's role to welcome a civilly-expressed concern that an admin action was erroneous. That can easily be done without attacks on the character of another editor, but instead of critiquing my actions, Feline has chosen from the outset to attack my character. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, *you* chose from the outset to attack *my* character (some blether about how I'd deliberately chosen not to use the correct !vote syntax so as to be disruptive, or something), and descended from there. Clearly you have some problem with the teleological sequence of events. I ask you again: are you drunk?--talk) 13:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yet more personal abuse from Feline1, based on Feline1's failure to understand the sequence of events.
- The comment to which you refer was when I wrote "That lone supporter chose not to format their view as a !vote, which leads me to attach a little less weight to it." That does not criticise your action at all; it simply explains how I interpreted your contribution. It does not accuse you of disruption or any form of misconduct, and it does not mention you by name, in no way is it a personal attack.
- That was my only comment relating to you when you chose to accuse me of obtuse daftness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, *you* chose from the outset to attack *my* character (some blether about how I'd deliberately chosen not to use the correct !vote syntax so as to be disruptive, or something), and descended from there. Clearly you have some problem with the teleological sequence of events. I ask you again: are you drunk?--
- Criticism of an editor's actions is fine, and I happily that it is part is part of any admin's role to welcome a civilly-expressed concern that an admin action was erroneous. That can easily be done without attacks on the character of another editor, but instead of critiquing my actions, Feline has chosen from the outset to attack my character. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well for the love of god, could you not maybe stop being willfully irrational? What you need to understand is that
See above, which is a parallel thread about the same page, I opened minutes earlier. It has diffs. -DePiep (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
editors removing other's comments from article and user talk pages
I've noticed in last few months this is becoming more and more common, and is in violation of WP policies, guidelines, and spirit!
User:Bobrayner and User:IJA for some reason dislike my very constructive comment on Talk:Kosovo War. In addition, this Bobrayner user keeps insulting me and calling me a sock. I don't mind people investigating if I am one, but I do mind people labeling me when I am not.
Cheers, 93.86.166.167 (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- It is OK to revert edits by sockpuppets. Without that, our content on Serbia/Kosovo would swiftly be overrun by serious NPOVproblems.
- It is not OK for an editor to appear out of nowhere and - without logging in to their account - call somebody a "dick vandal" for reverting a sock.
- I had thought that the recent AN/I thread was a closed book since two IPs were blocked; now there's a third, a fourth... bobrayner (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- News for you, there are thousands of IP addresses. Yes, you are a dal 178.222.56.24 (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- News for you, there are thousands of IP addresses. Yes, you are a
- I reverted your comment on the talk page because it was an unconstructive nationalist rant about NATO loosing the Kosovo War based on the morale of Serbs forces (which is utterly ridiculous), this sort of thing belongs on Blog/ Forum not a wikipedia talk page per) 15:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- It wasn't a rant, I cited sources, from few sides: American government site, Serbian news site, and French Guardian. No personal rants as you like to see them. If moral of soldiers in article about war is trivial to you..., than remove the relevant section from the article. That was my point, remove cherry picked quotation, or add additional ones for the sake of NPOV. And we don't need yelling on wikipedia either, so stop labeling what other people are writing. If you have nothing to say, skip to another article, avoid confrontation and dis-pleasantries. Like you wrote, wikipedia is neither forum, trivia, or spam site, so stop adding to the drama by being rude and uncivil. 178.222.56.24 (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Original IP blocked for disruptive editing, additional ones for sockpuppetry. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Uninvolved comment Calling someone a "dick vandal" in an edit summary is not ok, but the restored post[182] appears to criticize the article's neutrality, and it then proposes three pieces of sourced content for possible addition to the article. IMO it's not that much of a rant. The article currently has a section "Morale" which claims a morale problem on the Serbs' part until post-NATO intervention withdrawal, re-inserted by Bobrayner a few days ago[183]] (I didn't dig deep enough to find when it was originally inserted or by who, but it was removed in October 2013[184]). The reverted talkpage post gave three different sources claiming the opposite, a viewpoint that's not in the article at all, and there is some contentious talkpage discussion about this issue from November[185]. I have no idea which side is right, but I thought the idea of WP:NPOV is to include both, so at first glance the initial talkpage poster was correct in pointing out a problem. I have to wonder whether the other side is trying to WP:OWN the article. Removing the talkpage post doesn't seem justified as far as I can tell.
As a more general matter, I see a lot of drama about talkpage reversions and it comes across to me as disruptive to revert someone else's talkpage post unless it's blatantly over the top. The amount of traffic on the Kosovo War talkpage is not all that large and so there is no need to clamp down on it more than any other article. I haven't posted on that specific page, but I remember abandoning some other (unrelated) articles because I felt that similar reversions made collegial editing impossible. So I think these removals should only be done with quite a lot more caution. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? The reverted talk page post you refer to does make three comments about morale but they don't seem to be what you say.
- One is that "NATO did not achieve a military victory as it failed to destroy .... the soldiers’ morale". But no where is it stated in our article that destroying morale was an important part of the military goals. Nor does this dispute what our article does say on morale.
- Note that our article only talks about morale before the NATO intervention and when the Serb forces were withdrawing. It doesn't say anything about the morale during the intervention or how the intervention affected the morale. We can presume morale just before the intervention was low as our article implies it was a problem, but once the intervention began it may have changed. (And from what it does say there's no way you can draw any conclusion about the reasons for the morale change by the time of withdrawal. It's easily possible that morale was high during the withdrawal because it had been ever increasing during intervention and they saw NATO as having failed and they were leaving with their heads held high. Or perhaps it remained low just before withdrawal but increase during withdrawl because they were finally getting out of a hellish war which involved NATO which they felt had no purpose. Or any other number of things.)
- The other comment was "NATO campaign is showing significant progress and results in .... eroding morale. Two important signs of sinking morale, he said, are reports of desertions from combat units in Kosovo and a growing effort by young Yugoslavs to evade reserve call-ups". This has minor relation to the first in that implies morale shrunk even more during the intervention. It may further clarify what is in our article (namely it suggests morale got even worse during the intervention but had increase by the time of the pullout) but that's about it. It definitely doesn't dispute what our article says. (It does relate to the other comment the IP made but that's neither here nor there.) But since this was effectively wartime propaganda (it's on defense.gov and is apparently from the American Forces Press Service), I don't think it's trustworth.
- The final comment about morale was "It (NATO) portrayed a Serb army whose morale was crumbling from mounting casualties, shortages of food and fuel and lack of sleep, as it dispersed into smaller and weaker units to escape the relentless bombing." Note only does this address anything our article says about morale, but it doesn't really say much useful. All it really says is that NATO's propaganda campaign implied the Serb army morale crumbled during the conflict which we saw direct evidence of from the earlier source. But this isn't particularly surprising. And while the source seems to imply NATO's propaganda campaign told fibs, it doesn't actually directly say the crumbling morale bit was a lie (which again wouldn't be surprising and doesn't seem particularly important) or otherwise further comment on the Serb forces morale and I checked the whole source this time.
- To be honest, I don't really understand this concentration on morale either. There may be merit to mention a bit more about morale, but the IP seemed to make a poor case for it (since their sources don't seem that useful for what we want to add) and seems to be concentrating mostly on the wrong things. The claim as our article currently makes, that morale was low even before the intervention seems slightly significant if properly support. The current claim on morale at withdrawal also seems slightly significant if properly supported.
- IMO (although this isn't really an ANI manner) it may also be useful if we include very minor commentary on the reasons for the higher morale at the end, and how the NATO campaign affected morale but this should be kept to a low level and would need good sources.
- There are other things that seem more important that the IP hinted at like the claims NATO lied about how much they were destroying (which again wouldn't be surprising but depending on the extent of the lies may be worth mentioning). And particularly that NATO failed in their goal to protect the population etc. But I haven't read the rest of the article carefully enough to check if the article already addresses this.
- P.S. It's worth remembering that "morale was a serious problem" is distinct from "failed to destroy .... the soldiers’ morale". In fact if morale was already a serious problem before you even got involved, destroying the morale would mean you would need to make a significant dent in something which was already a serious problem. Our article actually already implies that this didn't happen since they were not so demoralised that their morale hadn't increased by the time they withdrew (as I've said, whether the morale increase because of the withdrawal or morale had actually increase because of the intervention or whatever isn't specified).
- Nil Einne (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the current bit of content on morale emerged from a compromise. I originally wrote something based on content from a source which said that morale was very poor; another established editor (and some socks) removed it, preferring something with slightly weaker sourcing which painted morale as being very good; so I went for a compromise version which put both claims in context. I don't think this article needs to cover morale in great depth, but it is often overlooked in other articles about conflicts, which instead focus on technical stuff and dates of battles &c. bobrayner (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand the concept of consensus [186] WP:BLOCK
- I don't think you understand the concept of consensus [186]
KasparasWikiEditor (genre warrior) back at it once previous block expires
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.
KasparasWikiEditor is just off a 31 hour block for unexplained changes in genre on songs. Today, dozens more, all with no explanation:
- KasparasWikiEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The changes seem random, maybe some are reasonable. But no discussion, no edit summaries, talk page full of warnings, I just thought someone ought to take a look.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely... well, at least until they start discussing things. Dpmuk (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Dqfn13 replacing content
I am reporting an incident with Dqfn13 who keeps replacing visual content on several pages and templates. Dqfn13 dislikes Sodacan's work and instead feels that the work by Henk Boelens is "more accurate". Dqfn13 feels that Sodacan's file is heraldically incorrect and violates Dutch heraldic rules, but has not provided any sources for this claim. Sodocan is noted on this project as a heraldic expert and artist, and has created a work which despite any visual differences does match the blazon of the Dutch coat of arms and therefore it is not "incorrect", it simply looks different.
The comments on my talk page and in edit summaries by Dqfn13 are also rather inflammatory, especially "Learn the DUTCH heraldic rules or stay away fron DUTCH coats of arms." which presents possible ownership and nationality issues.
The places where this issue has taken place are:
- Template:History of the Netherlands
- Template:House of Orange-Nassau
- Template:NLColMin
- Portal:European Union/Member States Intro
- Template:Infobox Dutch Royalty styles
- Kingdom of the Netherlands
- Coat of arms of the Netherlands
I can not revert these changes again without violating 3RR and therefore require intervention. As Dqfn13 has not provided any sources for their claims and this is a cosmetic dispute, I consider this forceful replacement of one work with another to be vandalism. Fry1989 eh? 19:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- You've been notified on your Dutch talkpage (in English) about this problem by two Duth writers with both notable experience on these subject. Both named here: Arch (now known under a different name) and me. We both have given reasons for ower edits, you only said: the file matches and therefor your reasons are POV. And even though I've started a discussion you reply: I don't have to answer you with that attitude. Dqfn13 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- And that flaming comment... that was after you've rejected any discussion... Dqfn13 (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't about the Dutch-language project nor does any decision/consensus over there apply to over here. You need sources, and your rag-tag group of users who all like Henk Boelens' work haven't provided any sources here or there. Please provide some sort of source that Sodacan's work is "inaccurate" and "wrong", rather than just stating "It doesn't match Dutch rules, so STAY AWAY from Ducth coats of arms!". Fry1989 eh? 19:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me my bad English, I'll trying to share my thougts about this matter... Please look at those several excisting images of the CoA:
Al the images are showing, as everybody can see, that the claws are never to far over the shield, they dont touching figures ons the shield. Why? Just becausse that is disrespectful. Thats why there the Dutch heraldic rules prescribe not to do that... The older version of the CoA of Sodacan had a (wrong) red mantle before, when some people started to replace the image with this error for a correct one, the mantle was suddenly changed in purple 10 days later (see history) and once replaced again, by using "global replace". My drawing was declared "superseded" on the same day I did upload it! The correct image was replaced by an incorrect image, with the red mantle, and claws over the figures. An older version of this CoA by the same person has several minor errors too. A request to make adjudgements in 2013 did not get any response. I know how user Fry thinks about rules; on the Commons did he get blocked multiple times for Edit warring and Disruption. (see his history: "The rules are a joke, and people like you take them way too seriously like it's a matter of life and death. So somebody uses two colours that aren't supposed to touch according to your laws, does that hurt anyone? No." Seems to me that the rules are anything that matters, and more we should be seriously about this. This is an encyclopedia, wich must give the right facts, not just on words, but images too. Coats of Arms or Flags should look like they should look, not personal taste. Dqfn13 did the right thing to replace them again, as Fry disagrees he should discuss the matter instead doing a blockreguest or he should try to communicate with Sodacan and fix the error. Fry wants sources? I'll dare you too search for just ONE little source wichs claims your made liberty to place claws, hands, wings etc. over, or TOUCHING the shieldfigure(s). I'll wil give you 3 sources for every source you provide. Fair? I'll give one away: Rietstap (important Dutch heraldic writer) writes: ...rekent men tot de schildouders ook de mens- en dierfiguren die het schild niet aanraken, docht er naast staat of liggen zonder iets te doen behalve dat zij soms een helm of kroon vasthouden.... "...counting to the shieldholders also the human- en animalfigures who are not touching the shield, but standing or lie next without doing something, besides holding a helmet or crown". Regards
- The attitude present here is not required. As for your sources, Sodacan's work appears to match perfectly. Again it is simply a different style. As long as it matches the blazon, it is heraldically correct. This is again a cosmetic dispute and that is an improper reason to edit war and change images. And yes, I said those things because they're true, you users over on the Dutch side of Wikipedia are completely freaking out (and edit warring and imposing POV in the process) because Sodacan's work looks different from Henk Bolens' work, but you don't really have any sources that one is "correct" and one is "wrong". Henk, you really need to calm down and take a breather. I make images superseded on Commons every day, tonnes of users do, and you're acting like it was some sort of personal hunt or attack when in reality it was simple Commons maintenance on my part. The problem here is clearly you and your Dutch-Wiki supporters who are the ones who have a visual preference, not any actual problem with Sodacan's work. Fry1989 eh? 17:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- You can't offer a source for your statement.talk) 19:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- You can't offer a source for your statement.
Administrator misbehaving
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:Georgewilliamherbert just blocked some IPs for sockpupetry, and I see he even has no CheckUser rights, so he could not have done the investigation. How can he be so abusive and block IPs without any check whatsoever? 178.221.101.86 (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Admins don't need CheckUser to make sockpuppetry blocks ... we often call it the 20:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- See also User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#abuse_of_user_rights. Please don't Forum Shop. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Where was this supposed "just blocked some IPs"? I see one from two days ago for vandalism.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- DP, you beat me to it, I was going to quack too ): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Obvious block evasion, latest IP blocked. You don't have to be a checkuser, or even an admin, to see that all of these IPs are from Serbia, and they're all doing exactly the same things. Acroterion (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Where was this supposed "just blocked some IPs"? I see one from two days ago for vandalism.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know about this case, but it seems like admins vary a lot regarding what passes the WP:DUCKtest and what doesn't. For some admins, suspicion of socking is enough to block an editor indefinitely. Considering the intense scrutiny that occurs at SPI and how many cases the checkusers refuse because of a lack of good evidence, it seems unfair that there are no set criteria at all for the Duck test and, for some admins, the bar is very low.
- This is where someone asks for diffs and I don't have any, it's just an observation because no one really tracks IPs that are blocked or brings their cases up on AN/I. In fact, I rarely even see block notices on IP talk pages or any explanation of how they could appeal a block. It matters because once an account is tagged as a sock account, it tarnishes any future work that editor might make. I think admins should have to make a case for any account they block, particularly for an indefinite block. This isn't an undue burden, there should always be a good reason for a block. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know about this case, but it seems like admins vary a lot regarding what passes the
- It seems that lately administrators are more preoccupied to make use of their administrative rights to block users to their hearts content rather than to have an eye on the quality of information that articles should convey. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI, here is the list of identical edits made by a succession of IPs on Talk:Kosovo War:
- Revision as of 17:01, 2014 March 18 178.223.26.230 178-223-26-230.dynamic.isp.telekom.rs [188] - blocked for disruptive editing (see earlier edits by this editor)
- Revision as of 02:33, 2014 March 19 109.93.20.242 109-93-20-242.dynamic.isp.telekom.rs [189] - blocked for Abusing multiple accounts (block evasion would perhaps be a better fit as for a reason)
- Revision as of 08:19, 2014 March 19 93.86.166.167 93-86-166-167dynamicisptelekomrs [190] - Love the edit summary rv dick vandal - blocked for Abusing multiple accounts (block evasion would perhaps be a better fit as for a reason)
- Revision as of 13:57, 2014 March 19 178.221.101.86 178-223-26-230.dynamic.isp.telekom.rs - blocked for Abusing multiple accounts (block evasion would perhaps be a better fit as for a reason)
Can we close this thread now. I don't see it as appropriate to use a false claim against one as an excuse to discuss generalities. That happens even more here it seems. (I know others will certainly disagree).--Mark Miller (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Catflap has been told that 3RR policy has been slackened, I don't see where it's been changed. talk) 20:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Catflap has been told that 3RR policy has been slackened, I don't see where it's been changed.
basic thoughts
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 sorry to be bragging on here, but if administrators prime concern its that guidelines are being followed rather than to be on the look out that Wikipedia meets with some of the basic encyclopedic standards i.e. that it meets the standards one could except from an encyclopedia we just might as well bin the whole project. Just look on the final straw on this one [[191]]--Catflap08 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- What is your specific question or concern? As it states above, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." Are you having a problem with an edit war at an article, or with another editor? It looks like you were trying to link to the "Administrator misbehaving" section above, which I archived because it was getting off-topic. -- Atama頭 22:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Well maybe its because I referred to the noticeboard part of the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents part.--Catflap08 (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- 22:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Content dispute with User:Aoidh on Linux Mint
There is currently a dispute about the particular phrasing of the sentences "In 2012, Linux Mint surpassed Ubuntu as the most viewed distribution on DistroWatch." and "The distribution has far surpassed the long-standing
User:JohnGoodName initially tried to amend the situation by removing the offending sentences altogether, but this was reverted by User:Dodi 8238 (who is not involved otherwise). I reverted this revert, because I was under the impression that a consensus had been reached not to include such statistics if they give a false impression (i.e. error of imission). This was then reverted by User:Aoidh. In hindsight, I do think that the DistroWatch statistics are noteworthy, so the information is not bad as such. JohnGoodName then re-removed the second sentence, and qualified the first with "(excluding Ubuntu variants)" to eliminate concerns over the false impressions. This was also reverted, with the claim that the sources do not make this distinction (DistroWatch clearly does, so any other sources that don't are simply misrepresenting the statistics). So I reinstated the qualification that JohnGoodName had added. This too was reverted by Aoidh. Still seeing a serious flaw in the article, but not really knowing how else to amend it, I resorted to adding {{which}} to the names of both distributions in the sentence. This was also reverted by Aoidh.
At this point a discussion was started on the talk page to try to come to some agreement. However, further attempts by me to reinstate the "which" tags were reverted again, even though the reason for putting them there was never satisfied. So not only do I still see problems with the article's content, but another editor is now trying to edit war with me over whether I am allowed to tag them as such to express my reservations. I don't think this helps the process of consensus building at all; tags should removed only after the issue has been resolved, and not just unilaterally. I don't really know how else to resolve this, discussions on the talk page don't seem to be going anywhere...
- AN/I isn't the place for a content dispute. If you think dispute resolution is needed even though I just started the talk page discussion, see ) 22:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- It arose in a content dispute but it's not a content dispute anymore. Now it's a dispute about your conduct as well, because you keep removing the tags/edit warring over it. talk) 22:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's still a content dispute. You added the tags because the unsourced edit didn't get added so you're trying to slap whatever you can on there to disrupt the sentence you don't like. If anyone else added the tags and actually explained why I wouldn't touch them because that would be a valid use for a tag, but as I said on the talk page, not getting your way isn't cause to slap tags over what you don't like with no justification and expect others to keep them there simply because you don't like the content. If you're talking about behavior, you keep marking your non-minor edits as minor after being notified that you shouldn't, why is that? I started the discussion, and would love for more input, but this is a content dispute, and doesn't belong at ) 22:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute, and I see no need for administrators to take action. Considering that this dispute is between just the two of you at the moment, I suggest using the process outlined at 22:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- So if there is an edit war over the inclusion of a "citation needed" tag, a request for deletion, or something else along those lines, then that's a content dispute and not edit warring? I can't really believe that could be the case. Surely de-tagging an article without any consensus to do so is not a content dispute anymore, but a dispute over an editor's conduct? talk) 22:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- By that same token, ignoring status quo and then a discussion was started about that edit to establish a consensus; if the tag belongs or the content needs to be changed let consensus decide that, don't try to circumvent the consensus-building process by running to AN/I when someone disagrees with you. - Aoidh (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- When the edit war has stopped, and discussion has begun in its place, there is no need for admin action. Blocks are handed out to stop edit wars, not to punish people. I could technically block both of you for participating in an edit war (though it would be at best controversial to do so) but what would that accomplish? You're talking on the talk page now, if you are blocked you won't be.
- By that same token, ignoring
- So if there is an edit war over the inclusion of a "citation needed" tag, a request for deletion, or something else along those lines, then that's a content dispute and not edit warring? I can't really believe that could be the case. Surely de-tagging an article without any consensus to do so is not a content dispute anymore, but a dispute over an editor's conduct?
- This is a content dispute, and I see no need for administrators to take action. Considering that this dispute is between just the two of you at the moment, I suggest using the process outlined at 22:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's still a content dispute. You added the tags because the unsourced edit didn't get added so you're trying to slap whatever you can on there to disrupt the sentence you don't like. If anyone else added the tags and actually explained why I wouldn't touch them because that would be a valid use for a tag, but as I said on the talk page, not getting your way isn't cause to slap tags over what you don't like with no justification and expect others to keep them there simply because you don't like the content. If you're talking about behavior, you keep marking your non-minor edits as minor after being notified that you shouldn't, why is that? I started the discussion, and would love for more input, but this is a content dispute, and doesn't belong at ) 22:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- It arose in a content dispute but it's not a content dispute anymore. Now it's a dispute about your conduct as well, because you keep removing the tags/edit warring over it.
- If you really feel stuck (either one of you) and think this isn't going anywhere, try WP:DRN which is set up specifically for these kinds of issues. You can also ask for assistance from either WP:WikiProject Linux or WP:WikiProject Computing. A combination of those things would not be bad either (as long as you centralize discussion somewhere). -- Atama頭23:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose what I'm getting at is that tags are not content, they are about content, so there can't be a content dispute over them as such. They are intended to indicate where disputes exist. So when Aoidh removes the tags, it's as if they're unilaterally declaring that there is no dispute. That is what I came here for. talk) 23:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Everything that goes into an article is content. The main body of text, tags on the article, references, categories, all of it. Any discussion about what should or shouldn't be on an article when an editor reads it is a content dispute. You could even possibly have content disputes in non-article space, such as what templates should be at the top of an article discussion page. Don't get hung up on semantics, the bottom line is that this is a problem that will be resolved by consensus, not by an admin making a declaration about something, or using a tool (like a block or page protection). -- Atama頭23:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think there is a bit of progress with the discussion now, at least. I left a notice at talk) 00:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think there is a bit of progress with the discussion now, at least. I left a notice at
- Everything that goes into an article is content. The main body of text, tags on the article, references, categories, all of it. Any discussion about what should or shouldn't be on an article when an editor reads it is a content dispute. You could even possibly have content disputes in non-article space, such as what templates should be at the top of an article discussion page. Don't get hung up on semantics, the bottom line is that this is a problem that will be resolved by
- I suppose what I'm getting at is that tags are not content, they are about content, so there can't be a content dispute over them as such. They are intended to indicate where disputes exist. So when Aoidh removes the tags, it's as if they're unilaterally declaring that there is no dispute. That is what I came here for.
- If you really feel stuck (either one of you) and think this isn't going anywhere, try
Action needed against genre warrior 99.54.21.86
This IP has repeatedly changed genres across multiple pages without consensus. See the user's talk page and contributions for the massive number of genre changes this user has made. Thanks! FenixFeather (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- There's insufficient recent activity to warrant a block. Please feel free to report at ) 19:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks! I'll just keep an eye on them for now. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
A user who does not get it (for multiple values of it)
I have blocked four six accounts for
- Ayler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jeffrey Hayden Shurdut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Quintoxification (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Etuning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Shurdut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jeff Shurdut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Reviewing admins: see also
.This is a
- This seems like a prime candidate for an edit filter. Acroterion (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Alleged school project - anyone else run into this?
- Rock's been blocked. If it is a school project, the teacher is extremely irresponsible. I have to hope it's just vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I find it hard to imagine this is an actual school project. I know teachers come in good and bad and a whole lot of degrees in-between, but I can't imagine even the worst teacher just told their students "Hey, put my name in an article!" and that's it. Anyway, blocked the account as vandalism-only, and the actual Christopher Columbus is already semi-protected so chance of any actual damage is nil. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks all. And nice change of section heading on my talk page, talk) 18:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks all. And nice change of section heading on my talk page,
- I would have loved a teacher like that. Or one that would have sex with her students. I never got what I wanted.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) One could well imagine a teacher including such an instruction as one item in a small "project" worksheet, with the idea being that later the teacher finds the student's edit and demonstrates how it was quickly removed, this being central to how Wikipedia continues to function while still allowing "everyone" to edit. (It's still irresponsible, just not educationally invalid.) In this case (if it's real), the teacher has not thought to include in their instructions that the objective of the task is to add it once, not to keep it there at all costs. That failing results in distress for the student (and/or their parents) and inconvenience for some of the rest of us. --talk) 19:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) One could well imagine a teacher including such an instruction as one item in a small "project" worksheet, with the idea being that later the teacher finds the student's edit and demonstrates how it was quickly removed, this being central to how Wikipedia continues to function while still allowing "everyone" to edit. (It's still irresponsible, just not educationally invalid.) In this case (if it's real), the teacher has not thought to include in their instructions that the objective of the task is to add it once, not to keep it there at all costs. That failing results in distress for the student (and/or their parents) and inconvenience for some of the rest of us. --
User:GrumTum disruption block needed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PLease look at this users page and his contribs. He is repeatedly inserting copyrighted images past warnings to stop. He is also creating usertalk pages for non existent users or placing non free images on other user's pages.
- No way, I am only welcoming brand new users and people who may adopt certain user names. GrumTum (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Viriditas again
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.
Viriditas appears to be starting throwing his aggression around again at Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol: [193][194]. This is clearly inappropriate. Can someone nip this in the bud? I'm not sure how anyone is expected to interact with someone as hostile as that. Cheers, Second Quantization (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not going to defend Viriditas, he is certainly being very aggressive, but the "other side" could also stand to stop cherry-picking terrible studies to use as sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have to agree. It seems almost like baiting to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- All involved need to just relax and smoke a joint (where it's legal of course).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have to agree. It seems almost like baiting to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I assume I am on the other side? I picked some well cited papers (50-60 each) which discuss related topics, then I faced a barrage of attack. I didn't cherry pick them, (where are these alternative studies, indicative of the literature, that you say we are ignoring?) I picked the most highly cited I could find which were within ~5 years. I have no preformed views on this topic, and could not care less if cannabis is legalised or not. There is a reasonable discussion we could have about this topic, but Viriditas is jumping in with comments like: "Keep fucking that chicken and keep drinking what's left of that Kool-Aid, because pretty soon the cat's gonna be out of the bag, and you'll be the last one standing. Nobody is buying the propaganda anymore and pretty soon, you guys are gonna be out of a job. It's only a matter of time now. It's over guy, pack it up and go home. ", "But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of the medical term "cannabis" because those NIDA dollars have to keep rolling in and the DEA must meet their quota. Pure fucking nonsense. You're no skeptic, that's for sure.". How are we meant to address someone that claims that scientific peer review is a "Peer review, as in the political process which publishes anti-cannabis propaganda on a daily basis based on small sample sizes but won't allow pro-cannabis studies based on large sample sizes to see the light of day? You mean that broken, biased process which serves the interests of the government and the pharmaceutical companies, but not the interests of the public and patients? Is that what you mean?". Also "Where are all the bodies of the dead cannabis users and why are you hiding them?" Second Quantization (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- It seems according to Viriditas I'm not cherry picking but that: "The cannabis literature is more than 90% negative and chock full of false assumptions, half-truths, and scaremongering because it is funded by first and foremost by drug "abuse' and drug control and prevention programs, and this starts at the United Nations and works its way down.". Seriously, when someone claims mass conspiracy in the literature ... There is no reliable source we can use to show anything, because he will instantly trump it by saying that's all part of the conspiracy. Second Quantization (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is precisely why I said you were ignorant. You appear to know absolutely nothing about the United Nations drug program which is seeking to outlaw cannabis in every country. This is reported on in reliable sources virtually every week. BBC did a story two days ago, and it's been all over the news since Uruguay voted to legalize it in 2013, which greatly upset the UN .[195] There is nothing conspiratorial about this at all, you're just completely ignorant on the subject. The UN repeats misinformation and propaganda about cannabis to further their anti-cannabis agenda.[196] Virtually every claim they've made about cannabis has been totally debunked by experts in their respective fields, so one wonders what's going on here. With all the problems in the world, with all the war (which the UN has totally failed in their stated mission to end) and hunger and suffering, one wonders why the UN is threatening other countries who legalize cannabis. To whose benefit? The only people that benefit from the criminalization of cannabis are 1) drug dealers, 2) the prison industry, and 3) authoritarian governments, who prefer to restrict the freedom of their citizens to alter their consciousness (cognitive liberty), which is ironically a violation of the human rights charter that the UN is supposed to uphold. This is an historical fucking fact, not some crazy conspiracy. Heck, you didn't even know we were discussing deaths from Marinol, yet you responded to the topic. And now you say you've never heard of Marinol? Is this some kind of a joke? Stop discussing topics you don't know anything about. You are wasting a great deal of time. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I took a random look at the article and this is what I found when I zoned in on what I find to be the most controversial claim:
- It seems according to Viriditas I'm not cherry picking but that: "The cannabis literature is more than 90% negative and chock full of false assumptions, half-truths, and scaremongering because it is funded by first and foremost by drug "abuse' and drug control and prevention programs, and this starts at the United Nations and works its way down.". Seriously, when someone claims mass conspiracy in the literature ... There is no reliable source we can use to show anything, because he will instantly trump it by saying that's all part of the conspiracy. Second Quantization (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I assume I am on the other side? I picked some well cited papers (50-60 each) which discuss related topics, then I faced a barrage of attack. I didn't cherry pick them, (where are these alternative studies, indicative of the literature, that you say we are ignoring?) I picked the most highly cited I could find which were within ~5 years. I have no preformed views on this topic, and could not care less if cannabis is legalised or not. There is a reasonable discussion we could have about this topic, but Viriditas is jumping in with comments like: "Keep fucking that chicken and keep drinking what's left of that Kool-Aid, because pretty soon the cat's gonna be out of the bag, and you'll be the last one standing. Nobody is buying the propaganda anymore and pretty soon, you guys are gonna be out of a job. It's only a matter of time now. It's over guy, pack it up and go home. ", "But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of the medical term "cannabis" because those NIDA dollars have to keep rolling in and the DEA must meet their quota. Pure fucking nonsense. You're no skeptic, that's for sure.". How are we meant to address someone that claims that scientific peer review is a "Peer review, as in the political process which publishes anti-cannabis propaganda on a daily basis based on small sample sizes but won't allow pro-cannabis studies based on large sample sizes to see the light of day? You mean that broken, biased process which serves the interests of the government and the pharmaceutical companies, but not the interests of the public and patients? Is that what you mean?". Also "Where are all the bodies of the dead cannabis users and why are you hiding them?" Second Quantization (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Impact on psychosis A literature review on the subject concluded that "cannabis use appears to be neither a sufficient nor a necessary cause for psychosis. It is a component cause, part of a complex constellation of factors leading to psychosis." Arseneault, L.; Cannon, M; Witton, J; Murray, RM (2004). "Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: examination of the evidence". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 184 (2): 110–117. .
- This is what I see as cherry picking - the first source is a primary source journal. It is not a secondary source interpretation or analysis of the journal's contents or conclusions. This is a misuse of the primary source. We cannot make this claim: "A literature review on the subject concluded that...." and then make our own conclusions or analysis in Wikipedia's voice. Then the next source is a non English source and you will have to excuse me here but...why? The US and the UK have all done studies and there are tons of journals. Are we saying that there are no English sources of equal validity? This does seem outrageous to me and I can see why some would get a tad tired of having to deal with this kind of thing if it is persistent and I think it may be. Then, when I go to your talk page I notice what appears to be a non neutral notification to you about other contributions to these "Cannabis" related articles and in turn a quick discussion of "Ideological warriors pushing their viewpoints and ignoring the science because peer review is a means of subjugation by "the man" or whatever". You will excuse me if I say you been here long enough (since 2006) to know that you are bringing the attention to yourself in a manner that makes me wonder who is the one pushing what agenda. I suggest that this is a heated content dispute and you may want to take into consideration what it looks like to others and not just what others look like to you.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- "I took a random look at the article and ..." Erm, no one has claimed this article is perfect and I have never defended that subsection. The specific issue under discussion is THC and myocardial infarction. There is no discussion related specifically to psychosis, so I don't see why you are talking about it? I see no one who has defended that subsection and has nothing to do with the myocardial infarction which was. The validity of viriditas argument that there is a conspiracy [197] amongst Stroke, Lancet etc to exclude pro-cannabis publications related to myocardial infarction is not related to the psychosis section. Second Quantization (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Whether it is a conspiracy or not, it is a historical fact. This was published in the Los Angeles Times eight hours ago: "For years, scientists who have wanted to study how marijuana might be used to treat illness say they have been stymied by resistance from federal drug officials...Researchers say...the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has long been hostile to proposals aimed at examining possible benefits of the drug...Suzanne A. Sisley, clinical assistant professor of psychology at the university's medical school...has been trying to get the green light for her study for three years...scientists have had difficulty getting approval to study how the drug might be employed more effectively...Federal restrictions on pot research have been a source of tension for years. Researchers, marijuana advocates and some members of Congress have accused the National Institute on Drug Abuse of hoarding the nation's only sanctioned research pot for studies aimed at highlighting the drug's ill effects...In the last 10 years, the government had approved just one U.S. research center to conduct clinical trials involving marijuana use for medical purposes...The scientist who runs that center, Igor Grant, said his success in getting Washington's sign-off was due in large part to something other scientists do not have: the full force of the state..."Every one of those studies showed, in the short term, a beneficial effect," Grant said. "There is very good evidence cannabis is helpful."[198] Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- That does not say what you think it says. It does not support the specific conspiracy you were advocating that positive research about the health risks can not be published. Funding in relation to exploring medical research is a different but unrelated issue. I should also note your hypocrisy. You said "But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of". That article only uses that term when referring to cannabis. You berate me for the very things you do while yet again conflating separate issues. Second Quantization (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have not advocated any "conspiracy", that's your claim, and the source says exactly what I just quoted to you verbatim; how could it say anything else? It most certainly does support the idea that "positive research about the health risks can not be published" and I quoted it directly from the article: "Researchers say...the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has long been hostile to proposals aimed at examining possible benefits of the drug...Federal restrictions on pot research have been a source of tension for years. Researchers, marijuana advocates and some members of Congress have accused the National Institute on Drug Abuse of hoarding the nation's only sanctioned research pot for studies aimed at highlighting the drug's ill effects", emphasis added. Of course, I'm sure you'll continue to misrepresent this until the end of time. There are roadblocks in the US to publishing "positive research about the health risks", and if you had bothered to follow the saga of just two scientists quoted in that article, Suzanne A. Sisley and Igor Grant, you would have acknowledged your mistake. Exactly what do you think the sentence "scientists who have wanted to study how marijuana might be used to treat illness say they have been stymied by resistance from federal drug officials" refers to here? It refers to the inability to study and publish positive research. Would you please stop whatever it is you are doing and actually educate yourself on the history of cannabis research in the US? I mean, just this once, try to educate yourself. You say you have no clue as to what Marinol is, yet you participate in a discussion about it without even educating yourself on the topic. Do you think some people might find your behavior frustrating, perhaps even disruptive? Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't get you at all, you claim peer review is meaninglessness because journals won't publish positive research, and you argue about the NIDA despite none of the sources being funded by the NIDA. You take the claims of Cannabis advocates at face value. You continue to focus on medical usage studies not getting funded and extrapolate wildly from an article in the LA to attack all peer reviewed papers in this area. Now you are using the very marijuana term that you attacked me for: ""But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of the medical term "cannabis" because those NIDA dollars have to keep rolling in and ...". The studies are not funded by the NIDA. Your issues are irrelevant. There is no evidence of a conspiracy amongst journals (some of which aren't even based in the US) to exclude positive research. Second Quantization (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have not advocated any "conspiracy", that's your claim, and the source says exactly what I just quoted to you verbatim; how could it say anything else? It most certainly does support the idea that "positive research about the health risks can not be published" and I quoted it directly from the article: "Researchers say...the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has long been hostile to proposals aimed at examining possible benefits of the drug...Federal restrictions on pot research have been a source of tension for years. Researchers, marijuana advocates and some members of Congress have accused the National Institute on Drug Abuse of hoarding the nation's only sanctioned research pot for studies aimed at highlighting the drug's ill effects", emphasis added. Of course, I'm sure you'll continue to misrepresent this until the end of time. There are roadblocks in the US to publishing "positive research about the health risks", and if you had bothered to follow the saga of just two scientists quoted in that article, Suzanne A. Sisley and Igor Grant, you would have acknowledged your mistake. Exactly what do you think the sentence "scientists who have wanted to study how marijuana might be used to treat illness say they have been stymied by resistance from federal drug officials" refers to here? It refers to the inability to study and publish positive research. Would you please stop whatever it is you are doing and actually educate yourself on the history of cannabis research in the US? I mean, just this once, try to educate yourself. You say you have no clue as to what Marinol is, yet you participate in a discussion about it without even educating yourself on the topic. Do you think some people might find your behavior frustrating, perhaps even disruptive? Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- That does not say what you think it says. It does not support the specific conspiracy you were advocating that positive research about the health risks can not be published. Funding in relation to exploring medical research is a different but unrelated issue. I should also note your hypocrisy. You said "But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of". That article only uses that term when referring to cannabis. You berate me for the very things you do while yet again conflating separate issues. Second Quantization (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Whether it is a conspiracy or not, it is a historical fact. This was published in the Los Angeles Times eight hours ago: "For years, scientists who have wanted to study how marijuana might be used to treat illness say they have been stymied by resistance from federal drug officials...Researchers say...the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has long been hostile to proposals aimed at examining possible benefits of the drug...Suzanne A. Sisley, clinical assistant professor of psychology at the university's medical school...has been trying to get the green light for her study for three years...scientists have had difficulty getting approval to study how the drug might be employed more effectively...Federal restrictions on pot research have been a source of tension for years. Researchers, marijuana advocates and some members of Congress have accused the National Institute on Drug Abuse of hoarding the nation's only sanctioned research pot for studies aimed at highlighting the drug's ill effects...In the last 10 years, the government had approved just one U.S. research center to conduct clinical trials involving marijuana use for medical purposes...The scientist who runs that center, Igor Grant, said his success in getting Washington's sign-off was due in large part to something other scientists do not have: the full force of the state..."Every one of those studies showed, in the short term, a beneficial effect," Grant said. "There is very good evidence cannabis is helpful."[198] Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- "I took a random look at the article and ..." Erm, no one has claimed this article is perfect and I have never defended that subsection. The specific issue under discussion is THC and myocardial infarction. There is no discussion related specifically to psychosis, so I don't see why you are talking about it? I see no one who has defended that subsection and has nothing to do with the myocardial infarction which was. The validity of viriditas argument that there is a conspiracy [197] amongst Stroke, Lancet etc to exclude pro-cannabis publications related to myocardial infarction is not related to the psychosis section. Second Quantization (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is what I see as cherry picking - the first source is a primary source journal. It is not a secondary source interpretation or analysis of the journal's contents or conclusions. This is a misuse of the primary source. We cannot make this claim: "A literature review on the subject concluded that...." and then make our own conclusions or analysis in Wikipedia's voice. Then the next source is a non English source and you will have to excuse me here but...why? The US and the UK have all done studies and there are tons of journals. Are we saying that there are no English sources of equal validity? This does seem outrageous to me and I can see why some would get a tad tired of having to deal with this kind of thing if it is persistent and I think it may be. Then, when I go to your talk page I notice what appears to be a non neutral notification to you about other contributions to these "Cannabis" related articles and in turn a quick discussion of "Ideological warriors pushing their viewpoints and ignoring the science because peer review is a means of subjugation by "the man" or whatever". You will excuse me if I say you been here long enough (since 2006) to know that you are bringing the attention to yourself in a manner that makes me wonder who is the one pushing what agenda. I suggest that this is a heated content dispute and you may want to take into consideration what it looks like to others and not just what others look like to you.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are just continuing your content dispute here and I was avoiding that by using a completely different sampling of the article. I suggest DR/N.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- By looking at samplings of the article rather than Viriditas' behaviour you are turning it into a content dispute. I am concerned with the aggression by viriditas, as shown by the diffs above and the claims of conspiracies. It's purely the behaviour that I am concerned with, and that should be under discussion here. Second Quantization (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- (WP:RS/MC: "Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." I don't think that is happening in that discussion. Also...everyone needs to stop talking down to each other.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have already left a message on Viriditas' talk page but your behavior will be looked at as well and I do think there was some baiting going on and a little bit of "I don't hear you". Look, it wasn't sweet roses but it wasn't a personal attack in my view but a rather odd analogy with terms you simply zoned in on. Tell me...do you really think he was calling you a chicken fucker?--Mark Miller (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- (
- By looking at samplings of the article rather than Viriditas' behaviour you are turning it into a content dispute. I am concerned with the aggression by viriditas, as shown by the diffs above and the claims of conspiracies. It's purely the behaviour that I am concerned with, and that should be under discussion here. Second Quantization (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are just continuing your content dispute here and I was avoiding that by using a completely different sampling of the article. I suggest DR/N.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Mark, I don't think your message on Viriditis's userpage, in which you tell Viriditis that you "agree with him entirely", think his "chicken fucking" insult was "hilarious", and that he is "free to ignore" your tentative advice to edit himself was helpful. It only encourages disruptive behavior. It also seems unfair to the other participants in this discussion, because your language here strongly implies that you admonished Viritis, but the language of thea actual note borders on encouraging him.
- He wasn't referring to me since he made the statement on the 11th and I had never commented on that talk page until the 12th ... Second Quantization (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Undoubtedly more eyes are needed on that article, and I encourage people to edit it, including yourself, so that's it is compliant with WP:MEDRS. Now you draw a comment, this time, about the Marinol section. I know nothing about Marinol before, my comments have not been about it, and I am not particularly interested in learning more about it (if there is something big in the USA about Marinol; I'm not American). My issue was with the myocardial infraction content related to cannabis. I have never edited the Marinol section nor proposed edits to that section so it is of no relevance to me. My comment "edit looks good" is in reference to: [199].
- I have not proposed any changes to the article as of yet, nor have I made any changes to the article ever. I'm perfectly capable of being reasoned with, and if someone can dig out secondary sources they think are better from the literature I'm perfectly happy with that. I haven't made up my own mind what the article sections should look like. That is why I notified wikiproject medicine to hopefully attract some medical editors who would be more aware of the best sources in the literature: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Cannabis. I highlighted a section of a peer reviewed article (the part of the paper which describes the literature generally), and some others that may be relevant and all of which had a decent level of citations (~50-60 from google scholar) which I had obtained through Google scholar. I think my editing history shows that I don't have some sort of secret ideology against cannabis (in fact I'm in favour of the legalisation of and taxation of cannabis, but that doesn't mean that this scientific literature shouldn't be accurate summarised with regards to heart attacks). The criticisms being thrown around by Viriditas are that there is a conspiracy (read his comments) within the literature itself followed by lots of invective. Constant claims of conspiracy amongst reliable sources, and ceaseless hostility are behaviour issues. Second Quantization (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Uhm...the section this entire transaction took place in is the "Marinol, Cannabis, and Mortality" section of the talk page. If this is your claim: "I have not heard of Marinol before and am not particularly interested in learning more about it " then I suggest you stop further discussion in that section and leave it to those who are interested in the subject in question. I am sure you are a reasonable editor and you do seem highly intelligent...I just don't think you know what you are doing and where you are doing it at, at the moment. I really don't know what else to say.--Mark Miller (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- That is the section heading but not what I discussed (I don't think I have commented in that section about Marinol at all), there are two edits under discussion as far as I can see 1. [200] 2. [201]. My comments are related to the later, not the former. I see well cited papers about THC generally, cannabis specifically, in the area of myocardial infarction. It seems there is some weight to mention something about this. I responded to claims of conspiracies about these sources and that I am a bad skeptic etc. It is unreasonable to have people respond to peer reviewed sources with claims about conspiracies etc. Second Quantization (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, there's a bad astronomer, so why can't you be the "bad skeptic"? Think about it: major street cred, hot chicks/guy magnet, whatever. It's a bit sexier than "Second Quantization" (you don't get out much, do you?) Anyway, it's not a conspiracy. Scientists who study cannabis in the U.S. are only able to get permission if their study results show something negative about cannabis, no matter how contrived. Researchers who want to study positive aspects, such as the benefits of medical cannabis, have been blocked by bureaucratic processes run by agencies who want to keep the drug illegal and classified as lacking medical value. I gave you a link to today's Los Angeles Times article up above as a source. This is common knowledge. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- You were/are alleging a conspiracy amongst journals, not a lack of funding into medical applications. Second Quantization (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, there's a bad astronomer, so why can't you be the "bad skeptic"? Think about it: major street cred, hot chicks/guy magnet, whatever. It's a bit sexier than "Second Quantization" (you don't get out much, do you?) Anyway, it's not a conspiracy. Scientists who study cannabis in the U.S. are only able to get permission if their study results show something negative about cannabis, no matter how contrived. Researchers who want to study positive aspects, such as the benefits of medical cannabis, have been blocked by bureaucratic processes run by agencies who want to keep the drug illegal and classified as lacking medical value. I gave you a link to today's Los Angeles Times article up above as a source. This is common knowledge. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- That is the section heading but not what I discussed (I don't think I have commented in that section about Marinol at all), there are two edits under discussion as far as I can see 1. [200] 2. [201]. My comments are related to the later, not the former. I see well cited papers about THC generally, cannabis specifically, in the area of myocardial infarction. It seems there is some weight to mention something about this. I responded to claims of conspiracies about these sources and that I am a bad skeptic etc. It is unreasonable to have people respond to peer reviewed sources with claims about conspiracies etc. Second Quantization (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Uhm...the section this entire transaction took place in is the "Marinol, Cannabis, and Mortality" section of the talk page. If this is your claim: "I have not heard of Marinol before and am not particularly interested in learning more about it " then I suggest you stop further discussion in that section and leave it to those who are interested in the subject in question. I am sure you are a reasonable editor and you do seem highly intelligent...I just don't think you know what you are doing and where you are doing it at, at the moment. I really don't know what else to say.--Mark Miller (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
In regards to this I suggest you create a separate section for "cannabis / myocardial infarction " and then I am requesting that you copy paste the exact sections of the source that I presume are journal articles and not individual studies as it is clearly being challenged and I myself cannot access the source. Accessibility of a source is not a requirement, but since it is being directly challenged you are required to show exactly what passages are being summarized and how the sources are being used. This may not settle your distress about the editor, but I feel it is the source of the issue as you have explained it and I for one want that settled as clearly it is at the center of this. Don't hurry or anything. I'm outa here for the rest of the day and will be returning later this evening.--Mark Miller (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully, Mark, I think you missed the point here. I don't think anyone came here asking you to immerse yourself in the content dispute, but simply Mark, if I could redirect here, I believe the main point is to address disruptive editing. The timeline, from my POV at least, looks like this:
1) I noticed a section in the article that claimed that smoking cannibis was safer than using Marinol. The supporting reference was a FIA document in which cannabis activist group asked the FDA for Adverse Event Reporting System data on deaths from Marinol. The document stated that five deaths had been reported, and pointedly stated that these were merely case reports, and no conclusions could be drawn regarding causation. Since the supporting reference was simply case reports, I deleted the comment.
2) Viriditas reverted my edit, offering "Nothing is being compared. It is a documented fact that high does of Marinol lead to death. It is also a documented fact that high doses of cannabis /does not/. End of story, no comparison was made." as his only explantion.
3) As his explanation for the reversion was did not address my explanation for the edit (He simply insisted that the inadequately sourced statement was true), and he did not engage on the Talk page, I undid his reversion and explained myself on the Talk page.
4) Viriditas responded by calling my arguments "bullshit", reiterating his claim that "high doses of marinol kill people", once again not addressing the sourcing issue, and called me a "chicken fucker". I think if you will read his response again, you'll agree that it was pointlessly insulting, and that it once again completely failed to address the explanation for my edit. I pointed out that it was a non-MEDRS citation and could not be used per the source itself to prove marinol "kills people". He simply insisted that marinol does kill people and insulted me.
5) At this point (to be honest, I was pissed at his behavior), I went to the literature and dug into some of the issues behind the safety of smoking cannabis. Its quite possible that my motivations at this point were somewhat vindictive, but it is also very clear at this point that there is a basis for a content discussion about including this material in the article. Viriditas has responded to every attempt to rationally discuss this by engaging in personal insults and other disruptive behavior.
From my point of view, we can handle the content dispute among ourselves so long as everyone debates in good faith and treats each other with respect. You have made it abundantly clear that you regard my position on the issue of cannabis toxicity with skepticism. It is also possible that I am guilty of baiting Viriditas to some extent. But nobody likes to be called a ignorant, a chicken fucker, or to have their painstaking efforts at literature review summarily dismissed as "bunk. Give it up and go home". Nor can one reason with such a person and achieve consensus.
I respectfully request that you I think the main thing is that we address the behavior issue here. Once that is done, we can settle the content dispute among ourselves. If you want to block me for a few days for my role in this, that's fine, I'll take my punishment. But order needs to be re-established if Wikipedia is not to become a version of Lord of the Flies.
If the content dispute is to be discussed here, I'd like to make the point once again that unlike marinol, cannabis (as least in the smoked form) is not an FDA approved drug, and has not been through the usual clinical development process. While MEDRS generally indicates that the best sources are meta analyses of phase 3 trials, no phase 3 trials have been performed on smoked cannabis. Nor have phase 2 trials. If we are not going to include any remarks on the potential risks of smoking marijuana in the article, because the sources fall short of the aforementioned standard, then we really shouldn't be saying anything about it's potential benefits either, as these lie on equally shaky ground. And then we will not have an article at all other than the chemical structure of THC. On the other hand, if mainstream opinion expressed in review articles is that marijuana may be useful for epilepsy, and may increase one's risk of heart attack, it may be reasonable to include both of these mainstream views in the article, even if both are based on weak underlying data. Someday large randomized clinical trials will be performed, but for now, the data available is all there is. Respectfully
- Sheesh. "Keep fucking that chicken" means "keep up the great work", it does not mean "keep having sex with animals". Look it up yourself. And try to read for context. Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry V., I'm an old man and do not keep up with the latest slang. And in particular, the following comments seem to support that your comment had a less benign intent than you are claiming above. How do any of the following comments support concensus building?
- Frame it anyway you want out of context, but there is no consensus that cannabis causes the strokes and heart attacks you are proposing, which is precisely the problem. You're only as old as you feel. I feel about 1,500 years old, if that makes you feel any better. When I was a kid, we kindled fire and hunted buffalo, and we liked it. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry V., I'm an old man and do not keep up with the latest slang. And in particular, the following comments seem to support that your comment had a less benign intent than you are claiming above. How do any of the following comments support concensus building?
- Nobody is buying the propaganda anymore and pretty soon, you guys are gonna be out of a job.
- Your so-called "evidence" is pure bunk. Give it up.
- You're content to cite political propaganda as fact
- But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of the medical term "cannabis" because those NIDA dollars have to keep rolling in and the DEA must meet their quota. Pure fucking nonsense.
- Someone is vastly ignorant in this discussion, and it isn't me
- At what point did you stop critically evaluating the medical literature and start accepting it without question?
- Don't let little things like facts get in the way of reality. You seem to be ignorant about a great deal.
- Sorry, we're not buying the usual round of bullshit. Sell your pharmaceutical snake oil elsewhere.
- Your argument from ignorance stinks.
- Unbelievable. You actually appear to be ignorant of the most demonstrable medical conspiracy of the 20th century
- Please sign you comments. I am losing track of who is saying what here. --Mark Miller (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- The bulleted items above are quotes from Viriditis in the discussion on the tetrahydrocannibinol Talk page and were posted here by me. talk) 10:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, taken completely out of context by you. Nice work. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, why don't you tell us then exactly what context justifies calling a fellow editor a "chicken fucker", repeatedly calling everyone who disagrees with you "ignorant", making personal attacks, and the like? In particular, how does it help build consensus and make the editing process more effective? talk) 10:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- You were not called a "chicken fucker", and I've already answered this above at 06:43, 14 March 2014. Furthermore, you have made no effort to build a consensus of any kind. You reverted two different editors and then quickly injected POV about cannabis causing heart attacks and strokes. If you were trying to build consensus, you would have reverted once and then quickly gone to the talk page to discuss it. You didn't do that. You reverted two different editors twice without discussion because you felt that they were unfairly representing a synthesized THC product produced by the pharmaceutical industry to replace cannabis, a product that doesn't work and has been implicated in multiple deaths, according to the sources. As an act of revenge editing, you then proceeded to add without consensus the statement that cannabis is associated with heart attacks and strokes, a statement that has poor evidence to support it and is highly controversial. At no point did you ever make an edit based on any kind of consensus, so please stop claiming that you did. You engaged in outright POV pushing, removing negative material about a pharmaceutical product intended to replace cannabis while adding speculative, negative material about cannabis in its place. Viriditas (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, why don't you tell us then exactly what context justifies calling a fellow editor a "chicken fucker", repeatedly calling everyone who disagrees with you "ignorant", making personal attacks, and the like? In particular, how does it help build consensus and make the editing process more effective?
- Yes, taken completely out of context by you. Nice work. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- The bulleted items above are quotes from Viriditis in the discussion on the tetrahydrocannibinol Talk page and were posted here by me.
- To the best of my understanding, my reverts were within the rules described at WP:BRD. And I clearly was active on the Talk page, otherwise we would not be having this discussion.
- To the best of my understanding, my reverts were within the rules described at
- You're back to the disruptive editing behavior of insisting that "Marinol kills people", arguing off-topic from the actual issue, which is that the supporting reference was not MEDRS compliant. If you find a MEDRS compliant source for that statement, you can add it to the article, and I'll be the first to defend your right to do so, as long as you do so in a way that does not involve making comparisons that are not supported by the data.
- I've freely admitted here that a small part of my motivation for continuing to dig into the cardiovascular AE profile of cannabis after that first exchange was that I was angry. (But you'll notice that the sentence I added describes "possible association" and does not go beyond the strength of the supporting evidence.) I apologize and will endeavor to do better in the future. You, however, are still insisting on your right to behave abusively to other editors. That's where the problem lies and what we would like to see changed. talk) 13:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've freely admitted here that a small part of my motivation for continuing to dig into the cardiovascular AE profile of cannabis after that first exchange was that I was angry. (But you'll notice that the sentence I added describes "possible association" and does not go beyond the strength of the supporting evidence.) I apologize and will endeavor to do better in the future. You, however, are still insisting on your right to behave abusively to other editors. That's where the problem lies and what we would like to see changed.
I became curious about the surprising claim that "fucking the chicken" means "keep up the good work", so I Googled it. The phrase originates from something newscaster Ernie Anastos said to another person who misspoke on air, and Anastos did compare the phrase to "keep up the good work", but he was making the comparison sarcastically, not as a compliment. It is a sarcastic phrase applied to someone who has put their foot in their mouth in public. Here's a link: [202]. Now if you look at the context of the diff in which Viriditas said it, it's obvious that he is not saying it as a compliment, and it becomes equally clear that his attempt here to re-frame it as a sincere statement of "keep up the good work" is not accurate. It is clearly a confrontational use of a phrase that is either (depending on one's cultural inclinations) vulgar or blunt. It is not conduct that helps move a discussion towards consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Formerly 98 had no consensus to edit war and revert two different users. Formerly 98 had no consensus to add controversial content claiming cannabis causes strokes and heart attacks. Yet you are here complaining about me not helping move a discussion towards consensus? Crazy. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please review WP:BRD. I don't think you'll find "edit-warring" defined as "any edit that Veritis disagrees with", as it seems to be used here.
- Please review
- I'm going to assume that the unsigned comment is from Formerly 98, and I'm replying, instead, directly to Viriditas' reply to me, but more to communicate with administrators watching here, than simply to him. I don't know whether Formerly 98 had consensus or not. My comment was about Viriditas' use of the phrase "fucking the chicken", and his subsequent assertion here at ANI that he was merely telling Formerly 98 to "keep up the good work". I suggest that administrators evaluate for themselves whether or not Veriditas' new comment is consistent with any of the following: sincerely saying "keep up the good work", showing an understanding of the complaints of editors here, showing an understanding of the reasons for the previous block, or helping move discussions towards consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPA
- I'm not here to get involved in the THC content discussion, but as for the aggression noted in the opening post, there is also [203] and [204]. Those personal attacks were not justified by what came before, and took place well after Mark Miller's advice: [205]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not personally attacking you at all. I've said that the reason I've ignored you for the last year (almost) is because I think you are intellectually dishonest. Meanwhile, you've been following me all over the place trying to get my attention. And the reason I've said you're intellectually dishonest is because you deliberately violated WP:SYN last year to push a POV, and when I confronted you with it, you dismissed it by giving me a "these aren't the droids you are looking for" line of bullshit. I called you on it then and I'm calling you on it now. An admin should not be defending and promoting the violation of our core policies. Block away. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not personally attacking you at all. I've said that the reason I've ignored you for the last year (almost) is because I think you are intellectually dishonest. Meanwhile, you've been following me all over the place trying to get my attention. And the reason I've said you're intellectually dishonest is because you deliberately violated
- After looking at the diffs Tryptofish posted above, I am certain I do not see "personal attacks". Frankly, I see candid discourse – and I see Viriditas' part as the rebuttal of what came before it.—John Cline (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- John, is your assessment of the comments I posted above the same as those cited by Tryptofish? Maybe I'm being Miss Manners here, but I did not think this language was helpful in consensus building. talk) 13:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- John, is your assessment of the comments I posted above the same as those cited by Tryptofish? Maybe I'm being Miss Manners here, but I did not think this language was helpful in consensus building.
In reality, I have never said anything remotely like "these aren't the droids you are looking for", even allowing that it might be some sort of paraphrase instead of a direct quote. In the time between Viriditas' return from his block and the message here that I left on Thargor's talk page, my interactions with Viriditas have been zero. Zero. If I'm incorrect, find the diffs. Otherwise, the comments above are exercises in fiction (and pretty bizarre at that).
It's an unfortunate situation that, in Wikipedia today, editors who have been contributing content over a long period of time can get away with stuff that would get a new editor blocked in a nanosecond. It's a real double standard, and a regrettable one. Despite what one member of Viriditas' fan club says here, the diffs I've provided are about as clear a violation of NPA as anyone is ever going to see. Some civility issues are ambiguous; this isn't one of those. I don't really care about blocking Viriditas. I care about getting him back into acceptable conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- The comments directed at you Trypto were NOT personal attacks.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, they were, in any reasonable interpretation, but that comment reinforces my point about a fan club. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have no fan club. Mark and I used to fight like cats and dogs, but we learned to respect each other and now we ask each other for guidance and help. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Then it is unfortunate that you did not heed his guidance here: [206]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I believe I have, and I don't believe I asked you for your opinion. I did ask you to give up your obsession with me and what has now turned into a bizarre form of fan fiction. You've created and perpetuated this framed narrative of who I am and what I do that does not exist anywhere in reality. Pretty sad, really. Viriditas (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Then it is unfortunate that you did not heed his guidance here: [206]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have no fan club. Mark and I used to fight like cats and dogs, but we learned to respect each other and now we ask each other for guidance and help. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, they were, in any reasonable interpretation, but that comment reinforces my point about a fan club. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- The comments directed at you Trypto were NOT personal attacks.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, brother. Given the tiresome task of explaining the metaphor of the Jedi mind trick in relation to what you actually said (of course you never actually said anything about droids, my gosh), I would much prefer a block. I keep forgetting the cardinal rule: never, ever use a metaphor on Wikipedia. Tryptofish, you did show up in multiple discussions where I was involved, and while it is true that you did not interact with me directly, you interacted in those discussions, which to me, means you are trying to get my attention. Wikipedia is a big place, just try to avoid me. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I guess learning a lesson about metaphor use is a start, especially if it is followed by learning another lesson about the use of insults. And I suppose it's a tiny bit of progress that we have gone from "you've been following me all over the place" to "it is true that you did not interact with me directly". But still no diffs! Trying to get his attention? How? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, please. Not this shit again. You and Thargor have been trying to troll the fuck out of me recently. In December, Thargor was trolling my contribs and decided to nominate an obscure article I created for deletion, at which point you showed up to play good cop bad cop. [207] Between then and now, you've showed up on my watchlist quite a bit. Thargor most recently stalked me to Abby Martin, where he began to disrupt the page. Then, in a discussion related to that disruption, you showed up on surprise, surprise, Thargor's talk page.[208] Both of you cannot seem to get over your obsession with me, and you both seem to just "show up" on random pages out of the blue trying to get my attention. Isn't it time you stopped trolling? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have your talk page on my watchlist. That's how I found out about those two specific articles. I could argue that your conduct in pushing fringe scientific theories warrants a monitoring of your activities, but I really don't have the time or energy for that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, you've been targeting my contribution list and more specifically, my edits, outside of any talk page. For example, several days ago, you nominated ) 11:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- You're correct that I found the Radioio article via the Abby Martin one, which I found via your talk page that I follow. You can make all the accusations you want, but they have no basis in fact and are not helping your case at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- You've been disrupting WP:REVENGE editing—all because I am the author of the article and I am the editor who added the link to Radioio. You've even admitted it. How is this not factual? At what point are you going research and write an article instead of hounding and harassing editors you disagree with? Oh, but I'm the one with the problem, right? Of course, because I object to your disruption, so therefore, I must be the one causing the problem, eh? What kind of twisted nonsense is this? It's like the beginning of this entire thread. Because I object to Formerly 98 edit warring and adding controversial material, I must be the one causing the problem with my "aggressive" behavior? Nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not disrupting any articles, not nominating anything out of revenge (you're simply not that important to me, sorry), and I didn't check the contributions to see who added what, I merely followed a link I hadn't seen before to an article that looked like this and, after some significant searching, had only press releases for sources. This paranoia needs to stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- You disrupted multiple articles, one of which you admittedly found by watching my contributions, after which you made a bad faith nomination of one of the links I added for deletion, and then tendentiously tried to remove multiple links in the article over and over again. This is all covered in WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, which perfectly describes your behavior. Frankly, your denial here is pathetic. I'm convinced that all you do is follow people around and harass them. Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- My good faith is waning. I haven't disrupted any articles (complaints of disruption do not make such claims true), I found *zero* by "watching your contributions" (the Abby Martin article I found, again, because your talk page is watchlisted as I've contributed there in the past). I did try to remove some links a couple times as they did not (and still don't) conform to our guidelines. I'm sorry that the truth of the matter is much less sexy than you're making it out to be, but this is getting to be extremely paranoid. You've been back from your block for months, and because I found two of your articles that people posted about on your talk page, I'm following you all over the place. I wish I had the time it would take to do half of what you accuse me of. I'm not going to continue going back and forth on crazy ravings. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, your editing meets 5 of the 6 criterions for disruption at WP:REVENGE. You followed me to Abby Martin to disrupt the further reading section and the talk page, and after I added a citation to Radioio, you nominated it for deletion. That is the truth of the matter. You don't research or write articles. You just follow people around and harass them. Furthermore, your bad behavior is enabled by several editors and admins who deflect your disruption onto users who complain about it, and accuse them of "aggression" when they see bad edits being made and their valuable time being wasted. Viriditas (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, your editing meets 5 of the 6 criterions for disruption at
- My good faith is waning. I haven't disrupted any articles (complaints of disruption do not make such claims true), I found *zero* by "watching your contributions" (the Abby Martin article I found, again, because your talk page is watchlisted as I've contributed there in the past). I did try to remove some links a couple times as they did not (and still don't) conform to our guidelines. I'm sorry that the truth of the matter is much less sexy than you're making it out to be, but this is getting to be extremely paranoid. You've been back from your block for months, and because I found two of your articles that people posted about on your talk page, I'm following you all over the place. I wish I had the time it would take to do half of what you accuse me of. I'm not going to continue going back and forth on crazy ravings. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- You disrupted multiple articles, one of which you admittedly found by watching my contributions, after which you made a bad faith nomination of one of the links I added for deletion, and then tendentiously tried to remove multiple links in the article over and over again. This is all covered in
- Not disrupting any articles, not nominating anything out of revenge (you're simply not that important to me, sorry), and I didn't check the contributions to see who added what, I merely followed a link I hadn't seen before to an article that looked like this and, after some significant searching, had only press releases for sources. This paranoia needs to stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- You've been disrupting
- You're correct that I found the Radioio article via the Abby Martin one, which I found via your talk page that I follow. You can make all the accusations you want, but they have no basis in fact and are not helping your case at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, you've been targeting my contribution list and more specifically, my edits, outside of any talk page. For example, several days ago, you nominated ) 11:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have your talk page on my watchlist. That's how I found out about those two specific articles. I could argue that your conduct in pushing fringe scientific theories warrants a monitoring of your activities, but I really don't have the time or energy for that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, please. Not this shit again. You and Thargor have been trying to troll the fuck out of me recently. In December, Thargor was trolling my contribs and decided to nominate an obscure article I created for deletion, at which point you showed up to play good cop bad cop. [207] Between then and now, you've showed up on my watchlist quite a bit. Thargor most recently stalked me to Abby Martin, where he began to disrupt the page. Then, in a discussion related to that disruption, you showed up on surprise, surprise, Thargor's talk page.[208] Both of you cannot seem to get over your obsession with me, and you both seem to just "show up" on random pages out of the blue trying to get my attention. Isn't it time you stopped trolling? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I guess learning a lesson about metaphor use is a start, especially if it is followed by learning another lesson about the use of insults. And I suppose it's a tiny bit of progress that we have gone from "you've been following me all over the place" to "it is true that you did not interact with me directly". But still no diffs! Trying to get his attention? How? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, brother. Given the tiresome task of explaining the metaphor of the
- Finally, some links have been cited by someone other than me, so that's good. So, let's examine Viriditas' claims, and whether or not there is evidence behind them. First of all, Thargor Orlando and I are two different editors. I take no responsibility for his conduct, and I'm only discussing my own conduct here.
- Here is what Viriditas claims about me here: What I am saying is "shit". I am a troll, and I am "trying to troll the fuck out of [him] recently". By "recently", we are discussing what has happened since Viriditas returned from his block, last November. What is the evidence of that?
- The first example provided by Viriditas is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Fragile Intellect. It's true that I have watchlisted Viriditas' user talk ever since he was blocked last year (not posting there during the time after his block, just observing), and that is neither trolling nor disruptive, but rather to be expected following the things that he said to me, that led to his block. So I saw this: [209], and this: [210]. It appeared, on the basis of those two notifications, to be a big enough dispute that I was curious to see what it was. So I looked at the AfD, and it turned out to relate to subjects of human intelligence that relate to my editing interests (and expertise) in neuroscience, so I decided to comment. You can follow the link to see what I ended up saying there. I didn't address Viriditas directly at any point. I mostly disagreed with Thargor. I think that my contributions to that discussion were constructive and well within policy. So what is the evidence that I was playing "good cop bad cop"? What is the evidence that I was acting as a troll?
- The second example is my comment at Thargor's talk page. I had watchlisted that page the same time that I watchlisted Viriditas' page, because it was all part of the same dispute. Since that time, I stopped watchlisting Thargor, because it no longer appeared relevant to me. But I did see what is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Thargor Orlando, and the fact that I look from time to time at ANI is pretty far from trolling Viriditas. And I never commented at that ANI thread. If I were so obsessed with Viriditas or so in conspiracy with Thargor, it's pretty surprising that I wouldn't have shown up there. I watched the discussion, but did not take part in it. But I then started also watchlisting Thargor's talk again. And I saw this: [211], which caught me up short, because it had been I who reported Viriditas to the administrator who blocked him. Next there was this: [212], which was directly about the reasons for that previous block. Please note: numerous editors were accused of being paid editors working for Monsanto or the like, and it turned out to be completely false. Then, there was this: [213] and this: [214]. Now here's the diff within that second diff, and it's worth seeing the tone of what was there: [215]. And here is Viriditas' reaction: [216]. Notice how his argument is based upon his not having used either the word "paid" or the word "shill". Compare that to his actual words in the diff Thargor cited, and compare it to what I quote below from the administrator who blocked Viriditas (and, for that matter, compare it to Viriditas' complaints in this ANI discussion about editors taking what he said too literally). So I said this: [217], which also criticizes Thargor. And I was met by [218] and [219], which brought me to here. So you see, Viriditas was already accusing me of "trying to get [his] attention", even though all that came before was that AfD.
- I've made an awful lot of edits during November, December, January, February, and March. So, over all that time, what is the evidence that I have been trying to "troll the fuck out of" Viriditas? Those two links appear to be Viriditas' entire claim. And what does all of this say about him? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- erm ... Using the phrase you did is not an innocent metaphor as you now seem to assert, and you ought to have owned up to it in the first place. Your demeanour is, at this point, worse than Andy the Grump's. Say you are not "personally attacking" someone and then calling them "intellectually dishonest" might cause any outsider's eyebrows to rise. Wikipedia says we use "reliable sources" even if we "know" they are not the "truth." You see -- Wikipedia is not about the editors - it is only about what sources say. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Erm" right back at you. "These are not the droids you are looking for" can be nothing but a metaphor in that context. The user appears to think that this figure of speech is meant literally. My justification for avoiding an editor is not a personal attack, it's my description of their argument that they used to defend ) 05:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- In most places in this world, "droid" is not quite the same with regard to civility as "fucking." Clearly you are not a denizen of a section of society which regards the tenor of the phrase as relevant to how the phrase is seen by outsider. Collect (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- True. As long as you are an arbitrator for Wikipedia you can say just about anything and use the "fuck" to your delight and nothing happens but a quick close to the discussion here. LOL! Get the "fuck" over it. I really can't say that Viriditas has a pattern of misusing the word "FUCK". Please demonstrate as much our just "fucking" stop. I see this come up all the time and I am "fucking" sick of it. As for Andy...why bring him up. That is just "fucking" rude and discusses the contributor and not the content. What the "fuck"? what does Andy have to do with this and why drag him into it. If you want to begin naming names here....I have a very long "fucking" list of editors who get away with telling others to "Fuck" off and worse. Shall we go down this road? It is a very long road so I suggest everyone rest up for the hike.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps your tone is as culpable as is Viriditas' in that case. I consider your vocabulary to be less than civil, and your tone in that same category. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- You've confused two different discussions. Viriditas (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I rather think that is not the case. I read the diffs and the original discussions and find your vocabulary reprehensible. Have a proverbial cup of tea. Collect (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- You conflated two different discussion, one about the use of a popular culture reference to chickens and a completely different one about a popular culture reference to Star Wars. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- And you will stick to that excuse" no matter what? Like your use of "keep drinking what's left of that Kool-Aid"? AFAICT, that is a specific reference not to "popular culture" but to asserting that the person should commit suicide. Cheers -- but urging suicide is not acceptable ion Wikipedia or any online site. Collect (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Collect, it looks like you're confused again. Please read Drinking the Kool-Aid. It has nothing whatsoever to do with suicide at all when used this way. It refers to a person "holding an unquestioned belief, argument, or philosophy without critical examination". In the context of the original discussion, it refers to the belief by the user that Marinol did not hurt anyone and that cannabis causes strokes and heart attacks. Viriditas (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Nothing whatsoever to do with suicide"? Really? The phrase derives from the November 1978 Jonestown Massacre,[1][2][3] where members of the Peoples Temple, who were followers of the Reverend Jim Jones committed suicide by drinking a mixture of a powdered soft drink flavoring agent laced with cyanide. seems pretty clear to anyone at all -- sorry if you did not know that part of the story. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Without commenting on anything else in this thread: interpreting "keep drinking what's left of that Kool-Aid" as "asserting that the person should commit suicide" is being intentionally obtuse and dishonest, and the person making such an intentional misinterpretation should either be ignored, or removed from the discussion, depending on how often they've done games-playing crap like that. Like I said, I make no comment on whether there is a similar problem with other editor(s) involved in this thread. But pretending that this could reasonably be interpreted as an encouragement to commit suicide in this way is intentionally lying. Stop it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. Don't agree with the vehemence of that comment but there is some sense in it. Viriditas, would it be possible for you to just say things in normal words, rather than say things like "drink the Kool-aid" and "keep fucking that chicken"? If these phrases mean (to you) "keep up the good work", why not just say it using those words next time? They will be much less likely to cause confusion and offence. We need you to help improve the THC article and I really don't want you to be topic-banned or blocked, which is inevitable if you carry on like this. --John (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is manifestly little support for that proposal below, so I would suggest refraining from further comments along that line for now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your suggestion is duly noted, but I see four supporters beneath my (tentative) suggestion. I confidently predict and maintain that if the user was to continue along the lines he has been, some sort of sanction would become inevitable. This is something I would prefer to avoid, and I think this will be best avoided by Viriditas taking on board some of the feedback given here. --John (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is manifestly little support for that proposal below, so I would suggest refraining from further comments along that line for now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. Don't agree with the vehemence of that comment but there is some sense in it. Viriditas, would it be possible for you to just say things in normal words, rather than say things like "drink the Kool-aid" and "keep fucking that chicken"? If these phrases mean (to you) "keep up the good work", why not just say it using those words next time? They will be much less likely to cause confusion and offence. We need you to help improve the THC article and I really don't want you to be topic-banned or blocked, which is inevitable if you carry on like this. --John (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Without commenting on anything else in this thread: interpreting "keep drinking what's left of that Kool-Aid" as "asserting that the person should commit suicide" is being intentionally obtuse and dishonest, and the person making such an intentional misinterpretation should either be ignored, or removed from the discussion, depending on how often they've done games-playing crap like that. Like I said, I make no comment on whether there is a similar problem with other editor(s) involved in this thread. But pretending that this could reasonably be interpreted as an encouragement to commit suicide in this way is intentionally lying. Stop it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Nothing whatsoever to do with suicide"? Really? The phrase derives from the November 1978 Jonestown Massacre,[1][2][3] where members of the Peoples Temple, who were followers of the Reverend Jim Jones committed suicide by drinking a mixture of a powdered soft drink flavoring agent laced with cyanide. seems pretty clear to anyone at all -- sorry if you did not know that part of the story. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Collect, it looks like you're confused again. Please read Drinking the Kool-Aid. It has nothing whatsoever to do with suicide at all when used this way. It refers to a person "holding an unquestioned belief, argument, or philosophy without critical examination". In the context of the original discussion, it refers to the belief by the user that Marinol did not hurt anyone and that cannabis causes strokes and heart attacks. Viriditas (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- And you will stick to that excuse" no matter what? Like your use of "keep drinking what's left of that Kool-Aid"? AFAICT, that is a specific reference not to "popular culture" but to asserting that the person should commit suicide. Cheers -- but urging suicide is not acceptable ion Wikipedia or any online site. Collect (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- You conflated two different discussion, one about the use of a popular culture reference to chickens and a completely different one about a popular culture reference to Star Wars. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I rather think that is not the case. I read the diffs and the original discussions and find your vocabulary reprehensible. Have a proverbial cup of tea. Collect (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- In most places in this world, "droid" is not quite the same with regard to civility as "fucking." Clearly you are not a denizen of a section of society which regards the tenor of the phrase as relevant to how the phrase is seen by outsider. Collect (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Erm" right back at you. "These are not the droids you are looking for" can be nothing but a metaphor in that context. The user appears to think that this figure of speech is meant literally. My justification for avoiding an editor is not a personal attack, it's my description of their argument that they used to defend ) 05:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- erm ... Using the phrase you did is not an innocent metaphor as you now seem to assert, and you ought to have owned up to it in the first place. Your demeanour is, at this point, worse than Andy the Grump's. Say you are not "personally attacking" someone and then calling them "intellectually dishonest" might cause any outsider's eyebrows to rise. Wikipedia says we use "reliable sources" even if we "know" they are not the "truth." You see -- Wikipedia is not about the editors - it is only about what sources say. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Topic ban
I've read the discussion above. Would a topic ban on Viriditas be helpful, given that this user seems over-invested in the topic to the point where they are cursing at those who do not share their point of view? --John (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Over-invested, as in the fact that I've made approximately two edits to the article in question, one in 2008, and one in 2014?[220] John, considering your most recent conflict with me on John Barrowman and RS/N where consensus was clearly against your disruptive removal of Daily Mail sources, isn't it too soon for you to be exacting revenge on me for scuttling your little campaign? You are clearly not disinterested here, so please stop pretending you are neutral. And for the record, I have "cursed" at nobody. "Keep fucking that chicken" is a euphemism for "keep up the great work". Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- You flatter yourself greatly if you think this is about the Daily Mail and your misunderstanding of BLP a few months ago. Here's a question for you. You're obviously a clever guy. Do you think your use of "Keep fucking that chicken" was a wise choice of words? And yes, like it or not, fuck is considered a curse word by most people. --John (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- My misunderstanding of BLP? That's a laugh. The community has had to personally intervene multiple times to stop you and correct your gross misunderstanding of BLP. To recap, your erroneous view of BLP was corrected in August 2013, then most notably by 18 editors in October 2013, and then most recently in February 2013 on the Barrowman talk page and on the BLP noticeboard. Is that a record of some kind, John? Talk about being over-invested! I could learn from you... Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yawn. Well, if you feel like answering the question, that'll be interesting. If you continue not to answer the question, we will draw our own conclusions from that. So, Viriditas does not want to be topic-banned. Does anybody else who is uninvolved feel it might help, given the user's behaviour? --John (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't care what you do. I'm just pointing out that you are trying to exact revenge for your failure to win consensus on the BLP dispute we had last month. Block me, topic ban me, I don't care, but I certainly don't think I've deserved either, especially when it's being proposed by an admin still bruised and hurting from his last run-in with me. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't you be topic-banned? I would rather see that than a block, for what it's worth, but it's clear you cannot go on like this. --John (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- The burden of evidence is on those who are proposing a topic ban, and there is a presumption of innocence on the accused. I should not have to prove otherwise. As for "going on like this", the only reason I'm even participating here is to dispel your false pretense of neutrality. It seems that when you aren't too busy threatening to block people as an involved admin, you're proposing empty topic bans on your enemies. Is that what it takes to be an admin these days? Looks like we've hit the bottom of the barrel. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'd actually support a block right now per this edit which indicates an ongoing problem with this editor. Failing that, I think a topic ban may be called for. I would be interested in other opinions though. --John (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Then you need glasses. That diff indicates no "problem" whatsoever. The link shows me making a joke in the spirit of camaraderie by proposing a "sexier" user name similar to the famous skeptic Phil Plait, who uses the term "bad astronomer", where "bad" is used in the sense of "awesome". Plait is generally considered "sexy", in the sense that he's a "bad ass" astronomer. Do you really need to have every joke explained to you? Block away, dude. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'd actually support a block right now per this edit which indicates an ongoing problem with this editor. Failing that, I think a topic ban may be called for. I would be interested in other opinions though. --John (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- The burden of evidence is on those who are proposing a topic ban, and there is a presumption of innocence on the accused. I should not have to prove otherwise. As for "going on like this", the only reason I'm even participating here is to dispel your false pretense of neutrality. It seems that when you aren't too busy threatening to block people as an involved admin, you're proposing empty topic bans on your enemies. Is that what it takes to be an admin these days? Looks like we've hit the bottom of the barrel. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't you be topic-banned? I would rather see that than a block, for what it's worth, but it's clear you cannot go on like this. --John (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't care what you do. I'm just pointing out that you are trying to exact revenge for your failure to win consensus on the BLP dispute we had last month. Block me, topic ban me, I don't care, but I certainly don't think I've deserved either, especially when it's being proposed by an admin still bruised and hurting from his last run-in with me. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yawn. Well, if you feel like answering the question, that'll be interesting. If you continue not to answer the question, we will draw our own conclusions from that. So, Viriditas does not want to be topic-banned. Does anybody else who is uninvolved feel it might help, given the user's behaviour? --John (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- My misunderstanding of BLP? That's a laugh. The community has had to personally intervene multiple times to stop you and correct your gross misunderstanding of BLP. To recap, your erroneous view of BLP was corrected in August 2013, then most notably by 18 editors in October 2013, and then most recently in February 2013 on the Barrowman talk page and on the BLP noticeboard. Is that a record of some kind, John? Talk about being over-invested! I could learn from you... Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- You flatter yourself greatly if you think this is about the Daily Mail and your misunderstanding of BLP a few months ago. Here's a question for you. You're obviously a clever guy. Do you think your use of "Keep fucking that chicken" was a wise choice of words? And yes, like it or not, fuck is considered a curse word by most people. --John (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is supposed to be about building consensus. Viriditas exhibits a pattern of simply insulting everyone who disagrees with him and insisting that they are wrong, naive, and actively supporting oppression and bad science. If he can modify his behavior, his POV is a good one to have represented here. But I suspect he can't/won't, even in response to sanctions. I think a topic ban is a big step, but I don't see what else to do. talk) 10:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is supposed to be about building consensus. Viriditas exhibits a pattern of simply insulting everyone who disagrees with him and insisting that they are wrong, naive, and actively supporting oppression and bad science. If he can modify his behavior, his POV is a good one to have represented here. But I suspect he can't/won't, even in response to sanctions. I think a topic ban is a big step, but I don't see what else to do.
- At what point were you building consensus when you edit warred and reverted two different editors[221][222] and then added controversial material that claimed cannabis causes heart attacks and strokes?[223] You're POV pushing and telling me I have a problem? That's rich. But please, keep arguing for a block and topic ban. You're bound to fool someone, anyone. Looks like the gang's all here. Congrats on turning a content dispute, where you've edit warred and pushed a biased POV, into a behavioral problem on the guy who caught you with your pants down. You are clearly admin material. Oh, and don't expect John to understand what you mean about "building consensus", as he refuses to recognize consensus. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I would note that I find the DM to be RS other than for "contentious claims about living persons", and certainly do not always agree with John, but I suggest he is right that a hiatus from the topic at hand might improve your use of parliamentary vocabulary when dealing with other editors. Attacking John on that unrelated issue, by the way, is quite unlikely to make others take your position as valid, nor is your use of profane expletives indicative of one who seeks consensus rather than confrontation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support I don't see how anyone could discuss anything at this article while Viriditas launches his pointless insults [224], straw men, conspiratorial ideation [225][226][227] and screeds at any comment [228][229][230]. Second Quantization (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- What a fucking joke. This from someone who follows me to a discussion he knows nothing about and admits he knows nothing about it. How can you participate in a discussion you know nothing about? This is nuts. Yet, here you are, the OP of this thread, successfully distracting from the POV pushing by Formerly 98. Nice work, Second Quantization. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think that it is time to discuss some sort of sanction, but I'm not sure which "topic" we are discussing here. Is it cannabis? The problem is that Viriditas moves from one topic to another, and when he gets sufficiently annoyed with other editors over a content dispute, he starts to ascribe bad motivations to them, and from there he moves to disruptive behavior. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- The trouble is that at this point it is apparent that if a topic ban will not fly, we would have to be looking at a longer block. He just came back from a three-month block; the next would normally be for six months. I would very much rather not see a well-meaning and intelligent editor taken out for that length of time if a topic ban could be as preventive. I also have some sympathy for the proposition that our article on THC is a mess, and desperately needs a cleanup. Its just the manner that Viriditas has adopted that it unhelpful. If he could just cool it, apologise for the fucking the chicken comment (and no, euphemism is not the right word for that), then we could all just get on with things. It seems that this is beyond them at the moment and we are heading for some sort of administrative action, which I would far rather avoid. --John (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I understand where you are coming from, and I somewhat agree with your desire to avoid losing the good along with the bad. And I infer that, yes, you are talking about "cannabis" as the topic for the topic ban. I'm willing to try it. But I fear that it won't work, for the reasons that I already said. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I assume the topic ban would be on "all articles concerning marijuana or health, reasonably construed". Or the Hobson's choice of a six month simple block / Wikication. Collect (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Block history
I think that, at this point, it is useful to look back at Viriditas' history over a longer period, and particularly the context, now, for considering a possible block. Here is his block log: [231]. More directly relevant is the rationale for his most recent block, a three-month block from August to November of last year: [232]. I urge administrators looking here to read that diff carefully. It notes a history of successively longer blocks, based partly on edit warring, but based more on:
- "persistent assumptions of bad faith, multiple unsubstantiated accusations, and so on and so on: it has mostly been pointed out to you before, so I don't need to go through the full list. One of the most striking features of what I saw was your own apparent blindness to the extent to which you make the very mistakes of which you accuse others. For example, you have repeatedly accused others of WP:IDHT... but you are one of the biggest perpetrators of that error; you accuse others of "making false accusations"... , despite the fact that you have a long and still continuing history of making accusations without substantiation, and in some cases accusations which the simplest checks show are demonstrably false. Perhaps the most fundamental problem is that you appear to be unable to conceive of anyone who opposes your position as doing so in good faith: anyone who is against you must have ulterior motives."
- "persistent assumptions of bad faith, multiple unsubstantiated accusations, and so on and so on: it has mostly been pointed out to you before, so I don't need to go through the full list. One of the most striking features of what I saw was your own apparent blindness to the extent to which you make the very mistakes of which you accuse others. For example, you have repeatedly accused others of
Viriditas has been back from that block since November. During that time, he has gotten cautions from various editors about resumption of that behavior: [233], [234], [235]. The expectation of the community is that an editor returning from a block will learn from the reasons for that block, and do better going forward (and we have lots of good editors who have done just that).
The question now is whether, on the evidence of how Viriditas is replying to other editors in this ANI thread, he has reformed the behaviors that led to past blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Trypto, you and I go back years and I generally respect your views, but you have had a running disagreement with Viriditas for some time. This section is unworthy of you, in my view, for a number of reasons but most notably because you fail to mention that fact. As you know I have followed Viriditas and often, but not always, agree with his stands. I don't agree that his blocks have all been what I'd call "justice." This is a valuable editor and while I don't subscribe to his style, I believe the 'pedia is better off with him around, warts and all. Again, I strongly suggest you redact the above as unworthy of you. Jusdafax 18:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the discussion here has focused on how to keep him around while getting him to adjust his style. So I'm not clear on how the comment "This is a valuable editor and while I don't subscribe to his style, I believe the 'pedia is better off with him around, warts and all" is topical. I think we all agree that the style is problematic. talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the discussion here has focused on how to keep him around while getting him to adjust his style. So I'm not clear on how the comment "This is a valuable editor and while I don't subscribe to his style, I believe the 'pedia is better off with him around, warts and all" is topical. I think we all agree that the style is problematic.
- I don't agree. Viriditas' style is what it is. It seems to me that the section is pushing a block or other sanctions, given the lack of consensus for a topic ban and the section's title, and personally I feel that remedial action is uncalled for. Viriditas is edgy, as seen above, and has a lower tolerance for certain types of edits than many of us do. That said, he is useful in that he does good work often and is refreshingly candid. Viriditas deserves better than this discussion. I do suggest Viriditas review 19:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously, that is your answer to years of problematic behaviour? Read WP:WQ? Second Quantization (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously, that is your answer to years of problematic behaviour? Read
- I am fully and pointedly staying out of any calls for a topic ban or anything like that because I have a history with Viriditas, but, Jusdafax, I think the double standard complaint is valid in this case. No one is disparaging the work Viriditas puts in. The question is how long we're going to allow a rope to be in this scenario, and the uneven treatment. You, yourself, question Tryptofish's history with Viri as a motive here, yet that same skepticism wasn't welcome when it was Viri attempting to get someone he's had longstanding conflicts with blocked two weeks ago. Viri has written better articles than I'll ever get around to writing here, but that doesn't necessarily mean that his contributions amount to a net positive when it comes to issues of fringe science or political topics, for example. Again, I'm neutral on this because there's no way I can possibly be objective, but the apparent double standard is troubling. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I salute that neutrality here, TO. You refer, I assume, to the recent calls to block you here, which on reflection appeared unsound to me. I struck my !vote to do so, which I am sorry to see you fail to mention, on deeper consideration of the larger issues. Wikipedia, as many have noted, isn't always fair. Viriditas may not attach the same importance to a clean block log that you (I assume) and I do, but I find that his willingness to stand up for what he believes in is inspiring, characterizations aside, and suggest you work to put history aside. I admit it is not always easy, and I have failed myself badly at times. I consider Trypto a friend and feel he can take my views honestly and in good faith. If Wikipedia is to continue into the future as a vital, growing project free from feuds, we all must make that effort. Jusdafax 22:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am fully and pointedly staying out of any calls for a topic ban or anything like that because I have a history with Viriditas, but, Jusdafax, I think the double standard complaint is valid in this case. No one is disparaging the work Viriditas puts in. The question is how long we're going to allow a rope to be in this scenario, and the uneven treatment. You, yourself, question Tryptofish's history with Viri as a motive here, yet that same skepticism wasn't welcome when it was Viri attempting to get someone he's had longstanding conflicts with blocked two weeks ago. Viri has written better articles than I'll ever get around to writing here, but that doesn't necessarily mean that his contributions amount to a net positive when it comes to issues of fringe science or political topics, for example. Again, I'm neutral on this because there's no way I can possibly be objective, but the apparent double standard is troubling. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thargor, I think you're mistaking "abusive" for "refreshingly candid". We all have subjects we feel strongly about, and most of us take secret pleasure when someone lashes out at a third party whose incomprehensible viewpoint irritates us. But when those of us on the other side of the issue, equally convinced that we are "right", start calling our opponents "morons", telling them they are "ignorant", and dismissing their viewpoint out of hand, it just turns into an ugly free for all. I think you are imagining a world in which those you agree with are "refreshingly candid" and put those other people in their place. But I guarantee you, those other people are just as capable of being rude, hostile, and offensive as those you agree with. It really doesn't work in the long run, and that's why we have talk • contribs) 22:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- It was Jusdafax, not Thargor, who said that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thargor, I think you're mistaking "abusive" for "refreshingly candid". We all have subjects we feel strongly about, and most of us take secret pleasure when someone lashes out at a third party whose incomprehensible viewpoint irritates us. But when those of us on the other side of the issue, equally convinced that we are "right", start calling our opponents "morons", telling them they are "ignorant", and dismissing their viewpoint out of hand, it just turns into an ugly free for all. I think you are imagining a world in which those you agree with are "refreshingly candid" and put those other people in their place. But I guarantee you, those other people are just as capable of being rude, hostile, and offensive as those you agree with. It really doesn't work in the long run, and that's why we have
- Jusdafax, I'm saddened to find that you feel this way, and I'm going to try to give you a detailed reply. As best I can remember, my first interactions with Viriditas were: [236], [237], and [238]. I'm not exactly being hostile there, am I? What you call a "running disagreement" started last year, when I saw an RfC about March Against Monsanto. I went to the talk page there with no agenda. My first two comments there were un-noteworthy; here is the third thing I wrote: [239]. And my fourth: [240]. Shortly later: [241], [242], and [243]. I'm not pursuing anything like a disagreement with Viriditas anywhere there! As discussion went on, I began to see nastiness directed mostly at other editors, not at me, but there were things like [244] (lower part), that met my collegial comments with assumptions of bad faith, and [245] that, while seemingly polite, appeared to question my intellect because I had a different opinion. And those examples are very mild, compared to what was directed at other editors, who appeared to me to be acting in good faith, and mild compared to what came later, and led to the block. Jusdafax, it simply is not true that I'm here to push an advantage in some sort of editing disagreement. I'm not currently in any content disagreement with him, anywhere. And, Jusdafax, I'm pretty sure that my first interactions with you were in respect to CDA, where we both agreed that editors who have some sort of track record do not get to get away with things that new editors would be blocked for. I'm trying to stay true to that belief here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Trypto, it could be that the four years since our work at WP:CDA (which of course was more about admins and the community, than longstanding content builders having a "civility edge" over "lesser" editors) has given me a more realistic view of the Realpolitik we face here these days. I am aware of the Monsanto diffs and, as you recall, urged a more moderate tone at Viriditas' Talk page back then. To be brief, after warnings he was blocked and he served his time. I ask you to join me in now urging this thread be closed as unproductive. From here on out, it's gonna be more heat than light, and we should agree the issues are noted and agree to move on. Jusdafax22:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- If you are really aware of those diffs, then you have to know that I'm not here to push a personal agenda. I wasn't then, and I'm not now. I stand by what I've said here, and I'm not calling it back. If you look at everything I've said here at ANI, I earlier said that I'm not really interested in getting Viriditas blocked, but more interested in getting him back into good behavior (see above). Since I said that, he has engaged, in his subsequent comments in this discussion, in more of the conduct that got him blocked the last time. In my opinion, the opinion of the blocking administrator, that I quote above, was not at all unjust, but was sound and very thoughtful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- You keep trying to frame the opinion of the past blocking admin as a factual narrative, but I find it to be completely erroneous without any basis in fact. The reason you keep trying to frame me as this editor that doesn't exist is indeed, your personal agenda. And that's another reason why I wish to have nothing to do with you. You're very deceptive, on a subtle level that most people would miss. Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Trypto, it could be that the four years since our work at
- I probably won't comment here further unless directly necessary, but my comment was not meant to disregard your second look, Jusdafax, but rather just to point out the good faith in one area (where an editor has been blocked repeatedly for the same thing) but not another (when an editor you've barely interacted with, if at all, is accused by someone who has been blocked repeatedly). That's all I mean by double standard, and I raised it with you directly because you've shown me as someone who is willing to revisit issues when necessary. That's all, no offense meant by the line toward you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Jusdafax, I'll be "refreshingly candid" here, but mean no offense: My question is, why have rules at all if you are not going to enforce them? We seem to all agree that the rules have been broken, and that it is a recurring situation. I would suggest there are three possibilities here. 1) We have civility rules and consistently enforce them. 2) We have civility rules and enforce them selectively, depending on whether we "like" or frequently agree with the offender, or other discriminatory criteria. 3) We just get rid of the rules altogether. I'd strongly prefer 1 or 3, each of which pretty much constitutes the old adage of "the law is no respecter of persons". Number 2 has a lot of problems. One of which is that it opens up the system for a lot of abuse. Another is that it breeds contempt for the rules.
- I have been on the side of 1, as many here know quite well, for many years. I have urged 3, with sardonic intent, at times when I have not gotten the feeling 1 was respected. As I am sure most here are well aware, 2 is operative much of the time. We could debate much further on that, with multiple citations and examples, but I prefer not to. Bottom line: A debate over civility is not what is called for on this page. Again: suggest we close. Jusdafax 23:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Being new, I'd like to ask a procedural question. If no sanctions are taken against Viriditas as a result of his repeated violations of
- I really believe people are holding grudges and simply take offense to things that are truly taken way out of context because of individual moral standards that are a reaction to as much the other person here then the editor that really...looks like he's getting sharp end of a pointy stick. I seem to remember that I had a run in with Viriditas but that we quickly got over it because...I apologized for my mistakes and he quickly offered the same along with another editor. I'm trying hard to remember, but I think we did it on an Administrators talk page I can't remember...that might have been another editor. I do remember the articles and some of the edit warring and I am embarrassed by my behavior...I sure wouldn't want to be pointing to any of that because my behavior looks worse that theirs looking back on all that. We edit a lot of California subjects and biographies. Has he cussed? Yes. Should he? No. Is it a pattern? Not really. A pattern is something repeated enough to see a pattern, but I just see someone who reacts badly sometimes when he feels he needs to defend himself and I also weigh how bad others may be acting, I know Trypto you have been in heated discussion before, it isn't as if it is a shock. I honestly don't see enough for sanctions. I do see enough that some content disputes could be referred to DR/N and if editors wish, create a RFC/U, but I don't suggest it. If anyone acted as stupid as I know I did when I first reacted to Viriditas...I wouldn't be pointing the community to as shining examples of our behavior.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Before I saw Mark's very thoughtful comment, I was going to reply to Formerly 98 that, even if things don't get resolved here, it's not OK for any of the rest of us to use one editor's bad conduct as an excuse for bad conduct ourselves, and that if they don't get resolved here, this is not necessarily the end of the overall discussion of the disputes. But then I saw what Mark said, and I want to thank him and compliment him for a very good job of helping to lower the temperature, always a good thing to do. What you ask of me, Mark, about whether I might just be taking things too personally based on what came before, and whether I should let go now, is a very good question, and one that I already thought about before you asked it. Yes, I've had heated discussions with other editors in the past, and get along just fine with them now. But I sincerely believe that this is different. What I saw for the first time at the Monsanto dispute was a degree of nastiness and assumption of bad faith that I have never before seen on such a scale from experienced editors. I've seen it from drive-by newbies, and they don't last long, but what I saw here was nastiness returned even when I tried to be friendly. I've already given diffs here of me saying that I agreed with Viriditas about something, followed by him insulting me in return. And look at the way this ANI discussion has gone. Viriditas has had numerous opportunities over several days to say something roughly like that he doesn't entirely agree with the criticisms of him but he is going to make some sort of effort going forward to do something better, or something like that. But instead, quite the opposite. His most recent comments called my concerns about him "shit" and he accused me of being in league with Thargor to "troll the fuck out of" him. There's not much for me to work with. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, first let me apologize for the snarky post. It was a weak attempt to remind the "boys will be boys" crowd that incivility and snarkiness are unpleasant to be on the receiving end of.
Second, this is not about agrudge. Its about the future. Those who are admins or philosophical allies of V. dont have to worry about behavior that they will not be on the recieving end of or which they have the power to sanction. But little people like myself have no recourse other than to ask the referrees to do their job. And seeing everyone here agree that the offense not only occurred, but will surely continue, and do nothing tells me never to bother bringing an issue here in the future. And it tells V. to continue or even ramp it up abit.
What can i say. If the rules arent enforced, Wikipedia is a much less attractive place to invest time and effort from my pov. Not because of a grudge, butbecause of whst i expect to hsve to put up with in the future. No tilds on my phone Formerly98 — Preceding
- Truly, what you said was not snarky. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for responding to Mark here, hard as hell to scroll thru hundreds of lines on my phone. Just want to say no one is proposing crucifixion. I just dont want to see him get a complete pass on this as it encourages more of the same. An apology would 100% suffice. Formerly98 — Preceding
- "[P]eople like myself have no recourse other than to ask the referees..." I truly believe everyone can referee themselves and should try. Everyone including Viriditas, but from where I come from, I already know they are capable of getting over the dispute no matter how ugly it may have gotten. Now you just have to ask your self if you really can get over the heat of the discussion and center of really moving forward. I make no suggestion how you can do that, jut that I started with..."Sorry, for my part...".--Mark Miller (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Mark, I don't even know how to respond to that. It's bad enough that you won't do anything about the situation, worse that you went to V's page and encouraged his behavior, and now you're going to suggest that I apologize. We clearly have very different value systems and I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. talk) 04:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Won't do anything? I left a message to Viriditas about this...once, but other than that, I am not a administrator and I don't have a problem with them. They've always been very helpful with content even when we weren't on good terms. I think they are a net plus to the community.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- "I think they are a net plus to ...", I think that is why you'd never support action no matter what he did, you work closely with him in some areas. You've presumably never encountered him when he tries to push his views like he did at GM related articles for example and got blocked. Most defences I've seen of Viri have been along ideological grounds or "I work with him and he's fine" type reasoning. I presume this is why you tried to derail the initial thread by continually making posts related to content issues instead of the behaviour issues. If this was any other editor behaving the way he was, they'd already be blocked. Second Quantization (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Won't do anything? I left a message to Viriditas about this...once, but other than that, I am not a administrator and I don't have a problem with them. They've always been very helpful with content even when we weren't on good terms. I think they are a net plus to the community.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Mark, I don't even know how to respond to that. It's bad enough that you won't do anything about the situation, worse that you went to V's page and encouraged his behavior, and now you're going to suggest that I apologize. We clearly have very different value systems and I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.
An offer
As a possible alternative to either a topic ban, a block, or further pursuit of the dispute resolution process, let me put the following on the table. Perhaps Viriditas will offer something about his intended conduct going forward from now. I expect that he won't want to follow my advice, so I'm not going to specify anything about what he might say. But I would much prefer that he be able to resume good editing without the bad conduct, instead of a block, so I'd like to hear how he responds to this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- For the last time, stop following me around. Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Casting aspersions on a person who seems to be on your side is one of the best ways known to man to make them less willing to proffer much o anything. "Verb. sap." applies here and I think you would be well-advised to consider that offer. Collect (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Tryptofish has consistently created a false narrative that portrays me in a negative light. He's been personally promoting this negative narrative for almost a year based on information that has never been substantiated or verified and amounts to rumor and gossip. He is not on my side. This is a personal vendetta for him. Viriditas (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I now am convinced you have jumped the proverbial shark here, and absolutely need a Wikication of some sort. You see "enemies" around every corner and are loathe to accept that your wording choices have been "unfortunate" at best, and thus a Wikication of a year or two might even be proposed. That everyone is on a vendetta against me is not precisely the sort of attitude which is reasonable for an editor following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Tryptofish has consistently created a false narrative that portrays me in a negative light. He's been personally promoting this negative narrative for almost a year based on information that has never been substantiated or verified and amounts to rumor and gossip. He is not on my side. This is a personal vendetta for him. Viriditas (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Casting aspersions on a person who seems to be on your side is one of the best ways known to man to make them less willing to proffer much o anything. "Verb. sap." applies here and I think you would be well-advised to consider that offer. Collect (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Proposal to close
It's now been six days since this was raised. I don't see any other problematic edits from Viriditas in the meantime. I do see a consensus that Viriditas ought to tone down the rhetoric. It would be lovely if Viriditas was to acknowledge that here or somewhere else. I don't see that they are going to, and I also don't think any admin action is currently required. If there are other issues here, content issues can be addressed via article talk or RfC, and if other editors are exacerbating things that needs to be raised separately. I would propose that we now close this discussion with a firm request that Viriditas keep the rhetoric dialled down in future, and that any repetition will be considered blockworthy. Would anyone (
) 22:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)- I agree in part with John. This discussion is not approaching consensus, and clearly will not get there. I'm personally disappointed that flagrant repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, defiance in the face of attempts to address these violations, and what appears to me to be an open statement of intent to continue to engage in these violations will have no consequences, and thus will almost certainly continue if not escalate in the future. I'm further disappointed that this decision has been heavily influenced by an admin who described V's use of the phrase "fucking that chicken" as "hilarious".
- As a result of these multiple violations of the Formerly_98 terms of service, including but not limited to wasting my time F98:WMFT, egregious politics (F98:BS, and generally inequitable treatment (F98:FAIR), I'm placing Wikipedia on a 30 day block.Formerly 98
- Just so you know, the editor who said it was "hilarious" is not an administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I came right out and stated on this thread that I am not an admin and cannot block editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just so you know, the editor who said it was "hilarious" is not an administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. This smacks very much of being the I don't like Viriditas club, hoping this would be the last round of public shaming, resulting in some punishment. Instead this will inevitably be just the latest round, and will be mined for naughty remarks to use in the next pillory effort. It would be nice if WP:Civil were enforced, but would require an appearance of doing so evenly, and the ramifications may be dire for others involved. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've pretty much summed up the way I feel in the section just above, so, while I'm not actively arguing for closing, I certainly have no objection. I think that John is correct in his advice to Viriditas to "tone down the rhetoric". I would quibble with John that the situation is not so much one of no administrative action being needed, as no administrative action going to happen, and I think that's sad. I strongly endorse John's conclusion that "any repetition will be considered blockworthy". And I think there is a clear consensus that no repetition would be the best outcome going forward, an outcome that would be welcomed by everyone, including me. Based on what has (not) happened here, I am skeptical about the actual likelihood of a future block if needed, however. Paradoxically and regrettably, if this dispute does end up moving up the dispute resolution ladder, the end result may be a site ban instead of a block, so that's a compelling reason to follow John's advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support This may just be the thing to stop his preposterous Behavior of Swearing and Being Highly uncivil. Happy_Attack_Dog "The Wikipedians best friend" (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Close as
nosome consensus. Clearly John feels that there is enough consensus to see that the editor "ought to tone down the rhetoric". I would support a simple note to the editor in that manner but do not agree the consensus deserves a further warning.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)- Consensus does not have to be unanimous. I accept that there is no consensus to block at this time, but surely there is consensus about some of John's advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that. I won't object if the outcome is a consensus to request the editor refrain from such behavior, but I will not accept that there is any consensus for such to be block worthy or Beeblebrox and Eric Corbet wouldn't be here. I do not like or approve of double standards. Either we block them all and let god (or the deity of your choice) sort it out...or we just don't block for this type of thing. Period. Sorry. I know that is not much help...but why should this be any different? 'll respect and support any decision John makes, but I am very concerned that we have such a differing level of Wikipedian who can resort to this type of behavior and it is acceptable and then have others who do the exact same thing and get blocked. I don't have an issue with either Beeble or Eric and I don't have an issue with Viriditas.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, I am not at all happy (I know...nobody cares) that User:Bishonen used a secondary account to create this thread. When you request other admin to intervene on your behalf against another editor and that editor feels there is a personal vendetta against them....this does NOT make it look better. I am sure I am going to regret this...but I am requesting that User:Bishonen reply here to answer why they made this request under a secondary account I now see they have requested be blocked.I am sure there is a perfectly acceptable explanation...I would just appreciate knowing what it is. [Edit: The confusion stemmed from the page the Admin has set up for their criteria for self requested blocks that was added to the block explanation and made it look as if Bishonen was the one requesting the block. Apologies to Bishonen for not understanding that block explanation].--Mark Miller (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)- Excuse me.. what? That's a rather unexpected tree you're barking up. I haven't posted anything in this thread, from any account. It'll be a cold day in hell before IRWolfie-, and he has changed his account name in the most proper way; it's not a secondary account. He's on break now, yes. It's not necessary to discuss self-requested blocks publicly on ANI. :-( I try to perform them discreetly, but I guess it was not to be in this case. Anything else? Bishonen | talk09:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC).
- Got it. You were the blocking admin.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- And, lest there be further confusion, not the admin who blocked Viriditas. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Got it. You were the blocking admin.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me.. what? That's a rather unexpected tree you're barking up. I haven't posted anything in this thread, from any account. It'll be a cold day in hell before
- I understand that. I won't object if the outcome is a consensus to request the editor refrain from such behavior, but I will not accept that there is any consensus for such to be block worthy or Beeblebrox and Eric Corbet wouldn't be here. I do not like or approve of double standards. Either we block them all and let god (or the deity of your choice) sort it out...or we just don't block for this type of thing. Period. Sorry. I know that is not much help...but why should this be any different? 'll respect and support any decision John makes, but I am very concerned that we have such a differing level of Wikipedian who can resort to this type of behavior and it is acceptable and then have others who do the exact same thing and get blocked. I don't have an issue with either Beeble or Eric and I don't have an issue with Viriditas.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I feel Johns advice should be followed becuse 1.) consensus Concludes that this should happen, and 2.) If we say that he will be blocked if he does it again, he knows that this is his Last Chance, kind of like
- I see consensus for toning it down, I see no consensus to warn of a future block. Look, I like a lot of these editors, but something else that is being shown in this discussion is that there are editors gunning for Viriditas that DO hold a grudge and I don't think they are best to be forming a consensus. The discussion didn't really garner a large pool of contributors, but mostly just editors that are pissed off at them for one reason or another. I do support mentioning to Viriditas that they should tone down the aggression but don't feel a warning should be given at this time.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Mark, based on what you said directly above, and also a few lines above, I do understand where you are coming from, and I thank you for distinguishing between a consensus to recommend changes in behavior, which exists, and consensus to establish a formal warning about a future block, which I accept that you strongly oppose. I think that's reasonable, under the circumstances. I rather expect that, were there to be such a warning, most admins would be afraid to enforce it, for the same reasons that they have been afraid to step in and block this time. After all, there already was such a warning in the previous block rationale. This is simply something that the community will not be able to resolve. But I also want to object, in part, to your framing of "editors gunning for" him. There are probably some such editors, but it's an oversimplification to paint everyone who has expressed concerns here with such a broad brush. And as for editors who are "pissed off", I'm seeing that frame of mind on both sides of the discussion. And, after some amount of insults and assumptions of bad faith, it's not unreasonable for editors on the receiving end to be resentful, or to take note when the same behavior emerges again. And that's all the more reason why there ought to be at least a consensus that "toning it down" is recommended going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Reverts performed on Sevastopol article without explanation
Can an admin please serve as mediator at Talk:Sevastopol#Reverts performed under claim of NPOV violation without explanation?
A user has reverted my edits twice even though they adhere to
This article is highly controversial and his reverts seem to be a violation of
It seems this user is simply reverting to his personal view of the article while the discussion is ongoing rather than engage in a collaborative discussion and tag stuff by using {{.
I didn't revert further but right now the article is in a state that violates
Can someone please mediate this as this content is at ARBCOM level?
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- The referred user is BRD cycle and has redirected to the article talk page.[246] This does not look like a conduct issue. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- WP:EDITWAR? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is about determining the weight of claims by Russia. Users are still discussing. This is not a conduct issue yet. Since the article is highly controversial, smaller edits would be more suitable. Ëzhiki likes Ahnoneemoos' version. This user may help continuing the edits, but it would be better to discuss them in the talk page first. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's against H:REV: "[...] reverting good-faith actions of other editors may also be disruptive and can even lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing." This is why I asked for the intervention of an admin as right now the article violates NPOV by being lopsided towards the Ukrainian POV that Sevastopol is a Ukrainian city when the truth is that its current state is disputed. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- BRD may be an essay but that's probably more because it's easy to misapply and the policies it's based on are sufficient (remember BEBOLD may be an important guideline, WP:Consensus is policy so neither can be ignored). Generally speaking, you are unlikely to win a debate by arguing a person should not have reverted in the case of a content dispute involving a recent change and one or two reverts where 1RR does not apply. (You may be able to argue a person too readily reverts in an RFCU.) If the person is discussing the changes then your best option is to continue discussion and use WP:Dispute resolution if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- And it should be noted that the "WP:CONSENSUS on how Wikipedia works. - The Bushranger One ping only09:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is now at DRN () 09:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- And it should be noted that the "
- BRD may be an essay but that's probably more because it's easy to misapply and the policies it's based on are sufficient (remember BEBOLD may be an important guideline, WP:Consensus is policy so neither can be ignored). Generally speaking, you are unlikely to win a debate by arguing a person should not have reverted in the case of a content dispute involving a recent change and one or two reverts where 1RR does not apply. (You may be able to argue a person too readily reverts in an RFCU.) If the person is discussing the changes then your best option is to continue discussion and use WP:Dispute resolution if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's against
- This is about determining the weight of claims by Russia. Users are still discussing. This is not a conduct issue yet. Since the article is highly controversial, smaller edits would be more suitable. Ëzhiki likes Ahnoneemoos' version. This user may help continuing the edits, but it would be better to discuss them in the talk page first. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Government of Crimea article and template
I hope this is the right place to bring this up. The article
- I'm fairly certain we are going to need separate articles for each state entity. Perhaps be Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and then create a separate article? RGloucester — ☎21:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I"m requesting an admin for assistance, because the old article needs to be reverted and locked and a new article needs to be created. Supreme Council of Crimea is the old government. State Council of Crimea is the new government. Each article needs a corresponding template. I don't know how to create a new template. This is not something I can do by myself and I don't want to be accused of an edit war. USchick (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I"m requesting an admin for assistance, because the old article needs to be reverted and locked and a new article needs to be created.
- I do know how to create those templates, but I'm reluctant to jump in when none of this seems to have been decided by anyone. However, we cannot refer to both of them as "Crimea". One has to be "Autonomous Republic of" and the other has to be "Republic of". RGloucester — ☎ 21:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid to do anything because an edit war will break out. Yesterday, a new editor was banned, which is not a good experience for a new editor. That's why an admin needs to do it and lock it down. USchick (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please remember that blocking and banning are two different things. - The Bushranger One ping only01:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please remember that
- I'm afraid to do anything because an edit war will break out. Yesterday, a new editor was banned, which is not a good experience for a new editor. That's why an admin needs to do it and lock it down. USchick (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, and I made the same plea at a different thread above. Administrators need to take control of this whole thing, because it is really starting to fall apart. New random articles are being created, no one knows what anything means. RGloucester — ☎ 21:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's not how things work: administrators don't make content decisions and then lock things down. An administrator can, in their capacity as a regular editor, get involved in content development, including article names. But as soon as they do, they're considered involved, and no longer have the option to use the tools (issuing blocks, protecting, deleting) on that article. There's a related thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Crimea where a couple of respected admins council patience and let the normal editing processes happen. Sometimes this means things are in a fluid state for a while until things settle down (our article on Chelsea Manning is a recent example). If you have an adversion to chaos I suggest you just edit in another topic area for a while, and let things play out. – Diannaa (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's not how things work: administrators don't make content decisions and then lock things down. An administrator can, in their capacity as a regular editor, get involved in content development, including article names. But as soon as they do, they're considered
- I agree, I do not want any "locking-down", though I will mention that the article (Crimea) is fully protected (for good reason). However, as far as a "fluid state" is concerned, this means that our coverage is downright wrong, and violates NPOV. In fact, there has even been media coverage by ABC News to that effect, mentioned in an above thread. I'd merely like someone to assess consensus and help manage what is currently a very discouraging situation, and there are many other editors at Talk:Crimea who agree. However, if patience is required, I guess there is nothing we can do but mislead people in the interim for the sake of the greater good. RGloucester — ☎ 01:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- No matter what is done in this circumstance, the article will "violate NPOV". The best thing to do in truly chaotic situations such as this is as little as possible or even nothing. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sadly, I must disagree with the honourable Bushranger's approach. When the only thing we can agree on is that there are major changes happening, out in the real world, I don't think inaction is a good option on-wiki. We can change slowly, deliberately; we can discuss change; we might even reach a consensus that no change is necessary on the relevant talkpages. But change has to be on the table. (Disclaimer: I have no particular interest in Crimea, but with an interest in Ottoman history I can only raise an eyebrow at the notion that Crimea must belong absolutely and perpetually to one modern state). bobrayner (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- No matter what is done in this circumstance, the article will "violate NPOV". The best thing to do in truly chaotic situations such as this is as little as possible or even nothing. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- While I don't really want to get involved in the inevitable mess surrounding the Crimea issue, I just want to stick my head in and remind everyone involved that ) 22:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
i.p. disruption and WP:BLP violations at Dmitry Medvedev
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.
ResolvedOn 16 March a dynamic i.p. made this edit to the
Conflict on Jessica Nigri
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.
Niemti added this uncited birth place to the article, and in the Lead, which violates
I cited these policies in my revert. Niemti reverted it, saying in his edit summary, "yes, it does, and
He reverted the article a third time, which I believe violates
This still leaves the issue of WP:OPENPARAGRAPH and WP:LEAD, his three reverts, and his once-again incivil refusal to specify the passage in WP:LEAD that he says supports his position. Please advise. Nightscream (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- There's no conflict. Nightscream just "hadn't seen earlier" again, too. GOTTA GO FAST with seeing stuff. --talk) 01:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above comment illustrates my point. He makes a incivil remark on the topic of WP:CIV. Nightscream (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above comment illustrates my point. He makes a incivil remark on the topic of
Context note: Niemti has been reprimanded and blocked several times for incivility, edit warring, and general IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and he has been topic banned from the GA process in general with the threat to be blocked from video game articles as well; his latest block (by me) expired literally yesterday. He used to edit as HanzoHattori, who was also blocked several times, finally banned for sockpuppeting. I'm not going to get into this latest fracas, but it seems to fit his general pattern- any discussion or conflict that he gets into, Niemti is right and everyone else is both wrong and against him, no matter what they say. To be blunt,
- Cool stalking bro, keep it on, love you too. The only real 'conflict' is about how https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dokka_Umarov#I_still_don.27t_think_Wikipedia_should_be_like_.27yep.2C_totally_dead.27_without_a_real_confirmation if you're really sooo intersted in it you can go and share your enlightened opinion there now. --talk) 09:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Making personal attacks, especially at ANI, does not help your case. - The Bushranger One ping only09:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Making
So maybe I'll say how I'm so sick of things like [249] and would be grateful if they all (and I don't recognise many/most of these guys at all, but apperently they know me so much somehow) just bugger off already and leave me alone, instead of contantly following and annoying me even when I'm not doing literally anything at all. And this 'context note' bogeyman making, this account was supposed to be a fresh start after coming clean, but nope, things that happened years ago will be always brought as still totally relevant every time anyway. You know, it would be pretty cool to at least, hey, how about to not feel harrassed. But yeah whatever, wikipedia drama. Don't respond to it, it was just me venting off my frustration. --
- So, Niemti: what are you going to do differently? Because, in the end, the problem here is very clearly you, not everybody else. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- (Niemti: You should be happy that you even get an apology at all considering your response. I agree with you that not responding to WikiDrama is generally the wisest course of action and have been trying to minimize problems by early-closing a couple of AN/ANI reports about your attitude (because you're often part of that right-but-rude class of editors Wikipedia just loves to hate). Keep your head down and stick to what you're good at: editing, not talking to people. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉13:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Users who have been blocked in the past are often watched for future infractions more closely; in ) 16:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I was reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti and its follow-up discussion from almost a year ago. It seems this user has been controversial for some time. It may be time for another AN discussion regarding further sanctions, something to which a premature close should not be applied. BOZ (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have no time to investigate, but making a revert war about this insignificant edit, whereas a reference to the birth place has been actually provided in ref [1](!), bringing this matter to user talk page, and then on the ANI was not a good idea, given the previous history between involved editors, including recent desysop by Arbcom.My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Koi 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.
Under the sub section on the Koi page "Health and longevity" there is a recurring hoax / myth / lie with absoulutely no reliable sources that keeps coming back.
Everytime I try to edit it out, users with the automatic programs undo my edit and try to threaten me with a ban.
Here is a copy of the irrelevant, unsourcable information.
"One famous scarlet koi, named "Hanako," was owned by several individuals, the last of whom was Dr. Komei Koshihara. In July 1974, a study of the growth rings of one of the koi's scales reported that Hanako was 225 years old.[13]"
It has to go as it is a complete lie with no relevant source. Please fix this and allow it to be edited out once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.142.54 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- @58.7.142.54: A much more productive way forward would be to take it up on the article talk page. Reverting 5 times in 10 minutes leads nowhere. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 14:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- (WP:3RR, so regardless of whether you were right or wrong you are liable to be blocked for edit-warring. You have given no explanation in an edit summary, nor have you made any attempt to discuss this on the article talk page. If you remove referenced text without explanation you can expect to be reverted, and if you continue doing so you can expect to be blocked, so please stop edit-warring and explain your reasons on the article talk page so that other editors can consider your argument. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I can't say whether "Hanako" story was true or not, but it does appear to be well-known and probably merits some mention in the article. It appears to be widely discussed and I even found a book source, though this book also claims her age was likely an overestimation due to faulty scale readings. So while it's likely a myth it's a notable myth and merits some mention here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
What happened to extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence??
I'll note that the Hanako "legend" appears on other wikipedia pages, ones that are involving world / biological records, and were it not for the story of Hanako, Koi would not even be mentioned on these pages at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-living_organisms#Aquatic_animals
"Some koi fish have reportedly lived more than 200 years, the oldest being Hanako, who died at an age of 226 years on July 7, 1977.[53][54]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_life_span#In_other_animals
"Koi (A Japanese species of fish, 200+ years, though generally not exceeding 250) Hanako was reportedly 226 years old upon her death.[15][16]"
Should not be on pages unrelated to Koi, when we are talking about a one off report of a 226 year old Koi which cannot even be verified
Still cannot beleive people are buying into this, no verifyable sources, only appears as a reprinted story over and over on the internet. Like I said on another page, the supposed Hanako died in 1977, well before the advent of the internet. It seems to me like a legend that has simply stuck. There are no reports of any other Koi coming even remotely CLOSE to this age.
There are no verifyable reports of Koi living past 50 years. Why does this endure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.248.70 (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Typhoon Haiyan
Help needed--the article has been vandalized and rewritten, presumably with a short copyright violation. The site won't allow me to revert to the previous version, even with a manual cut and paste, because it contains a link to a disallowed archive. Assistance in restoring a last good version would be appreciated. Thanks, JNW (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've restored it without the archive links - this has the unfortunate side effect that about 15 of the refs are now dead links. Alternative archives for these sources need to be added. Yunshui 雲水 12:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I feel that this issue has been solved, shall we leave it be? All Refs seem to be restored, and the activity has cooled down. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 15:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- ) 04:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Sushi 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.
The article for sushi appears to have been vandalized. The entire page has been reduced to one line: "Chinese food is yummy. I like honey chicken and mexican guacamole. CHineseseseses"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushi
I don't frequently encounter vandalism (this is my first time reporting it) so I'm not sure how to track who did this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voltarios (talk • contribs) 15:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for reporting, Voltarios. The vandalism was quickly reverted, and I have now blocked the vandal indefinitely, since it was a vandalism-only account. If you'd like to see what has happened on an article and who did what to it, you can click on its "history" tab at the top. (P.S. Chinese food is yummy, but so is sushi. :-)) Bishonen | talk 16:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC).
- Voltarios, you were right to bring this matter to this board. Everyone who suggests combining honey with chicken ought to be blocked, and bringing in mustard for a disgusting menage a trois only makes it worse. I'm going to have to have a word with their parents. Thank you, and thank you Bishonen for the judicious block. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Washington Diamonds legal threat
The following was left on the page for Washington Diamonds by the user Washdia
"You have no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the use of the name "Washington Diamond"
It has come to our attention that this page describing a company producing synthetic diamonds is using our registered trademark "Washington Diamond" (Registration #4399260 -- See link: http://www.trademarkia.com/washington-diamond-85824716.html) without permission. This is infringing on our intellectual property and causing confusion with consumers by using a similar sounding name promoting a similar product online.
The USPTO has given the WASHINGTON DIAMOND trademark serial number of 85824716. The current federal status of this trademark filing is REGISTERED. The correspondent listed for WASHINGTON DIAMOND is ANDREA H. EVANS, ESQ. of THE LAW FIRM OF ANDREA HENCE EVANS, LLC, 14625 BALTIMORE AVE # 853, LAUREL, MD 20707-4902 ."
The text has been removed from the page and the user notified of this message. Fraggle81 (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- If he's talking about the words "Washington Diamonds", his complaints are groundless as that's the name of the company. If he's talking about the illustration, it's worthpointing out that the uploaded image also appears on this page, but it's not clear who stole from whom. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- The dispute appears to be with the name "Washington Diamonds" - in which case they should be taking their concerns to the company using that name, not us - we're simply reflecting what is stated in third-party sources. If a lawsuit results and it gains press coverage, we can update the article accordingly. As to the image, I believe it actually originates from washingtondiamondscorp.com/about-us. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm more concerned with the fact that the user issuing the legal threat is so damn wrong about the laws at issue here. How can a Wikipedia page about the company itself (in any way, shape or form) be construed as "causing confusion with consumers" when Wikipedia clearly doesn't intend to get into the same business? Sounds to me like a stupid troll or a lawyer who got his bar licence from a box of Wheaties. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 01:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- You can only get your license from a box of Wheaties in California.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- You'd be surprised how often this comes up, especially in 01:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- I knew this sounded familiar. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wait, you seem to be saying that you believe the person posting the legal threat is representing the company which is the subject of the article - am I reading your post correctly?
- From what I can see, that's not the case. Based on the address in the trademark, they appear to be representing washingtondiamond.com ... while the article is about a different company whose webpage is at washingtondiamondscorp.com. But, that's still an issue for them to address with the other company. For now, the reliable sources support our current article naming, and if a lawsuit comes from their complaint and itself becomes notable, we would document that as well as any name changes resulting from it. But, that's an issue for the two companies to resolve while we just document coverage from reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
IP 189.159.231.124
I don't know if it's maliciousness or ignorance that causes whomever is behind IP
) 17:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)WP:AWB
Please see the edit summaries [250], [251], and several others from his AWB run. AWB is not a tool to insult other editors in edit summaries. While he claims that he is done with his task, I do not think that he should retain access to AWB if this is how he will be using it. --Rschen7754 17:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Imzadi1979 ignored my request to fix his error. If anyone should lose access to automated tools, it's him, but I'm not going to ask for that. --NE2 17:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Whether a user listens or does not, does not give you the right to 'name and shame' people. talk) 18:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Whether a user listens or does not, does not give you the right to 'name and shame' people.
- I don't think anyone needs to lose AWB access here. Sure the edit summary was slightly inflammatory, but NE2 says they are done with the run. Barring some sort of pattern of abuse being presented, I don't see a need for further action. NE2, in the future, there is really no reason to call out another editor in your summary. -- John Reaves 18:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I would echo John Reaves here. Unless this is part of some long term thing, I would say just NE2 should stop adding other editor's names in the summary and call it done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Considering past interactions NE2 has had with Imzadi1979, I think that this was more than just bad judgment ([252] and [253] for example). And considering that NE2 barely missed being admonished in 2008 for similar behavior (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Proposed decision#NE2 admonished, I don't think this is a one-off incident. With that being said, if the decision here is to monitor things more closely, I am fine with that as well. --Rschen7754 00:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- For a very active editor, his block log and such isn't that bad, so I'm guessing he is smart enough to get the message here and just stop the snippy summaries. If it is a habit, he can consider himself on notice to stop it now. We will see. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- I added an expanded note on his talk page, so there would be no misunderstanding over the idea that the summaries are not acceptable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Considering past interactions NE2 has had with Imzadi1979, I think that this was more than just bad judgment ([252] and [253] for example). And considering that NE2 barely missed being admonished in 2008 for similar behavior (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Proposed decision#NE2 admonished, I don't think this is a one-off incident. With that being said, if the decision here is to monitor things more closely, I am fine with that as well. --Rschen7754 00:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Page move screwup
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.
Bluebearknuckle (talk · contribs) moved the page Roger Lebel to D. Nguyen. Apparently, recognizing the mistake, but unsure how to fix it, he recreated the Roger Lebel article. Unfortunately, it now looks like he was the only contributor to Roger Lebel, while the D. Nguyen article (no redirected to Dèmetrice Jackson), falsely appears to have a long history of many different editors.
I think it's going to take an admin to straighten this out. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- All cleaned up. -- John Reaves 18:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Politician removing negative facts from their own Wikipedia 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.
Luke 'Ming' Flanagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has had a large number of revisions performed by Lukeming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in its history. In the last week the user has removed a section referencing a notable controversy surrounding the subject of the article. The latest edit he made shows the specific section he tends to remove.
Earlier today, this politician announced their intention to run in the European elections. Following the recent removal of the unflattering information, they made a request to have the page protected claiming that there was a large amount of IP vandalism. However, as can be seen by the edit history, the edits are predominantly established users cleaning up the conflict of interest issues caused by Lukeming's removal of unflattering information.
It is likely that "LukeMing" is either the subject of this page or a dedicated fan of theirs working to ensure that the page is positive for his upcoming election. In addition, it appears they attempted to abuse the Wikipedia page protection system for personal gain. I would request that "LukeMing" and any non-established users be prohibited of making changes to this page until after the election on 25th of may of this year to ensure the content of the article remains neutral.
Problems at The Zeitgeist Movement
- As an editor that watches that page I would agree with Andy T.G. that this editor is not going to be anything other than what they have been, a single purpose problematic type, for what ever his tenure is here, so maybe better to make that tenure 'over'. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is a pretty clear case of ) 14:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)