Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions
Then I am sure you wont mind if an uninvolved admin resolves it, I am sure you wouldn't want to give the impression that you were lashing out over our past interactions. |
|||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
=== Proposal to topic ban Mbz1 from articles relating to Israel === |
=== Proposal to topic ban Mbz1 from articles relating to Israel === |
||
{{collapsetop|No Consensus. }} |
|||
{{collapsetop|Closing discussion per [[WP:SNOW]]. There is clearly no support for a topic ban. [[User:Unomi]] has been warned by multiple editors about starting frivolous, punitive topic ban proposals for editors with whom he is involved.}} |
|||
Recently the editor in question came out of a 3 month topic ban largely for the same reasons that the ANI thread started, persistent allegations and/or allusions to antisemitic bents of other editors. Original [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=353684552#Result_concerning_User:Gatoclass topic ban], her first [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/April#Topic_Ban_Appeal unsuccessful appeal], and second [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive60#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Mbz1 unsuccessful appeal]. She is a valuable contributor on other fronts but I really don't think that her involvement in this particular topic area does the project or herself much good, at this point the editor seems to have established an inability to refrain from charging that other editors are anti-semitic when operating in this general topic area. |
Recently the editor in question came out of a 3 month topic ban largely for the same reasons that the ANI thread started, persistent allegations and/or allusions to antisemitic bents of other editors. Original [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=353684552#Result_concerning_User:Gatoclass topic ban], her first [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/April#Topic_Ban_Appeal unsuccessful appeal], and second [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive60#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Mbz1 unsuccessful appeal]. She is a valuable contributor on other fronts but I really don't think that her involvement in this particular topic area does the project or herself much good, at this point the editor seems to have established an inability to refrain from charging that other editors are anti-semitic when operating in this general topic area. |
||
Revision as of 20:28, 19 August 2010
| Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
|---|
|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
Removing off-topic, insulting commentary from an AfD
Mbz1 apparently does not like the way this AfD is trending, posting a comment denigrating those in favor of keeping it by labeling this and other articles as "Wikipedia's hall of shame of smearing Israel". This is trolling, and I called it as such in my attempt to remove it. It had nothing to do with the discussion of the article at hand, all it serves is to incite other editors in Israeli-Palestinian topic area, and this is an area that certainly doesn't need more fanning of the flames. Another editor attempted to remove this was well, but was reverted yet again.
I'd also note the reference to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, which effectively turns Mbz1's screed into a thinly-veiled charge of antisemitism against other editors as well.
This needs a more authoritative hand to step in and remove the offending passage and caution this user against using AfDs for personal soapboxes and attacking other editors. Tarc (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1's comment on AfD
Mbz1 first made this comment on the AfD for Art student scam, which is clearly not appropriate and is skimming the line of NPA, as it can easily be construed as an attack on anyone who voted Keep in the AfD. Tarc then reverted the comment, with the edit summary of "rv: trolling. AfDs are to discuss whether or not to keep/delete/etc the article in question, not to make general, critical commentary of the subject area, or to disparage other editors".
Mbz1 then reverted it back, with the edit summary of "reverted vandalism, bring it to an/i, but do not touch other people comments", calling Tarc's revert vandalism, when NPA is quite clear in a user's capability to revert things that can be considered a personal attack.
Tarc reverted it back, edit summary of "re-read WP:NPA at your leisure".
Again, Mbz1 reverted it back, with the edit summary of "reverted vandalism", again calling something vandalism that clearly wasn't.
I then stepped in to revert it, with the edit summary of "This is definitely NPA".
Then, Mbz1 reverted it back again, for the third time, but re-phrased the comment this time, removing some of the NPA, but still keeping a comment that shouldn't have been made in the first place.
Mbz1 then left this comment on my talk page. I'm not quite sure on what he means about trying to "hide the unwanted truth".
I will now go inform the other involved users about this discussion and leave this up to the community to discuss. SilverserenC 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Heh, we made it at the same time. I'm changing mine to a level 3 header under Tarc's. SilverserenC 17:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Mbz1 removed our notification of this ANI discussion on his talk page, with the edit summary "who cares". So, we did notify him. SilverserenC 17:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The number of Ad Hominems and accusations of smearing and conspiracy theory at that AfD is really disrupting the discussion, I believe. It seems a significant number of people who have made very reasoned explanations for voting "keep" have been denigrated as supporting conspiracy theories and it seems a group of editors are attempting to sway the AfD by now implying antisemitism and cabalistic smear. This very much has a chiling effect on the discussion as nobody wants to be accused of antisemitism. These Ad Hominems need to stop and the discussion must be allowed to continue on the merits of the article itself, with WP:V, WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:NPOV in mind. I strongly believe that this will end up at ArbCom at some point, and probably the sooner the better. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- What i'm worried about is what the state of the article will fall into after the AfD, as that group of editors still has strict control of the talk page. SilverserenC 18:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The number of Ad Hominems and accusations of smearing and conspiracy theory at that AfD is really disrupting the discussion, I believe. It seems a significant number of people who have made very reasoned explanations for voting "keep" have been denigrated as supporting conspiracy theories and it seems a group of editors are attempting to sway the AfD by now implying antisemitism and cabalistic smear. This very much has a chiling effect on the discussion as nobody wants to be accused of antisemitism. These Ad Hominems need to stop and the discussion must be allowed to continue on the merits of the article itself, with WP:V, WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:NPOV in mind. I strongly believe that this will end up at ArbCom at some point, and probably the sooner the better. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- comment I do not believe that the comment I made falls under any definition of of a personal attack, but even, if it did, according to this the complete removal of the comment was unwarranted and that's why I called the removal of it vandalism. Although I still do not believe my comment was a PA I rephrased it.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- It was correctly removed regardless of NPA, because it was utterly irrelevant to the deletion discussion whilst attempting to influence other editors. The AfD is not there for you to attack other editors or soapbox about Wikipedia content. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Of course it was not " attempting to influence other editors". The deletion request is going to be closed today or tomorrow, kind of to late to influence something. It was rather my conclusion (for the record only) about deletion request for an attacking and insulting article. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I just found this on RomaC's talkpage, who is one of the users involved in trying to make the Art student scam article better. SilverserenC 18:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Now I understand why you voted to keep the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- ?? Care to detail your understanding of why Silver seren voted to keep? Unomi (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- As best I can tell, Mbz1 (talk · contribs) is under a 1RR restriction placed by Lar (talk · contribs) here. The restriction applies to all pages, not just articles, and Mbz1's last unblock was apparently contingent upon a promise not to edit-war anymore. That promise, and the 1RR, appear to have been broken in this case. I don't think this falls under a "blatant vandalism" exception. That said, if the AfD has more or less run its course and Mbz1 has edited their comment into a slightly more acceptable form, then a block would probably be punitive rather than preventative. MastCell Talk 18:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
@MastCell, as I explained, I did consider removal of my comment to be a blatant vandalism. If you believe otherwise, please do block me. I should not have violated my 1RR not under any circumstances. except vandalism. The block will not be punitive it will be deserved, but once again I believe the comment was not PA, and removal of it was vandalism. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I am missing something, bit is there a substantive difference between version 1 and version 2? I don't see how the slight rewording changed the tone or intent. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Proposal topic ban Mbz1 for Art student scam
Consider yourself banned from that article. Be sure to report yourself if you violate the ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
|
|---|
'Non-Admin Comment- I don't see how that comment has been elevated to the level of attention that it is currently getting. If the comment by MBz1 was uncivil then the user should have been reported appropriatly, rather than the comment being removed by other users. Comments, other than gross violations of WP:BLP, should never be removed by any one. Things like that always make me question the removing editors motives. Doing so, always leads to problems and it would seem that this would have gone away quietly and everyone would have simply moved on, except for the fact that two users decided to remove the offending comment. Civility aside, it looks like the entire AFD was ripe with the same type of comments, and for some reason, this is the comment that was being reverted. Next time, I would suggest Tarc and Silver Seren, go through the proper process with a WP:EQ, rather than set themselves up for continued drama at ANI. I understand that the topic is controversial, and that Mbz1 most likely didn't need to add more fuel to the so called fire, but as the saying goes, lets agree to disagree and move on. Unfortunatly this won't happen now, and the drama looks to have continued here.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be boiling up out of control - and hardly seems worth it. Scrub the comment (there is no need to stick your POV on the discussion with a vague attack on the editors involved into an AFD), warn the user and move on. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Proposal to topic ban Mbz1 from articles relating to Israel
No Consensus.
|
|---|
|
Recently the editor in question came out of a 3 month topic ban largely for the same reasons that the ANI thread started, persistent allegations and/or allusions to antisemitic bents of other editors. Original topic ban, her first unsuccessful appeal, and second unsuccessful appeal. She is a valuable contributor on other fronts but I really don't think that her involvement in this particular topic area does the project or herself much good, at this point the editor seems to have established an inability to refrain from charging that other editors are anti-semitic when operating in this general topic area.
|
Conclusion by Mbz1
no longer needed
|
|---|
|
Response to Mbz1s comment immediately above
- Please desist from casting more aspersions on your fellow editors, you consistently claim that you have been hounded and harassed, doing so without offering supporting evidence is, to my mind, uncivil. I have acknowledged that the comment I made towards you, which was an unfortunate response to actual harassment from you, was intemperate and well outside the norms that the community and I myself consider appropriate. I took ownership of my misstep and I hope that it won't happen again. I am not aware that you ever took responsibility of your missteps, apart from your theatrics where you tell admins to throw the book at you, I will do the decent thing and not provide diffs for those unless you insist.
- Since you persist ignoring the evidence that I had provided earlier here are a few more, your recent article on Yolande Harmer, you fail to mention what your sources present as: "She did, however have one notable success in this period, penetrating the US Embassy and obtaining secret cables sent by Jefferson Patterson .. to the State Department in Washington. One of them, which reached the Israeli Foreign Ministry in August, contained militarily useful information about the numbers of Tunisian and Algerian troops fighting with the Arab forces in Palestine" - one notable success and it is not mentioned anywhere in your article, it is impossible that you did not read that as you source to the line immediately above it. Indeed you use that 3 page source for 10 elements in the article. How did that happen?
- How about this edit, where you emphasize what is forwarded by 1 source while the numerous other sources that detail the events of the day have no mention of it?
- On that same article you remove a quote that is replicated in at least 2 sources, that I remember, of then Al-Aqsa leader stating that they blessed the organ donation and stated that their fight was not with Jews but with the occupation. A quote for hope if there ever was one, but you threaten to remove the DYK if it remains in the artcle.
- And then you unilaterally withdraw the DYK nomination.
- Or here where you directly mispresent the source (Haaretz) which quite clearly states that multiple Israelis were involved and that an Israeli ring leader was caught a short while earlier?
- How about here were you add a long, seemingly coatracky, entry linking the Art Student Scam to 9/11? And then you argue for deletion based on .. it looked like tabloid gossip.
- These are just some of the recent, blatant examples of your inability to curb your bias while editing articles that touch on this subject. I do not recall ever requesting that you were blocked, or banned from wikipedia, I have however often stated my opinion that it would be in your best interest and in the interest of a calm, deliberate editing atmosphere that you refrain from engaging in I/P articles. Do you realize that the only reason I ever entered the I/P topic area was because I commented on a random ANI thread that happened to involve you?
- Here is my plea to editors who have not yet had the pleasure of editing articles in the I/P sphere, try it, have a look at the talk pages, read through the offered sources. un☯mi 18:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Unblock request review: User:Mario1987
Resolved- 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.
- There seems to be a weak consensus to unblock, I will advise Mario to find a mentor and to be very careful about copyvios. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mario1987 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)
This user was blocked for being a serial creator of copyright violations back in October of last year. It seems there were also some sockpuppetry issues. They are asking to be unblocked, and as they were blocked as a result of a discussion here I am bringing their request here for discussion: Their full unblock request reasoning follows. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
First of all i would like to say hello to eveyone and i would like to congratulate you for doing a very good job with this project. In these past 10 months since i've been blocked i realised that i was a jerk and what i did was wrong and such behaviour is considered offensive to other contributors and is not tolerable. Yes i've been foolish and many times desperate regarding my contributions, and more specifically the amount of my contributions, trying to impress god knows who with many good/bad articles and DYK nominations. I don't know maybe it was a personal ambition to be as high as possible in the lists regarding user by edit count or by DYK nominations or was it simply madness!? Nonetheless i believe that during this time when i was inactive (with a few hickups at the beginning of the year) i was able to put my thoughts in order and release my mind from these "ambitions" and personal faults. I know that my previous block was lifted as a friendly gesture and a sign of good faith but i blew it and i would like to appologise to all those people that believed in me and got dissappointed by my actions. So in conclusion i would like to ask you for another chance to be a contributor to this wonderful project and i hope that your decision will be favorable for everyone. Thank you very much for your time. Mario1987 20:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The "good article" comment reminds me of what the banned user "ItsLassieTime" supposedly used as a self-motivator for creating endless socks and contentiousness. You could try unblocking this guy, but be ready to bring the hammer down swiftly if he returns to his old ways. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I could probably see a case here for a limited return under strict mentorship...perhaps sandboxing changes and having them checked for copyright-propriety and approved by a mentor before being put into mainspace. Something like the conditional unblock of MisterWiki (of course, this really hinges upon a willing mentor stepping forward). –xenotalk 21:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support unblock. It's been almost a year. I say we give them a 2nd chance, but keep a close eye on them for the first month or two. -- Ϫ 21:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please note I have just re-targeted that redirect from WP:Standard offer to Template:2nd chance since it didn't make sense (standard offer is usually more like a 6th or 7th chance =). Feel free to revise your comment accordingly. –xenotalk 21:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I agree with xeno here; the user's request was polite enough and they have accepted fault, but since copyright violations are pretty serious, I would only endorse an unblock with some sort of probation/mentorship like the measures proposed by xeno. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Provided this is not ItsLassieTime, I support giving another chance to Mario1987. –MuZemike 21:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would be happy to go for an unrestricted unblock with close observation. To me this is a fairly textbook WP:OFFER unblock from a user who acted, to a degree, in good faith but in an extremely misguided and disruptive way. I would personally lean towards giving another chance here. ~ mazca talk 21:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with it, if they start being disruptive then it shouldn't be hard to show them the door again. -- Atama頭 22:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Question. Has this user edited on other projects in the meantime? Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 22:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I saw that one users want to know if i made contributions to other projects and i would like to say that i have a few on the Romanian Wiki here. Mario1987 08:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Note this response to the question was placed on their talk page with a {{helpme}}, asking for it to be copied over, which I've done. Chzz ► 08:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to thank you both. However, almost all of their 'tribs ere made before the block here on en.wiki; before supporting this unblock, I'd like to see that this user understands the reasons why they were blocked and that they have learnt from their errors. Therefore, I'll be glad to support after this user can show us a good track record on a sister project. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 12:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Unsure - Whilst the user seems genuinely sorry for having been disruptive, and whilst a very long time has passed since he was blocked, I am wary of the prospect that he may unintentionally (through incompetence) again violate our copyright policies if unblocked. Has some kind of re-education taken place, or were the violations that led to the block committed knowingly?
I too would like to see the user enter into mentorship, with the understanding being that his freedom to edit would be withdrawn if problems again arose. On balance, I cannot support nor oppose without further thought—which renders this comment useless, I guess, but there may be food for thought in here somewhere. Also, I would thank Mario1987 for expressing an interest in returning to the project; we are always looking for more editors. AGK 23:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose the user was not only blocked but community banned for massive copyright violations. If there's some evidence he edited productively at a sister project and will agree to mentorship then I may be willing to change my mind. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose until he demonstrates understanding of the copyright policy. This is his second ban for copyvios, I don't think much will change if he is given a third chance. MER-C 01:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support. This seems to be a case where "forgive and forget" should apply. I think close mentoring is in order, including making sure they understand copyright policy. Triona (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- As blocking admin, I'm not really confident that an unblock is wise. The unblock request does not address in any way the reason for the block, i.e., serial copyright violations. But if an admin wants to closely monitor and thereby take responsibility for Mario1987's contributions, I'm fine with an unblock. Sandstein 05:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose As well as trying to get out of the block or a ban he needs to at least understand the policies on not only copyvios but sockpuppetry too. Minimac (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose As everyone above has already said, the unblock request doesn't directly address the issues for which he is banned (copyvios and potential sockpuppetry) and they need to demonstrate a solid understanding of these two policies. elektrikSHOOS 07:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support- This user seems to be sincere, remorseful over the way they've behaved, and says they're more than happy to be mentored, so I think letting them return would be a good idea. If Mario acts up again he can be blocked again. Reyk YO! 10:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support I am always for giving the editors a second chance. If the offense will repeat, the user always could be blocked again. Maybe the user will benefit from having a mentor, and of course there should not be any socks--Mbz1 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - User has not addressed the actual issues which led to his original block, are there has been socking. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support giving another chance, to be monitored by mentor, with the full understanding that a ban doesn't have to be that far away, if he screws up. Cheers, LindsayHi 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose until such a time as the blocked user posts a detailed explanation in regards to why he was blocked, what policy caused him to be blocked, and how he intends not to engage in the same behaviors that got him blocked in the first place. Seth Kellerman (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per those asking why the blocked user does not attempt to explain the core issues of socking and copyvios, which are pretty darn major. Instead I see a lot of hand-wringing about edit count and DYK's. Apology etc. is meaningless if it fails to addess the big-ticket reasons for block, and the blocking admin himself says he's not convinced it is wise, which to me is the final nail. Mentorship is too little, too late. Jusdafax 03:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment and Question: some of the supports have said something about a mentor, but it's not clear to me that any editor has offered to mentor the user. Is there anyone who is willing and able to mentor the user? Also, if no editor is, would this affect support/oppose in this discussion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- If nobody comes forth in this discussion he has indicated he is willing to enter the adopt a user program. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's not really the same... might be a good place to seek a mentor though. –xenotalk 20:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support. One FL and two GAs and a block that was instated more than 9 months ago. I think we should give him a second chance. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 13:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- In response to the requests for a more detailed explanation of thy he was blocked he has posted the following statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok then. First of all i believe i was indefinitely blocked in October because of massive copyright violations regarding many pictures i uploaded to the project from a wide range of fields and places and claimed that they were made by me which obviously wasn't true. The only pictures made by myself were the ones from a HP Photosmart M537 digital camera, the other ones were from various websites, forums and other online places. My second problem was related to sockpuppets or as one user called it in the past operating a sock farm :). I admit i created many socks in the intent of helping me with various FPC's and other content. Another reason why i created socks is to evade my block because i simply couldn't realise in my mind that a ban is intended to stop a user from contributing poor referenced articles or stop disruptive behaviour. I can say that i was addicted to contributing almost anything to Wikipedia and since the ban stops you from doing just that i tried to evade it by all means without thinking and without realizing the consequences involved. These were my actions in the past for whom i don't have any excuse and for whom i deeply appologise and i hope that i detailed enough for you all. The rest is up o you. Have i nice day/night. Mario1987 19:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support With a mentor to keep a close eye, and zero-tolerance for future copyvio/sock issues. The Rhymesmith (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Has a willing mentor stepped forward? –xenotalk 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not as far as I can tell. Choose an optional user, it doesn't mean who it is or what type of user it is, it can be me or an administrator, for example, but preferably an administrator, which makes blocks faster to do. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Has a willing mentor stepped forward? –xenotalk 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support – Everyone are worth a second/final chance, whether they've been previously banned or not, as long as they haven't recently been sockpuppeting since the block. The latest (and current) block occurred 10 months ago. I think a new chance is justified. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support unblock -- he appears to have received clue in the interim. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Signature of User:Sennen goroshi
Hugo Chávez again
{{archivetop|Closed, unresolved, since admins are too busy bickering over childish matters to concern themselves with personal attacks and disruptive editing. When/if I take this to the multiple other fora needed to address the numerous issues, I presume I won't be accused of forum shopping, since not one independent editor or admin could be bothered to review and comment, while dozens are busy commenting on other matters at this board without even informing themselves of the basic issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)}}
As documented at User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles, we've still got long-term, ongoing behavioral problems by multiple editors at Hugo Chávez, unresolved by previous dispute resolution, and not likely to be resolved via dispute resolution because of the ever-changing cast of new characters, who don't learn policy or guidelines but fill up the talk page with debate, not typically based on reliable sources. In the last go-round, I supplied a long (and unfinished) set of high quality sources that had been routinely cleansed from the article, with repeat claims of "corporate media bias" on the article talk page.
We have edit warring, POV edits, deletion of tags, personal attacks, personalizing disputes on talk, removal of well-cited text, battleground, ownership-- the works. In particular, see personal attacks and others at User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles#Disruptive editing at Hugo Chavez.
I do not believe further dispute resolution is likely to resolve the recurring issues at that article, as the cast of characters defending the POV article constantly changes (with the exception of a few regular, long-term contributors, who have improved somewhat). I am hopeful that independent admins will weigh in and oversee the article and the personalization, and suggest that 1RR be instated to encourage talk page collaboration and help stabilize the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree 1RR is usually unhelpful in my experience. TFD (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- 1RR? No way. That too easily becomes just a tricksy way for people to catch each other out. And the page hasn't even been protected recently, which is a far more likely step to encourage collaboration and thoughtful rewriting. Rd232 talk 15:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Protection would be an alternative, but then I couldn't continue cleaning up citations that were just messed up :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sure you can, if a subpage draft is used to re-develop the article. Rd232 talk 16:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- In the current battleground, it's unlikely sandbox will get anywhere. Also, article protection prevents all editors from improving the article, while 1RR targets disruptive editors, which might help stop the bleeding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sure you can, if a subpage draft is used to re-develop the article. Rd232 talk 16:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Protection would be an alternative, but then I couldn't continue cleaning up citations that were just messed up :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia has compiled a long list of op-eds in The Economist and the Wall Street Journal, reports from right-wing think tanks, articles and books from U.S. conservative publishers and reports from the U.S. State Department which present views that she believes the article should represent in order for it to be neutral. I have continually asked her to provide peer-reviewed articles and books published by the academic press, but she apparently cannot find anything there that represents these "neutral" views. She has also tagged the article as POV while failing to provide an explanation of what changes should be made. However, I do not see disruptive editing and would like to see examples provided. TFD (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NPOV and WP:RS regarding the representation and due weight to all mainstream views; if you believe The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The LA Times, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, the BBC and many others are "op-eds" and not reliable sources, I suggest you raise the issue at WP:RSN. Meanwhile, the article is being cited to sources with a known partisan bias, while mainstream sources are systematically removed. Also, by all means, please provide an example of where I cite any op-ed piece, and please note that the article POV has been well documented more than once, and is supported by numerous editors-- tags should not be removed while a POV dispute exists. It is curious that you disclaim all mainstream sources as "right wing think tanks" and request "peer reviewed" sources, while Mark Weisbrot (who co-wrote the Oliver Stone "documentary" [6] on Chavez), Center for Economic and Policy Research, Venezuelan gov't sources, self-published sources, and Venezuelanalysis.com are used to cite the article. Of course, the personal attacks and talk page personalization are separate matters, warranting attention; the extreme personal attacks and misrepresentation of my editing is ongoing, as demonstrated in your post above. It is also curious that you ask for examples of disruptive editing, including extreme personal attacks: did you read the numerous samples I linked above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
No personal attacks against SandyGeorgia have occurred above in TFD's post, or to my knowledge anywhere before. There have been comments about your editing and disruption, but that is your behaviour, not you as a person. In any case, so what if Weisbrot was one of the writers on that documentary? Many of your sources come from papers and publications which supported the 2002 coup against Chavez. So I dont get it. That documentary (have you actually seen it) is a lot less positive to Chavez than some your sources are negative to him.ValenShephard (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- How would you characterize:
- "I don't even know why you'd lie about this ... you've been tendentiously edit warring here for years," [7]
- "stop being a hypocrite" [8]
- "User:SandyGeorgia is making biased and inaccurate edits -- she's been at it for years. The difference is, that Sandy knows how to game the system quite well. She knows that she is being biased ... I have a feeling that eventually she will be topic-banned for causing so much strife there," [9] ?
- How would you characterize the scores of diffs on that page of talk page personalization of issues and WP:BATTLEGROUND? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I am against 1RR on this article. I think the current level of protection is fine. ValenShephard (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Against 1RR. Just use semi-protection on it. Our Hugglers catch any vandalism quickly anyway... --Diego Grez what's up? 00:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Diego Grez, do you understand 1RR? It is not used for vandalism; it's used to stop disruptive editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- So far, one indepdent editor has weighed in, and that editor apparently doesn't understand 1RR as it relates to disruptive editing vs. vandalism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, I have not spoken in favor of any of those sources. The point is there are high quality sources and you chose to ignore them, instead cherry-picking articles. Chavez has been the Venezuelan leader for over 10 years and came to public attention almost 20 years ago. There is no reason to rely on newspapers. Why would we cover any historical event based on newspaper reports? When editing the article about Julius Caesar for example would you push to include a viewpoint about him expressed in the Economist? TFD (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Julius Caeser is long dead, a bit different than Chavez, for whom the sources I provide are quite reliable :) And no, I don't cherrypick sources-- please stop the accusations-- I provide lists of sources on talk to document the article POV and missing issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Anybody home?
Or are admins too busy arguing with each other to care about our core policy of NPOV?
ValenShephard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) removes very clearly justified POV and other tags, again
while:
Jrtayloriv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) can apparently say whatever he wants about other editors, with no admin attention. God forbid Malleus should ever say another editor lies or is a hypocrite, or Gimme should use an alternate account; I spose Ling.Nut had a point about where our priorities lie.
- "I don't even know why you'd lie about this ... you've been tendentiously edit warring here for years," [10]
- "stop being a hypocrite" [11]
- "User:SandyGeorgia is making biased and inaccurate edits -- she's been at it for years. The difference is, that Sandy knows how to game the system quite well. She knows that she is being biased ... I have a feeling that eventually she will be topic-banned for causing so much strife there," [12] ?
Well, carry on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}
General sanctions
Reopening this, as I just saw this after Sandy had closed it in exasperation. I agree with her that something definitely has to be done in this case, and I would recommend that the community authorize some variant of general sanctions for Hugo Chávez and all closely related articles. NW (Talk) 15:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Abuse
I'm a volunteer at a church outreach center. We have computers available for the public to use. We try to be careful about how they're used. We've installed filtering software so users can't use the computers for abusive purposes. Three weeks ago one of our computer users told me that someone (Centpacrr) had placed an abusive notice on our Wikipedia page. I tried to remove it and restore what was there before, but Centpacrr kept putting it back
He kept insisting that we were placing a "false tag" on our page and said we were "identifying it as belonging to an unspecified organization. There is no proof whatosever that this is true." I didn't understand why he was doing that. We ARE an organization. I read the Wikipedia help page on vandalism and it said if someone is vandalizing your page to put this: { {SharedIP|Name of owner} } on it. I did that and Centpacrr only got more abusive.
He said that "The ONLY edits on Wikipedia made from this IP were made by otherwise blocked multiple sock puppet user." I didn't understand what he was talking about. All we tried to do was fix our page. We didn't make any edits at all. We've never been blocked that I know of. The vandalism help page said that if nothing else worked to file a vandalism report. So I did. Then this other Wikipedia person (Jamie) comes along and accuses me of filing "spurious "vandalism" reports on the noticeboard." I tried to explain to Jamie that Centpacrr kept putting lies on our page, saying that we aree not an organization, when we are.
It seems to me that posting lies on someone's page is vandalism, and I didn't understand why WE were the ones being accused of vandalism. Jamie's response was some computer gobbledygook that I didn't understand, and he insisted that we prove that we were an organization. Well, I have no idea how to do that. All I can say is that we ARE a church. We provide a service to the community with our outreach center, and it has computers for teens to use for homework and for adults to use for job hunting and other things. If one of our users abuses the computers they are no longer welcome at our center.
So far we've been very lucky. Things only went from bad to worse. When I tried to explain things to Jamie, he brusquely responded that "there's nothing further to discuss." He refused to explain to me what I could do to stop Centpacrr from posting lies on our page. So I continued to erase Centpacrr's vandalism. Then he wrote "Unless you can IDENTIFY AND PROVE what "organization" you claim to be, this will be reported to AN." I had no idea what AN was, so I had no idea how to respond. I just removed his lies again. Finally, I just posted the Beatitudes on our page. It's a beautiful piece with advice that I thought might be helpful in the situation. Centpacrr posted again, this time accusing us of all sorts of things.
Even worse, he posted it right above the Beatitudes and wrote that "the text immediately below which is not mine either." Well of course not. The Beatitudes are the Word of the Lord. And Centpacrr's comment was placed so that it desecrated those words. The next thing I know Jamie posts a notice on our page that accuses us of "vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons." AND he removed the Beatitudes. There was no way for me to put them back because Jamie had blocked us from editing Wikipedia. Well, our two weeks is up now. I talked with one of our young people here about the situation and he told me I should file a complaint. So that's what I'm doing.
This whole thing has been a nightmare. We've been accused of doing things that we don't understand and know nothing about. It seems like anyone on Wikipedia can just post lies about anyone else and they're automatically believed. We have done nothing wrong. We have not vandalized anything. We've only tried to tell the truth on our page. And when we tried to get someone to explain to us what was going on, we only got gruff, insulting replies. We want an apology from Centpacrr for his untruthful accusations and his obnoxious attitude. we also want an apology from Jamie for his rude behavior and all the awful accusations he made. By now there are probably places all over Wikipedia where nasty things have been said about us. We want those all removed too.
Thank you for listening. 64.252.140.128 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, we were 64.252.0.159. I guess someone has changed our identity somehow. 64.252.140.128 (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that your IP address has changed should tell you something; you don't have a fixed IP. You are assigned an IP from a pool that is shared by other subscribers who use the same service. You don't own the talk page for whatever IP address you happen to be using. We tag IP talk pages when vandalism arises from them and in some cases mark who the IP is registered to (which in this case is obviously not a single entity, but an ISP. If you want a fixed identify on Wikipedia, you need to create an account. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're not listening. We never engaged in any vandalism. There was no reason for you to block us. There is also no reason for us to create an account because many different people use our computers. If any of those people want to create an account, they can. 64.252.140.128 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- No one is saying that you specifically are vandalizing Wikipedia. Your IP address is not fixed which means that the numbers will periodically change, which means other individuals will be using an IP address you have used or will use. If there is too much vandalism on that one IP address it may be blocked. This is the downside of editing as an IP rather than a logged-in user. If I choose to edit without logging in I am using any number of IP addresses that are being used by others using the same internet service. If I happen to being using an IP address that is currently blocked, even though it has nothing to do with me, I may not be able to edit Wikipedia at that time. So people using your computers may at times be unable to edit Wikipedia unless they create an account. But the vandalism warnings don't address your organization directly but an IP address that you sometimes are assigned. I don't know of any way around this. But the talk page of an IP address that you sometimes have really doesn't belong to you and the warnings placed there should be left in place to let potential editors know of any blocks and how to edit using a blocked IP. freshacconci talktalk 16:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining that. I can see why you would want to block an IP address that engaged in vandalism, but I clicked on the "contribs" link for 64.252.0.159 below, and looked at the contributions, and I didn't see any vandalism.64.252.140.128 (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- No one is saying that you specifically are vandalizing Wikipedia. Your IP address is not fixed which means that the numbers will periodically change, which means other individuals will be using an IP address you have used or will use. If there is too much vandalism on that one IP address it may be blocked. This is the downside of editing as an IP rather than a logged-in user. If I choose to edit without logging in I am using any number of IP addresses that are being used by others using the same internet service. If I happen to being using an IP address that is currently blocked, even though it has nothing to do with me, I may not be able to edit Wikipedia at that time. So people using your computers may at times be unable to edit Wikipedia unless they create an account. But the vandalism warnings don't address your organization directly but an IP address that you sometimes are assigned. I don't know of any way around this. But the talk page of an IP address that you sometimes have really doesn't belong to you and the warnings placed there should be left in place to let potential editors know of any blocks and how to edit using a blocked IP. freshacconci talktalk 16:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're not listening. We never engaged in any vandalism. There was no reason for you to block us. There is also no reason for us to create an account because many different people use our computers. If any of those people want to create an account, they can. 64.252.140.128 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have time to look into this at the moment, but for the next person: —DoRD (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- 64.252.0.159 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- 64.252.140.128 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Hi 64.252. This looks like a simple case of miscommunication. The fact is, you are coming to us via an internet address that isn't owned by you or your association, but by SBC Communications (aka AT&T). Many of our editors are overworked, and it's easy to throw around the acronyms and "wikispeak" we're used to without thinking that new users may not be familiar with it. This can be easily resolved, however: which church are you from and where is it located? – ClockworkSoul 16:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a volunteer at this church-sponsored outreach center, but I'm not a member of the church or an administrator in the center. I'm just a volunteer who comes in every now and then. The church has all sorts of rules and regulations about running this center that are kept in a bookcase full of binders that I'm not privy to. I don't know if it's OK to reveal information about our center or the church on Wikipedia. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to respect the church's authority here and not get into trouble with the church or the center (which is why I tried to remove Centpacrr's abusive comments in the first place). I think you're right about this being a case of miscommunication. Centpacrr and Jamie both seemed to have a mindset that couldn't be changed, no matter what I said. And I certainly didn't understand the thing about the "fixed IP." (I still don't.) The notice about the IP address that Jamie put on the page seems OK - it seems like some sort of standardized notice. The one by Centpacrr was downright abusive. The block really threw me for a loop, though, and I still don't understand it. I still think an apology from both of those people is in order because they didn't even try to understand the situation. 64.252.140.128 (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. As far as I can tell, the IP has never edited any church page - can you tell us what page it is that you were editing? --Smashvilletalk 16:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The dispute started when the person who was assigned to the IP at the time put up a notice saying that the IP was registered to a single organization. Centpacrr removed the notice as the WHOIS record made it clear that the IP was from a pool and not registered to an "organization." The user would not accept this explanation and became disruptive (attempting to assert false ownership over the talk page, leading to a temporary block on that IP. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Jamie, did you consider the possibility that the person you were talking to didn't understand the explanation you were giving them?Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- My take is that this was an absolutely pointless edit war over a tag on a talk page. I don't see a right and and a wrong here. However, the folks at the church do need to understand that they are in an ip pool, they might get messages or be blocked because of something someone else using one of the same ips did, and they do not own and cannot lay claim to the addresses or talk pages. That being said I'm still looking for the vandalism that led to the block in the history of these two ips. Where is it exactly? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- They still don't understand it, so I give up. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Jamie blocked them for 'edit warring' over the page template. I think he's right, they still don't understand.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- As we all know, the only exception to WP:EDITWAR is the reversion of vandalism. WHOIS and ISP tags are not al listed exception to WP:BLANKING. As this was an edit war I don't see why both users weren't blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think because Centerparc was removing the tag as incorrect, not re-adding it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- As we all know, the only exception to WP:EDITWAR is the reversion of vandalism. WHOIS and ISP tags are not al listed exception to WP:BLANKING. As this was an edit war I don't see why both users weren't blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the diff that caused the problem. While I can't see what's wrong with the edit (it just seems to exchange two paras), Centerparcc was convinced it was a sock of User:Filmcracker. He must have put a notice on the talkpage, because the next edit is the church volunteer trying to add an organisation template to the page [13]. After that it was all downhill - Centerparc thinks he's dealing with an obnoxious sock, Jamie thinks he's dealing with an edit warrior sock, and the church volunteer can't work out what's happening, unwisely keeps going, and gets blocked for two weeks.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that explains it well. (Except that Centpacrr didn't put a standardized notice on the page, he repeatedly put his own: "This IP resolves as being a Dynamic IP registered to SBC Internet Services in New Britain, CT, not a static IP registered to an organization. DO NOT place a false tag on this page identifying it as belonging to an unspecified organization. There is no proof whatosever that this is true. The ONLY edits on Wikipedia made from this IP were made by otherwise blocked multiple sock puppet user. Unless you can IDENTIFY AND PROVE what "organization" you claim to be, this will be reported to AN.") 64.252.140.128 (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like it. I suppose that leaves everyone with the question of "what now, and where do we go from here?" Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- A two week block for a first-time edit warrior, where the more experienced User:Centpacrr who behaved at least as badly, gets away scot free, and the ip is left a very generic block message that does not clearly explain why they were blocked. Nobody acted particularly well in this incident. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see no evidence of the OP doing anything that can't be explained by confusion and/or exasperation (@64.252.140.12 - OP stands for "original poster", in this case you), and no attempt seems to have been made to alleviate this. The experienced editors should have known better than to assume bad faith. I don't think the OP was at fault in any way, and that a simple apology isn't too much to ask for. – ClockworkSoul 17:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the experienced editors had evidence/were convinced they were dealing with a sock, should they be WP:AGF? I am not sure what they were basing their "sock" conclusions on. Active Banana ( bananaphone 18:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see no evidence of the OP doing anything that can't be explained by confusion and/or exasperation (@64.252.140.12 - OP stands for "original poster", in this case you), and no attempt seems to have been made to alleviate this. The experienced editors should have known better than to assume bad faith. I don't think the OP was at fault in any way, and that a simple apology isn't too much to ask for. – ClockworkSoul 17:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- 0.159 made only one edit that led to the sock accusation. The edit does not appear to be vandalism [14] so I don't know what prompted the allegation. I presume Centpacrr was being beset by Filmcracker, so just assumed the next edit was a sock of his. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can speak from experience that this is an easy mistake to make. Nonetheless, the core of our assume good faith policy is to ensure that due diligence be taken before such accusations are made, and hopefully dampen the very human tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. – ClockworkSoul 18:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The user that started this thread, 64.252.140.128, is an IP sockpuppet of a known Long-term Abuser, wikistalker, and disruptive editor who was banned from editing by the community as User:Techwriter2B and other socks (See: Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Techwriter2B) for his/her misconduct on Wikipedia going back more than three years. He/she has been stalking me personally since early May. He/she also DID NOT advise me of the existance of this thread which is another violation of WP policy. Centpacrr (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Slow down there, Centpacrr. Let's take a step back and assume for a moment that 64.252 really is an innocent bystander caught in anti-vandalism crossfire. Would you expect them to know the intricacies of WP policies and procedures? Also, I'm not certain, but I think this practice is just good etiquette. Please correct me if I'm wrong. – ClockworkSoul 19:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- No this is NOT an innocent who is not familiar with WP. I personally have been dealing with this disruptive user for four months (and other editors for more than three years) and know his/her techniques, writing style, "tall tales", and other practices VERY WELL. You will find them all described in detail on the LTA page for this user who was banned from editing by the community last month. He/she has started many threads such as this one over time about me and many other editors whom he/she has stalked using exactly this same language and technique of pretending to be a innocent, inexperienced, good faith editor who has been abused by others and "seeking the help" of editors who are not familiar with his/her fantastic fabrications. (You will also notice that when asked to identify the "church" or "organization" at which he/she was a "volunteer" as before he/she refused to do so because, it seems pretty clear, there is no such church or organization. This user (as User:Techwriter2B) has also attacked my contributions with which he/she "did not agree" by pretending to be a "writing student" commenting on the Stephen Ambrose page as a "school assignment" with a disingenuous screed which was quickly removed by an admin and resulted his/her community ban from editing Wikipedia.) Please READ THE RECORD. Centpacrr (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I've looked over the LTA page, and it makes a solid case against Techwriter2B, but I still haven't seen anything that implicated the OP as being TW2B, except for having the misfortune of using an AT&T-registered address in Connecticut. You may very well be right, but I don't think it's wise to bring out the ban hammer until some vandalism actually occurs (since it so often leads to long-winded discussions such as these). WP:AGF isn't based on soft-headed idealism: it's WP policy because it has practical consequences. – ClockworkSoul 20:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Slow down there, Centpacrr. Let's take a step back and assume for a moment that 64.252 really is an innocent bystander caught in anti-vandalism crossfire. Would you expect them to know the intricacies of WP policies and procedures? Also, I'm not certain, but I think this practice is just good etiquette. Please correct me if I'm wrong. – ClockworkSoul 19:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The user that started this thread, 64.252.140.128, is an IP sockpuppet of a known Long-term Abuser, wikistalker, and disruptive editor who was banned from editing by the community as User:Techwriter2B and other socks (See: Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Techwriter2B) for his/her misconduct on Wikipedia going back more than three years. He/she has been stalking me personally since early May. He/she also DID NOT advise me of the existance of this thread which is another violation of WP policy. Centpacrr (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can speak from experience that this is an easy mistake to make. Nonetheless, the core of our assume good faith policy is to ensure that due diligence be taken before such accusations are made, and hopefully dampen the very human tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. – ClockworkSoul 18:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- 0.159 made only one edit that led to the sock accusation. The edit does not appear to be vandalism [14] so I don't know what prompted the allegation. I presume Centpacrr was being beset by Filmcracker, so just assumed the next edit was a sock of his. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- See also here and here for further evidence as to exactly who this IP is a sockpuppet of. His/her record of disruption to the WP is both legion and unambiguous. Centpacrr (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Even if we accept your accusations, (personally not convinced yet) why did you even bother edit warring over a template on a talk page if you really believe that? Why not report at WP:SPI or contact an admin familiar with this case? Ever heard of deny recognition, do not feed the troll, or revert, block, ignore? These are much better approaches in such a situation. Edit warring never solves anything, especially if you believe the person you are warring with is a block evading troll. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also, can you show that the OP isn't just a person who also happens to be editing from the same general geographic location? No vandalism was actually performed by the account, after all. – ClockworkSoul 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Centpacrr, I'm not sure I'm seeing this at all. You list under habitual behaviour "pretending to be a church", but the ONLY example you give is this one. So it isn't habitual behaviour at all. There's no evidence anywhere that this is your disruptive stalker other than being an ATT customer in Connecticut (not in Stratford according to WHOIS). Is there more somewhere? I note you had Filmcracker blocked for editing an article that one of the stalker victims edited, even though he/she was making productive edits, on the grounds that they were building up an alibi - since when did we start doing that? Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. Now I really don't understand something here. When freshacconci explained the IP address thing (above) he said, "Your IP address is not fixed which means that the numbers will periodically change, which means other individuals will be using an IP address you have used or will use." I thought that meant that since we now have a new IP address someone else now has our old one. And if our IP address changed in the past, someone had 64.252.0.159 before we did. Am I wrong about that? If that's the case, then how can you tell who is engaging in the vandalism or whatever Centpacrr is complaining about? I looked at the edits made from 64.252.0.159, and I don't see any problems. How can Centpacrr claim that those edits were made by someone else? This makes no sense at all. I'm leaving for the day and won't be back until next week so I guess I won't be able to see the outcome of this. 64.252.140.128 (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- As I pointed out above, I have been forced to deal with this disruptive wikistalker since May and know his/her techniques, writing style, practices, etc VERY WELL. (The posting immediately above is a perfect example.) Look at the many Wikilinks on the LTA page and you will see that this is the same individual who has wasted hundreds of hours or my and many other editors' time with his/her disruptive editing. There is just no doubt about it AT ALL. None. Centpacrr (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Since you have failed to convince anyone here of that I would say there is considerable doubt. I also don't see how you are being "forced" to deal with them, why you chose to edit war over the tag, and why you did not contact an admin familiar with this or file at SPI when you believed you found another sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was forced to deal with this user because he/she stalked and vandalized many articles on which I was a major contributor. (They are listed on the LTA page.) The issue of the false organization tag is only a very minor issue in the whole picture and was resolved quickly by an admin (whom the IP again complains about above). Once it was resolved I did not bring it up again, it was the IP user who did so by opening this thread. The admins who earlier blocked and banned this user have been notified of this thread and I will leave it up to them deal with the current issue. Centpacrr (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don’t have time to read through all the intricacies of this thread right now, but it’s clear to me that this user is the same individual as Techwriter2B, Filmcracker, etc. He has a long history of mostly using anonymous IPs to post (only occasionally using a registered ID – e.g. only one posting occurred under the Techwriter2B username). All the IPs localize not just to CT, but to the general vicinity of Stratford CT. A bunch of his (i.e. this banned user’s) prior edits were made from 64.252.*.* (he’s been using this IP range for two or three years). The IP which was blocked by Ohnoitsjamie, 64.252.0.159, was used to edit The High and the Mighty (film), in conjunction with his Filmcracker account, as part of a pattern of wikistalking of Centpacrr. He also has a long history of professing complete innocence, denying identity with his previous socks, and claiming that some terrible mistake was made. When specific information is required/requested he goes vague (e.g. “The church has all sorts of rules and regulations about running this center that are kept in a bookcase full of binders that I'm not privy to. I don't know if it's OK to reveal information about our center or the church on Wikipedia.”). If you’ve dealt with him for a while, you’ll see that the tone, syntax, nature of his pleas, etc. closely matches with his posting above. The following is classic Techwriter2B: “Even worse, he posted it right above the Beatitudes and wrote that ‘the text immediately below which is not mine either.’ Well of course not. The Beatitudes are the Word of the Lord.” He also has a long history of making frequent complaints at forums (such as this one), often claiming to be a victim of abuse by other editors. Everything here fits his long-term general pattern. Eurytemora (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was forced to deal with this user because he/she stalked and vandalized many articles on which I was a major contributor. (They are listed on the LTA page.) The issue of the false organization tag is only a very minor issue in the whole picture and was resolved quickly by an admin (whom the IP again complains about above). Once it was resolved I did not bring it up again, it was the IP user who did so by opening this thread. The admins who earlier blocked and banned this user have been notified of this thread and I will leave it up to them deal with the current issue. Centpacrr (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Any actual evidence of this. Because I can't see it in the links I've been presented with so far. Instead I'm seeing things like a genuine problem (admittedly raised by a forum shopper and eventually agreed not to be serious) [15] with a COI concerning Centpacrr, I'm seeing this Sockpuppet editor "Filmcracker" is continuing to make disruptive edits against consensus to The High and the Mighty (film) (see [115], [116]). While his/her edits may look "reasonable" on their face, the purpose for which those were made certainly are not, and this is another well documented pattern of his/her past behavior on Wikipedia over more than three years. He/she will make what appear to be a few good faith edits to convince another editor whose support he/she is soliciting that he/she is only interested in making positive contributions. This, however, is actually a smokescreen he/she has used many times before. By feigning good faith and then seeking the "advice and support" of otherwise uninvolved editors (See [117]) for his/her "reasonable" edits, he/she is really just attempting to "use" those editors to then advance his/her real agendas of misconduct, disruptive editing, Wikistalking, etc. This sockpuppet needs to be banned immediately. Centpacrr (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC) - those edits don't actually seem to be against consensus [16].There is nothing connecting the 12 series to Techwriter2BWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/12.76.155.54. All these may be the disruptive sock of one person, but I'm concerned about the quality of evidence being presented. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is plenty of evidence. Just take a look at the contributions of the accounts on the LTA page. After further review, this is seriously ducky and both IPs need to be blocked for a far longer period. All of the accounts including the OP have made edits to Stephen Ambrose related pages. One of them has harassed Centpacrr before. This one claimed to be a public computer and did not want talkpage messages left (much as this one has). Here's another one that removed the WHOIS notice from their talkpage, claiming ownership. Here one claims that the IP address is shared with his "staff" which is doing the vandalism. This one calls Centpacrr a crackpot and also makes a very similar edit to The High and Mighty as our current guest did. --Smashvilletalk 21:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Smashville is correct. Everyone involved with him long-term recognizes that it’s the same guy. Even regarding the 12.76 series SPI – note that a 64.252.*.* IP (specifically, 64.252.28.1) was used to try to forge an admin signature to terminate the investigation. SarekOfVulcan gave an indef block to Techwriter2B since it was clear that he was the same individual as the anonymous IP editor. This has all been discussed to death previously. It seems that every time he pops back up we go through it again (now, he’s even a banned user, and it’s still happening).Eurytemora (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is plenty of evidence. Just take a look at the contributions of the accounts on the LTA page. After further review, this is seriously ducky and both IPs need to be blocked for a far longer period. All of the accounts including the OP have made edits to Stephen Ambrose related pages. One of them has harassed Centpacrr before. This one claimed to be a public computer and did not want talkpage messages left (much as this one has). Here's another one that removed the WHOIS notice from their talkpage, claiming ownership. Here one claims that the IP address is shared with his "staff" which is doing the vandalism. This one calls Centpacrr a crackpot and also makes a very similar edit to The High and Mighty as our current guest did. --Smashvilletalk 21:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Since you have failed to convince anyone here of that I would say there is considerable doubt. I also don't see how you are being "forced" to deal with them, why you chose to edit war over the tag, and why you did not contact an admin familiar with this or file at SPI when you believed you found another sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Dude. Just go create an account. It's not that hard, and it will solve the problems you're complaining about here. Case closed. Bye. SnottyWong spill the beans 21:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- This user is prohibited from doing so and would be immediately and indefinitely blocked as soon as identified as a known sockpuppet of User:Techwriter2B who has been banned from editing on Wikipedia by the WP community. (See the LTA page for details.) His/her starting of this thread is, in fact, just another example of his/her long term pattern of wikistalking and disruptive behavior over more than three years. His/her false claims above that he/she "doesn't understand" the difference between static and dynamic IP's, or anything about how Wikipedia works is just plain hokum. A review of his/her record and many postings under the dozens of IPs (and three named sockpuppet accounts) that he/she has used in the past in which he/she cites dozens of WP policies and guidelines to "justify" his/her disruptive behavior (and attack the WP contributions of others) clearly demonstrates his/her penchant for extreme wikilawyering. Centpacrr (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Full disclosure: I deslisted ANI a few weeks back, was unaware of this thread and was just asked by Centpacrr to comment here. That said, I must express concern regarding the discussion to date. Centpacrr has been the demonstrated target of one of the nastiest multiple socks I have encountered in my time with Wikipedia. The multiple sock has demonstrated fiendish determination to get revenge on Centpacrr by any means possible, including building up a false identity by making good edits. I think the evidence I have seen in this thread shows that it is likely that we have another attempt on our hands here. The OP is very likely this same character. Centpacrr has done Wikipedia a great service in helping to ban this character, and this CT account issue appears likely to be that same dark-souled person. Let's WP:ASF to Centpacrr's outstanding efforts to date and look carefully at his reasoning. It is simply outrageous that one sock-abuser, if it is indeed the same one as I strongly suspect, can eat up so much precious time and fool so many people by taking advantage of our better natures. We need to find the truth and deal with it fairly, but firmly. Further investigation of the OP is called for, in my view, and it looks to me like this is a case of WP:DUCK. Jusdafax 22:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have to say, and I'm willing to be presented with evidence to prove me wrong here, but I'm seeing no such thing. I've not yet been able to get back to a part of this case where actual wrong is being done to Centpacrr. The 12. series [17] did come from Connecticut, but not Stratford and don't appear to have ever interacted with Centpacrr. An IP in another investigation resolves to Stratford Public Library. Techwriter2B had disruptive edits, but other accounts were blocked before they actually carried out any disruption or attacks on Centpacrr. I find this very odd. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- This user's wikistalking of me began on May 5, 2010, and therefore involves only a couple of IPs (mostly 75.2.209.226 and several 64.252.**.** IPs) and two named sock accounts (Techwriter2B and Filmcracker) which he/she created specifically for that purpose and led to his/her community ban from WP. The other IPs and his/her other named account (Sift&Winnow) were all used and abandoned by him/her prior to that. When he/she was banned from editing on Wikipedia as Techwriter2B, all of his/her identified socks were banned as well as a matter of WP policy. Centpacrr (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have to say, and I'm willing to be presented with evidence to prove me wrong here, but I'm seeing no such thing. I've not yet been able to get back to a part of this case where actual wrong is being done to Centpacrr. The 12. series [17] did come from Connecticut, but not Stratford and don't appear to have ever interacted with Centpacrr. An IP in another investigation resolves to Stratford Public Library. Techwriter2B had disruptive edits, but other accounts were blocked before they actually carried out any disruption or attacks on Centpacrr. I find this very odd. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
::::You know, the more I look at that, the less I see wikistalking, and the more I see an editor objecting to someone rewriting their article, and managing to tie it (with very little evidence I can see) to an entirely different case. If I went and edited Stephen Ambrose, would you try to get me blocked as a sock of Techwriter2B? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Elen, a lot of people have had huge problems with him (including other complaints of wikistalking, uncivil, disruptive editing, abusive sockpuppetry, etc.) – as others have noted, going back three years. There’s a reason why Jusdafax refers to him as “one of the nastiest multiple socks I have encountered in my time with Wikipedia”.
- And as Centpacrr notes, this individual stopped using the 12.76 series before the wikistalking of Centpacrr started. The 12.76 IPs resolve to the Stratford CT vicinity [18] – geolocalization is imperfect (you can read about it here [19] and elsewhere – will generally get you within 30-50 miles or so). The other numbers implicated in the 12.76 SPI case resolve to the same vicinity[20], [21],[22]. Also, in case you haven’t gotten to these, here are two of the ANI threads for this guy:[23][24].Eurytemora (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Elen you are, of course, free to interpret the evidence in this matter in any way you wish. However this user was banned from editing on Wikipedia by the WP community, not by me, for his/her long history of demonstrated misbehavior including (but not limited to) disruptive editing, wikistalking, sockpuppetry, incivility, forgery of an admin's signature, deceptive and/or fraudulent postings, and many other violations of WP policies and guidelines (mostly perpetrated under multiple anonymous IP accounts) over a period of three years. By the way, when he/she started this very thread about me, he/she violated yet another WP policy when he/she did not post a notice on my Talk page ("You must notify any user that you discuss.") as required by the template located at the top of this very page.
- The record clearly demonstrates that I was hardly the only editor that he/she has stalked since 2007, only the latest. The apparent reason that he/she was finally banned last month for this practice is that he/she made the mistake of finally stalking an editor who declined to be a passive victim of his/her abuse but instead chose to utilize the processes provided by Wikipedia to seek redress for both himself and the community at large. The case was presented and was supported by massive amounts of evidence, it was discussed by the community at large in several AN/I threads, and was then acted on by at least four different admins. And that's why this user is banned from editing on Wikipedia. Centpacrr (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I remember this very well, I was the one who called for his ban. Anyway, he's definitely banned from the community, and he is not welcome with any account. I am not entirely convinced that he's Techwriter though. --Rockstonetalk to me! 00:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The record clearly demonstrates that I was hardly the only editor that he/she has stalked since 2007, only the latest. The apparent reason that he/she was finally banned last month for this practice is that he/she made the mistake of finally stalking an editor who declined to be a passive victim of his/her abuse but instead chose to utilize the processes provided by Wikipedia to seek redress for both himself and the community at large. The case was presented and was supported by massive amounts of evidence, it was discussed by the community at large in several AN/I threads, and was then acted on by at least four different admins. And that's why this user is banned from editing on Wikipedia. Centpacrr (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The geolocation and identity of the ISP that owns the IP range used, and a simple objective comparison of the content, writing style, syntax, approach, and "message" of both the long original and subsequent postings by 64.252.140.128 in this thread with the known writings of Techwriter2B and his/her sockpuppets proves conclusively that they were all written by the same individual. After almost four months of dealing with this perp, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind on this at all. He/she has always reveled him/herself the very same way. Centpacrr (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Some points - the call for disclosure of the church "64" is a "volunteer" at was met with a dubious excuse not to disclose, followed by a sudden inability to talk for a week. That just doesn't ring true to me. The sudden silence is convenient and should be considered significant and quite telling to those with any continued doubts here. None of this passes the smell test. I for one, on further review, am now backing Centpacrr all the way. "64" is Techwriter2B et al. Block/ban/ignore. I would go so far as to say that Cen and Jamie are owed an apology by some here. 02:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC) (Adding sig a second time, dunno what happened there...) Jusdafax 06:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Observation re Jusdafax's comment immediately above: Don't anyone believe for an instant the sock's claim above that "I'm leaving for the day and won't be back until next week so I guess I won't be able to see the outcome of this." While he/she not unexpectedly fled this thread immediately when asked to identify the apparently fictional "church" or "organization" for which he/she "is a volunteer", you can be very sure that he/she is following this discussion very closely (although I doubt that he/she has the courage to post anything further) as the starting of these threads appears to be one of his/her favorite hobbies. I believe that this is the 16th or 17th one of these that he/she has either started or perpetuated against just me in the last four months! (Links to most of the others are on the Techwriter2B LTA page.) "Thread abuse" is actually also another one of his/her "hallmark" techniques of wikistalking and wasting other users' time and effort.
- Also I am not really owed an apology from any of the other good faith editors who commented in this thread who were fooled by Techwriter2B's IP sock into defending him/her as an "innocent, inexperienced, and abused" editor. Instead they are really just a few more of the dozens of "drive by" casualties who he/she has snookered over the last three years by his/her long standing pattern of deception and misconduct on WP. Centpacrr (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I’ll go through some of the info. First, he’s using the 64.252 range and geolocalizes to the Stratford CT area. This range (and geolocalization) match the previous IP edits. For example, a 64.252 IP was used by Techwriter2B (in addition to 75.2.209.226 and others) at Stephen Ambrose, before he made his lone posting to the article under the Techwriter2B ID (in which he pretended to be a student doing a class assignment – posting under the heading “An Outsider’s Point of View”). Last year, 64.252 was also used to make sock edits while he was predominantly posting under his Sift&Winnow ID (identical IP, discovered by a Checkuser in an unrelated SPI investigation, at which point the Sift&Winnow account was abandoned), and to forge an admin signature in a previous SPI (two years ago). When he opened his Filmcracker account to target Centpaccr’s edits at The High and the Mighty (film), he also used 64.252.0.159 (in the context of wikistalking, this film was an ideal target, given Centpaccr’s long term contributions to the article, and within the film article, he only targeted text originating from Centpaccr). Edits to the article hadn’t previously occurred from an anonymous IP in this range – and popped up an hour after a series of Filmcracker edits (and resembled them).
- Also, the language he is using is very similar to Techwriter2B. Just for one example, this individual’s customary sign-off is “Thanks for listening” – as in the only post made under Techwriter2B “Thanks for listening.” And in the complaint above “Thank you for listening”. There are a lot of additional linguistic similarities, but I don’t want to post them publicly (since it might better enable him to disguise his future postings).
- As an aside, I’ll also note that, other than The High and the Mighty (film), the film articles he chose to edit under Filmcracker (i.e. the topic areas of the films – e.g. Judgment at Nuremberg ,The Bells of St. Mary's,Marjorie Morningstar (film), etc.) appear to match his prior interests (i.e. edits under the IPs and Sift&Winnow).
- There’s also the question – is the complaint above in good faith. The IP claims “We didn't make any edits at all.” So I guess this[25] is not an edit. Also, simple plausibility - he claims to be the representative of a church with multiple computers that has a Wikipedia page (he keeps referring to “our page”) corresponding to a dynamic IP, but that doesn’t make any edits. Also, one of the IP 64.252.0.159 edits to the talk page both altered the language of a comment left by Centpacrr and entirely removed a comment left by OhNoitsJamie [26]. Centpaccr then inserted the following: “NOTICE TO ADMINS: The above posting by me (Centpacrr (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)) has been altered by 64.252.0.159 (See [1]) to change its meaning. He/she also posted the text immediately below which is not mine either. This user has also been twice indefinitely blocked under three different sockpuppet accounts in the last few weeks, the most recent just a few days ago. (See [2] and [3]). I expect that 64.252.0.159 will delete this comment as is his/he common practice, but it is preserved in the page's history for admins to consider.” In the complaint above, the IP writes of this “Centpacrr posted again, this time accusing us of all sorts of things. Even worse, he posted it right above the Beatitudes and wrote that ‘the text immediately below which is not mine either.’ Well of course not. The Beatitudes are the Word of the Lord. And Centpacrr's comment was placed so that it desecrated those words.” This characterization (that Centpaccr committed desecration) doesn’t pass the smell test – this individual is manipulating – and the type of (slightly ham-handed) manipulation he’s doing here is extremely familiar to me from my prior dealing with him. Also, as I noted above, posting frequent complaints at forums (such as the current ANI complaint as well as his July 20 vandalism complaint [27] is part of his modus operandi.
- Quacks and waddles.Eurytemora (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The OP's evasiveness and running for cover when the worm started to turn, along with apparently unconsciously using the same tag line as the sockmaster, add up to seriously fishy. An SPI should be filed, although the outcome will depend on the whims of the CU, i.e. whether they're willing to fully do their job or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, Bugs. Centpacrr, you are a better man than I am, letting some of these editors (above) off the apology hook for their above statements to and about you. Reading this thread is a textbook example of Wikipedians taking ASG too far for a supposed newbee, while not doing the same for an established editor who has done much to improve the place by repeatedly standing up to a sneaky, lying bully, and effectively shutting down their sock abuse. For shame! Jusdafax 06:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I got frustrated last summer, when I was being constantly harassed, and the checkusers wouldn't look outside the box to figure out who was behind it. Filing an SPI is tedious, and if the CU isn't going to do his job, I'm not going to bother going through that tedium. I'll just let the troll have its way and hope it gets bored and goes away after awhile. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jusdafax. I just hope that the ongoing misconduct of this troublesome user can be quickly (and finally) resolved for the benefit of the WP community. Centpacrr (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, Bugs. Centpacrr, you are a better man than I am, letting some of these editors (above) off the apology hook for their above statements to and about you. Reading this thread is a textbook example of Wikipedians taking ASG too far for a supposed newbee, while not doing the same for an established editor who has done much to improve the place by repeatedly standing up to a sneaky, lying bully, and effectively shutting down their sock abuse. For shame! Jusdafax 06:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The OP's evasiveness and running for cover when the worm started to turn, along with apparently unconsciously using the same tag line as the sockmaster, add up to seriously fishy. An SPI should be filed, although the outcome will depend on the whims of the CU, i.e. whether they're willing to fully do their job or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Just my 2 cents. I am a huge fan of IPs being able to edit and being equal citizens...to a point. Can't somebody do some type of "check" is it SPI or something to resolve this? This whole thing sounds "fishy" or "ducky" or whatever. Centpacrr seems to acting in good faith, so if it comes down to "who to believe", I would "err" on the side on an "established" account. Again, I think being able to edit as an IP is a crical pillar to this project, but lets get this straight. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- On second thought it seems very likely that he is Techwriter2B, especially when he vanished. While the IP might be from a Church,he ought to have proven it, not run away. The fact alone that he's trolling us, from the same city as Techwriter2B, with the same IP range, seems to make it quite likely he's just quacking. So, unless he's willing to share the name of the Church, I see nothing that can clear his name, he definitely seems guilty. --Rockstonetalk to me! 19:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Rockstone, don't expect him/her to ever reappear in this thread (unless he/she does so as another sock) or to provide the verifiable name of any such "church" or "organization" as I am quite sure that no such institution exists. As with the fictional "professor" who assigned him/her to "evaluate" the Stephen Ambrose article for a "writing class" which got him/her banned as User:Techwriter2B with just a single posting, the "church volunteer" story above was manifestly another complete invention that he/she made up out of whole cloth.
- One of the primary telltale elements that reveal such complicated fabrications is that when challenged to provide even one verifiable fact or source to support the truth of the "story" he/she fabricates a nonsensical excuse to not do so, and/or simply runs away thus becoming "mute." A second is that as the story is untrue it's hard for the fabulist to keep his/her story's "facts" straight, and so the more they are expanded upon or retold the more self-contradictory they become. A third is being "too cute by half" and thus overplaying his/her hand. (This is often the result of the fabulist's hubris and believing that he/she is so much cleverer then anyone that he/she intends to deceive that his/her deceptive practices will never be recognized for what they are.)
- In the current case, Techwriter2B (as 64.252.140.128) did all three.
- 1) As noted above, when asked to simply identify the "church" he/she responded: "I'm a volunteer at this church-sponsored outreach center, but I'm not a member of the church or an administrator in the center. I'm just a volunteer who comes in every now and then. The church has all sorts of rules and regulations about running this center that are kept in a bookcase full of binders that I'm not privy to. I don't know if it's OK to reveal information about our center or the church on Wikipedia." As the comments questioning his/her story became more pointed, he/she then ran away saying in his/her final post in the thread: "I'm leaving for the day and won't be back until next week so I guess I won't be able to see the outcome of this."
- 2) For "...I guess I won't be able to see the outcome of this." to be "true" it would have to mean that he/she also only has access to the internet at the "church outreach center" and nowhere else, a truly preposterous contention as he/she has a record of making thousands of edits at all hours of the day and night and on every day of the week over at least three years and thus is a clearly a self-contradictory "fact" that he/she couldn't keep "straight."
- 3) As he/she has done many times before, Techwriter2B also again foolishly overplayed his/her hand in this case simply by starting this thread to again make his/her false charge of "vandalism" of the fictional "church's" IP talk page, a claim that had already been debunked three weeks earlier and resulting at that time in a two week block. The result of his/her starting this false thread, however, has instead been to further expose and document to the WP community the level and extent of his/her long record of duplicity and misconduct. Thus on all three counts, it's clearly been a case of res ipsa loquitur.
- I would also not expect this perp to ever attempt to use the IP 64.252.140.128 again either as it is now "toxic", although I am equally sure that he/she will attempt to "resurface" again in a few weeks using some other anonymous IP. When he/she does, you can also expect him/her to soon seek the help of "friendly editors" with another contrived story of how he/she, as an innocent, inexperienced, good faith "newbie" who just "doesn't understand" how either the internet or Wikipedia work, is being abused by a cabal of intolerant, arrogant, and uncaring veteran editors in the WP community. I think you can pretty much "bet the farm" on that too. Centpacrr (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Definently true. --Rockstonetalk to me! 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the walkaway does seem to clinch the matter. I do feel I owe Centpacrr an apology, particularly for one comment which on re-reading seems quite unnecessarily combative (it's the one above that I have struck). I've never seen anything quite like this - one lives and learns I suppose. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Apology graciously and appreciatively accepted, Elen, but there is no need for you to feel badly about this. You are hardly the first good faith editor to have been snookered by this "long term abuser". Thank you for following up, and just hope you never become a stalking victim of him/her as well. Fortunately there are not many of these LTAs, but those few that are out there can cause great damage to WP by driving away the many good editors who value the project and enjoy contributing to it. (I expect he/she incorrectly figured that with enough harassment I would be one of those too.) Thanks again. Centpacrr (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm late to the party, but I also agree from both the evidence I see here, and my own personal experience with the troll, that the likelihood of 64. being a sock is about 99.99% ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 06:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
A3RO (talk · contribs) who was a user trusted enough to be granted reviewing and rollback privileges has recently started trolling at RFA — see here, here, here (oppose #3 and here; his talk page's edit notice looks like this —.
I think he should be blocked for disruptive editing. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 19:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree; it's clear that he's not taking the project seriously, in fact it appears that in most of the cases you've linked to, he has simply been trolling, opposing just to be contrary, producing provocative responses to queries, and generally attempting to hinder the process. I think a short block is in order. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a few examples of the problem behavior (note the edit summaries on some):
Incivility:
[28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]
Trolling:
Disruption of RFA:
This is unacceptable editing behavior. I support an indefinite block for this disruption.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The disruption is across the board (AFD, RFA, etc.). The only constructive thing I see going on is reverts; while this is useful, it doesn't excuse the other behavior (there is certainly precedent for this). I've only blocked for a week for now, and only pending a response by the user regarding the recent behavior. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you won't mind if I indent his recent votes? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good block, as confirmed by the recalcitrant responses. His !votes should be indented as disruptive. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- His vote is not disruptive unless you allow it to disrupt. It sets a very bad precedent to discount someone's vote after blocking them because you didn't like the way they voted. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Malleus and see no need to disallow the vote (at Dabomb's RfA). Anyone who tallies up the vote can easily make up their mind as to how to weigh that no-comment oppose, and I think precedent here is more important than an unopposed RfA for Dabomb. BTW, I just voted 'support' without explanation--that sort of thing is never questioned. Also BTW, I don't care for this editor, let that be clear, but striking that vote is not a good thing to do. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- His vote is not disruptive unless you allow it to disrupt. It sets a very bad precedent to discount someone's vote after blocking them because you didn't like the way they voted. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
He also voted three times in the Steven Slater AfD. A bit of disruption there. SilverserenC 19:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- And deleted someone else's comment without explanation. He marks all of his edits as "minor." I left him a polite note regarding the unexplained deletion, and also suggested that he not mark his edits as minor unless they actually are minor edits; his response (via snarky edit summary) was that he has done it that way for four years and (I assume) has no plans to change. –BMRR (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Has the editor always done this kind of stuff, or is it a sudden recent change? If the latter, it could suggest a compromised account, and should be blocked for that at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I considered the "compromised account" possibility but discounted it as unlikely due to the Huggle activity. Others may have other opinions though. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- This user has also posted nonsense on my talk page numerous times; most recently [40]. Tommy! [message] 20:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think he had his account compromised (see for instance his request for adminship). My opinion is that this user, from time to time, has fun yanking our collective chain... Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 20:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Their block log indicates that it's not a new problem. Favonian (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I saw one of his RFA votes indented, so indented the other two, and am just now reading this. I think they shouldn't be counted, but if consensus disagrees, fine with me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- All he is doing is being an attention whore. There's no need to encourage his behavior; either ignore him or block him. Since the DougsTech incident showed that every RFA participant is incapable of doing the former, then we should do the latter. NW (Talk) 20:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Removed his privileges. Agree with the block and the indenting of his votes. Feel a ban is premature at this stage; we usually give more last chances than this. --John (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- - the User has thousands of edits, as regards the removal of his reviewer rights, has he misused it in any way at all? If he has not then why remove it? Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because he must be punished, and he must be seen to have been punished. Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- He has had rollback revoked in the past, and after seeing his RFA, I seriously question his judgement.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- So he hasn't abused his reviewer rights then. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- No. I removed these rights on the basis that he no longer has the trust of the community. I'll be happy to reverse that if a consensus develops that I was wrong. --John (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- John, this thread was only opened a few hours ago and you have blocked him one week and removed all his rights. The reviewer right is not supposed to be removed without community support or through Arbcom. Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, User:Shirik blocked him, and I removed the rights based on the block and on this discussion as denoting community support. If a consensus develops that this was mistaken, I will be happy to reinstate these rights. --John (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, excuse me. I support the week block. The reviewer right you should have opened a discussion and not removed it without community support.Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, User:Shirik blocked him, and I removed the rights based on the block and on this discussion as denoting community support. If a consensus develops that this was mistaken, I will be happy to reinstate these rights. --John (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- John, this thread was only opened a few hours ago and you have blocked him one week and removed all his rights. The reviewer right is not supposed to be removed without community support or through Arbcom. Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- No. I removed these rights on the basis that he no longer has the trust of the community. I'll be happy to reverse that if a consensus develops that I was wrong. --John (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- So he hasn't abused his reviewer rights then. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Ban proposal
Removal of reviewer rights
I have noticed a few admins have now started removing users reviewers rights, in the guidelines it says the right should not be removed like this, As in this case when they have not abused it, as part of a general punishment, is this now something that is supported by the community? The removal of the right when it has not been abused in anyway is an excessive punishment and not needed at all it simply puts the user as if unconfirmed. 21:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)
Comment - the reviewer right is about trust. Once that trust is gone, the right should be removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- You don't trust him, fine , but he has not abused the reviewer right in any way. It is a very simplr right and if he hasn't abused it it is a bit excessive to remove it, rollback I understand there has been misuse but are we saying there is support that this right can be removed from anyone an administraror doesn't trust, like someone blocked for a week and because hes been a bit naughty the administrator can remove all his rights and make him basically that all his edits have to be agreed be trusted;; users? Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- It should be removed if an editor loses a collective community trust, as in this case.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The right is not specifically about trust, its a simple right that he has not misused and it should not be removed. How do you know that the user has lost the trust of the community to have a simple right removed that he has not abused in any way? We can start the discussion, and rights removals through community discussion especially when that user has not misused them should stay open I think at least twenty four hours and a couple of days is better.Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The right is completely about trust. If the community does not trust a user, they do not trust that the user will not abuse the reviewer right. With a history of disruption, trolling and rollback abuse, who's to say a user will not abuse the reviewer rights as well?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The user has not in any way abused this right, I trust him with this right because he has not misused it while he had it. I see you support an indefinite block but there is no support for that and removing his reviewer right is not just to be done as an extra punishment, he has not abused this right in any way and it should be returned to him.Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just because you trust the user to not abuse the reviewer rights despite a history of other abuse by the user, does not mean the overall community trusts him as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do you see a lot of users rushing up here to say they support the removal of this users reviewer right when he has not abused it in any way? Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- You are the only editor making an issue of this. It seems unreasonable to trust a user to not abuse a right when he's abused other rights and wikipedia in general.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do you see a lot of users rushing up here to say they support the removal of this users reviewer right when he has not abused it in any way? Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just because you trust the user to not abuse the reviewer rights despite a history of other abuse by the user, does not mean the overall community trusts him as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The user has not in any way abused this right, I trust him with this right because he has not misused it while he had it. I see you support an indefinite block but there is no support for that and removing his reviewer right is not just to be done as an extra punishment, he has not abused this right in any way and it should be returned to him.Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The right is completely about trust. If the community does not trust a user, they do not trust that the user will not abuse the reviewer right. With a history of disruption, trolling and rollback abuse, who's to say a user will not abuse the reviewer rights as well?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The right is not specifically about trust, its a simple right that he has not misused and it should not be removed. How do you know that the user has lost the trust of the community to have a simple right removed that he has not abused in any way? We can start the discussion, and rights removals through community discussion especially when that user has not misused them should stay open I think at least twenty four hours and a couple of days is better.Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- It should be removed if an editor loses a collective community trust, as in this case.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Personally I wouldn't have removed the rights since he hasn't abused them specifically, but it's not really a big deal; I don't see swarms of users protesting the action either. With his recent behaviour, I'm not confident he would use the tools correctly, and in any case I have no objection to him requesting reinstatement of the reviewer/rollback rights if he gets his act together. That would be at the discretion of an admin as usual. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is a big deal, and is just an unnecessary policing and punishment when a user has not abused the right, and as pending looks like it is going to be rolled out widely over the wikipedia the fears of editors when the original discussions occurred that Administrators will be able to remove an experienced editors ability to edit at all are materializing in front of our faces. Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- How is it that he would no longer be able to edit? If he is an autoconfirmed user, wouldn't his edits automatically be accepted, regardless of whether or not he's a reviewer? –BMRR (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Would they, I was thinking they wouldn't be automatically accepted? Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The only time an autoconfirmed non-reviewer needs to have their edit accepted is when the page is on PC1 and currently has pending changes from non-autoconfirmed users. (Or when PC2 is in place, though we don't presently use PC2 AFAIK). –xenotalk 23:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well that not so bad but I still see it as unnecessary policing and punishment. How would a user that has allegedly lost the trust of the community to even be a reviewer ever get it back? That is just such a lot of hyperbole, ow you've lost the community's trust, really only a handful of people have even commented. He can't show that he won't misuse it because he already hasn't misused it and as I have seen sometimes once as is being claimed here the community has lost its trust in you it is not returned easily. I trust him with reviewers rights until he abuses them. Lets see if and how he manages to become trusted enough to get a right back that he hasn't abused. Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Although I generally agree with you, I really don't think it matters much. All of these "rights" were designed to be useless baubles, to be granted and taken away at the whim of any passing administrator. It was always going to work this way. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just for the record, my explanation should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the removal of 'reviewer' which may, or may not be, justified. The user seems to be having a bit of a go at RFA and AFD participants (and I think they would do well to modify their approach in this regard), but as far as I know, they have not compromised the mainspace. –xenotalk 12:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- My personal opinions are that the user's tools should not have been removed, unless they are/have been used in an abusive way. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. There was no reason to remove his reviewer rights. That is an irrelevant punishment. He's already been blocked, that's enough. I'm also not sure how being disruptive can result in a "loss of community trust". Just because someone is a jerk doesn't necessarily make them untrustworthy. SnottyWong confess 23:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Reviewers need good judgement. I have strong convictions about this user's judgement. I think their userpage says it all. Tommy! [message] 01:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that his recent behavior is a real concern for the administrators, because they don't want to take the risk by letting him have his tools. Because of this, they can't guarantee he will not abuse his user rights, and because of that, they take the safest before the risky side by removing all his user rights. I think A3RO will only ever get his permissions back if he apologizes for his recent behavior and promises not to do it again, be serious and returns to be a good and constructive editor again. /HeyMid (contributions) 12:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Reviewers need good judgement. I have strong convictions about this user's judgement. I think their userpage says it all. Tommy! [message] 01:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. There was no reason to remove his reviewer rights. That is an irrelevant punishment. He's already been blocked, that's enough. I'm also not sure how being disruptive can result in a "loss of community trust". Just because someone is a jerk doesn't necessarily make them untrustworthy. SnottyWong confess 23:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- My personal opinions are that the user's tools should not have been removed, unless they are/have been used in an abusive way. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well that not so bad but I still see it as unnecessary policing and punishment. How would a user that has allegedly lost the trust of the community to even be a reviewer ever get it back? That is just such a lot of hyperbole, ow you've lost the community's trust, really only a handful of people have even commented. He can't show that he won't misuse it because he already hasn't misused it and as I have seen sometimes once as is being claimed here the community has lost its trust in you it is not returned easily. I trust him with reviewers rights until he abuses them. Lets see if and how he manages to become trusted enough to get a right back that he hasn't abused. Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The only time an autoconfirmed non-reviewer needs to have their edit accepted is when the page is on PC1 and currently has pending changes from non-autoconfirmed users. (Or when PC2 is in place, though we don't presently use PC2 AFAIK). –xenotalk 23:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Would they, I was thinking they wouldn't be automatically accepted? Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- How is it that he would no longer be able to edit? If he is an autoconfirmed user, wouldn't his edits automatically be accepted, regardless of whether or not he's a reviewer? –BMRR (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
After a hiatus of almost a year, this editor has once again begun systematically adding unreferenced personal commentary to a number of articles centred on the religion of Islam. Previous to a year ago, this editor was challenged and warned on many occasions on their talk page for engaging in this practice; with a number of different editors attempting various tacts in the hope of convincing Farrukh38 that what they were doing was contrary to our policies regarding original research and adding unreferenced personal opinion to articles, apparently all to no avail. When challenged on their editing practices, Farrukh38 does not appear to understand that the material that they are adding; apart from direct quotations from the Quran, consists of unreferenced personal interpretation and opinions regarding the material; they seem to consider that the personal perspective they're offering is in some way self evident "Truth" and requires no further substantiation whatsoever. It appears that previous to a year ago, a number of editors who attempted to mentor Farrukh38 regarding these issues, eventually simply gave up and walked away from the situation and Farrukh38 ceased making these types of edits shortly thereafter. Farrukh38 resumed these types of edits in the recent past and I have subsequently added what I deemed to be appropriate warning templates 1-4 to their talk page; again, to no avail, this editor simply continues to engage in their previous practices ignoring all input. I've considered that there is perhaps an issue with English language competency here; however their past dealings with other editors appear to me to be more of a case of obstinacy in their personal position rather than anything else. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've looked at and undone their edits on Muslim and Hadith. English language competency is certainly an issue; the edits they made are so unclear that it's hard to figure out exactly what they were--but helpful they weren't. If user persists in this kind of attitude then an administrator's attention is warranted. Let's say if they come here to explain/defend themselves. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- WP:COMPETENCE comes to mind. --Rschen7754 06:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I have edited with references of Quranic verses. you can check all edits. But most of the editors did not accept the Quranic reference as reliable source.In the Hadith i aslo gave the verse and chapter numbers along with translator name.I donot see now my last edits in Hadith.
39:23(chapter 39/Verse23) Shabbir Ahmed (Translator's name): Allah has now revealed the best HADITH, a Book fully consistent within itself. It marks out both ways (to success and failure) repeating its Messages in diverse forms. Herewith shiver the skins of those who have some idea of the Glory of their Lord, and then, their skins and their hearts soften at Allah's Reminder. This is the Guidance of Allah, and with it He guides him who seeks guidance. Whereas he who follows a path that Allah has declared to be wrong, goes astray and he cannot find a guide.
This verse contain the word Hadith and referring to Book of allah. http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/39/23/default.htm, similarly gave more references to tell the word Hadith as per text of Quran. what is wrong in it? If this is wrong then i can improve my self to correct me for editing.please read all my comments given to editors that when we talk about Quran then Quranic text must be considered as reliable source.The claim must match with quran if we are talking about Quran. Thanks.--Farrukh38 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- You can't use the Quran to interpret the Quran. If you want to comment on what a Quarnic text means, you need a reliable source. And islamawakened.com doesn't meet our criteria at WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Block of User:William M. Connolley by User:The Wordsmith
The Wordsmith has blocked William M. Conolley for 48 hours for deliberately violating an editing restriction against modifying other users' comments which The Wordsmith had imposed on him, and, seemingly, for then "thumbing his nose at it". The edit he was blocked for, if I understand this, was this initialled insertion within square brackets in a post by The Wordsmith. I wouldn't myself call that "editing comments made by other editors", since WMC has made it very clear which bit was inserted by him; he hasn't actually changed The Wordsmith's post. (This is one of the main uses of square brackets in academic writing.) The subsequent nose-thumbing takes place on The Wordsmith's talkpage: [41].
I feel strongly that users are permitted to thumb their noses at admins without being blocked for it — yes, and even to "gloat and draw more attention to it." If we block for that stuff, I think it's we, the blockers, who ultimately hurt our own dignity: not, to again quote The Wordsmith, the "hundreds of users" who "have demonstrated that if we give an inch, they'll take a mile". (I disagree. They won't. If you won't even give an inch, then perhaps they'll try to take a mile. Give respect if you want respect back.) See WMC's talkpage for a lively discussion of the block. Comments? Bishonen | talk 22:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC).
- I think the 48 hour block is totally fine. I think that WMC's continued presence has now reached the point of being a net loss to the project and given his continued snarkiness and repeated disruption I would support a much longer block. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- That is not on the agenda here. As far as this block is concerned, I do think WMC was being a bit snarky and pointy, and I'm not surprised that he was blocked as a result. That said, I also think a better course of action would have been for The Wordsmith to let it pass in the interests of avoiding drama. Another editor on WMC's talk page was right to comment that the actions on both sides were not optimal. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't work that way... a block review here at AN/I can result in a shortening, no change, or even a lengthening. The last is rare, but not unheard of. ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- That is not on the agenda here. As far as this block is concerned, I do think WMC was being a bit snarky and pointy, and I'm not surprised that he was blocked as a result. That said, I also think a better course of action would have been for The Wordsmith to let it pass in the interests of avoiding drama. Another editor on WMC's talk page was right to comment that the actions on both sides were not optimal. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I just finished reading the extensive discussion about this block on the user's talkpage, and I agree with The Wordsmith that the user deliberately demonstrated that he would not abide by the community sanction, as well as baiting him in the process. That said, however, The Wordsmith shouldn't have taken the bait. I believe the short block should remain, but ideally an uninvolved sysop should have been the one to administer it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)I don't think this was optimally handled. First imposing an edit restriction, and then self-applying it when it gets violated. Where did I see that before .. wait, maybe I should ask User:Abd, I think he ran once into a block by one certain User:William M. Connolley, because he was violating the ban implied by ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- My initial question would be; was this a community sanction, or one imposed unilaterally by the Wordsmith. If the latter, was Wordsmith empowered to do this? If not, then one could hardly blame WMC for taking exception to it. Although as such a seasoned contributor he should've realised that there were better ways of challenging it. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- From reading the discussion on the user's talk page, Wordsmith seemed to imply that it was a community sanction. If this was imposed by Wordsmith alone, then the block should be overturned, but I don't believe this is the case. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- To clarify, the restriction was imposed under the climate change article probation, which grants uninvolved admins such as The Wordsmith the right to impose such restrictions. The restriction was imposed following a request for probation enforcement that can be read here. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- From reading the discussion on the user's talk page, Wordsmith seemed to imply that it was a community sanction. If this was imposed by Wordsmith alone, then the block should be overturned, but I don't believe this is the case. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- WMC, he has just gone off, he knows he was snarky and he is probably chilln out somewhere laughing about it. But the people that support him start, this is wrong and that is wrong and now this thread, and he hasn't even asked to be unblocked, at least allow him the opportunity to speak for himself. The truth is about WMC is that I am afraid, he is a busted flush as far as wikipedia goes and his continued presence is disruptive. Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Per IRC chat Wordsmith has advised he's currently at work and will be able to respond to this in approximately 2 hours. --WGFinley (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support block. Ideally would have allowed someone else to make the block but user experience would have been identical in either case. --John (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- (Edit Conflict) - I don't have a problem with the block itself but Wordsmith should not have done it. Since WMC edited Wordsmith's comment and challenged him on his own (Wordsmith's) talkpage, Wordsmith should've requested neutral admin evaluation of the edits and intervention if the other admin thought it warranted. This avoids arguments about retaliation, conflict of interest etc. Exxolon (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I ran across this block not long after it was made, and I've been thinking about it ever since. On reflection I support it. I support it from a moral standpoint, partially because from this thread it seems clear that we need admins who have the guts to wade into that minefield and get their hands dirty, and frankly I don't have the guts to do that. (I think I once commented on a climate change RFC and that was as far as I was willing to involve myself.) But aside from that, WMC responded to a sanction not to edit others' comments by editing the very message itself, which is more than thumbing your nose, it's an immediate violation of the sanction. I don't see why he shouldn't be blocked. -- Atama頭 23:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- A proper block. As much as I agree that those imposing sanctions and those enforcing them ought ideally be separate, The Wordsmith and his colleagues in the CC case have been crying out for uninvolved admins to help for as long as the CC regime has been going. Skomorokh 23:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Given the WMC history on this issue (Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement), his edit in the notification of the sanction was knowingly inappropriate. "Respect mah authoritah" block? No - respect the community and its rules. So block entirely appropriate. Rd232 talk 23:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Observations benignly posted within well-respected academic brackets (see User:Bishonen entry) JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Tsk tsk - please see WP:POINT, as to why that is less than funny. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Unless WMC apologises for his conduct, then I don't think he should be unblocked. There are several ways to legitimately gain clarification of a restriction, or for that matter have it overturned, but deliberately breaking it, surprisingly enough, isn't one of them. PhilKnight (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not a proper block. An admin is not a police man nor a judge. The role of judge AND jury is that of the Community itself. The Community only can put forth restrictions, restrictions imposed by an admin alone are not valid. This restriction does seem to have come forth from a consensus though I did not read how wide a consensus and how neutral it was. So the question is- was the block by consensus? I see nowhere that Wordsmith asked for any opinions from other informed/interested parties or from non-interested neutral parties (as I understand those are harder to come by) or preferably brought this before AN/I to make sure we were all on the right page. Is the expectation that Wordsmith should have come before AN/I first considered a burden on his right or undue bureaucracy? IMHO- no. AN/I thread could have been quite simple and short and a community block instituted. My opinion in no reflects any endorsement or acceptance of what WMC did or if the block should be removed. The block probably should not be removed unless there is more evidence that it was done in a grudge manner. But Wordsmith should be educated on proper Janitorial behavior and service FOR the Community. (And I second Kim's admonishment of JIJ, in fact whatever happens to WMC shoud then happen to him/her)Camelbinky (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hopefully Bishonen will be first to note my block appeal. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Call to close: the overwhelming majority of users here appear to support leaving the block in place, so could an uninvolved editor close this as such? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ridiculous. This has been up for two hours, and surely there's no rush to close this. I'm neutral on the block. AniMate 00:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Close? Now? Oh, seriously. The Wordsmith wants to comment, for one thing, and hasn't even had a chance yet. See above.[42] Bishonen | talk 00:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC).
- Yeah I was a little hasty there, sorry about that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Extend block to indefinite. Per this, do not unblock until WMC indicates he accepts the sanction placed on him as legitimate, or indicates he intends to challenge it's illegitimacy in the right way, rather than how he just did. And if he gives no such indication, he can remain indeffed until his long term status is decided by the arbitration case, and give everyone a rest. MickMacNee (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- A close is premature even given the way consensus is shaping up. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also Respect mah authoritah: block by The Wordsmith is an inappropriately non neutral section heading, Bishonen knows better. ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, she's nothing to fear from Jimbo anymore on that score. I was about to raise it myself as a side-bar, but I couldn't see anything remotely worthwile emerging from the ensuing discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also Respect mah authoritah: block by The Wordsmith is an inappropriately non neutral section heading, Bishonen knows better. ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse per explanation below. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yet another example of how trying to reform WMC leads to disruptive drama at ANI. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support block and support it being imposed by Wordsmith because no one else would have done it, and that is what WMC was counting on. His behavior was deliberate as he clearly stated he was violating the restriction on purpose to prove a point. Minor4th 17:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support block I agree with Wikidemon's point that Wordsmith was not the admin who should have blocked William M. Connolley. Technically, there's a case to be made that William M. Connolley should not have been blocked in this case since, technically, he might not have been changing someone's comments in violation of the restriction. But William M. Connolley repeatedly goes right up to the line, which seems very likely a way of trying to goad admins (so I support keeping the block in place). This kind of ridiculous junior-high-school (or grade school) behavior is more bother than we need here. WMC is by now a net drain on the project. And this is what he's doing in the shadow of a looming ArbCom decision which I think everybody expects will come down on him like a ton of bricks. At this point, I'd support a community ban. He will continue to take up hours of editors' time on one melodrama after another until he gets one. It's time he was dealt with efficiently. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. I am not aware of the back story. It sounds as if the community is just tired of him. Be that as it may, process is important. There has to be a more direct reason for long blocks or bans than that a minor technical violation (or alternately, a technical non-violation). - Wikidemon (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support block Per below I think Wordsmith did this by the book. --WGFinley (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Response from the Wordsmith
Thank you all for your patience in waiting for me to respond. It seems that some of you are operating without all the necessary information on the background of this case. So, i'll attempt to fill you in on how everything happened:
- The topic area of climate change is under General Sanctions (sort of like a community-run version of Arbcom discretionary sanctions). The way that works is that when an editor comes to the enforcement board with a request, anyone who cares to do so can discuss it. Theh, when all the facts are known, whether or not to impose a sanction is decided by a consensus of uninvolved administrators.
- It was not me who placed the sanction on WMC, it was a decision made by myself, Lar, Franamax, LessHeard VanU, BozMo, Future Perfect at Sunrise, and Jehochman (that's 7 admins, for those of you keeping score at home, more than we usually get on the sanctions board). We were empowered by the community to do so. I merely supported the sanction, logged it, and notified WMC of the result.
- The thread that resulted in a sanction is Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive10#William_M._Connolley here
- WMC chose to intentionally violate this sanction, claiming it was invalid. He modified my notification of the sanction. JakeInJoisey's bracketed comments on this page will show that it is indeed a modification. He had no possible NPA or BLP exemption. The only reason he did it was to deliberately violate the restriction so that I would have no choice but to block.
- I blocked, even though I was the one who notified him of the sanction. I That does not make me involved. The General Sanctions statement says in part "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute)."
- 48 hours may seem a bit harsh for a first time offense under a new sanction, but I took into account the deliberateness of the violation as well as WMC's extensive history and block log.
Hopefully this answers all of your questions. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have a tendency to agree with Bishonen on admins needing to be willing to accept being twitted a bit, but there's a difference between being twitted and someone who's been up before Arbcom and then taken to an Arbitration Enforcement page and having 7 admins consensus on imposing a restriction blatantly rejecting the validity or legitimacy of the process or decision and WP:POINTing a violation of the just-imposed restriction.
- I concur with the restriction and the block for violating it.
- There are appropriate ways to appeal a restriction; that was not one of them, and WMC has been around long enough to know that.
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The block appears entirely proper to me. Sandstein 05:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- First, you are clearly involved. You were indeed in a "current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions". The sanction was not to edit "comments made by other editors". You felt (incorrectly) that he edited your comment. You can't get more involved than that. Second, as I noted, there was no direct violation of the sanction. He did not edit your comment. He added an aside. Yes, he was deliberately provocative in questioning the extent of the sanction. Deliberately challenging things is not sanctionable. The sanction was not to avoid having an opinion, it was to avoid a specific behavior. Third, it does not violate the spirit of the sanctions. Questioning administrative enforcement is something that every editor is entitled to do. Except in extreme cases we don't issue gag orders on editors not to discuss their discipline cases. He was disciplined not for tweaking admins (something that itself is rarely sanctionable) but for disrupting the climate change discussions. I don't see any plausible way in which his questioning of the extent of his sanctions could be considered disruptive. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Deliberately challenging things is not sanctionable." Sure it is, depending on how you challenge it. That's why WP:POINT exists. You don't get to do whatever you want if it's to make a point. -- Atama頭 06:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- WP:POINT is about disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point. It is not about challenging administrators to make a point. In the case of POINT violations the point is about something other than the content matter in question, and the integrity of the encyclopedia to readers, or the editing process, suffers collateral damage. In the case of challenging administrative edicts there is no disruption to encyclopedia content or editing process, just annoyance to administrators who are attempting to impose an edict. Dealing with unhappy editors comes with the territory of imposing administrative decisions. Last time I checked, Contempt of cop is not sanctionable here. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're confused, since the encyclopedia is not just the articles. It is the entire project. Interfering with process, in any area, is interfering, ultimately, with article production and improvement. Your rhetoric notwithstanding. ++Lar: t/c 10:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, I mean exactly what I say. Editors are not allowed to hamper the editing of the encyclopedia or the collaboration among editors in order to prove a point. Editors are allowed to advocate against sanctions imposed on them, because that is a part of any reasonable process. Nevertheless, in this case he did not break the restriction in either word or spirit. He inserted a bracketed question in the middle of an administrator's pronouncement, something that disrupts nothing but the administrator's pride. If that were interference with process, then exactly what was interfered with by doing this? Certainly not the effect of the pronouncement, which has the exact same meaning with or without the commentary. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, WMC disrupted the smooth operation of the project with that edit and you are trying to wikilawyer around that. So you're confused. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't accuse. I am sincere in my statement that after reviewing the situation I do not believe there was any disruption, or that WNC violated either the wording or the spirit of the restriction. I'm not calling you confused or accusing you of wikilawyering for thinking otherwise, am I? I just don't see any plausible way in which the bracketed comment interfered with anything. But for Wordsmith's decision to issue a block, it would not have affected the project at all one way or another. It would just sit there on WMC's page, a sanction announcement with a bracketed comment in it. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, WMC disrupted the smooth operation of the project with that edit and you are trying to wikilawyer around that. So you're confused. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, I mean exactly what I say. Editors are not allowed to hamper the editing of the encyclopedia or the collaboration among editors in order to prove a point. Editors are allowed to advocate against sanctions imposed on them, because that is a part of any reasonable process. Nevertheless, in this case he did not break the restriction in either word or spirit. He inserted a bracketed question in the middle of an administrator's pronouncement, something that disrupts nothing but the administrator's pride. If that were interference with process, then exactly what was interfered with by doing this? Certainly not the effect of the pronouncement, which has the exact same meaning with or without the commentary. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're confused, since the encyclopedia is not just the articles. It is the entire project. Interfering with process, in any area, is interfering, ultimately, with article production and improvement. Your rhetoric notwithstanding. ++Lar: t/c 10:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Regardless, if a restriction has been applied then it should be blatantly obvious that the correct method of challenging that restriction is not to immediately break it. It's not strictly WP:POINT, but it's drama-inducing because it's effectively saying "well go on then, block me". Black Kite (t) (c) 08:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- So the proper response is to invest a significant portion of time and emotional energy to going through various bureaucratic hoops? At what point must this compulsive meme of "hating drama" cede to allowing productive contributors a shred of dignity and self-respect? Considering the hordes of misundereducated sorts WMC has to put up with when trying to edit the articles of his accedited expertise, I think we should all be amazed he manages to bite his tongue as often as he does. Badger Drink (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, don't get me wrong, I understand the problems that WMC faces. However, this wasn't a topic ban on editing articles, it was merely one on refactoring other people's talk page postings, which he shouldn't be doing anyway, and should know that. Given that, what on earth was the point of the exercise? Black Kite (t) (c) 13:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- So the proper response is to invest a significant portion of time and emotional energy to going through various bureaucratic hoops? At what point must this compulsive meme of "hating drama" cede to allowing productive contributors a shred of dignity and self-respect? Considering the hordes of misundereducated sorts WMC has to put up with when trying to edit the articles of his accedited expertise, I think we should all be amazed he manages to bite his tongue as often as he does. Badger Drink (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- WP:POINT is about disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point. It is not about challenging administrators to make a point. In the case of POINT violations the point is about something other than the content matter in question, and the integrity of the encyclopedia to readers, or the editing process, suffers collateral damage. In the case of challenging administrative edicts there is no disruption to encyclopedia content or editing process, just annoyance to administrators who are attempting to impose an edict. Dealing with unhappy editors comes with the territory of imposing administrative decisions. Last time I checked, Contempt of cop is not sanctionable here. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Deliberately challenging things is not sanctionable." Sure it is, depending on how you challenge it. That's why WP:POINT exists. You don't get to do whatever you want if it's to make a point. -- Atama頭 06:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Except that he never manages to bite his tongue, Badger, which is why blocks like this arise. I really think this needs sorting out soon at the community level, or by ArbCom, but soon. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yup ;) This was more than a deliberate violation of the sanction, it was *rude* and amounts to a flipping of the bird. No one should be editing inside other people's comments like that. When I first read the bracketed [...-JIJ] shite, I thought it might be in the LOL-sense, but noted that it was quite not-Bish. That was rude and a major WP:POINT (not even looked if Jake got his due...). Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Except that he never manages to bite his tongue, Badger, which is why blocks like this arise. I really think this needs sorting out soon at the community level, or by ArbCom, but soon. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- As a matter of admincraft, if a user baits you to block them, you can get better results by not obliging them. Could you post the diff of the offensive edit by WMC? Was WMC merely trying to tweak you, or were they trying to hassle another editor? That makes a big difference. Jehochman Talk 12:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- This and this is what TW blocked for. I agree with your first sentence. NW (Talk) 13:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I took into account the deliberateness of the violation as well as WMC's extensive `history and block log. Power trip much? ScienceApologist (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- NOT a helpful comment. This was a block to prevent further disruption. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Then it would behoove Wordsmith to actually SAY that. If Wordsmith believed that FURTHER disruption was likely, then Wordsmith should have said, "further disruption was likely in the next 48 hour period". Honestly, it's pretty simple. If we're here to build an encyclopedia, blocking content contributors should be something we'd prefer not to do unless it looked like by not blocking them the encyclopedia was going to be harmed. The response given by Wordsmith looks punitive because of the poor choice of words that Wordsmith used. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- NOT a helpful comment. This was a block to prevent further disruption. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I actually never understood what this whole issue about William being restricted not to edit other people's postings was aobut. I knew about it, but I thought that no one was allowed to do that anyway. But I didn't ask about it at the time. But now I see that all that this is about is that William sometimes responds to people in their own text, just like the way many people reply to an email. I think that some people find that extremely irritating, but knowing William, I think that he pisses off people who really need to be pissed off, purely based on their edits or talk page comments.
The general sanctions regime doesn't allow this anymore, but the focus here is purely on civility and not on content. This is a very bad development for Wikipedia (which I've also seen in some other case), because this opens a new theatre of war of POV warriors. They don't have to defend their problematic edits anymore (where they are on the defense), they can go on the offensensive for e.g. having been called (justifiably) "stupid" on some civility board. This in turn leads to an escalation of a conflict that moves ever further away from actually discussing editing the articles here (the further, the better for POV warriors).
The escalation happens because if you are having a heated discussions that is not about editing an article, chances are that you're going to talk about your opponents behavior, inevitably leading to Ad Hominem arguments. This then leads to restrictions on what words people can use, on how they can respond to other people, ultimately leading to where we are now: William being blocked for responding in a way that is entirely normal, just because of some prior imposed restriction, which in turn was imposed to appease POV warriors here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- normal? Maybe I lead a sheltered life, but in all my Wikipedia experience I have not once seen anyone else interpolate comments into someone else's text in that way. People use replies beneath the text, with quotes if necessary. Rd232 talk 16:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that he pisses off people who really need to be pissed off,...
- ... wow, that's totally not how we do things here. WMC doesn't have any more right to be poking people with a stick than the rest of us. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The restriction on editing other editor's comments was not because WMC interlineates his own comments within other editor's comments -- it was because he completely removed another editor's comment on an ArbCom page, and that was one week after he had come off a prior restriction prohibiting him from editing other editor's comments, which sanction was imposed after a lengthy and tendentious history of WMC refactoring editor's comments on talk pages and discussion pages simply because he didn't like them. It caused a great deal of disruption. The fact that he went back to the same disruptive behavior a mere week after his prior sanction expired -- well... like Wordsmith said, there was a consensus of 7 uninvolved admins who agreed to the sanction, as well as a robust community discussion about it on the enforcement page. Minor4th 17:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see, but then the restriction does not apply in this case, as he did not remove any texts now. I also agree that WMC doesn't have any more rights than others have, but we are where we're now because the de facto rules at the CC pages were challenged by the sceptics about a year ago. We now do things with more adminstrative involvement with the articles under a general sanctiosn regime. But the articles themselves haven't changed much, the difference is that there is a lot more bickering about irrelevant matters. Instead of arguing about editing the climate change articles, we're now arguing about whether or not an editor should be blocked for writing a comment inside someone's else's text withing square brackets. This is a WP:Waste of Time. Count Iblis (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The restriction clearly indicates that WMC is not to edit others posts; not "not delete", nor "not change", but "not edit". He chose to question the totality of the restriction by editing within The Wordsmith's notice - therefore editing that post. It appears to be a deliberate attempt at testing that restriction. It should be noted that WMC has repeated that action (see at the bottom of the noted edits), despite being aware that it had previously drawn a block. I think it indicates that WMC has no desire to contest the viability of the sanction or restriction without violating the terms he clearly disagrees with. Whatever grounds people may feel he has in contesting the breadth and manner of those restrictions and subsequent sanction, it must surely be recognised that acting in a manner already proven to be considered as a violation of his restrictions is not appropriate. I would also suggest that some admin, who has not been previously involved in editing CC articles or in dispute with WMC, review this further violation and determine if the current sanction should be extended. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see, so you can interpret the restriction in this way so that it applies quite directly to his action now. I fully understand that you can then take the position that a strict enforcement could be warranted. But do we want to lose another good content contributor because pointless bickering escalates to boiling point? Count Iblis (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just look at it this way folks. A new restriction was passed down to WMC. He decided to test the restriction, he was blatant about the fact that he was testing it (look at what he said himself, "except of course in places where I'm allowed to; hopefully TW will get round to clarifying this at some point"). He tested the waters and got blocked. It's like touching a pot you're sure is hot just to make sure, and getting burned. So now he knows that it's inappropriate, and when his block expires in less than 24 hours he can continue editing with that new knowledge. I don't think more drama is necessary about this. -- Atama頭 20:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, I don't agree that this violates the wording of the restriction. And if the restriction is ambiguous enough that it can be interpreted to prevent this kind of harmless activity, an "edit" that does not change the wording or meaning of the text, the restriction isn't a valid one. Let's divide this into two pieces, the part that he was sanctioned for (changing the comments of fellow participants in an ArbCom case) and the part that he supposedly violated (inserting inline comments on his own talk page questioning an administrator's announcement). The first makes sense to prohibit, it interferes with ArbCom process. The second is purely punitive. Would the community really agree on a sanction that says "editors may not annotate administrative decrees that appear on their talk page"? I don't think so. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree. The ArbCom decision was designed to prevent actual disruption, and I do not think fussing about on your own talk page can be considered in any way disruptive. And it raises the question, what can William Connolley legitimately do on his own talk page? Can he archive it? Technically that's editing other people's comments, so WMC's enemies could seek to get him sanctioned if he does. What about if one of his enemies decides to dump a hateful, obscenity laden rant on it? Can he remove that, or would that be grounds for another vindictiblock? Traditionally we have allowed users considerable leeway on their talk pages, for good reasons, and I don't see any point in withdrawing that basic dignity from WMC because doing so will not prevent any disruption. This doesn't excuse WMC's turning up at Wordsmith's talk page to taunt and provoke him though. Reyk YO! 23:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- WP:TPO actually specifies that you shouldn't edit others' comments even on your own talk page. As always, archiving your own talk page is fine, as is removing disruptive text. -- Atama頭 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- TPO says "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning", and interspersing your own obviously marked annotations cannot in any way be interpreted as changing the meaning. What WMC did on his own talk page was within both the letter and the spirit of WP:TPO. Since William apparently is forbidden from doing one thing that TPO would otherwise allow, it's fair to ask what else he is prohibited from doing. Reyk YO! 00:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- WP:TPO actually specifies that you shouldn't edit others' comments even on your own talk page. As always, archiving your own talk page is fine, as is removing disruptive text. -- Atama頭 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree. The ArbCom decision was designed to prevent actual disruption, and I do not think fussing about on your own talk page can be considered in any way disruptive. And it raises the question, what can William Connolley legitimately do on his own talk page? Can he archive it? Technically that's editing other people's comments, so WMC's enemies could seek to get him sanctioned if he does. What about if one of his enemies decides to dump a hateful, obscenity laden rant on it? Can he remove that, or would that be grounds for another vindictiblock? Traditionally we have allowed users considerable leeway on their talk pages, for good reasons, and I don't see any point in withdrawing that basic dignity from WMC because doing so will not prevent any disruption. This doesn't excuse WMC's turning up at Wordsmith's talk page to taunt and provoke him though. Reyk YO! 23:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, I don't agree that this violates the wording of the restriction. And if the restriction is ambiguous enough that it can be interpreted to prevent this kind of harmless activity, an "edit" that does not change the wording or meaning of the text, the restriction isn't a valid one. Let's divide this into two pieces, the part that he was sanctioned for (changing the comments of fellow participants in an ArbCom case) and the part that he supposedly violated (inserting inline comments on his own talk page questioning an administrator's announcement). The first makes sense to prohibit, it interferes with ArbCom process. The second is purely punitive. Would the community really agree on a sanction that says "editors may not annotate administrative decrees that appear on their talk page"? I don't think so. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just look at it this way folks. A new restriction was passed down to WMC. He decided to test the restriction, he was blatant about the fact that he was testing it (look at what he said himself, "except of course in places where I'm allowed to; hopefully TW will get round to clarifying this at some point"). He tested the waters and got blocked. It's like touching a pot you're sure is hot just to make sure, and getting burned. So now he knows that it's inappropriate, and when his block expires in less than 24 hours he can continue editing with that new knowledge. I don't think more drama is necessary about this. -- Atama頭 20:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see, so you can interpret the restriction in this way so that it applies quite directly to his action now. I fully understand that you can then take the position that a strict enforcement could be warranted. But do we want to lose another good content contributor because pointless bickering escalates to boiling point? Count Iblis (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The restriction clearly indicates that WMC is not to edit others posts; not "not delete", nor "not change", but "not edit". He chose to question the totality of the restriction by editing within The Wordsmith's notice - therefore editing that post. It appears to be a deliberate attempt at testing that restriction. It should be noted that WMC has repeated that action (see at the bottom of the noted edits), despite being aware that it had previously drawn a block. I think it indicates that WMC has no desire to contest the viability of the sanction or restriction without violating the terms he clearly disagrees with. Whatever grounds people may feel he has in contesting the breadth and manner of those restrictions and subsequent sanction, it must surely be recognised that acting in a manner already proven to be considered as a violation of his restrictions is not appropriate. I would also suggest that some admin, who has not been previously involved in editing CC articles or in dispute with WMC, review this further violation and determine if the current sanction should be extended. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see, but then the restriction does not apply in this case, as he did not remove any texts now. I also agree that WMC doesn't have any more rights than others have, but we are where we're now because the de facto rules at the CC pages were challenged by the sceptics about a year ago. We now do things with more adminstrative involvement with the articles under a general sanctiosn regime. But the articles themselves haven't changed much, the difference is that there is a lot more bickering about irrelevant matters. Instead of arguing about editing the climate change articles, we're now arguing about whether or not an editor should be blocked for writing a comment inside someone's else's text withing square brackets. This is a WP:Waste of Time. Count Iblis (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that I have hardblocked 86.178.177.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for their goading edit to User talk:William M. Connolley. As I believe that it is an account that was logged out for the purpose of making a harassing edit I hard blocked the address - since the Whois notes that it is an "assigned address", which I understand to mean that it relates to one pc/network - to disaccommondate the editor also. Anyone with better understanding of ip addresses who thinks I may have effected a swathe of potential editors are free to convert it to a soft ip block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have blocked 66.81.37.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 31 hours. This IP performed 2 similar edits (diff, diff) to User talk:William M. Connolley as the abovementioned 86.178.177.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This user is on a dial-in, IP might change quickly. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The second IP (66.81.37.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is asking for an unblock, I will leave it to independent review there. Maybe a checkuser should have a look at this? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Unblock declined and block extended
As an admin reviewing WP:RFU, I have declined this user's unblock request and extended their block for the reason provided here. Sandstein 21:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- You edit-conflicted my warning that talk page privileges can be revoked by posting a message that talk page privileges were revoked. At least I know that I wasn't alone in my thinking. -- Atama頭 21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Result of this thread
I've reviewed the entire thread above, applying noise filtration. We decide things not by votes, but by force of reason:
- Sandstein's disablement of talk page access is a clear, unequivocal violation of WP:BLOCK. We disable talk page access only in the most egregious situations: banned editors, egregious verbal abuse, attempted outing, and severe harassment. Inserting [bracketed content] into comments on one's own talk pages does not satisfy any requirement of WP:BLOCK for disablement of talk page access.
- The original block was petty, punitive and motivated primarily by pique. The sanction in effect was designed to prevent disruptive editing with the area covered by WP:GS/CC. A little mischief by WMC on his own talk page was not significantly disrupting Wikipedia. It should have been ignored. Furthermore, as Bishonen points out in the first post (which was unfortunately rendered unreadable for a time by a disruptive editor), WMC did not alter somebody else's comment. He inserted his own clearly labeled comment within another to respond to a specific point. Doing this once is not severely disruptive.
- We grant users leeway on their own talk pages. When users are blocked, especially for controversial reasons, we permit them to vent a bit. Sandstein's extension of the block in the face of such venting was bad admincraft. It was a punitive action, and therefore was against WP:BLOCK.
- (Though these blocks were claimed to be under WP:GS/CC, this is dubious. WMC was protesting something on his own talk page, not disrupting a Climate Change talk page. )
I will unblock WMC in a little while on condition that he drops this issue and does not pursue any sort of vindettas (or any further testing of limits by playing with comments). (The original sanction not to edit others' comments stands.) If there is any badgering of The Wordsmith of Sandstein by WMC, I will restore the block. We want peace on Wiki. The community is excessively tired of these Climate Change battles. I urge the Arbitration Committee to get on with their work. It is getting progressively more difficult to encourage editors to restrain themselves. Jehochman Talk 22:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC) (Adding parenthetical material at 22:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC))
- Please do not do that, it is disruptive, leave it as it is, or extend it. You are an infrequent contributor to the wikipedia and you should leave the wheel war alone. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have something like 30,000 edits. You don't know what you're talking about. Please use logic rather than rhetoric, or else I will simply ignore your comment. Jehochman Talk 22:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you take this action, I believe it is way outside the consensus that has developed and contrary to the actions and decisions of at least 4 admins who have blocked and/or reviewed the block. I suggest you rethink this. Minor4th 22:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I think your "noise filtration" is a little off. Most editors here seem to agree that the block should remain as justified by the user's intentionally disruptive actions, and unilaterally deciding that Sandstein's extension of the block was punitive without discussion with Sandstein or any comments from anyone else on this thread, is far from constructive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please name the four admins. Also, are you an involved party in CC disputes, or an uninvolved observer? We don't decide things by votes, but I notice Bishonen and myself opposing this block. I can rescan the thread and confirm some other names and spellings before adding them to the list. Also, admins are not special. All editors in good standing have opinions that count. Jehochman Talk 22:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Wordsmith blocked
- PhilKnight reviewed and declined unblock request
- Atama reviewed and declined unblock
- Sandstein reviewed and declined unblock, disabled talk page, extended block
- Minor4th 22:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- And yet you appear to be ignoring the vast majority of editors' opinions by
wheel-warringunilaterally deciding that other admins' actions were incorrect and misrepresenting consensus. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Go read WP:WHEEL and see what it says. I just did. You're jumping to conclusions, and adding noise to this thread. Please address the substance of my conclusions if you want to change my mind. Jehochman Talk 22:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The more I look at this block, the less I like. The talk page revocation was completely unnecessary. AniMate 22:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Go read WP:WHEEL and see what it says. I just did. You're jumping to conclusions, and adding noise to this thread. Please address the substance of my conclusions if you want to change my mind. Jehochman Talk 22:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with the above assessment by Jehochman and object to any unblock. Merely asserting that a block is punitive, petty or otherwise flawed does not make it so. The disruption by William M. Connolley is not the bracketed comments themselves, which are harmless, but the fact that he wilfully violated, twice, the clear terms of a regularly imposed restriction based on a community-imposed probation, namely: "William M. Connolley is prohibited from editing comments made by other editors, for a duration of two months." Please note that the community sanction reads, in relevant part: "Administrators are not to reverse [sanctions under this probation] without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so." Sandstein 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please address the issue of talk page disablement. I believe that is very clearly forbidden by policy and practice. A small group of editors here on AN/I do not get to override policy. Jehochman Talk 22:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are mistaken. WP:BLOCK provides, in relevant part: "Editing of the user's talk page should only be disabled in the case of continued abuse of the talk page." This is what occurred here: both violations of the restriction at issue ([43], [44]) happened on William M. Connolley's own talk page, and he gave no indication that he would stop violating his restriction on that page, instead pointing out himself that the block did not stop him from continuing to edit the comments of others on his own talk page. Disabling talk page access was therefore the only means to effectively enforce the restriction. Moreover, doing so did not close off any venue of appeal to William M. Connolley, since he remains free to contest his block by e-mail to the Committee or via the unblock mailing list. Sandstein 22:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I support the original block which as yet has not expired and oppose unilateral admin action. If Jehochman reckons he's got this far in his wiki career (or some such self-reverential and overly smug bullshit that he just typed on his user page) by not being foolish, perhaps he ought to reflect on his comments and take a step back. Pedro : Chat 22:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Pedro, if you have a thoughtful point to make, you can make it civilly. You have enough experience. Jehochman Talk 22:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think I've made the thoughtful point that the block should go back to the one enacted by The Wordsmith. As for experience, I have some, but I don't feel the need to act smugly with pointless and valueless input like "Oh look at my 30k edits" and "oh I keep my bits by not being foolish". Grow up and get over yourself. Pedro : Chat 22:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever, let's not sidetrack the thread. I could agree with you to restore the original block for now. The second block is clearly odious; the first was merely controversial. Further discussion could decide what to do about the first block. Jehochman Talk 22:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think I've made the thoughtful point that the block should go back to the one enacted by The Wordsmith. As for experience, I have some, but I don't feel the need to act smugly with pointless and valueless input like "Oh look at my 30k edits" and "oh I keep my bits by not being foolish". Grow up and get over yourself. Pedro : Chat 22:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Pedro, if you have a thoughtful point to make, you can make it civilly. You have enough experience. Jehochman Talk 22:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree fully with Jehochman. The absolute way of interpretation of the the ban, even on an own talkpage, enforced by the messenger/enforcer where it would be better to do it by an uninvolved admin, where the block was purely punitative (the block did NOT disable what it was supposed to be for ...) was silly. The edit that resulted in the block did not even have the slightest link to the case where the ban was supposed to be effective (CC case .. to protect CC cases, right!? That enforcement was already out of line. It should have been restricted to topics regarding CC .. and I think that was exactly what WMC meant .. ). And now the extend of the block with restricted talk-page access is plainly pathetic. Do you guys realize that self-enforcing a ban (which had community consensus) is what primarily got WMC desysopped? This has gone from plain silly is plainly pathetic. But probably I will get ignored as a 'supported of WMC', so that still the majority agrees with the blocks. Please unblock, Jehochman. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I should note that since blocks are preventative and not punitive, I do not object to an unblock, as with every block I make, if the blocked user gives credible assurances that the problematic conduct will not reoccur. That means a unequivocal commitment to comply with the restriction henceforth and, to use Jehochman's terms, to refrain from "any further testing of limits by playing with comments" on any page. Sandstein 22:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think Jehochman's analysis is correct. From a conflict resolution perspective, it is far better to get Willliam to agree to the restriction in the way it is meant to be intepreted, i.e. not causing disruption by changing edits. It is true that we can choose to be fundamentalistic about the restriction and choose to interpret it in ridiculous ways, like William not been able to put some comments in square brackets in side a text posted on his own talk page while he is still allowed to remove the whole comment. But then we are moving away from what Wikipedia is supposed to be and turn it into some sort of stupid online game. Count Iblis (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Placing a comment inside someone else's comment in square brackets is unnecessarily disruptive and was clearly intentionally antagonistic; as previously pointed out by other users, a request for clarification could have been made in any number of non-disruptive ways. I'm not sure what other result he could have expected for editing a stop-editing-others'-comments warning. If the user agrees to abide by the restriction, then by all means unblock; but so far that does not appear to be the case. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok folks, let's stop telling each other how angry/pissed/disappointed we are with each other. We're not going to get anywhere with this right now, are we? I have made a request of Sandstein, and am waiting for a response. SirFozzie (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- SirFozzie has reduced the block to its original term, but seems to have left talk access disabled. Jehochman Talk 23:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- He's fixed that - talk access is re-enabled. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- SirFozzie has reduced the block to its original term, but seems to have left talk access disabled. Jehochman Talk 23:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Modify sanction
I think we need to clarify that WMC can, like all editors, manage his own talkpage by removing or refactoring comments there. His sanction not to modify (or interject into) others' comments should apply to all pages outside his own userspace. I believe that under that clarification, the original block is defective and should also be reversed, and in any case WMC's talk page access should be restored so he can speak in his own defense. Thoughts? Jehochman Talk 23:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- He certainly has the right to remove statements from his own talk page. However, he should not modify others statements, even to "refactor" them. His talk page access is now restored, and the block expiration reset to roughly the original time it was set to expire. SirFozzie (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, this is a minor point. As long as we are clear that he can remove or archive his talk page content. Jehochman Talk 23:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hardly a minor point: it was the reason for the recent blocks! Archiving or removing talk apge content should of course be allowed as normal. Sandstein 23:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, this is a minor point. As long as we are clear that he can remove or archive his talk page content. Jehochman Talk 23:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- He certainly has the right to remove statements from his own talk page. However, he should not modify others statements, even to "refactor" them. His talk page access is now restored, and the block expiration reset to roughly the original time it was set to expire. SirFozzie (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. This targets exactly the real problem. Any violation of the restriction formulated in this way will now correspond to a disruptive edit. This is unlikely to lead to an escalation like we've just seen. Count Iblis (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've (intentionally) not followed the dramafest that is CC and its associated probation, but I do not understand the purpose of this request, except to provide yet another venue for drama. Just minutes ago you wanted to block William M. Connolley indefinitely and now you want to relax restrictions that, whatever their merits, he has so far shown no intention to comply with? Jehochman, I think you are creating much more noise than signal here and should consider letting other admins handle this matter. Sandstein 23:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- *Sigh* This situation needs a subtle touch. WMC could be blocked indefinitely if he persists in serious disruption or WP:POINT. However, we should not sanction petty mischief on his own talk page. It undermines a legitimate sanction to apply pin-pricks for minor technical infractions. Wait for a big, serious infraction, then do what's needed. Jehochman Talk 23:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- This whole discussion seems odd to me, from my reading WMC was fully aware that he was not to insert himself other peoples posts, he was aware that it was not specified if there were limits to where such action would be a violation. He used such a violation to taunt another user. He was blocked for said violation, he continued to commit said violations on his own talkpage. Is this an incorrect interpretation of events? Unomi (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's how I've interpreted it, that's why I declined an unblock. I believe that the actual text that WMC inserted made it clear that he knew at the time of the insertion that it was against the sanction, or believed that it was. -- Atama頭 23:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- JEH: " This situation needs a subtle touch." I agree. Which is why I was surprised to see you getting involved. Going in and suggesting doing things (or out and out doing them, as you did the last few times you dabbled in CC enforcement) in the face of consensus isn't particularly subtle, is it? ++Lar: t/c 00:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- This whole discussion seems odd to me, from my reading WMC was fully aware that he was not to insert himself other peoples posts, he was aware that it was not specified if there were limits to where such action would be a violation. He used such a violation to taunt another user. He was blocked for said violation, he continued to commit said violations on his own talkpage. Is this an incorrect interpretation of events? Unomi (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree- let WMC manage his own talk page. Sanctions should only be applied in the event of actual disruption. Reyk YO! 23:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- That seems to lend weight to the interpretation that it indeed covers all talk pages. I note the use of emphatic I concur that WMC should not be editing other peoples' comments, period. and Most agree that it needs to be a complete prohibition on all manipulation of other editor's comments. - as well as the closing editors comments which do indeed not indicate that WP:TPOC violations might be ok in some venues. Unomi (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Removal has never been an issue and was not related to this block. No one is allowed to refactor other peoples comments even on their own talk page. This modification would actually give WMC special permissions that the rest of us don't have.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's not quite true. While it has been contentious at times, removing personal attacks has been at the very least tolerated (and which is at the root of this issue, per my link above). Not to mention that some people habitually interject their comments in those of others when replying...often in such a way that it becomes unclear who said what. While I find that annoying, it's not something that gets anyone sanctioned. Guettarda (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- No. An example of a user who does it persistently is User:Jimbo Wales. I politely, but without effect, begged him to desist, I don't know how many times, in this discussion, which is rendered hard to parse by this habit of his. Bishonen | talk 01:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC).
- Aren't we getting into WP:NOTTHEM territory? --WGFinley (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- No. An example of a user who does it persistently is User:Jimbo Wales. I politely, but without effect, begged him to desist, I don't know how many times, in this discussion, which is rendered hard to parse by this habit of his. Bishonen | talk 01:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC).
- That's not quite true. While it has been contentious at times, removing personal attacks has been at the very least tolerated (and which is at the root of this issue, per my link above). Not to mention that some people habitually interject their comments in those of others when replying...often in such a way that it becomes unclear who said what. While I find that annoying, it's not something that gets anyone sanctioned. Guettarda (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree. He clearly cannot manage his own talk page. I'm fine with letting him remove comments or archive them, not refactor them or change them in any way. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate if people who've been in persistent editorial disputes with WMC would declare that when commenting on this thread. We need to be able to sort the involved from the uninvolved. Not everybody has a WP:GS/CC/L Climate Change dance card. Jehochman Talk 10:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, I guess administrators who have been supportive or lax with WMC in the past should declare that when commenting on this thread. I'm not absolutely sure, but I think that would include you. You've indicated nothing about your background with WMC. In my first edit to this thread, I indicated I was familiar with William M. Connolley's shenanigans related to climate change disputes, and I clearly have no patience for those shenanigans. I've also had a dispute with you, in which I've unloaded a hefty amount of evidence about you over at the Arbcom Climate Change evidence page. I notice you didn't declare that when responding to my comment. I normally do declare my past connections, when I remember to do it. Without declaring your own past involvement with WMC, you've tried to hijack yet another discussion in which consensus was forming in a direction you didn't like. Why don't you stop doing that? By the way, have you complained about constant supporters of WMC not declaring that when they comment here? I didn't see your statement about that. Why focus on me? Oh, that's right: I'm the one here who posted evidence against you at the ArbCom case. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate if people who've been in persistent editorial disputes with WMC would declare that when commenting on this thread. We need to be able to sort the involved from the uninvolved. Not everybody has a WP:GS/CC/L Climate Change dance card. Jehochman Talk 10:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- In WMC's defense, we do allow interruptions of others' text, as long as the meaning isn't altered and attribution is preserved (so that it's clear who said what). These bracketed interruptions seem to be willfully defiant of the sanction, however, a sanction which isn't new; see here where 2/0 stated that "User:William M. Connolley is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done", and in the more recent discussion where it was suggested that the restriction should be reimposed and (as Unomi has interpreted) extended beyond the CC articles. Note that the restriction by 2/0 suggests that any editing of others' posts is disallowed, even when WP:TPOC would give leeway. I interpret Jehochman as suggesting we give WMC some rope here, and I think that we should, but I believe that letting the block expire as originally set would suffice. -- Atama頭 23:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that WMC should not be annotating other editors comments on his talkpage (which the sanction clearly doesn't cover), but he makes a fair point that the block doesn't prevent him from repeating the offence (he is still able to annotate other editors comments on his talkpage). So it looks to be like the block goes against WP:PUNISH. Whether the solution to this is to remove the block or extend it to his talkpage I do not claim to know. --FormerIP (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- What if he adds sarcastic subheadings to the top of people's comments? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think the original sanction is humiliating and poorly constructed. If WMC has been persistently disruptive in the Climate Change arena, simply topic ban him, per WP:TURNIP. If he's not disruptive, let him edit unfettered. The sanction as it exists provides fodder for WMC's editorial opponents, some of whom are more disruptive, but cleverer than he is. Jehochman Talk 10:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh please! He earned a six month restriction on precisely this behavior after dozens of instances where he edited/removed material he didn't like. Barely a week after the restriction expired he started all over again and it was reinstated, and now he's pointedly rejected the authority of 7 admins! When you accuse others of baiting him, you lose all credibility. This particular episode has involved not a single CC content contributor. ATren (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The sanction as it exists provides fodder for WMC's editorial opponents The link in my quote suggests that other editors will somehow get an advantage in baiting WMC because WMC is restricted from editing other editors comments. How on earth does the restriction do that? I'm getting the impression that this thread is being used by Jehochman to bait editors who aren't allies of William M. Connolley. I can't figure out any other purpose to many of Jehochman's many inflammatory comments here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
As a general observation, this has somewhat deteriorated into a general violation of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Yes, due process matters, but the long and the short of it is that an editor has been repeatedly and specifically enjoined not to engage in a particular type of disruptive behaviour, and he has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to respect that. The initial block was appropriate, and obsessing about whether blocks can or cannot be punitive is splitting hairs. He is generally recognised as a good contributor, and sometimes punishment is exactly what's required, in the absence of an ability to prevent harm without using a sledgehammer to crack a nut (eg topic ban). Rd232 talk 10:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think we should avoid sanctioning good editors when doing so only makes them angry and causes them to act worse. In the long term this sanction prevents nothing; it encourages baiting and gaming the rules by content opponents. Our goal here is to create quality content, not to run an MMORPG where everybody gets to play. Wikipedia:Content matters. Jehochman Talk 10:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- "not... an MMORPG" -- That's an ironic statement from someone who is flaunting his experience points on this very page. :-/ In any case, no content opponent was involved in this dispute so stop saying that. This is WMC baiting uninvolved admins who are trying to enforce a minimum level of decorum. And for the record, he has a long history of doing so -- he did the exact same thing to Lar a few months ago, he did it to ArnoldReinhold before that and Tedder before that. ATren (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. I was among the administrators who decided on the sanction in its original form, and I agreed to it, but it would never have crossed my mind that it was going to be interpreted as extending also to his own talk page. To me, this exception is just a matter of common sense. And I am, frankly, not impressed with the way some admin colleagues have been using their blocking power for playing power games with this user over such a lame issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- What extends to his own talk page is the general custom, which exists for good reason, of not unnecessarily mucking around with other people's comments. It's bad enough that he's repeatedly had to have a specific sanction placed to enforce that custom, I really don't see what's particularly defensible about violating it on his own userpage. Rd232 talk 14:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree. I support a full Climate change topic ban. I do not think WMC should be allowed to edit anyone else's comments anywhere. He also doesn't archive anything at all which is although allowed , archiving is recommended. I think one of the problems is that WMC deletes bits of peoples comments and saves others and adds into them as well which leaves a misleading picture. Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please note, WMC has rejected the terms I've offered (not to edit other people's comments, until such time as the community or the ArbCom lifts the sanction). At this time, there is no consensus to overturn the sanction. Should he do so again, any uninvolved administrator can block him for an appropriate term for his disruption. I'd suggest that if this behavior continues, the next step be indefinite (as in indefinite until he agrees to the conditions above), but that is just my suggestion. Your Mileage May Vary. SirFozzie (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- All this was pretty obvious already, which is why it should have been indefinite in the first place. He was not simply 'managing his talk page' as this rather pointless section implies, and it's pretty clear disruption will continue once it expires if he doesn't make clear he understands how he can and cannot challenge a sanction placed on him. MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- SirFozzie's proposal sounds sensible to me. If William M. Connolley believes the restriction ought not to apply to his own talk page or to pages unrelated to climate change, he is free to make an appeal to that effect; until such an appeal is successful, the restriction applies as written, that is, without exceptions as to certain pages. Sandstein 14:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- So if push comes to shove we're going to indefinitely ban a long-term editor for adding comments to his own talk page? I have asked this before: exactly what harm to the encyclopedia is caused by this display of defiance? There are some misplaced priorities here. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- You asked before, and it was explained before. You just didn't like the answer. ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- So if push comes to shove we're going to indefinitely ban a long-term editor for adding comments to his own talk page? I have asked this before: exactly what harm to the encyclopedia is caused by this display of defiance? There are some misplaced priorities here. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- This incident raises all sorts of questions. Was it really the best thing to insert an annotation into a notification? Wouldn't it have been better to leave a small version of what you wanted to say/dispute after TW's comment rather than inside it? Or if the temptation could be resisted, to just leave that as a response? Or better yet, to appeal the restriction so as to reduce the scope of the restriction prior to making the edit?
- On the other hand, was the best outcome achieved by blocking an user because he seems to be disrespecting "authority" and inviting a block? Was it really so disruptive? Does anyone believe that the drama created and time wasted on this ANI would be halved by blocking? Or would it have been better to: (1) clarify the scope of the restriction, and/or (2) if he isn't like to respond to you positive, get another user who he's likely to be more receptive to...to persuade him to (re)move the annotation, and/or (3) note for absolute clarity that should it occur again on his own talk, he will be blocked, and/or (4)...the list of possibilities on how to handle this goes on. Had some of those steps been taken, would there be a reason for anyone to question the block at all? Was the subsequent escalation appropriate? And while seasoned contributors should know better, can we expect people who have lost their tools to have great judgement? Would he have reacted differently if other steps were tried?
- To clarify, I'm not advocating any position in support of anyone or any particular action or proposal - I think the handling of this was not up to standard for the most part (and that may be understating/overstating it depending on how you look at it). By all means, if admins are not ready to wade into a certain messy area, we should provide some form of support, I agree - but does that mean others should not suggest alternative ways of dealing with an issue?
- And don't let me get started on comments like "he is a busted flush as far as wikipedia goes and his continued presence is disruptive." (said at 23:06, 17 August 2010)...really, is this appropriate commentary towards or about any user on Wikipedia? Never mind the fact the subject cannot really respond to the comment, how would someone go about appropriately responding to a comment like that anyway? It's a sad sad day for the wiki when vindictiveness, tit for tat, unhelpful comments, unhelpful characterisations, unhelpful actions, agenda-based editing...all come together to drown what's most important and to distract people from other issues. And when those who should be modelling appropriate conduct (but more importantly, doing the right thing) are also lost in the tsunami, even in matters outside this incident, how will the project be better off...I guess one can only wonder. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Arbcom?
This ridiculous train wreck has left a long-term editor indefinitely blocked for challenging the technicalities of a community sanction. No matter who you think is at fault here, this is not an optimal resolution. If nobody else does, I would like to bring this up before Arbcom so that they can review the merits of the policies applied here and the reasonable bounds of administrative intervention and community sanctions as they apply here, or perhaps just jigger the participants into finding a better way to go about this. In the spirit of looking before I leap, does anyone have any suggestion about the best way to present this? I don't think it's worth a full-blown Arbcom case, and it's not exactly a request for clarification or enforcement. Perhaps it could be considered as a motion in the climate change case, because that's where it initially arose. Is there any simple expedited way to ask Arbcom whether they will consider this? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, before I do that, there's a practical question. I'm not very familiar with WMC as a content editor. Other than participating in the climate change disputes, does WMC actually contribute significantly to the editing of the encyclopedia? I'm not asking for venting or defending, I just want to make sure I don't waste my time on a lost cause. It may be hard to address this without triggering some unnecessary debate, so feel free to leave a suggestion on my talk page. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Define "contribute significantly" in this context. Does that include removing things? If so, why yes, he does. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- To answer Wikidemon, I've looked over WMC's last 500 contributions, and out of all of those edits the only articles that he has edited that don't seem directly related to climate change are: Data sharing, Franz Senn Hütte, and Bluetooth. A total of 4 edits to 3 articles outside of climatology/global warming. (The data sharing article might be somehow related to climate change study but I can't tell how.) I hope that answers your question? -- Atama頭 19:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- FYI if you look on the talk page you'll see that there is a discussion regarding Data Sharing, and the sharing of climate change data.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Atama, you may want to look over his other 44652 edits. And I don't think that Hadley cell, Arctic, Ozone depletion, Sensible heat, Tropical climate, Arctic, Bumps race, Age of the Earth and Gaia hypothesis are articles reasonably classified as "directly related to climate change". Sure, if the temperature drops by 25 degrees centigrade, that might put an end to Bumps races, at least in Cambridge, but it's a stretch. You might get a better overview if you only look at mainspace edits, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Of course they are. How can you not say that those are climatology-related articles? I'm not even sure how to respond, that's like saying black is white. And I'm aware that WMC has a very long history on Wikipedia and I'm sure there are plenty of other areas he's edited, but I was interested in a sample of what he works on today, and I think the last 500 edits is a reasonable indicator. That is only my opinion, but I think it's pretty fair to say that his current contributions are fairly narrow in scope. I'm not making a judgment based on that, and I state on my user page that I support single-purpose accounts (and I don't think WMC even qualifies as one), I was just trying to answer Wikidemon's question. -- Atama頭 20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- As it happens, the edit to Bumps race was a reversion, and an incorrect one at that, so can't readily be counted as a "significant contribution". A number of the other topics quoted do seem to be closely related to climate change, but I will willingly admit that I haven't looked at all 44652 edits. David Biddulph (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Lar, if you don't have the time or inclination to at least look through a contribution history, just keep quite. WMC has contributed, significantly, over a wide range of articles. I'd take any reasonable bet that he has added more useful content than e.g. User:ATren, User:Thegoodlocust and User: ZuluPapa5 combined. In fact, I'd be somewhat surprised if he had not contributed more than an order of magnitude more than those three editors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- As I've said before, looking at the pre-ArbCom activity levels (no idea if he has recently changed his behavior), his article edits tend to consist of about 80%+ reverts (a couple years ago he stopped labeling many of his reverts as such). If there was a tool to determine how many bytes a person has added or subtracted from WP then I am confident that on the whole of things WMC has subtracted many megabytes of content. As for my content, I've never been a huge contributor, but I've made several significant contributions through a smaller number of edits. I've also forgone article editing for the most part for various reasons (some of which involve WMC following me around to non-CC areas t revert me), but there are several articles I'd like to write and I fully intend to do so after the ArbCom decision. Anyway, this isn't about me, so try to focus on people who are actually involved in the current dispute rather than dragging others into it to distract from things. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- To answer Wikidemon, I've looked over WMC's last 500 contributions, and out of all of those edits the only articles that he has edited that don't seem directly related to climate change are: Data sharing, Franz Senn Hütte, and Bluetooth. A total of 4 edits to 3 articles outside of climatology/global warming. (The data sharing article might be somehow related to climate change study but I can't tell how.) I hope that answers your question? -- Atama頭 19:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Define "contribute significantly" in this context. Does that include removing things? If so, why yes, he does. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- StS: We're talking about recently. See the analysis of the last 500 edits, above. Hope that helps. Although I'm not quite sure it will. ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought we were talking about "a long-term editor", maybe just below the header of this section it says "a long-term editor". 500 edits was about a month's worth for both WMC and you. In your last 500 edits, I notice seven (7) mainspace edits, all very minor (I think the most substantial ones were adding a header and creating a redirect). That does not imply that you are "a lost cause", but it does show that a month is too small a sample, especially when the parties involved are active in dispute resolution, which of course eats significant parts of their time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- StS: We're talking about recently. See the analysis of the last 500 edits, above. Hope that helps. Although I'm not quite sure it will. ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- On bring it to Arbcom, WMC is a long term editor who knows various methods of contacting the committee. I believe during the initial block he was clearly told which email adress to use to appeal. I'm not sure why any third party would beed to bring it to arbcom. If he wants to, he will.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I support bringing this matter to ArbCom. In fact, conveniently, there's already a case that's apropos. Perhaps you could submit evidence, or make some workshop proposals? Or perhaps not. (That you perhaps didn't already know this suggests that perhaps you really don't have the needed context to comment usefully on WMC...) ++Lar: t/c 19:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I would like to recommend that Wikidemon and anyone else who is opposed to the block or thinks it is an overreaction to a technical violation, please do familiarize yourself with WMC as an editor because his history is important to the context of this block. I can certainly see why this block and the actions subsequent to TW's initial block would appear to be an overreaction or a display of bias if one were unfamiliar with WMC's history of behavior and sanctions and the amount of disruption to the encyclopedia thay has been centered around this editor. Please also familiarize yourselves with the pending omnibus ArbCom case, and in particular the evidence and workshop pages. Please note the volume of text devoted to William M. Connolley behavior, and note also the history of sanctions and requests for enforcement against this editor. A different picture shoukd start to emerge and perhaps you'll see the current block in a new light. Incidentally, it is a near certainty that WMC will be dealt with severely by ArbCom when they issue their proposed decisions. WMC must know that's what is coming, and I believe he has no incentive or intent to modify his behavior to bring it in line with community exoectations. He knows he is a short timer in any event. Not that it even matters a great deal, as he seems to have largely moved on from Wikipedia since he cannot have the amount of individual influence over articles that he once enjoyed -- he has accomplished his mission over the past 5 years, and he has for the most part passed the baton to his more aggressive, tenfentious proteges who have quite effectively taken up where WMC has left off. The arb proposed decisions cannot come soon enough. Minor4th 20:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom usually takes a "rules are rules" POV when dealing woth specific editors, so that won't do any good. Instead what is needed are a group of Admins who will unblock William and keep him unblocked on this particular issue, i.e. editing his own talk page. Any dispute among Admins on how to deal with escalation on ever more trivial points could perhaps go to ArbCom, because that's ultimately what this is all about. Count Iblis (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- A NOTE - Somewhere along the line the section called "Arbcom?" got cloned, there were two identical sections and people were posting different things to each. I tried to consolidate the two but if I put something where it doesn't belong or missed anything, I apologize. -- Atama頭 20:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- ITartle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user moves articles wrong, writes bad edit summary and impersonates User:ITurtle(He is a bureaucrat in Korean Wikipedia). He's pattern is like User:Crystall Robbot.
- See also: checkuser result in meta
- Chugun (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please notify ITartle of this discussion as required (see the yellow box that appears when you edit this page). Sandstein 05:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Notified the user. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for missing notifying. - Chugun (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't immediately see anything requiring administrator action. "Moves articles wrong" reflects content disagreements that need to be resolved per WP:DR, "writes bad edit summary" is unclear and "impersonates User:ITurtle" is not clear to me without evidence that this is indeed the user's intent; the similarity in usernames might be coincidental. Sandstein 21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Spam, EL, RS, and COI issues.
Werkart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
While perusing the history of Arthur Rosenberg Alfred Rosenburg this user repeatedly adding some information referenced to a website at http://www.younghitler.com . This is a promotional link for a book by one Claus Hant et. al. The book is labeled on the website as "a non-fiction novel". This, I believe, means that it probably fails WP:RS, since one can never be sure where, in a book so labelled where the "non-fiction" stops and the "novel" begins. This link from the same site details how the author admits to combining facts with fiction. Examining Werkart's edits shows that he has done two things on Wikipedia. One is create two articles, Claus Hant (a German screenwriter who authored a recent book) and Young Hitler (the book he authored), regarding which he has an apparent conflict of interest. The other is to edit a number of Third Reich related articles to include links to the aforementioned promotional website. I have this evening reverted all of his edits with exception of the two articles he created.
I know this probably seems rather bitey, but although this is a new user, I think the policies here are clear cut. I don't think "a non-fiction novel" can be considered a reliable source for historical fact. If there's anything useful in it, we'd be far better off citing it to an academic source. Furthermore, even if the book were a reliable source, the website is a spam link. If it's to be cited, it should be cited as a book without linking to the website. As a promotional site, it also fails, WP:EL.
So why am I here? Well, I'd have gone to another board, but there are so many policies in play here, I didn't know which one to go to. Also, I think this user could benefit from having Wikipedia's policies gently explained to him. Since I think he's liable to get a little mad when he sees that I've reverted nearly all his edits, he might accept that explanation with a little more equanimity if it comes from someone other than me. So, I just dropped a welcome template and an ANI notice on his talk page and came here.
Also, in all fairness, I've received a little criticism in the past for being overly aggressive in reverting spam, so I'd like to have my actions reviewed. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, PS, I had some initial doubts about notability for the articles he created, but the book was reviewed by Der Spiegel and The Sunday Express and the writer has written for some major television productions in Germany, so (I guess) they pass, but I think more policy-savvy eyes on that couldn't hurt. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The article is Alfred Rosenberg I believe, not Arthur. We certainly would not link to a promotional website, we'd just cite the book as we normally do. The book may be notable, but that obviously doesn't make it a reliable source for this article. I also wonder why we need two articles for Hant and his book, but that's another issue. I would say that if he does keep adding such links action may be necessary, but hopefully he'll stop now. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, Alfred. Nice catch. Can someone give him an explanation about what he's doing wrong and why nearly all his edits have been reverted? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I just did some work on Young Hitler but it needs more. Too much personal opinion, using Hant's website as a source for a comment on the book, etc. I guess the bio article is oki. But do we call this book a 'fact based narrative' as Wekart wants it called? On Amazon I find "'Based on thorough reading and extensive research this novel...fits the acknowledged historical facts as known to date, while at the same time leaving space for individual interpretation.' --From the Foreword by Dr Klaus A. Lankheit, leading academic expert on Hitler, Institute for Contemporary History (Institut für Zeitgeschichte), Munich". So if the forward calls it a novel, maybe we should also. Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not just the foreword, the cover of the book calls it a "non-fiction novel", so I guess that's what it is. Haven't been back to the Young Hitler page yet today, but some of the sources were very thin (trivial mentions, etc.). Also, what kind of source is the Sunday Express? It looks pretty tabloid to me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I just did some work on Young Hitler but it needs more. Too much personal opinion, using Hant's website as a source for a comment on the book, etc. I guess the bio article is oki. But do we call this book a 'fact based narrative' as Wekart wants it called? On Amazon I find "'Based on thorough reading and extensive research this novel...fits the acknowledged historical facts as known to date, while at the same time leaving space for individual interpretation.' --From the Foreword by Dr Klaus A. Lankheit, leading academic expert on Hitler, Institute for Contemporary History (Institut für Zeitgeschichte), Munich". So if the forward calls it a novel, maybe we should also. Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Resolved{{Unresolved}} I've blocked GPW, review is invited. TFOWR 10:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)}}
{{Resolved}} Summary deleted. Favonian (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I take offense to his edit summary. If possible I would like that removed as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Tredrea&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eathb (talk • contribs) 10:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- User notifed. Eathb, in future please notify users when you raise issues involving them. TFOWR 10:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I also would appreciate it being removed, but with no further action being taken. It was said in the heat of the moment and I'm sure he regrets saying it. Lets just move on from this. Sequal1 (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's a very positive gesture Sequal1. However, GPW's edit summary was completely unacceptable and I've blocked them for one week. As with all my actions, I invite review. TFOWR 10:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The edit summary was awful, and based on the length of his last block, it seems in accordance. However, after just being "talked off the ledge"[45], Eathb posted this a mere 25 minutes later after having made no contributions since this. This case sticks in my mind after first commenting on it, and I'm truly neutral on the "actual" topic involved here. The article's history is "troubling". Who's more to blame in this epic battle over an Australian Football club? Stay tuned... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that I did not know that he was in the process of "retiring" from wiki until I looked back at my report. I had no intent on keeping him off wiki forever, I just took offense to that edit summary and wanted it removed.Eathb (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Too little, loo late, apparently. He's now... retired again. I advise GPW to act more like a "warrior" (but not an edit warrior). You were blocked for a really bad "exit" edit summary (now deleted), and your response is to throw your hands up in the air, again. I've seen this before from a few other editors (including admins). Nobody's going to hold your hand here: so it's best to get over it and come back to edit after the block. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that I did not know that he was in the process of "retiring" from wiki until I looked back at my report. I had no intent on keeping him off wiki forever, I just took offense to that edit summary and wanted it removed.Eathb (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The edit summary was awful, and based on the length of his last block, it seems in accordance. However, after just being "talked off the ledge"[45], Eathb posted this a mere 25 minutes later after having made no contributions since this. This case sticks in my mind after first commenting on it, and I'm truly neutral on the "actual" topic involved here. The article's history is "troubling". Who's more to blame in this epic battle over an Australian Football club? Stay tuned... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's a very positive gesture Sequal1. However, GPW's edit summary was completely unacceptable and I've blocked them for one week. As with all my actions, I invite review. TFOWR 10:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see where we may have possibly went wrong in how we have handled things as opposed to pointing everything at him, since he was a fairly decent contributor right up until the past month, when things started to go downhill. OTOH, from looking at the less-than-mature message on his userpage, I could also be wrong. The fact of the matter is that something happened. –MuZemike 14:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- He got into an edit war at Port Adelaide Football Club on 12 July: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive135#User:Guinea pig warrior reported by User:Jevansen (Result: Protected 2 weeks). He reverted four times, but the admin action was to full-protect the article for two weeks. There were two further reports at WP:AN3 that you can look at. I handled one of them, and issued a 3-day block to both parties, since they got up to seven reverts each. He then evaded this block using an IP, and someone else blocked him a week for that. The mystery is how GPW could be a good contributor for over a year and start getting into big fights over articles only in July. Since that time, he has responded 'paradoxically' to admin warnings, just assuming that everybody is out to get him, while in reality he has many friends. If he will politely ask for unblock for this latest fiasco, I think it should be considered. Whoever lifts the block should get some promise about the edit-warring, though. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- His mum died, his partner left him, he's on vicodin for a bad back, he's lost his job, his new boss is a jerk..... I can think of two dozen reasons, none of which are we going to know (unless he chooses to start blogging on his userpage). Wikipedia does not have a human resources department whose job it would be to find out. I say this only so people remember how limited our scope is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- He got into an edit war at Port Adelaide Football Club on 12 July: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive135#User:Guinea pig warrior reported by User:Jevansen (Result: Protected 2 weeks). He reverted four times, but the admin action was to full-protect the article for two weeks. There were two further reports at WP:AN3 that you can look at. I handled one of them, and issued a 3-day block to both parties, since they got up to seven reverts each. He then evaded this block using an IP, and someone else blocked him a week for that. The mystery is how GPW could be a good contributor for over a year and start getting into big fights over articles only in July. Since that time, he has responded 'paradoxically' to admin warnings, just assuming that everybody is out to get him, while in reality he has many friends. If he will politely ask for unblock for this latest fiasco, I think it should be considered. Whoever lifts the block should get some promise about the edit-warring, though. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
A couple of days ago after reading a book written by university of Harvard professor John Fine I expanded the articles Sicani, Sicels and Ancient peoples of Italy and History of the Alps. Cunibertus then reverted me on Sicani and Ancient peoples of Italy and left a very disruptive article talkpage message saying is this intended to be fun or a vandalism ?. Later he even went so far as to say that only Albanian nationalist groups make such claims(although John Fine is a Harvard professor, so there might be a BLP violation here), reported me for vandalism [46] and on ANI [47] saying that I have initiated a campaign of Illyrization, although my edits aren't related to any racial purity claims but the opposite In 1300 BC the eastern Alps were settled by the Illyrian tribe of the Norici that later mixed with the native population.. Cunibertus apart from misusing the policy, making personal attacks(and possible BLP violations), didn't even inform me that he had reported me on all those boards.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I have informed User:Z he cannot change unilaterally the meaning of a voice when there isn't a general consensus on the matter - specifically when he supports nationalistic oriented claims (illyricism in the specific) - and I invited him to improve eventually the voice Enotri where founded basis of illyrism exist or alternatively to present correctly the different theories about the origins of the sicilian ancient peoples he wanted to change unilaterally, best regards Cunibertus (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Then bring your sources but you can't report people you disagree with for vandalism. Btw these edits are very disruptive [48][49] since you removed sourced content.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry Z, but I asked you if you were kidding with your really surprising statements of illyrism, and you didn't replay me - so I supposed you were a teen-age vandal and not an effective user. about the Norici, I do not know what are you speaking about as it isn't in my watchlist, but knowing that the Norici were very probably a mixed people with a later celtic predominance (or may be a fully celtic people) who lived on the very celtic side of the celtic-illyric border I guess other people will soon ask you for explanations. btw, you should also distinguish between proto-illyrians and different meanings of illyrian as the name encompassing a 2,000 years long period and also different academical usages isn't very clear in many situations Cunibertus (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Cunibertus please read WP:OR because these edits are considered disruptive[50][51].--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry Z, but I asked you if you were kidding with your really surprising statements of illyrism, and you didn't replay me - so I supposed you were a teen-age vandal and not an effective user. about the Norici, I do not know what are you speaking about as it isn't in my watchlist, but knowing that the Norici were very probably a mixed people with a later celtic predominance (or may be a fully celtic people) who lived on the very celtic side of the celtic-illyric border I guess other people will soon ask you for explanations. btw, you should also distinguish between proto-illyrians and different meanings of illyrian as the name encompassing a 2,000 years long period and also different academical usages isn't very clear in many situations Cunibertus (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The source for the claim "Most modern scholars believe that the Sicani were originally an Illyrian tribe that gained control of areas previously inhabited by native tribes." doesn't seem to back the statement. Hopefully you aren't working off a snipped and have a quote in context for this? How it his removal of that OR? Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I must admit, i'm confused. The source states "Most scholars now believe that the Sicans and Sicels, as well as the inhabitants of southern Italy, were basically of an Illyrian stock superimposed on an aboriginal "Mediterranean" population."
And the edit that thew OP added was "Most modern scholars believe that the Sicani were originally an Illyrian tribe that gained control of areas previously inhabited by native tribes." They match up. I see no OR here whatsoever. The OP's statement looks to be valid, as removal of his statement is pretty much just removing sourced content. SilverserenC 17:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- And I apparently get no response. ._. SilverserenC 18:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- To explain, the link used in the reference was this one. When you view it initially, it is cut off which is probably why Dougweller was confused. You have to click in the little box showing the scanned book page to see the rest of the reference, where you'll see that yes, the OP's information was backed up by the source.
- To get back to the original matter... Cunibertus assumed that ZjarriRrethues was a vandal and was mistaken, and apologized above. I'd like to leave Cunibertus a strong reprimand about a failure to use edit summaries, especially when you are reverting someone else's edits it is extremely important to explain your reason for doing so. Anything else is a content dispute and shouldn't be handled here. -- Atama頭 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Quadruplum - unusual editing
While there is nothing seriously wrong, new User:Quadruplum's[52] edits so far have only consisted of inserting a space before periods in a number of articles. I have asked the user to explain but it seems like really unusual behavior and having other eyes on the users activity may be appropriate. Active Banana ( bananaphone 13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like edit count padding to get autoconfirmed. I wonder what for... MER-C 14:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- While you could be right, I do remember when I first registered my account making a number of simple gnomish edits to get my feet wet.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that is possible, but putting spaces before periods? Where is that ever done? Active Banana ( bananaphone 14:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it's correct style, I'm just not sure its nefarious.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Edit count is moot when it comes to autoconfirmed status from my experience. I had to wait almost 5 days to get autoconfirmed. Whose Your Guy (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it's correct style, I'm just not sure its nefarious.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that is possible, but putting spaces before periods? Where is that ever done? Active Banana ( bananaphone 14:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- While you could be right, I do remember when I first registered my account making a number of simple gnomish edits to get my feet wet.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's a bit harsh to bring a new user's behavior straight to ANI isn't it? (I noted it was on the uers's talk page, but not exactly with much time to respond).
- Anyway, I am guessing this user was the IP user who a few days ago asked me for some help on my talk page, since my suggested wording has been [added to that article, but without the references or Wikilinks that I provided; I suppose I shall have to add those back in, but wait for any further comment or action on here. This newly registered user may also be the same user who asked for translations of reference titles (and at my partner's too). I am purely guessing from editing behavior: it seems the IP user, at least, doesn't sign post and doesn't acknowledge any reply. Si Trew (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Wikitruthwikitruthwikitruth duck sock in need of blockage
Resolvedthe above user is a WP:DUCK sock of blocked sock User:Wikitruthwikitruth. Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- And done. -- tariqabjotu 16:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! Active Banana ( bananaphone 17:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also just blocked by yours truly was Wikiwikikillkill (talk · contribs). I'm going to see what a CU can do here. –MuZemike 17:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also blocked: Killfreaknwiki (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 17:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- CU temporarily blocked an underlying range. –MuZemike 18:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! Active Banana ( bananaphone 17:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Donald Duck behavior
I want to report User:Donald Duck behavior. I'm clearing wikipedia from User:Zombie433 fake edits. I reported it there[[53]].
User:Donald Duck reverted my good edits, then I post a message with explanation on his talk page [54]. But he is deleting my messages and posting some stupid warnings on my talkpage. Could you explain with him his freaky behavior?--Wrwr1 (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- You need to notify any user you discuss here. I'll be doing that now. elektrikSHOOS 17:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can't do it because he's deleting my messages.--Wrwr1 (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- If an editor deletes a message you leave on their talk page, that's an implicit acknowledgment that they've read the message. If you leave them a notice of this discussion and they delete it, your obligation is over. -- Atama頭 18:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can't do it because he's deleting my messages.--Wrwr1 (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Calling you a vandal for posting an explanation of what you are doing on xyr talk page is inexcusable behaviour on Donald Duck's part. However, you could have acted to prevent yourself from getting into this mess in the first place. You're removing what you assert to be false information that one editor systematically added to Wikipedia. But there's no clue in your edit summaries that you're doing this. Your edit summaries do not provide any way to distinguish between what you are doing and what vandals do to Wikipedia every day. You're blanking parts of articles and statistics from infoboxes, and the very best that your edit summaries have been are "fake, pov". In many cases, you haven't provided any edit summaries at all. How on Earth is anyone to tell that you're doing this with good intentions, as part of a WikiProject Football cleanup effort, if you don't say so in your edit summaries. Link your edit summaries to a WikiProject Football discussion showing consensus amongst editors to systematically revert these additions.
Here's a maxim for you specifically to remember (that will have Arthur C. Clarke spinning in his grave like Rama):
Uncle G (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Any sufficiently poorly made well-intentioned edit is indistinguisable from vandalism.
- This isn't the first time that I've run into this issue with Donald Duck. I don't believe that they have the firmest grasp on WP:VAN. See here where there were two good faith edits reported as vandalism (which I'll admit eventually led to the editor's block after some uncivil responses to the vandalism templates, but that's beside the point), and even some edit warring on the editor's own talk page. These good faith edits reported as vandalism are accompanied with less-than-stellar edit summaries, so probably no more than a trout is warranted, but I do see something of a pattern of mistakes here. -- Atama頭 18:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Harrassment is a blockable offense. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but this would be borderline at best; harassment usually occurs when an editor targets another editor or group of editors and specifically tries to make them miserable through various means. Donald Duck's behavior has been untargeted, and more importantly I believe that they truly believe that their vandalism warnings are genuine. Mistakes can be blockable if they cause disruption and the editor has been warned about them and willfully continues them, but that hasn't happened here from what I can see. I still feel that a nice fish-slap is all that's needed. -- Atama頭 21:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with everything Atama has said. I know I'm not perfect and make mistakes, but there is a bit of a pattern I see with Donald Duck. Tommy! [message] 01:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I was referring to Wrwr1's repeated harrassment of Donald Duck. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Then you need some sense of perspective. Three user talk page edits and no interactions other than on the football articles that the user talk page edits were discussing and explaining is not harrassment by any stretch of the imagination. This edit summary should not be taken as gospel. It's Huggle Happiness, just hitting the Huggle buttons that one hits all of the time because it's easier than doing things right according to specific cases. Notice that Donald Duck reverts and dismisses/ignores every editor who doesn't have an account or a user page, whatever the discussion. This response is a good indicator that Huggle Happiness is setting in, too.
Indeed, the talk page message there, again blithely ignored by Donald Duck because it comes from someone without an account whom xe has dismissed as a vandal, is an attempt to communicate, made by an ordinary editor, with someone who has gone Huggle Happy. The recent edit history of Worksop makes for interesting reading: Two Huggle using editors ganging up with robotic edit summary explanations against that editor, not only whose information is correct but whose intent to correct is explained in the talk page edit that just gets ignored by the Huggler.
If this weren't bad enough, at Milieu therapy Donald Duck has just used Huggle to reinsert a blatant copyright violation four times. Attempts to communicate about that were ignored too, and the editor who was doing good work keeping us free from content that is "Copyright Focus Alternative Learning Center All Rights Reserved" is now blocked for "vandalism". Huggle Happiness is not acting to the betterment of the encyclopaedia here.
A quick word in the ear of Spencer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) seems warranted at this point.
I'm going to leave it up for the next few hours for the edificiation of people without administrator privileges reading this discussion, but since the copyright violation in Milieu therapy goes back to its very first version (as noted in 2007), the entire edit history is a copyright violating derived work, and has to go. It's unacceptable that a Huggler should edit war to keep copyright violations in Wikipedia and blatantly ignore the people coming to xyr user page to discuss it. Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- @Everard Proudfoot: I assumed you meant Donald Duck because I couldn't imagine how Wrwr1's communications could be considered harassment.
- @Uncle G: Thanks for that extra information. I didn't realize how extensive this problem was, I've apparently only seen the tip of the iceberg (and I admit I didn't take the time to really look into their behavior, I've only seen Donald Duck's behavior in passing a couple of times this week). This looks like a serious problem and I'm wondering if this uncommunicative editor is far too disruptive to allow unblocked. I think I will take the time to look into this. -- Atama頭 16:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Then you need some sense of perspective. Three user talk page edits and no interactions other than on the football articles that the user talk page edits were discussing and explaining is not harrassment by any stretch of the imagination. This edit summary should not be taken as gospel. It's Huggle Happiness, just hitting the Huggle buttons that one hits all of the time because it's easier than doing things right according to specific cases. Notice that Donald Duck reverts and dismisses/ignores every editor who doesn't have an account or a user page, whatever the discussion. This response is a good indicator that Huggle Happiness is setting in, too.
- Yes, but this would be borderline at best; harassment usually occurs when an editor targets another editor or group of editors and specifically tries to make them miserable through various means. Donald Duck's behavior has been untargeted, and more importantly I believe that they truly believe that their vandalism warnings are genuine. Mistakes can be blockable if they cause disruption and the editor has been warned about them and willfully continues them, but that hasn't happened here from what I can see. I still feel that a nice fish-slap is all that's needed. -- Atama頭 21:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see nothing disruptive in my edits. Per Ungle G's comment, he / she should have put clearer edit summeries. "Fake" is not a clear edit summary. Anyone in my place could have done the same as me. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Edit summaries are not always clear, hence why we have diffs. Anyone in your place would have looked at them. ANowlin talk 17:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see nothing disruptive in my edits. Per Ungle G's comment, he / she should have put clearer edit summeries. "Fake" is not a clear edit summary. Anyone in my place could have done the same as me. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- He posted a very rude response to a warning I gave him after he reverted a blanking at WP:AfC, that was done after the original author. He asserts that he has done nothing wrong, and that we are treating him like he is dumb. He also says that everyone makes mistakes with HG. IMHO: Someone needs to be brought back down to earth. HG doesn't make you God. ANowlin talk 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that "HG doesn't make you God" is fair or applicable in this case, let's try not to make this discussion unnecessarily heated. Donald Duck, I am glad you have decided to participate, but don't you see that the sheer volume of mistakes you're making is a problem? I'm willing to cut any recent pages patroller some slack, fighting vandalism is very admirable, but all of the "friendly fire" going on is really worrisome. Even more troubling than the mistakes is ignoring the repeated pleas to be careful, and an unwillingness to listen when someone protests a vandalism tag. -- Atama頭 17:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Anowlin, there is nothing rude in my response; don't accuse me. Atama, how's this for a start at resolving this discussion? - Donald Duck (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that "HG doesn't make you God" is fair or applicable in this case, let's try not to make this discussion unnecessarily heated. Donald Duck, I am glad you have decided to participate, but don't you see that the sheer volume of mistakes you're making is a problem? I'm willing to cut any recent pages patroller some slack, fighting vandalism is very admirable, but all of the "friendly fire" going on is really worrisome. Even more troubling than the mistakes is ignoring the repeated pleas to be careful, and an unwillingness to listen when someone protests a vandalism tag. -- Atama頭 17:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I simply do not understand how you reverted the removal of copyvio 4 times at Milieu therapy despite clear edit summaries asserting it was copyvio. Most users would be blocked for that. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Woah! He wasn't blocked for this? ANowlin talk 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- His / her edit summaries actually weren't that clear. Yes, he pointed towards WP:COPYVIO and such, but what was copyrighted in the article? He / She never said what was copyrighted by linking to where the text came from. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- If it's a removal, that points to WP:COPYVIO, maybe you should check, instead of pressing Q or R. ANowlin talk 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for striking out those warnings, that's a helpful gesture. I'm wondering, is Huggle the whole problem here? Maybe avoiding that tool is a good idea. Just throwing that out for consideration to all here. -- Atama頭 17:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I agree, the response to Anowlin wasn't rude... Curt, perhaps, and dismissive, but not necessarily rude. (Rude would be saying that Anowlin was stupid.) -- Atama頭 17:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I recently came back from a hiatus because my PC was broken down from July 1st, 2010 to July 26th, 2010. In that time period, I either used my mom's PC or my Dell, which I now call a substitute PC since the Dell is just there as a back-up PC now. Neither of them had Huggle, so I figured it was a good time to take a break. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not an excuse. Calm down, and lay off the Q and R keys. You're wearing them out. ANowlin talk 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't using my PC as an excuse me; quit accusing me of things. - Donald Duck (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not an excuse. Calm down, and lay off the Q and R keys. You're wearing them out. ANowlin talk 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I recently came back from a hiatus because my PC was broken down from July 1st, 2010 to July 26th, 2010. In that time period, I either used my mom's PC or my Dell, which I now call a substitute PC since the Dell is just there as a back-up PC now. Neither of them had Huggle, so I figured it was a good time to take a break. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I simply do not understand how you reverted the removal of copyvio 4 times at Milieu therapy despite clear edit summaries asserting it was copyvio. Most users would be blocked for that. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please. If you see anything in an edit summary that suggests text has been removed as copyvio, don't put it back unless you are sure it isn't copyvio. Ask someone else to check if you don't think you are able to check it properly. Ask me if you want to, I'm not bad at finding copyvio although (like today) I hate finding it as it can cause a lot of work. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Vrghs jacob subtle vandalism
Vrghs jacob (talk · contribs)
For interested admins (and observers), I'd like to call to attention this guy's talk page: User talk:Vrghs jacob. It seems that he has a pattern of disrupting articles with subtle vandalism and hiding the disruption with edit comments like "update" and marking them as minor.
He has ~1100 edits, and the damage he's done might be noteworthy if all of those edits have been following this pattern. BigK HeX (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've informed the editor, seeing as I was passing by. a_man_alone (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have time to investigate this in depth right now, but this kind of edit seems typical of at least a few others. It's not incorrect, but it is less specific and it removes information. Some other edits, including ones that were rolledback by others (months ago) show removal of templates and other info. I don't have an opinion yet.
- Could you provide the diffs that first alerted you BigK? Shadowjams (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. On the Peter Schiff article, he performed this edit which was marked as "minor" and had the edit comment of, "update all". You'll notice that the edit does nothing other than to remove the (useful) year when the article subject received his degree. I found that very odd, but then saw that his talk page had quite a few comments noting similar concerns from other editors across a range of articles. BigK HeX (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's clearly a focus here. Michigan universities and Indian articles seem to be the primary editing targets. These kind of reviews are technically very hard because the editor makes a lot of small edits sequentially over short time-frames. I'm not digging deeply into this right now, admittedly, but I would be satisfied right now to clearly explain to the editor these concerns, ask them to use an edit summary and to stop removing valid content, and if they continue to engage in this kind of behavior after that discussion, seek a short-term block. Part of the problem with these sorts of editors is that they don't appear to ever discuss anything. In fact, the only talk page edit this editor's ever made is this one: [55] which doesn't exactly inspire confidence. I'm being generous with my assesment here; if others can come up with some more indicting diffs (frankly I'm surprised by that talk page diff) then I'd quickly support a block. Shadowjams (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
An SPA IP is re-adding low-grade and out of place content such as this [56] to Voltage optimisation, which is in enough trouble as it is. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC) (noitce posted on IP talk page)
- I left a note - couldn't find any previous warnings, so it might just be an inexperienced editor. Or could be shenanigans, so I'll watchlist as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Attention needed at the recent contributions of user:Mikemikev
ResolvedCould an uninvolved admin please take a look at the contributions of user Mikemikev? Since he was unblocked (initial block was a 72-hour block for disruptive editing), his contributions have been anything but producive: (Here are but a few examples:[57][58][59][60][61]). AFAIK, he's been rude, dismissive, insulting, with what looks like a baiting-like behaviour and his edits are fraught with personal attacks. So, I would appreciate someone looking into this to give a second opinion.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- It looks like Arbcom are already onto this one, see here --Snowded TALK 18:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- That (and the block) would seem to take care of it, I believe. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Indefed for his personal attack here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Kisoasd incessantly recreating deleted page Kristijan Armic
ResolvedUser:Kisoasd has now created Kristijan Armic four times over the last three days. The article has been marked for deletion yet again. The article is about a 15 year old soccer player from Chicago who plays for the Northern Illinois Soccer League (a youth soccer league). On one of the prior iterations of the article's talk page, User:Kisoasd defended the existence of the article indicating that this 15 year old player was just about to go professional and needed the "publisity" [sic]. I have made many, many attempts to talk with this editor, as evidenced by the content of his talk page, which deals entirely with this incident. He has refused communication at every opportunity, and continues to recreate this article. He has ignored multiple warnings messages on his talk page, the latest of which was a {{uw-create4im}} from User:Morenooso.
I'm requesting a block of User:Kisoasd and/or salting of Kristijan Armic. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- User notified of this thread; User_talk:Kisoasd#WP:AN.2FI_thread_about_you. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have applied sodium chloride to the article. –xenotalk 19:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Iranians in CAT:CSD
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted is choc-full of Iranian bios that have been A7-tagged by User:Beeshoney. The tags are clearly misconceived. How would we feel about using rollback to revert them? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just checked half a dozen. All had a least assertions of notability. Roll the lot back and counsel editor on speedy deletion criteria and PROD/AFD procedures. Exxolon (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've just gone ahead and rolled them back and posted a note on the user's talk page explaining why. It is obviously not a conventional use of rollback (the tags aren't vandalism and we can assume they were done in good faith) but here it is the clearest way to improve the encyclopaedia.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the many notices on the talk page have made the issue abundantly clear and I'm sure it won't happen again. And hey, while checking the tags some things were fixed along the way :) Hekerui (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I want to make it clear that the purpose of this ANI post isn't to rap the editor over the knuckles in any way (hence I haven't notified the editor) - just to deal with the stack of A7 tags. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Given this has occurred after this same user had removed discussions on an Iranian in a very recent AfD discussion and has also abused Rollback on that same article it is all a little odd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just wanted to post support for Mkativerata, that was a very good IAR use of rollback. -- Atama頭 21:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- There look to have been another swathe of deletion requests from the same user. And they have already been warned about one of them on their talk page. These should be looked at. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have also notified the user in question of this discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- There look to have been another swathe of deletion requests from the same user. And they have already been warned about one of them on their talk page. These should be looked at. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just wanted to post support for Mkativerata, that was a very good IAR use of rollback. -- Atama頭 21:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Given this has occurred after this same user had removed discussions on an Iranian in a very recent AfD discussion and has also abused Rollback on that same article it is all a little odd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I've cleaned up some of these speedies (by declining some and prodding others) & tried explaining to the user why speedy is not applicable in most of these cases. But they then went on another spree. I've left a much more explicit note about speedy policy but perhaps someone else could try it too. Beeshoney appears to be saying they are speedy-ing them for standard notability/low quality concerns and doesn't seem to hear that this is incorrect --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 22:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hello - just to defend myself: 1. Where I removed another editor/s comments, I didn't realise this was wrong. You should have seen the length of that AfD, and I thought it was OK to shorten it especially since the same arguments were being repeated multiple times. 2. Where I misused rollback rights, I didn't know this was wrong, and I have accepted it was wrong. I have explained why I thought it was OK to use rollback in this case on an old revision of my talk page, which Erazerhead1 has provided a link to above. I accept criticism, so if what I'm doing is wrong please tell me and I will stop. Beeshoney (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Beeshoney, I felt you responded very positively when I raised the rollback issue with you, and I accept your explanation re: the AfD comment deletions. However, one thing that concerns me is that all these issues affect Iranian articles. As well as taking on board the advice you've been given on your talkpage, I'd also like to see you try and avoid Iranian articles. TFOWR 22:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The other thing is that all of these issues have come up in a very short space of time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I've also just spent a fair amount of time reviewing many of these speedy noms, and removed quite a few. The editor's pattern of nominations suggests complete obliviousness to the requirements for an A7 deletion -- among those I saw were the mayor of a sizeable city, a national cabinet-level minister, a Grammy-nominated musician, and an actor with several dozen film credits. Results like these, coupled with the editor's use of automated tools to generate prod/speedy nominations every few seconds for sustained periods of time, lead to the inference that the editor is not properly scrutinizing the articles in question, to the point of abusing the deletion process. I believe that all these nominations should be rolled back, given the burden this burst of activity will place on other editors and the very high error rate seen in nominations that have been reviewed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've just had another check through Beeshoney's recent contributions and this latests spree seems to be being rather personal (who is one of the main editors involved with Kourosh Zolani). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hello again - I live in England, and work to GMT, so that's why I suddenly stopped yesterday. To respond to TFOWR, I can explain why they are all Iranian articles. I went to look on Thommasshane's talk page (because he had posted a message on my talk page), and I saw this message. So, I looked at that list of 125 Iranian BLP's with no references, and thought "Well they're not very good", so I tagged a lot of them. To be honest this A7 Speedy Delete policy is very ambiguous as to what it means, so I've switched to PROD for a lot of them.
- Most of the articles I've tagged (after being warned on my talk page), are just a few sentences long. And although other editors say "try and improve the article yourself instead of putting them up for deletion", this is almost impossible for a lot of the articles, as very few results come up on Google (as least ones that could be used as reliable sources).
- My focus is not on Iranian articles - it's just that I thought I'd look at that list first. I have also bookmarked the other list mentioned on Thomasshane's talk page of over 26,000 BLP's with no references, and I'm planning to look at those too (and with care this time).
- Sorry for being careless, and I will be more careful with future articles. I'll also look through the articles I've tagged, and see if I should undo any of my actions. Beeshoney (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Having had the majority of his speedies declined and prods removed, this editor is now bulk-nominating many of the same articles at AfD for quite questionable reasons (e.g "no English references"). Of course he is entitled to do this and I'm sure he's acting in good faith, but IMHO he is creating a lot of work for other editors for minimal gain. Thparkth (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Some of the Prods and AFD's seem reasonable. But many others are very vague in rationale and it does not look like the user is doing a very careful search for references. I do think Beeshoney is not taking particular care with their tagging for these matters; their position seems to be that these are better off gone - whereas I would argue that a better approach is trying to save some if possible. I'd argue a better approach is to work on a couple of these articles per day (most can be salvaged) rather than run them through AFD's (which will probably come out keep). --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Everything I am now doing is within Wikipedia's guidelines. Considering a lot of these articles have been in the state they're in for years, I don't think it's unreasonable to start AfD's. A lot of these people have few English hits on Google, and if it really is so easy to improve these articles, why does everyone struggle to find good references? Beeshoney (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just saying; a lot of the references aren't hard to find - and it is better (in my mind) to spend 10 minutes finding a ref or two, cutting any dubious content and tagging for recovery. Eventually we will get to them - there are a lot of articles to get to :) That way you don;t end up indiscriminately tagging material and articles that do deserve to be deletion (and will go through AFD to delete successfully) are the only ones tagged. This saves community time etc. The # of English Google hits is usually not a good way to judge deletion/notability --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would still be very surprised if an article that was kept improved significantly a few weeks after an AfD was closed. Beeshoney (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Something like this amazes me: an administrator has votes to keep this article. There are less than 2000 English results for this person on Google - as you can see here. My own user name gets nearly 3 times more results (shown here). Even TFOWR (just shown as an example because you might think that "beeshoney" is common) gets over twice the results, as shown here. I do not understand what this administrator is thinking when he/she votes to keep the article. Beeshoney (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yup, that one looks like fair AFD material to me :) On the other hand Mahmoud Zoufonoun shouldn't have gone to AFD - it's easily cleaned and it will only take an hour or so of work :) (I'm working on it now as it happens). All I am saying is - consider trying to improve some of the articles that can be improved so that only the marginal stuff hit AFD --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The number of "english Google hits" is absolutely not the criteria for anything. But still, did you consider the 22,000+ hits for the Persian form of his name, سیروس الوند ? After all, he is Iranian. I'm not sure that you understand that if he is notable to everyday Iranian's, he's probably notable on the English wikipedia, even if you haven't heard of him. Thparkth (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Something like this amazes me: an administrator has votes to keep this article. There are less than 2000 English results for this person on Google - as you can see here. My own user name gets nearly 3 times more results (shown here). Even TFOWR (just shown as an example because you might think that "beeshoney" is common) gets over twice the results, as shown here. I do not understand what this administrator is thinking when he/she votes to keep the article. Beeshoney (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- If he's notable to everyday Iranian's, why don't you create the same article on the Iranian Wikipedia? (I think there is one) Then you'll have no problems using Iranian references. :) Beeshoney (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because he already has an article in the Iranian Wikipedia, and also because I don't speak Persian. You must try to understand that it is OK to use Iranian references in the English Wikipedia. Thparkth (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- If he's notable to everyday Iranian's, why don't you create the same article on the Iranian Wikipedia? (I think there is one) Then you'll have no problems using Iranian references. :) Beeshoney (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh well there you go. I'd assume it's mainly Iranians who would be interested in this, and of course Iranians can read the Iranian Wikipedia (I can't), so why does person need to have another biography here as well if it is poorly sourced? It is not OK to use foreign language references in the English Wikipedia unless a decent, understandable translation is provided. (If it isn't understandable it isn't a translation) If this isn't true, please give me a link to the Wikipedia guideline saying so. Beeshoney (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your interpretation of WP:NOTENG is faulty. Translations are only needed for quotations, or when specifically requested by editors. I would personally regard such requests as being made in bad faith if you are only asking so that you can dismiss the reference and delete the article. Thparkth (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd ask for a translation because the article effectively has no sources if all the references are foreign, because I can't read them (unless they're French, which is unlikely in this case). Beeshoney (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I accept that. I'll just AfD the really bad ones. Beeshoney (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thparkth, Beeshoney may well have a point over that article. Per WP:NONENG it is difficult to reliably source at this point. I'd argue that if someone capable of translating the material comes along then it is easy to reinstate. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Beeshoney, I suggest reading User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Sources in languages other than English, User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, and all of the things cited at and below Wikipedia:Search engine test#References at this point. We're not trying to be a big directory of only the stuff that is locatable via Google. (Google's doing that itself, after all.) We're not trying to write an encyclopaedia that is limited to the anglophone world. (Indeed, enabling anglophones to discover and obtain non-anglophone knowledge is one of the very rôles that an encyclopaedia exists for.) And the right way to approach any article, per policy and good practice that has been agreed upon since pretty much the start of the project, is "How do I improve this article?", and only resort to deletion if the attempts to improve find no way in which improvement can be done.
We're here to write an encyclopaedia, not stand by and watch expecting other people around us to do so. So our attitude always has to be one that is from the standpoint of "How can I collaborate in writing this?". We look for sources ourselves. We research. We copyedit. We help with editing mistakes by novices. We expand. We write. We cite supporting sources that we find. If we can show that we've looked for sources for subjects, actively rather than passively, and still come up empty-handed, then that actually makes a good, policy-based, case for not having articles. Putting verifiability and deletion policies into practice correctly is not a zero-effort task, however.
Finally: Anyone complaining that no-one has worked on an article and that therefore it should be deleted is labelling xyrself as part of the very problem that xe is decrying. If you see an article that hasn't been worked on, and you are of the opinion that Something Should Be Done, then pull out that editing tool and work on the article yourself. Be bold! Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem.
Take the advice of someone who garners more utterly meaningless Google hits than the both of you. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- User appears to be continuing to misuse speedy tags, despite requests to be more careful. Including tagging readable articles as patent nonsense [62] [63] and using G7 for sports matches [64]. Much more. Now he seems to be going through the alphabet, speedying everything in sight. The vast majority of his speedys and prods have been declined. 250 edits in less than 24 hours, virtually all to do with deletion, the vast majority declined. Seems to be on a warpath to delete articles. See also the stuff at Kourosh Zolani, where he deletes every teeny bit not sourced without lifting a finger to help. Also, "challenging" every foreign language source for a translation and threatening to delete if not provided, while strictly complying with policy, is not in the spirit of encyclopedia building. I recommend a block for disruptive editing as the user doesn't appear to be listening and people are having to cleanup after him. Alternatively, a temporary ban from using speedys and prods. Maybe also remove twinkle. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Beeshoney has a number of requests on their talk page about deletion taggings. I've just come from declining another one. I have asked Beeshoney to lay off tagging for deletion, as I feel they lack sufficient understanding of WP:CSD. Dlohcierekim 16:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I was one of the editors who got highly involved with Beeshoney in a recent AfD discussion last week. This person caused us a lot grief during this discussion by deleting a huge part of our comments in discussion in two incidents (1 & 2), repeatedly changing our edits to the article, and several uncivil comments such as calling us cheaters, sock puppets, etc. After the discussion was closed, my friend, Thomasshane (we are a group of Iranian-American graduate students who started a project to improve biographies of Iranians on WP) sent this user a friendly note for a closure. However, this user nominated tens of Iranians articles for speedy delete yesterday and again put many of them for AfD today. Surprisingly, this user has sent Thomasshane and I separated notes and invited us to continue this AfD game with him/her.
I do not believe this person has an interest in Iranians articles. It seems this user wants to create a discussion and be at the center of the attention. This behavior is not acceptable on WP. I agree some of the articles are just a few sentences but most articles that she nominated are about prominent Iranian artists and can be improved. I do not wish to get involve with this user in another AfD and I am really frustrated and disheartened that this user has nominated so many Iranians articles for AfD for personal reasons. I sincerely ask WP administrators to stop this user and revert the damage s/he is causing. Thank you Sozlati (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sozlati, there are no "personal reasons" for this - I don't know how many times I have to say so. I focused on Iranian articles at first because there was a link on Thomasshane's talk page to a list of Iranian BLP's with no references. If you look at my edit history, I have now moved on to other topics. Also, the messages I left on your and Thomassane's talk page did not "invite you to join in". Because I have been told to do so, I have stopped nominating articles for the time being, and have decided to wait and see what happens to the articles I have nominated for deletion. Beeshoney (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm finding it very difficult to assume good faith here - this isn't exactly an isolated incident. You are nominating an unreasonable number of articles for deletion on shaky ground. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I am also an editor involved in the recent AfD discussion about the Iranian musician’s article. I have decided that I am not going to contribute to any article proposed for deletion by Beeshoney. This is an encyclopedia not a game program. What this user is doing, is not acceptable. I don’t know how much damage a person should cause till some one decides to remove their privilege. I went through the proposed articles for deletion by this user, in one incident, Beeshoney is proposing EIGHT articles for deletion in ONE MINUTE!!!
This tells me that the user did not go through the articles carefully before proposing them for deletion. I am not saying that all the nominated articles are in a good shape but this is not a right approach to improve the articles.
Beeshoney dose not have any interest or knowledge in Iran related fields, specially the music. This person is not the right person to decide which article has to go!!! One of the nominated articles is Jalil Shanaz who is absolutely an Iranian music legend. This user put the article for deletion!!! Beeshoney has nominated many Iran related articles for AfD and asked me to improve them. How many articles one editor can improve in 7 days?
I strongly believe that every article proposed for any kind of deletion by Beeshoney since yesterday needs to be reverted. Based on the pattern of this user’s behavior, s/he is not qualified to nominate any article for deletion. Thomasshane (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I am also an editor involved in the recent AfD discussion about the Iranian musician’s article. I have decided that I am not going to contribute to any article proposed for deletion by Beeshoney. This is an encyclopedia not a game program. What this user is doing, is not acceptable. I don’t know how much damage a person should cause till some one decides to remove their privilege. I went through the proposed articles for deletion by this user, in one incident, Beeshoney is proposing EIGHT articles for deletion in ONE MINUTE!!!
Tedious IP jumper
ResolvedWe seem to have a rather persistent IP jumper enjoying itself. Various pages have been targeted, like User talk:Tommy2010, User talk:Favonian, User:Jac16888, Justin King (businessman). Looks like the addresses are from Türk Telekom. A range block would not be unwelcome as it's getting rather tiresome blocking them one at a time. Favonian (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Goodness, I think it stalks me: [65] Favonian (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The IP is shown to have clearly disruptive editing, which we will not tolerate. I agree with Favonian's suggestions about a range block. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I happen to have some rangeblocks handy:
- 78.176.16.0/20 (talk · contribs · block log)
- 78.179.176.0/20 (talk · contribs · block log)
- 85.108.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · block log)
- 88.242.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · block log)
- 88.246.224.0/19 (talk · contribs · block log)
There's about 100,000 IP addresses to catch all the recently used ones. One or two of those ranges have some respectable traffic on them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah. That'll be why I no longer seem to be reverting-and-blocking every two seconds. ;-) Thanks! TFOWR 21:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I second that. Good job zzuuzz! Favonian (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I should add that there's one or two other ranges, but they haven't been too widely used by this vandal to date. Dilute to taste. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I second that. Good job zzuuzz! Favonian (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
IP block requested
ResolvedAs this is not AIV material (due to it being fairly old edits), 110.139.101.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been vandalizing Wikipedia since mid early June this year. He has been mostly making unnecessary piped links between unrelated articles (always Gundam articles to Kamen Rider articles, or vice versa). He made these bad edits as recently as this morning (August 18, 2010). The IP seems static as the same edits have been consistently made from the same IP all summer. To prevent any further damage from this IP (even though he appears to be reverting his edits), I am requesting that it be blocked for an extended period of time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Folkishfellow
User:Folkishfellow is reverting any and all changes and left as his summary: "If you want to play this game I can keep going for weeks. I don't have a job." here at the article on Edward J. Renehan, Jr. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- From their contributions I can only see one revert; the rest all seem to be fairly innocuous minor changes. Can you provide links that demonstrate ongoing revert warring? That edit summary seems unnecessarily belligerent but I'm not sure it amounts to ongoing disruptive behaviour. Reyk YO! 23:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Mostly harmless, gnomish edits, and I have been aware of this editor for a while. Just don't provoke him, but please do notify him of this thread. Rodhullandemu 23:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have done so now. RAN, you know it is bad form to take a user to ANI without informing them. Reyk YO! 23:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that RAN thought that the large number of times that the person that xe thought this to be has been notified and blocked obviated any such need to jump through a pointless hoop one more time. Uncle G (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have done so now. RAN, you know it is bad form to take a user to ANI without informing them. Reyk YO! 23:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
My first thought that this was User:Torkmann again, but the edits are not similar enough to conclude as such, i.e. lack of "deletionist rage" and all that good stuff. –MuZemike 00:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. RAN, this isn't who you think it to be. You appear to have stumbled into the middle of a "private" slow burning edit war between two limited-scope accounts, Folkishfellow (talk · contribs) focussing upon folk music and Chronomonitor (talk · contribs) focussing upon museums, clashing at Edward J. Renehan, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article about someone who relates to both, over whether it should talk about folk music or document librarianship. And, of course, the usual is occurring in such a situation. One or more of the limited-scope accounts thinks that you are the other person in the edit war. Nothing more sinister. Uncle G (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Flaw in the diff system mislead me
*Previous discussion:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive631#User:YumeChaser_and_Twinkle
YumeChaser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is simply just is not getting it and is continuing to assume bad faith of editors and label good faith edits as vandalism. We just had the above thread a few days ago in which I requested a block of him to prevent further disruption. No one responded, and here he is continuing to assume bad faith of another new editor [66]. There was no vandalism in that edit. A simple content dispute over reorganizing a list of members. Even though he's been warned a couple times, and we had that big discussion last time, in which another editor pointed out[67] this has actually been going on for a very long time. He needs to be blocked to prevent further disruption and until he demonstrates to the communities satisfaction that he understands WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.--Crossmr (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't assume bad faith and if you look at the diffs carefully you'll see the vandalism. And I wasn't the only one who reverted the user and called it vandalism. Just be honest, you won't be happy until you see me blocked. 夢追人YumeChaser 00:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I blame the diff system on that one, for some reason it didn't change any text to red at all so it wasn't showing anything changed at all except for position. I've struck it, even though you could have made your point without the bad faith addition at the end.--Crossmr (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- That seems to be a fact as you are watching every single edit I make just to report it here and ask for community block. 夢追人YumeChaser 00:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, I couldn't care about most of your edits. Only the ones where you falsely accuse people of being vandals. Can you deny that you've done so in the past? repeatedly? And been warned for it going back quite some time? In this case, the diff system didn't properly show the change in the text and the vandalism wasn't obvious. I've struck the request and comment as soon as the mistake was identified. My only desire is to see disruption stopped.--Crossmr (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- That seems to be a fact as you are watching every single edit I make just to report it here and ask for community block. 夢追人YumeChaser 00:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I blame the diff system on that one, for some reason it didn't change any text to red at all so it wasn't showing anything changed at all except for position. I've struck it, even though you could have made your point without the bad faith addition at the end.--Crossmr (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, Moshiso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) could probably be blocked as a disruptive only account, now adding BLP issues.--Crossmr (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Possibly influx of POV editing by Israeli settlers
I spotted this article in Ha'aretz this morning. Whilst there are several existing editors enforcing a pro-settler POV (some for several years now), some extra eyes on this area of Wikipedia (particularly the articles mentioned in the news report - Haneen Zoabi, Ariel University Center of Samaria, Bil'in and Gaza flotilla raid) might be a good idea. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm interested in the "Best Zionist Editor" competition and the trip in a hot-air balloon over Israel. I'm not much of a Zionist but I like hot air ballons and I want to be that lucky encyclopedist in 4 years time. I'm assuming non-Zionists can enter the competition. Luckily all of those articles are already on my watchlist so that's a start. More seriously, it's not unusual for articles to be published on the media calling for people to edit Israel related articles in Wikipedia, one of government ministries had a completely out in the open paid Hasbara scheme around the time of Operation Cast Lead (not sure whether that is still going) and I've seen various off wiki advocacy sites that have similar aims and offer advice. I'm not sure it's anything much to worry about plus I'm not sure that the partisan battling in the I-P area on wiki in general can get that much worse. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- - http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2010/08/will-i-become-wikipedia-editor.html - you could not make that up, hilarious. Off2riorob (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- - Not sure what can be done other than keep a closer eye on new accounts diving right in to controversial articles, but in the wake of Wikipedia:CAMERA, I hope this is taken seriously. Tarc (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Mario Kart: Double Dash‼/GA1 --edit protected
A user has nominated Mario Kart: Double Dash‼ for a GAN, however for unknown reasons Talk:Mario Kart: Double Dash‼/GA1 is edit protected and I cannot start the review. Could this be unlocked, please? Thanks --Teancum (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, couldn't see any protection. Anyway, the page is now created. TFOWR 12:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks much. Not sure what was going on there. --Teancum (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Title!! blacklist!! probably!! –xenotalk 14:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Specifically it's the use of the "‼" character in the title -- that's the character U+203C, not a pair of exclamation points. It falls under the "Select Unicode letterlike symbols" entry in the blacklist. The article should be moved to a title that uses the exclamation point character instead. --Carnildo (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, the title using two exclamation points instead of the Unicode character also trips the title blacklist (I couldn't move the page) so there's no gain there. --shoy (reactions) 04:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Specifically it's the use of the "‼" character in the title -- that's the character U+203C, not a pair of exclamation points. It falls under the "Select Unicode letterlike symbols" entry in the blacklist. The article should be moved to a title that uses the exclamation point character instead. --Carnildo (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Title!! blacklist!! probably!! –xenotalk 14:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks much. Not sure what was going on there. --Teancum (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
User Template555
I'm a little concerned that one of our users, Template555 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of another user. Some users raised a concern during Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Template555/Lies that it might be an account created solely to disparage one group of people. What do you think the odds are of getting an SPI done on Template555? Is there a set process for a situation like this? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not to nitpick, but the only user who raised that concern was you. ;) I think it's plausible, but do you have any evidence that would convince a clerk to suggest a CU? The editor's contributions are pretty limited, so I don't know if there's a lot to go by. An SPI request would probably be seen as a fishing expedition. -- Atama頭 15:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're probably right that they are a sock. However, without a suspected sockmaster, even a checkuser running a fishing expedition probably would not be able to come up with anything. NW (Talk) 17:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- nu-uh, not just me! "This userbox by the same user also worries me, though I must admit that the language is a bit confusing. It does appear though that the account is an SPI that is set up to disparage atheism. SilverserenC 04:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)" Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I stand corrected, I didn't see that. In any case, the only thing I can think of is that an editor who has had a lot of experience with various sockpuppet behavior might notice something familiar. That's a bit of a long shot though. -- Atama頭 17:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- We could presume that the sockmaster would be an extremely Christian user, based on the type of userboxes being created. That doesn't give us much to go by, but if any suspects do come up, that would be something you would want to check for. SilverserenC 18:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I stand corrected, I didn't see that. In any case, the only thing I can think of is that an editor who has had a lot of experience with various sockpuppet behavior might notice something familiar. That's a bit of a long shot though. -- Atama頭 17:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
War crimes discussion
Hello, I would like to draw administrators' attention to a (very civil) discussion taking place at Talk:German war crimes. The discussion centres on the issue of whether articles of this sort should be titled as "[Country] war crimes" or the proposed "War crimes and [country]" form. Before 17 August 2010, the only article to be titled in that form was War crimes and the United States, which had itself been moved from War crimes committed by the United States two days earlier by Unomi. Before the discussion regarding German war crimes began, however, the editor starting the discussion, Sandman888, moved three other articles to this form without consensus: Italian war crimes (now War crimes and Italy), Japanese war crimes (now War crimes and Japan) and Soviet war crimes (now War crimes and the Soviet Union). I am requesting that these three articles be moved back to their original location until a consensus is found regarding these articles. Thanks, City of Destruction 17:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Move back to "(Country) war crimes" simply because those titles are more accurate. The articles detail war crimes committed by the country's own armed forces etc - the "War crimes and (country)" title could imply an article on crimes the country's armed forces had committed, crimes committed on it by other country's armed forces and war crimes comitted by one third party country on another third party country that the country in the article title took action to stop - far to broad/ambiguous. This is a no brainer. Exxolon (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have no strong opinion on the matter nor am I involved in the article - I saw there was a debate regarding the exclusion of content based on the lack of a judicial ruling stemming from the article name at that time, at least that was my interpretation of the arguments, this is a bar that is not set for any of our other related articles that I am aware. There were no objections raised on my talkpage and anyone could be free to move it back. I agree with Exxolon that the choice of name could be better. Unomi (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Canvassing votes
Several days ago, I initiated a discussion at Talk:Hyundai Elantra#Merger of Elantra LPI Hybrid to merge the contents of Hyundai Elantra LPI Hybrid to Hyundai Elantra.
One of the voters, Mariordo decided to canvass support for his point-of-view by messaging four other users, [68], [69], [70], and [71].
This is not the first time that Mariordo has done this. At a previous discussion to merge Toyota Camry Hybrid with Toyota Camry (XV40) the user in question canvassed five votes from users that would support his point-of-view: [72], [73], [74],[75], [76]. An administrator at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid even stated that canvassing votes is not allowed due to it undermining the consensus-building process.
Of the four users that the user in question has requested support from, all of them voted in his favour at the previous merger proposal at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid (the primary topic and rationale behind both mergers are identical).
I have attempted to reason with Mariordo at his talk page ([77]), but he maintains that, "inviting other editors to participate is allowed", despite the clear guidelines of WP:CANVASS, a policy that I have made clear to Mariordo on several occasions.
All that I am requesting is for the integrity of Wikipedia's consensus building procedure be maintained. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 02:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mariordo has, on three occasions, notified me of discussions regarding electric vehicles, including hybrid electric vehicles. He understands that many of my edits revolve around this subject, and I have always appreciated his notifications. He certainly does not know how I will feel about any given subject, and we have had disagreements in the past (see Talk:Electric_bicycle#Pike_Research_Report as an example). He phrases his notifications in neutral terms, and he has never tried to influence my opinion when he notifies me. I have responded to two of these notifications, and not responded to one (other than acknowledging that I received his note and declining to participate in the discussion). I do not feel that I have been "canvassed" in any way, shape or form.
- OSX has been consistently antagonistic toward Mariordo, as he is toward many people (myself included) who disagree with his edits. Here is one example of his childish harassment and name-calling: Talk:Hyundai_Elantra#Merger_of_Elantra_LPI_Hybrid. It is clear to me that the notice on this board is just one more attempt on OSX's part to silence a rational, dedicated, polite editor whose views sometime conflict with those of OSX. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think there's too much inherently wrong with this canvassing. The alleged canvassing could have been handled much better by OSX, the warnings he gave were aloof and bordering on rude ("I'll report you to the ANI board and you may be blocked"); but I don't think it's a gross violation of policy, or arguably a violation at all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Gimmetoo, again
- 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 disputed editing restriction has been voided, and the underlying content dispute is under discussion at Talk:Halle Berry. Any continued concerns about any party's behaviour may be better-suited to a user conduct RfC, this thread is certainly producing more heat than light at this point. ~ mazca talk 13:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Gimmetoo (talk · contribs) has just arbitrarily declared an editing restriction for me:
- User talk:Jack Merridew#Editing restrictions
- Within my administrator's discretion, I am now banning you for one year from changing citation styles in articles. You may, of course, make edits in the established style of an article, but you will be blocked for changing the style. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not accept it as binding. This is all Halle Berry, again:
Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Merridew has a history of abusive editing, and a recent issue with WP:NPA. He is currently subject to arbcom-applied editing restrictions. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Since Merridew is apparently disputing this, I will wait to log the ban on the RFAR enforcement. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, Gimmmetoo, according to the popup I get when I hover over your name, you're a non-admin with 416 edits to your credit. Just what entitles you to impose editing restrictions on anyone? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Gimmetoo is an alt account of Gimmetrow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, but shouldn't he disclose that on his user page, and wouldn't it be better to use your admin account for admin tasks? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- That would be a good idea. You should read the ANI632 discussion I linked above, especially the long bit about his block a few days ago. Same issue. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's no RFAR basis for this; you're just pissed about the Halle Berry citation RfC. Jack Merridew 03:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- You are editing disruptively, Merridew, and you are now making personal attacks. Your behaviour needs to stop, and if no other admin has the guts to do it, I do. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- and you're miffed about being indef'd last week. and posing pointy questions about it at the active RfA's. *you're* the disruptive party: example. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- In light of this recent dispute between the parties this is exceedingly poor judgement on Gimmetoo's part. Textbook WP:INVOLVED. If Merridew needs sanctioning, make your case to the community or to ArbCom, and have impartial editors decide. Skomorokh 03:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am only "involved" because Merridew refuses to follow existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. But fine, I'll vacate the sanction. Please discuss Merridew's behaviour. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)'d. That's about what I was thinking. Cheers, Jack Merridew
- Please discuss Gimmetoo's behaviour. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just curious, Gimmetoo, what's the reason for the new account? Also, you haven't edited as -trow since May, which means you haven't used the tools since then. Were you going to finally log in to your admin account just to block Merridew? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, I wasn't planning to log in. I would be hoping that blocks wouldn't be necessary, but if they were, someone else would do them. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just curious, Gimmetoo, what's the reason for the new account? Also, you haven't edited as -trow since May, which means you haven't used the tools since then. Were you going to finally log in to your admin account just to block Merridew? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Gimmetoo is absolutely involved here and I don't think individual administrator's have the right to give these types of sanctions unless there's an arbitration case in place (ie WP:ARBMAC or climate change). Regardless, winning disputes by using administrative actions isn't okay. AniMate 03:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Skomor objected so I vacated it. Now, discuss Merridew's behaviour. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just an uninvolved party but I'm seeing points all over the place here and not from Jack. Am I the only one? Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to that, unless you have the admin bit active on your account, you have (or had) no authority to declare such a ban. NW (Talk) 03:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just an uninvolved party but I'm seeing points all over the place here and not from Jack. Am I the only one? Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Skomor objected so I vacated it. Now, discuss Merridew's behaviour. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Let's see: Legacy admin (who for reasons unclear uses a non-admin, alternate account) tries the 'ol "respect my authoritah!" trick to bully an editor he's in dispute with. Admin in question happens to be wrong in the underlying dispute, wrong on the extent of his admin powers (don't get to unilaterally deliver topic bans), and is way out of line to try, since he was seeking to use his imagined power to get the upper hand in a dispute. He's basically standing in the way of non-controversial article improvement. I'd recommend desyssoping the guy and then ignoring him (and i'd restrict him to one account; something doesn't smell right about this alternate account business). Easy peasy.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Bali, when have I ever been in such perfect agreement with you? Not recently. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)For example, why is this "alternate account" so determined that he not declare such on his userpage [78]? Did Gimmetrow get mad over something? Because this entire episode reeks of a huge game. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- He still does have the bit active, but on the other account, which he hasn't used since May. He's accumulated an impressive block log on the new account, considering it has under 500 edits. He was indeffed and asked to log in to his old account to confirm that he's the same person controlling both of them, which he never did. However, according to his block log, this was confirmed through checkuser (I think). I know alternate accounts are ok under certain circumstances, but I still don't see the reason for it. He initially disclosed the alternate status on his (new) user page, then deleted the disclosure. Curious. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Let's see: Legacy admin (who for reasons unclear uses a non-admin, alternate account) tries the 'ol "respect my authoritah!" trick to bully an editor he's in dispute with. Admin in question happens to be wrong in the underlying dispute, wrong on the extent of his admin powers (don't get to unilaterally deliver topic bans), and is way out of line to try, since he was seeking to use his imagined power to get the upper hand in a dispute. He's basically standing in the way of non-controversial article improvement. I'd recommend desyssoping the guy and then ignoring him (and i'd restrict him to one account; something doesn't smell right about this alternate account business). Easy peasy.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest the combatants voluntarily detach from one another and have the underlying content issue (reference styles) addressed decisively in a community-wide discussion. If other editors have issues with Gimmetoo's status it would be best to disentangle that question from the interpersonal dispute. This whole affair has been highly unproductive. Skomorokh 04:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fine, if Merridew leaves me alone from now on. But I expect him to be blocked for any personal attacks. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Merridew has been leaving you alone. The problem is you think you own a few articles, so you conflate editing of your articles with bothering you. I expect you to be blocked if you try to abuse your alleged admin status again. The fact that you refuse to make the alternate account/sock thing clear on your user page also doesn't reflect well on you.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm seeing bad behavior here, and it's not from Jack. AniMate 04:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree; this was less than helpful however ill-advised the sanction. Skomorokh 04:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm seeing bad behavior here, and it's not from Jack. AniMate 04:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Gimmetoo, thank you for agreeing to detach, I presume Jack Merridew will be so good as to follow, in which case we need not worry about personal attacks from either party. Best, Skomorokh 04:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- This situation is rather more that simply curious. It begs for resolution in policy. With regard to this ANI, It seems nothing less than reverse sock-puppetry to allow one user to threaten, with sanctions by another user, in conflict resolution. At no time should Gimmetoo invoke the rights of Gimmetrow. If these rights are transferable than they should be accordingly done.My76Strat 04:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a situation that does not appear to be fully covered by policy. Whether it ought to be, and how, is a broader question than this discussion can reasonably bear. WT:ADMINS might be the best place to discuss the general issue in a depersonalised fashion. Skomorokh 04:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, this is covered at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Alternative account notification. If you have an alternative account it needs to be tagged as such. AniMate 04:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- As with many policy/guidelines, wiggle room for ambiguity is written in. Gimmetoo has previously invoked the provisions which open the above; "Except when doing so would defeat the purpose".My76Strat 04:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) To clarify, I (and I think My76Strat) was referring to the administrator status of the Gimmetoo account; that the two accounts are associated with the same editor has already been satisfactorily proven I believe. From what I gather of this situation, the first clause of the paragraph you link to may apply. Skomorokh 05:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, this is covered at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Alternative account notification. If you have an alternative account it needs to be tagged as such. AniMate 04:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a situation that does not appear to be fully covered by policy. Whether it ought to be, and how, is a broader question than this discussion can reasonably bear. WT:ADMINS might be the best place to discuss the general issue in a depersonalised fashion. Skomorokh 04:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- This situation is rather more that simply curious. It begs for resolution in policy. With regard to this ANI, It seems nothing less than reverse sock-puppetry to allow one user to threaten, with sanctions by another user, in conflict resolution. At no time should Gimmetoo invoke the rights of Gimmetrow. If these rights are transferable than they should be accordingly done.My76Strat 04:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Merridew has been leaving you alone. The problem is you think you own a few articles, so you conflate editing of your articles with bothering you. I expect you to be blocked if you try to abuse your alleged admin status again. The fact that you refuse to make the alternate account/sock thing clear on your user page also doesn't reflect well on you.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a comment for now: Gimmetoo did successfully echo a phrase in an e-mail I sent to Gimmetrow. I still don't fully understand the reason why he feels he cannot edit as Gimmetrow, but it is apparent to me that they are the same editor. Removing the alternate account declaration seems problematic to me.—Kww(talk) 04:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is just weird. I'd really like to here from Gimmetoo about what is going on here. AniMate 04:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Even weirder. He's actually posting RfA questions about this very issue. AniMate 04:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that alternate accounts are not meant to be used in this manner. If Gimmetoo wants a new start, then he cannot do so while invoking the status the flag on his old account gives him; if not I don't understand this at all. Refusing to edit from his main account to confirm the alt is plain disruptive unless he is for some reason unable to log in from it (lost password/insecure network), and that has not been made clear. It seems a bit pointy to me, ignoring the RfA questions which are bizarre but legit. sonia♫ 05:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do any of you bother to understand the history of a dispute before you weigh in here? How about, when in doubt, sit on your fingers instead of speculating? Or do something useful, instead of bickering at AN/I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Question Gimetoo, can you confirm that the admin account is yours? Specifically, can you edit here with that account and confirm it? Basket of Puppies 05:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. Time out, everyone. This issue has already been addressed. Gimmetoo=Gimmetrow, already confirmed back on 14 August 2010 by me. Even without fancy tools, the evidence was easy to discern if one knew where to look. Gimmetrow has, I believe, legitimate reasons to temporarily set aside his admin bits; it's time for people to simply be happy that we have an editor who's interested in continuing in the development, improvement and maintenance of the project. The alternate account had declared itself, it was operating under the appropriate policy, and any editor who doesn't spend a lot of time at ANI or SPI or Arbcom would have had no reason to think that there would be a problem; it's only people who spend a lot of time dealing with genuinely problem users who are seeing red flags all over the place.
The dispute being raised by Jack Merridew involves citation templates, and Jack's desire to use his preferred style in articles that others (including Gimmetoo) edit. Whether the community will decide to continue treating citation documentation as something similar to WP:ENGVAR] or we'll have another "Date Delinking" is more or less up to you folks. Please don't take your eye off the ball, though. This isn't about Gimmetrow/Gimmetoo, it's about citation templates. Really. Risker (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- To get back to the original issue, it is not clear from this thread how Jack Merridew "is currently subject to arbcom-applied editing restrictions" or how any active arbitral sanction prohibits him from changing citation styles. Absent explicit ArbCom authorization, Gimmetrow has no authority to ban Jack Merridew from doing anything with citation styles. But, without having examined whether that's what happened here, I think that we can all agree that changing articles from one MOS-accepted citation style to another for no good reason is disruptive and should not be done. Sandstein 05:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- (ec x2 @ Risker) Yep, and the last time I checked, Jack Merridew was changing citation style against WP:CITE; if that is still going on, it is disruptive and should stop. Amazing that dozens of admins and editors filled up this page speculating about an entirely resolved and unrelated matter, while disruptive editing affecting articles and the regular folk is ignored. I 'spose fighting and speculating is just too much fun to resist, but it should not take absurd amounts of dispute resolution and valuable editor time to get disruptive editors to stop. Changing citation style without consensus is against WP:CITE; if Merridew wants to do that, he should gain consensus or change the guideline (and then all hell will break loose, as editors alter citation style at whim). IMO, citation style is more akin to ENGVAR than to the lame date de-linking dispute, and changing citation style should be highly discouraged. Why do productive editors have to go to such extremes to get disruption to stop, and why do we need a federal case to see the issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see no disruption in getting community feedback about a proposed change, getting consensus for it, and then making the change. This is what, from what I gather, has happened at the Halle Berry page. Gimmetroo flipping out over not getting his way, arbitrarily declaring Jack disruptive and imposing bullshit editing restrictions is not on. Reyk YO! 05:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose personal attacks and WP:CANVAS are nothing wrong, eh? Gimmetoo (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've looked at Jack's edit history of the last three or four days and there's nothing in there that even remotely resembles canvassing, and the closest he's come to a personal attack is laughing in your face because you spat the dummy and tried to pull rank when you didn't get your way. Given that this is the first we've heard of this mysterious alleged canvassing I have to ask: are you just making shit up and hoping some of it will stick? Reyk YO! 09:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Presumably, if you're participating here, you've read WP:AGF? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sure I have, but WP:AGF is not a suicide pact and it does not require me to leave my brains at the door. And I have long been of the opinion that the best way to get people to assume good faith is to show it. Here we see an editor claim rights and authority that he doesn't actually possess, use them to try (laughably unsuccessfully) to intimidate someone else in order to win an article style dispute, and then pull fresh allegations out of thin air when the original ones prove to be unsustainable. I'd be an idiot to continue to assume good faith, wouldn't I? Reyk YO! 13:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Presumably, if you're participating here, you've read WP:AGF? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've looked at Jack's edit history of the last three or four days and there's nothing in there that even remotely resembles canvassing, and the closest he's come to a personal attack is laughing in your face because you spat the dummy and tried to pull rank when you didn't get your way. Given that this is the first we've heard of this mysterious alleged canvassing I have to ask: are you just making shit up and hoping some of it will stick? Reyk YO! 09:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose personal attacks and WP:CANVAS are nothing wrong, eh? Gimmetoo (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see no disruption in getting community feedback about a proposed change, getting consensus for it, and then making the change. This is what, from what I gather, has happened at the Halle Berry page. Gimmetroo flipping out over not getting his way, arbitrarily declaring Jack disruptive and imposing bullshit editing restrictions is not on. Reyk YO! 05:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- This looks like an attempt by a hugely involved administrator (who doesn't administrate) to silence opposition in a content (and style) dispute by making threats. The underlying issue is being (correctly) discussed at an RFC, here. pablo 10:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- No canvassing, no personal attacks by Jack (calling bullshit "bullshit" is a good thing), just distortions of the situation by an admin/alternate account/whatever unhappy that he's not getting his way.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Presumably, since you're participating here, you've read WP:AGF, understand that there is a guideline principle in play here, and are not just piling on from the peanut gallery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- What on earth does any of this have to do with "assuming good faith?" Long-standing admin makes allegations. I look into allegations. I found that there is no merit to the allegations whatsoever. I also find the admin was trying to use his "authoritah" to bully someone else in a content dispute. At that point, i have points of information to make a judgment that he's full of it, was way out of line to try to use his adminship to silence an editing opponent, and in other words is playing a game to win an argument. "Assuming good faith" doesn't mean what you think it means.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Presumably, since you're participating here, you've read WP:AGF, understand that there is a guideline principle in play here, and are not just piling on from the peanut gallery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- No canvassing, no personal attacks by Jack (calling bullshit "bullshit" is a good thing), just distortions of the situation by an admin/alternate account/whatever unhappy that he's not getting his way.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The editing restriction has been voided; I think this issue is now resolved: could someone, please, close this thread as it is generating more heat than light? Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 12:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse closure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Request for community ban of Jimmy McDaniels
This user, Jimmy McDaniels (talk · contribs), after editing tendentiously from various IP addresses for many years, finally created an account and continues to edit tendentiously. The individual's behavior has demonstrated a clear conflict of interest with respect to the Jason Leopold article. Multiple editors have requested that this editor desist from editing the article and restrict himself to making suggestions on the talk page. However, the editor refuses to get the point, and the conversations about it tend to get rather surreal. Currently the article is protected, but the editor doesn't seem to get the spirit of cooperation and consensus necessary to participate in Wikipedia process, but seems to see Wikipedia as a battleground, gloating when he thinks another editor has made an "error", not really discussing but asserting, proposing unreliable sources to promote his opinions of the subject, etc., etc. All the facts are laid out ad nauseum at a recent RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimmy McDaniels, in which the editor received no support from anyone and multiple editors agreed he should not edit the article. Yet he still will not voluntarily agree to restrict himself to the talk page and continues to be combative on the talk page. As this is a long-running situation, which I've described in the RfC from 2008 but which actually goes back further, I believe it is time to have a serious discussion about whether a community ban might be appropriate. Yworo (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was asked by this very user to create an account, which I did. When I started editing from this account and expanding the article as requested and providing additional material I was attacked, accused of being Jason Leopold and my edits reverted. This article is biased and the fact that it's protected and the neutrality of it questioned is an issue that should be of concern. In the past two weeks, since I created this account and started editing this article, I have abided by the policies and guidelines set forth and I request that you look at my editing history as an example. Yworo, however, seems to take issue with the fact that I am working to improve this article and that means providing context, balance and, yes, positive material to balance it out. The surreal nature of the discussion is certainly true but if you look at the discussion page of the article you will note that each time I suggest a link or an inclusion of new material I am attacked, accused of being Jason Leopold, a sock puppet and told the material I am trying to add is "resume padding." Look at the conversations surrounding the California Energy Crisis and Enron. I added material that was in line with Wikipedia policies and standards. Yworo routinely changed the material I was including, going so far as to remove it or revert it back without providing a legitimate reason. One time, Yworo said the link I provided was not working and reverted it back. I went in and fixed the link and readded the material in the Enron section and again was attacked and threatened for doing so. As I have stated dozens of times at this point, I would like to improve this article. That means expanding upon it and not make it one-sided. I would be perfectly happy to bow out of editing it if in fact Yworo was removed as well. Frankly, I think the conversations on the discussion page will illustrate the biases of many of the people who are working on it. The users do not need to like me, but I believe my contributions to this article, especially since I created an account have been important and within the guidelines. And I would like to continue contributing without fearing that each suggestion or citation I add or section I create is going to end up with me being attacked or accused of being the source.
- I would like to note that there is an anonymous user who has been contributing to this article in the past few weeks: 69.17.54.2: that may be in the same vicinity I am: Los Angeles. I was accused of being every IP address that contributed "positive" material or tried to expand the article. But because the contributions and comments of this IP, as recently as Wednesday, have been negative with regard to the substance and content of the article, Yworo seems to be supportive of this user. Mind you this user has been making changes to this article since 2007 and those changes have been well outside wikipedia's policies and has not been asked to create an account, threatened with banning or complaints leveled. Is it because the IP's opinions about the subject of the article and Yworo's are in sync? I don't know. But I do find it curious. That is part of the surreal nature of the issues and discussions surrounding this article. It is not one sided. It's clearly complex. But I should not be the one who bears all of the blame. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Finally, multiple editors have not requested that I, Jimmy McDaniels, refrain from editing this article. Yworo has. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please learn to indent. The requests are all over your previous IP address talk pages, on the talk page of the article, on the BLP noticeboard, etc. And there's a long section on your current talk page from Off2riorob, here. Yworo (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
i have also requested Jimmy refrain from editing the article and think its a real good idea, he has a massive WP:COI and is disruptive to the BLP when he edits it, this has been going on a length of time and also occurred at the Truthout article and the related AFD which was swimming with fishy socks. I can handle him on the talkpage but he should please stop editing the article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm curious, what is the conflict of interest? I've looked at the RFC and Talk:Jason Leopold and of course this ANI report, but I see nothing to suggest there's a COI. What connection does Jimmy have to Jason Leopold that would be a COI? He claims to be a fan, and he seems to have POV issues, but that doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. Being Leopold's relative or employee or PR person or something along those lines would. What am I missing? -- Atama頭 17:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- He has claimed multiple times to be Leopold's lawyer (four examples: [79], [80], [81], [82], and admits he did here), and nearly everyone ever involved believes he is Leopold himself. Besides his unintentional admission of identity with the IP editors, I believe I've thoroughly established continuity of identity in the RfC. Yworo (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's a pretty blatant COI then. I'd support a page ban enforcement of suggestions at WP:COI, restricting the editor's article edits to non-controversial edits and otherwise making talk page suggestions for content changes. I do see some constructive talk page input so I think such a ban would permit the editor to contribute while at the same time prevent further disruption. -- Atama頭 18:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that would help a lot and as you say, still allow him to contribute as he does have some input that is beneficial to content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would love to see him voluntarily comply with this. If a topic ban is applied, I suspect we will simply see and have to deal with sockpuppetry. I could be wrong about that though... Yworo (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that would help a lot and as you say, still allow him to contribute as he does have some input that is beneficial to content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's a pretty blatant COI then. I'd support a page ban enforcement of suggestions at WP:COI, restricting the editor's article edits to non-controversial edits and otherwise making talk page suggestions for content changes. I do see some constructive talk page input so I think such a ban would permit the editor to contribute while at the same time prevent further disruption. -- Atama頭 18:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- He has claimed multiple times to be Leopold's lawyer (four examples: [79], [80], [81], [82], and admits he did here), and nearly everyone ever involved believes he is Leopold himself. Besides his unintentional admission of identity with the IP editors, I believe I've thoroughly established continuity of identity in the RfC. Yworo (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have written a lengthy statement here on the edits and contributions I have made to this article over the past two weeks and I'd like to know why that is not being discussed. These edits and contributions have expanded the article. I have not done anything that violates policies or guidelines here. I was asked to sign up for an account, which I did and since then I have been very vocal about suggestions to help improve and expand this article. My edit history, since I signed up for the account, shows the value in my contributions and I again ask that they be looked at as well as the commentary I have made during the course of editing and on the discussion pages. This article needs to be improved. Twice the neutrality of it has been challenged and tagged as such. It asks to be expanded. The bottom line, once again is that attempts to improve or expand this article is unsupported. I do not have any relationship to the subject of the article whatsoever. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- How many times do I need to say that I am not Leopold?? Stop suggesting that I am. The snarky comments that you continue to make are disturbing and underscores further bias. As I said above, I should not shoulder all of the blame. If there is a conflict of interest I believe Yworo now has one too because this is clearly becoming personal for him/her. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
RFCs need closing
There are two RFCs that need a decision making on. Both have had the RFC tag removed by a bot, but discussion is still going on at one of them. See talk:Spitsbergen and talk:Order of battle for Convoy PQ 18. Would an uninvolved editor please look over both discussions and properly close the RFCs please? Mjroots2 (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor should be closed as well. Toddst1 (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm addressing Teeninvestor's one - just discussing with participants so that they understand where to go next. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
CU and rangeblock needed
There's a sockfarm that's creating numerous accounts and replacing random pages with full-screen color/blanking. So far I've blocked Anon12347 (talk · contribs), AnonWeStand (talk · contribs), Ballistic717 (talk · contribs) and one IP, 84.139.196.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I think we need a CU and a rangeblock to shut this down. Toddst1 (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Heh. I knew this was coming up! I discovered this too, and made an Edit filter request here. I think a rangeblock would be too large, as there are IPs from the 64.?.?.? range to the 173.?.?.? range according to this history. Minimac (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Blackout vandal hitting templates. Can't find source of problem
ResolvedSee WP:FALSEPOS. Some template is likely the source of the problem. --Jayron32 06:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- In addition I accidentally blocked all editing by users with under 500 edits for 2 minutes while configuring an edit filter to try to resolve that problem. 121 edits were affected, by both logged in and anon users. Prodego talk 06:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Was that filter 139? Because AIV just got bombed by that one. --Jayron32 06:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and it works now. Sorry, especially to those who's edits were blocked. Prodego talk 06:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
This was a very frightening page to visit. Thank you, Prodego. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Bulk changes to sports articles without explanation
I recently ran across User:NBAfan321 who has been updating sports articles (baseball and basketball from what I've seen). Some of these edits involve updating ERA and batting averages, and others just involve updating the date. I asked the editor what the edits were about and I was met with this response. While I don't have any reason to think these edits are incorrect, the lack of explanation after I brought it up, and then again a second time, is bothersome. Another editor, User:Stricken83 brought up similar concerns about an hour later (that editor seems to be commenting on the actual content), and yet NBAfan321 continued on with the edits. None of these edits have an edit summary and all told there've been over 300 of these in the last 7 hours.
I don't know what a solution is right now but I do know this editor doesn't appear to take my, and others' concerns seriously, and I'd appreciate some more eyes on this issue. Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Let me explain myself; I had no intention to cause any conflict at all. I am just trying to update these articles. Some of the infobox stats are more than a month old, and I'm just trying to improve the articles in question. The stats are all correct (they come via ESPN.com), so I don't really see how there's much of a problem. NBAfan321 (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- If its what you want, fine, I'll start adding edit summaries. NBAfan321 (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is another example of the problems that can be caused when editors don't leave edit summaries. Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would like to explain my angle on the issue.I have updated stats up to a certain date, and at least in the entries I was talking about - NBAfan321 has only changed the date (by one day!).Maybe I'm the one that's not seeing things correctly, but I just don't see the point of updating the date by one day without any changes to the stats themselves, especially if the player in question didn't even play on that date.One more thing that bothers me, I'm not sure that this is the proper place to ask the question but I'll give it a shot anyway - in a sports article, when stats are supposed to be updated up to a certain date - should they include the same date? For example - the stats for a certain baseball player are mentioned to be updated until today, does it mean that they should include today's games, and if they don't - I should write the update date as yesterday's? Please advise me, because I'm not sure where to ask, and this is a major key for me in the dispute between me and NBAfan321 Stricken83 (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Probably best to update it to the actual day, rather than the day played, but it's not really something we discuss here on ANI. Best to contact a relevant Wikiproject and form some policy, if there isn't some already. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, I'm new to all this stuff so I didn't really know where to ask... Stricken83 (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's not actually a project issue. The infobox clearly states that the stats are "through" a date, which specifically means that the stats include the games of that day. On that one particular point, you are correct. However, I have to agree that folks were getting quite bitey on this. For future reference, feel free to come over to the baseball project talk page and bring things up. -Dewelar (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, I'm new to all this stuff so I didn't really know where to ask... Stricken83 (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Probably best to update it to the actual day, rather than the day played, but it's not really something we discuss here on ANI. Best to contact a relevant Wikiproject and form some policy, if there isn't some already. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
This is definitely a way to drive away a new editor. Thankfully you failed. Seven hours of updating stats and this is the thanks. This is a waste of ANI's time over a non-issue. Vodello (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Don't exaggerate, Vodello, and this is not a non-issue. Facts need to be cited, edits need to be explained, and this editor was asked quite nicely (a few times) and answered quite dismissively. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
walled garden of articles controlled by subject
The subject or someone claiming to be the subject Mic Neumann seems to have a walled garden of articles - Kung Faux, Mic Neumann, Tommy Boy Entertainment that he will not allow any clean-up or citation work to occur, he simply reverts to his preferred (and favourable version). Looking at this history, this has been going on for months if not years - I became aware of the problem as he has been trying to insert (unsourced) claims about his influence on the work of Quentin Tarantino, Edgar Wright and films such as Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Communication with him is fragmented as he leaps from IP to IP, and I am at a bit of a blank how to proceed. It's pointless at the moment trying to clean-up the articles or fact-tag them as it's simply removed.
The IPs that I've come across (and I'm sure there are more) are:
68.36.175.168 68.36.173.50 68.81.1.107
Suggestions? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, one could always semi-protect all of the pages in question, make the valid and sourced edits :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Probably a good idea. I'm unhappy with an IP claiming to be someone and then claiming because they are that person they know more than anyone else about the articles. Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- If he is claiming to be a living person of note, then request he self identify to the project or that he gets a name change. If he self identifies then he should stick to the talk pages of articles he has a citable conflict of interest with. When people are claiming to be someone we need to deal with it and not allow it to just continue on. He either identifies to the project or stops claiming to be that person. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- He doesn't have an account so there is nothing to name change, he simply hops from IP to IP. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Right thanks I missed that. I also saw the AFD and that article looks on its way to article heaven. It does seem to be hard to deal with these situations. The few similar I have been involved with seem to drag on for months. Semi protection of all the articles is a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- He's just arrived for the 'evening shift' (or I guess the day shift for the other side of the water), so I guess we are in for more fun and games this evening. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- After he had removed the AfD tags a couple of times, I lost patience and semi-protected Mic Neumann for a week. Favonian (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Now editing as Squeezedot (talk · contribs) after being blocked as 68.36.175.168 (talk · contribs) - can someone take care of it or do I need to do a SPI? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Squeezedot blocked indef. WP:DUCK. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Whoa, wait -- we're blocking a named account indefinitely for evading an IP block????? Not a good idea.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- *Thinks* OK, that wasn't my smartest move. Will reduce to one week. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's fairly clear that these are all one single person, not least because xe has said so: See "I am Mic Neumann for Christ Sake ! - I created Kung Faux & Dubtitled & Popdetail & Co-founded Nylon Magazine & Tommy Boy Entertainment ! - I am the source !" and "who is going to know what the meaning of the Skull & Chopsticks logo means without me stating it, since only I know what it stands for ?". All of these accounts, with related names, writing the same content across multiple articles (we've just gained Dubtitled Entertainment created by Squeezedot, in place of Dubtitled created by Squeezdot), that is information only one person in the world is supposed to even know? I'd say that it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw. Uncle G (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Squeezedot blocked indef. WP:DUCK. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Now"? Now is relative. Notice that the original creator of some of these articles was Squeezdot (talk · contribs), note the spelling. I have no doubt that there's only one real person here, not least because 68.81.1.107 (talk · contribs) took over editing roughly 4 minutes after 68.36.175.168 (talk · contribs) left off, in addition to what I mentioned above. I've revoked the other IP address' editing privileges until after the end of the AFD discussions, given what it was doing. Uncle G (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Now editing as Squeezedot (talk · contribs) after being blocked as 68.36.175.168 (talk · contribs) - can someone take care of it or do I need to do a SPI? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- After he had removed the AfD tags a couple of times, I lost patience and semi-protected Mic Neumann for a week. Favonian (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- He's just arrived for the 'evening shift' (or I guess the day shift for the other side of the water), so I guess we are in for more fun and games this evening. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Right thanks I missed that. I also saw the AFD and that article looks on its way to article heaven. It does seem to be hard to deal with these situations. The few similar I have been involved with seem to drag on for months. Semi protection of all the articles is a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- He doesn't have an account so there is nothing to name change, he simply hops from IP to IP. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I think we ought to look at restricting this guy to a single account. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Reasonable requirement. Got any canned wording handy we can opine on?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Roux Unblock Request
As can be seen here, Roux is requesting unblock. His contributions are typically positive, but then become punctuated by negative reactions, hence the block. I felt that discussion here would be most fruitful. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- As an uninvolved admin, I vaguely support an unblock - any problems can be managed with cooling off periods. Roux just has a temper - it's not something insurmountable, and he is a good contributor. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good news. Welcome him back ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Long overdue. This was basically a burnout issue, and said burnout was at least partly caused by an editor who won't be coming back. The increased scrutiny that comes with this kind of unblock should be sufficient to prevent any disruption should there be any future problems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- For the rest of us, could someone link the reasons for the indef in the first place (or was it just that he swore a lot...)? I've looked through some talk pages but I don't see the discussion... maybe I'm too lazy. Shadowjams (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Look at his most recent contributions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs) 10:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well yeah, I saw that. That's why I said he swore a lot. Clearly he was blocked before that though. So what's the deal? I hope we're not blocking just for language these days (6 months ago). Shadowjams (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, we do block for constant violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. In this case, I believe the straw that broke the camel's back was calling User:A Nobody a "rabid inclusionist".--Atlan (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well yeah, I saw that. That's why I said he swore a lot. Clearly he was blocked before that though. So what's the deal? I hope we're not blocking just for language these days (6 months ago). Shadowjams (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Look at his most recent contributions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs) 10:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- For the rest of us, could someone link the reasons for the indef in the first place (or was it just that he swore a lot...)? I've looked through some talk pages but I don't see the discussion... maybe I'm too lazy. Shadowjams (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be glad to support this, if Roux accepts a six-months' civility parole. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 11:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Could somebody please provide a link to the discussion, if any, leading to the block? Sandstein 11:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I oppose an unblock. I am for second chances, but according to the block log this editor's second chance is long, long past. The unblock request is also inadequate, not addressing the reasons for the block and generally casting himself as the victim ("when I am being abused, as I have been many times by other users"). Sandstein 12:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Discussion containing Roux's edit summary, Block discussion. Uncle G (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- This from 1 March from the blocking administrator is worth noting... Doc9871 (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose – Roux has not shown any signs of promising to be more civil, which makes an unblock inappropriate. /HeyMid (contributions) 12:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Heymid: the user's unblock request seems to focus more on how wikipedia has problems than how (s)he has caused them, and hasn't indicated that they will cease the behaviour that led to the block. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support- seems that the editor who got under Roux's skin the most is permanently gone, and that Roux is promising to take his grievances through the proper channels rather than getting mad and lashing out. So he's addressed that part at least. I'm not quite happy with Roux wringing his hands and crying victim but I don't think that is the point. The point of keeping people blocked is not that they fall to their knees, grovel and meekly conform, but to prevent disruption. In my opinion Roux can feel as hard done by as he likes; he's said he'll stop acting up and I am prepared to believe him for now. Reyk YO! 13:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would disagree with Bwilkins summation of Roux's contributions to date as "typically positive" – I have found his attitude to be abrasive, mistrustful and generally unpleasant. The unblock request indicates that nothing has changed in that respect. So I oppose an unblock under current circumstances, and suggest that if the editor is eventually unblocked, it is with restrictions on negative interaction with other editors. Skomorokh 13:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support — Roux is a decent person and certainly will not go off, as before. It's been six months. Let him return. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support, provided that... he's watched closely, as he has been too quick to pull the trigger in the past. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose...for now We've handed out too many "second chances" to this guy. What makes this one any different? I'd like some more re-assurance that he'll stop what got him into this hole in the first place before I'm willing to see him unblocked.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 14:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Generally supportive of an unblock. Burnout or no, the original block was warranted and six months on it is possible we can accept him back. Protonk (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support Roux was a productive editor before he burned out. Six months with no socking or other disruption makes me hopeful he can return to editing productively once again. Of course he'll be closely monitored, as all editors unblocked after lengthy amounts of time are. AniMate 16:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support - I like Roux, he was very helpful and it was a shame when he blew up. If he can keep his cool it would be great for Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 17:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Roux has served his time and has explained how he intends to deal with any future episodes of the sort that got him into this mess. It is unseemly to demand that he falls to his knees shouting mea culpa. There are too many here who see incivility in the behaviour of others, but are blind to it in themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral I haven't read his unblock request. I only hope he's given up his siege mentality & excepts some of the blame for his getting blocked. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- He did... sort of. His request wasn't very repentant, in fact it was somewhat defiant, but he did predict that his request to be unblocked would be controversial (whether that's from a feeling of persecution or an acceptance of personal wrongdoing, I don't know) and he did state that he'd behave differently if he felt like he was being harassed ("abused" in his words). -- Atama頭 17:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- If he's unblocked, I hope he'll have better self-control. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- He did... sort of. His request wasn't very repentant, in fact it was somewhat defiant, but he did predict that his request to be unblocked would be controversial (whether that's from a feeling of persecution or an acceptance of personal wrongdoing, I don't know) and he did state that he'd behave differently if he felt like he was being harassed ("abused" in his words). -- Atama頭 17:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support: unblock request is fair, and I wasn't supportive of blocking him for the "rabid inclusionist" comment either. Sceptre (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Conditional Support If he promises to behave and cut the Civ and PA out. I see no reason not too, He's a good editor hopefully six months have taught him something. Worse case we block him again later Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support too. A decent and intelligent editor that needed a time-out; seems well worth a try. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support Decent person, decent unblock request, and it's been six months. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 17:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support Burnout was at the heart of the dispute between Roux and a now-community banned editor. I would encourage him to throttle back the temper, though. Horologium (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support: You should be unblocked. However, in the future, don't let your temper get the best of you. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support Shadowjams (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support. I don't expect any grovelling or abasement (though it'd be nice ;-) but I do expect a commitment from Roux that future problems will be handled differently: Roux's undertaking to raise problems with a third-party is sufficient for me. TFOWR 17:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Conditional support - Only if he agrees to a 6 month mentorship. If he stays out of battles and refrains from losing his temper in that 6 months, then the mentorship ends and he is free to resume as normal. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if that will be necessary or at all helpful. Roux is very far from an inexperienced editor, he doesn't need a mentor to help him with Wikipedia. Roux has had problems dealing with conflicts with other editors, and he has pledged to take those problems to someone else for help, so that has the same effect as having a mentor (you're getting help from someone else to keep you out of trouble). -- Atama頭 18:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support Blocked for "a rabid inclusionist"? Talk about potty mouth. Mr. Bowlder, you are wanted on line number two.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Support – I'm willing to give Roux another chance in the understanding that he will handle future conflicts better. Airplaneman ✈ 18:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Tube Bar Red and their Tube Bar prank calls
A bit of back-and-forth over the opening sentence of Tube Bar prank calls, for which I posted a notice at Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Tube_Bar_prank_calls, led to some name calling in an edit summary, on my talk page, and on their own talk page--Tube Bar Red really means it, apparently. I had to look up "twit" and realize that I've been called worse. Anyway, that's not really what this is about.
I did a little bit of work verifying stuff in the article, and ended up removing a large bit of the supposed "names" because they were unverified, and I changed the spelling of one of them, based on a reference I added, here. The article's history shows TBR's response--it isn't polite, helpful, or in accordance with our guidelines re: verifiability and sourcing.
But beyond a knee-jerk reaction and some bad editing decisions, TBR's problem is ownership: their edit history and the history of the article makes it clear that they think they own Red, his bar, and the prank calls. I have no proof, though I have a suspicion, of a connection with www.bumbarbastards.com, which sells the stuff; another editor did suggest, at the Content Noticeboard, that a COI existed and that TBR might be reported as having a promotional user name. And within that context, I find it odd that a brand-new account, User:Tyros1972, would come along and make one single edit--to our article. Maybe that's a coincidence, and this is probably way too early for a CU.
I would like someone to look at the article and its history with an open mind. I personally think that TBR has ownership and civility problems, and I think that the article is not very good, but TBR's attitude gets in the way of improvement, in my opinion. (I also think that the template (at the bottom of the article) and all the individual articles on the tapes and CDs need to go for lack of independent notability, but TBR's hostility has deterred me so far. At some point I want to bring those to AfD.) Thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Given the similar names of the user and the article the user is editing, this is probably a conflict of interest issue. The personal attacks are obvious, but I can't help but notice that despite all the edit warring going on here that no one has bothered discussing it in the talk page of that article. Also the word "legendary" in the opening sentence is a peacock term and should not be used. Truthsort (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Legendary" was my peace offer, so to speak. As for bothering to discuss it on the talk page of the article, we did discuss it on our own talk pages, so this isn't some grand edit war fought between parties who are incommunicado; I have tried to discuss these matters and will gladly move that discussion to the talk page, but thought that a message on the user's talk page, especially if that user is so involved with the article, was a good way to go. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Prodigious copyright violator
ResolvedI would like to call attention to the images uploaded by Conk 9 (talk · contribs). Please see that user's talk page history for a review of this user's repeated violation of copyright law and policy, dating back to 2007. I have spent several hours cleaning up this user's copyright mess (see User:GrapedApe/Notes2), only to find out that User:Notyourbroom had already tried to do so. I am at my wits end. Please, someone help, either by blocking the user or by placing him on image upload sanctions. (I encountered this user's contributions when I was looking for images for Pittsburgh State Office Building.) --GrapedApe (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I believe this user has been warned enough. I have enacted a one-month block. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
POINTY AFD !votes from Carrite
ResolvedIt seems to me that Carrite (talk · contribs) is being a WP:DICK. Take a look at their recent contributions to Articles for Deletion:
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kung_Faux — "Nice presentation and powerful external links. It's fanboy but it's well done and should be of interest to WP users. Worthwhile content, Use Common Sense."
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mary Tyler Moore Show opening sequence — "Very well done article about a well established part of American popular culture."
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marilyn_Kittelman — "In short: Wikipedia has a real world function for many users, providing a neutral venue for the presentation of political candidate biographies. This is a valuable service, not to mention the fact that such biographies are apt to be linked off other pages dealing with specific elections. Why settle for redlinks? Why not document the candidates in real time?"
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenge Records (1920s) — "Tag for no refs and let it go. This is just a stub, like tens of thousands of others. Hopefully it will be developed over time."
In short, Carrite is arguing repatedly WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSUSEFUL and not commenting on the notability aspects or availability/lack of references. When called out on this on his talk page by both me and Ironholds, Carrite respondd to both of us, "Please keep AfD debates on the appropriate page, thank you." I don't know if this belongs here, at WQA or what, but it's clear that Carrite is starting to get a little disruptive. Judging from the comments on this user's userpage (including a line about "scrap[ping] the notability rule"), it's clear that Carrite has an axe to grind and refuses to go with WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mr. Hammer is a deletionist, I am an inclusionist, and this is not an "incident." His ongoing series of "Non-Administrative [Premature] Closures" on AfD seems to indicate a strong desire to become an administrator and I suppose his making mountains out of molehills here is part of that program. Ho hum, I've got content to create... Carrite (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is too an issue. It's you blatantly ignoring WP:N and making borderline disruptive !votes in AFDs not unlike Kmweber. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mr. Hammer is a deletionist, I am an inclusionist, and this is not an "incident." His ongoing series of "Non-Administrative [Premature] Closures" on AfD seems to indicate a strong desire to become an administrator and I suppose his making mountains out of molehills here is part of that program. Ho hum, I've got content to create... Carrite (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
"Powerful external links" - that's a new one on me. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like his attitude on his talk page is dismissive, and not willing to work with others. Heck, one of his comments is for an article that HAS no AfD in place! Please explain that one. Whose Your Guy (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fine with working with others, I do it all the time. If you all really want a dismissive attitude towards the views of others to investigate, how about taking a gander at disruptive premature Non-Administrative Closures at AfD like This One or That One. Carrite (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Both of them were asking for merge, which has nothing at all to do with AFD. The closures were fine, and the nominator even agreed with my closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fine with working with others, I do it all the time. If you all really want a dismissive attitude towards the views of others to investigate, how about taking a gander at disruptive premature Non-Administrative Closures at AfD like This One or That One. Carrite (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any specific behavioral issues outside of the tone of some of Carrite's comments. I think the user should probably knock off the disrespectful attitude toward other contributors, but I don't know if this should require action at this time. Nothing has been a blatant direct insult or threat to any specific user or group from my perspective. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- His very dismissive, anti-social, snappy attitude isn't helping. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)