Just one small point. Phoenixbird says "EENG recruited other editors and deleted our work". I see no evidence that EENG did any recruiting. Phoenixbird (''not EENG'') called for intervention by a "third party administrator", and I, as an uninvolved administrator, responded to that call. On the face of it this looks rather like "I want a third party to mediate, but only if that third party supports my line". [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 12:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Just one small point. Phoenixbird says "EENG recruited other editors and deleted our work". I see no evidence that EENG did any recruiting. Phoenixbird (''not EENG'') called for intervention by a "third party administrator", and I, as an uninvolved administrator, responded to that call. On the face of it this looks rather like "I want a third party to mediate, but only if that third party supports my line". [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 12:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Good comments all of you, except for "Steven Anderson." For Steven: I'm a 70 year old professor in the MIT system, with a JD in IP and a PhD in molecular biology and supercomputing. If someone above used the word "we", (and, do you know what an editorial "we" is?, assume you do), and Anderson is now making accusations of Socking, will the person above please let Anderson know that you're just being supportive and balanced, not using some other account. We have one small account here, and are rapidly losing interest in that. PR is laughable, juried publications are where you cut your teeth in our field. I'm tenured, so what exactly does PR get you again? Young man's game, sir, no interest. In our opinion Watson acted much too quickly here, but then I guess he's got an agenda too-- we're happy and have no axe to grind regardless of the decision, just wish an experienced admin would have allowed more time, since the subject of the article was willing (and has) put free use language on his site, which negates all the copyright hullabaloo. You know, he was going article by article with us to be sure the ones on Wiki were juried! COI? We have no knowledge of this gentleman at all (Dr. Fuster) other than his wonderful credentials and contributions to the Neuro field. He wrote the leading text on the prefrontal cortex in the world, and if you check PFC on Wiki you'll see him referred to, and if you Google him, notability will be no issue. Other editors have contacted us who also are expert in Neuro, and our only motive is the hope that Wiki will keep up with special fields like this, given the many spinoffs like Wiki Neuro that are juried and represent a brain drain from the "real" Wiki. We'll stick to adding technical corrections to articles.
For the "insult" that "you've ONLY worked on 7 articles," hey-- that makes us a newbie, is there a little neuro circuit running in the PFC of that individual wanting us to tell him he's great because he's a veteran? Well, no biggie, our hats are off to you-- go ahead and allow yourself a little GABA and dopamine in that circuit. But, you don't have to blow the candle of another out to make your own seem to shine brighter, yes? And with a little more maturity you'll want to help newbies, not zonk em for beginner level contributions. I've got dozens of young stallions working for me here that are avid Wiki types, contributors and fans... they have the adrenalin for this ride, I'm just trying to add a few notable folks who seem to be missing for no particularly good reason! [[User:Phoenixthebird|Phoenixthebird]] ([[User talk:Phoenixthebird|talk]]) 18:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
== Constant personal attacks, misuse of warning templates, and general incivility by [[User:Bender176|Bender176]] ==
== Constant personal attacks, misuse of warning templates, and general incivility by [[User:Bender176|Bender176]] ==
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
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)
I thought the decision to delete unreferenced BLPs was disapproved and that it was agreed it is best for editors to gradually work through them sourcing them. Why then are editors like Jezhotwells systematically adding deletion prods to old articles on our backlog for sorting anyway with often decent articles like Joan Puigcercós i Boixassa, just because they need a source. He doesn't give the orders and dictate to people what they should be doing. Wikipedia runs by volunteers doing work which is their own choice to do. Given that people are gradually working through articles and we are keeping up with our on going targers, I've done more than my share of referencing BLP's over the last few months what is the point in this course of action? Its almost as if he is threatening people just to get a job done. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How much is this being done by Jezhotwells and others? Repeatedly adding a prod when you know the deletion is likely to be controversial is disruptive, and sticky prod only applies to new (post-March) BLPs, not the backlog. He should be trying to source this kind of article not just forcing others to do the work. Fences&Windows16:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He has added tons of prods to OLD articles and had them removed by another adminstrator already. Now he is not getting his own way he has persisted to take all of those with removed prods to AFD even if notability is asserted like Ólafur Haukur Símonarson and Marta Ribera to prove his point, whether or not they clearly meet our content requirements on not. From what I;ve seen most that he has prodded and AFD'd to date are clearly notable and are potentially good articles but need sources. Given that the issue is gradually being addressed I find his behaviour erratic and potentially damaging in that he is clearly happy to see notable articles deleted because he cannot be nothered to spend a minute or two saving them.Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)[reply]
I have not repeatedly added Prods, I have added prods to articles that have remained with unsourced tags for some time, in some cases over two years. As a result of my actions many editors have been prodded into providing sources for articles they created up to four years ago. I have provided sources for many articles that I have found, I have removed unref tags from artciles that have been sourced, however badly. Article authors have already been warned by Dashbot of unsourced BLPs that they have created, but many have chosen to do nothing about this. I will now stop going through the unsourced Spain artciles and leave their authors to provide sourcing. One assumes that responsible editors would watchlist articles that they create and not lazily rely on others to provide sources. Thanks to User:Fences and windows for notifying me of this thread. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have my support to rerun Dashbot and renotify editors about their outstanding articles. But forcing people to do work is going to create a lot of resentment. Remember that a lot of the BLPs were actually created before a lot of people were even aware of the BLP thing and before the unreferenced BLP issue blew up into something large scale. A lot of people thought they were helping wikipedia with their article creations and merely just need reminding of the issue. I'll attend to more on my list over the coming days. A reminder to people would be more suitable.Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean "repeatedly" on the same article, I meant "habitually". The flip side of prodding without due care is deprodding without due care. "Saving" an unsourced article by adding a single reference (usually a bare link) to cite one fact is gamesmanship rather than article improvement. But too many prods and BLP prods overwhelm people and lead them into this unproductive response. I agree with Dr Blofeld that a re-run of Dashbot would be welcome, making it clear that unsourced articles on living people are increasingly unpopular and do need sourcing asap. Fences&Windows20:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Putting in my oar because one of my older interwiki translations (Elisa Montés) was prodded in the same way. It took some digging, but I found what appear to me to be viable sources (including a dictionary of Spanish actors on Google Books). I was able to do this in about fifteen minutes this morning; it wasn't that difficult to find something using a Spanish-language search. And I don't speak Spanish, even... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.20:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Blofeld: Frankly, this isn't much different than creating one-line stubs about random villages and expecting people to add to them to make them actually useful, except that these BLPs have a far greater chance of causing harm. While he should exercise caution, your definition of "controversial" or "obvious" notability may not jive with others. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)21:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I second what Dr. Blofeld says. User:Jezhotwells' actions are disruptive - as much to his/her own editing as to anyone else's. S/He seems to be adding a large number of prod notices to easily-sourced older BLPs when it would take him/her far less time to simply add the references him/herself, as I have pointed out to him/her. While s/he is within his/her rights to add prod notices to such articles, in doing so s/he is engaging in editing which is far more destructive than constructive when less work could be done to actually add the reference. It could easily be construed as disruptive editing, as under those circumstances (in which the editor is deliberately making more work for him/herself) it is in effect a form of WP:POINT. At the verfy least, User:Jezhotwells needs to become acquainted with the points listed at Wikipedia:BEFORE - especially point 9, of which s/he seems to be unaware. Grutness...wha?23:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(←) Let's be clear that unsourced content has no place on Wikipedia. I support a proportionate attempt to clear out content some of which has remained unreferenced for five year. It is not up to Jezza to find sources for everything he comes across -- that was the responsibility of the original contributors. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear about something else: PROD is only for uncontroversial deletion. Using it to force mass cleanup and sourcing is an abuse of PROD, and is disruptive behaviour. And however much I agree with your cry against unsourced material, actually only unverifiable material (as opposed to unverified material) has no place on Wikipedia according to policy. Fences&Windows19:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can quote from it too: "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed" and "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." You can't just suddenly interpret WP:V as banning unsourced content. A scorched earth approach to cleanse the encyclopedia of unsourced material might be satisfying, but it doesn't do anything to actually help improve Wikipedia. And are you going to concede that PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions? Fences&Windows23:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I ever denied that "PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions". Unfortunately it seems that proposing a non-notable article, unreferenced since it was written five years ago, and tagged for two years, can still be made into a controversy by some people who never previously troubled themselves to improve the article. So who gets to say it's uncontroversial? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if an article hasn't been deleted in the five years it's been around, it's safe to assume its deletion is going to be controversial, so it should be taken to AfD. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]17:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though this thread appears to be resolved, I'd like to point out that Kenilworth Terrace is making an erroneous assumption here. One cannot assume that just because an article has sat untouched in an unsatisfactory state for a long time that it is fodder for AfD. There are over 3.3 million articles on Wikipedia, & in an increasing number of cases the editor who can improve an article from a one-sentence stub to a useful article simply doesn't know the article exists. Just a few days ago I stumbled across an article that had sat as a one-sentence stub for over six years. I spent the time to remove an obvious copyright violation (which had sat unnoticed for about 6 months), then properly expand the article so that it contains some useful content. And I have been actively looking for unnoticed Ethiopia-related articles for years in order to do the work that Kenilworth Terrace expects other editors to do. If I can miss these kinds of articles, so can other editors. -- llywrch (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:PRESERVE is policy too: "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot.. . Instead of deleting text, consider ... doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself." Fences&Windows23:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be a secret to anybody commenting here that Blofeld has an extreme inclusionsist tendency, and his views about AfD and deletion in general need to be understood in context of that. This is a good example of it. Whether or not procedure's being followed is critical. I don't see a lot of diffs actually bringing up that point, just a whole lot of posturing above. Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do I??? Actually I don't. I would quite happily delete thousands of our articles about non notable American academics and businesspeople, low league footballers, lists of fictional characters, TV episodes, Pokemon,YouTube personalities and bloggers. I regularly nominate articles for deletion. Yes I want wikipedia to be as comprehensive as possible but if you think I am an extreme inclusionist you're full of BS and obviously know little about me. I'd love to have a cleanout of wikipedia as much as anybody but blindly deleting every article which may need a source or two without assessing it is a clumsy idea. Whatever you may think about stubs I've created in the past you'll see that I am very much a traditional encyclopedist in terms of content and am strongly against including a lot of topics we currently have articles for. Once again this has nothing to do with inclusionism or my views. Tagging thousands of articles (majority may even be valid) which may only require a few minutes work for deletion is silly. End of. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend and I was too blunt with my opinion. I am merely trying to respond to your first sentence, "I thought the decision to delete unreferenced BLPs was disapproved and that it was agreed it is best for editors to gradually work through them sourcing them." which I thought was conclusively dealt with by a stick prod (I realize these articles are also older than that arbitrary cutoff, but the unreferenced part is still relevant). Honestly, it looks like User:Jezhotwells has backed off somewhat, but there is still substantial pressure to reduce this sort of issue and I think that taking productive editors to ANI over it is a distraction.
I also have concerns that the BLP issues occasionally are swept up in a rush to add reference tags without concern for actual notability. For example, I've seen BLPPROD tags removed when the "reference" is a link to the person's personal website, or other primary sources. The wide community consensus was that we've got a lot of unreferenced material that violates policy, and in the case of BLPs, particularly potent cases of why we have WP:V, we need an additional procedure to deal with them. I don't think BLP-Prod foreclosed any of our other, more cumbersome methods (and I haven't seen BLP-PROD as effective as I hoped) for dealing with this issue, not just on BLPs but on all articles. Shadowjams (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, apology accepted. Thankyou. I've actually endorsed many of Jezhotwell's recent AFD's which I think are perfectly valid. Jezhotwells is now dealing with the situation sensibly and maturely and is now taking the time to assess articles and either reference them or send them to AFD validly. This new course of behaviour is to be admired rather than rejected as we need as many editors as possible to assess articles properly and delete or improve inthis mass cleanup task. My point was that slapping tags on any article at random which needed a source however decent and firing off hundreds of warnings to editors was not the best way to deal with the situation and was initially highly concerning. As long as Jezhotwells continues to genuinely assess articles and take the necessray course of action I think an admin can now close this. Thankyou, all even Der Fucher.Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a request for an admin to take a look at a possible violation of Wikipedia:Harassment. User:Hkwon has been shadowing my edits, filing punitive 3rr reports and then threatening me.
I had originally been involved in an edit dispute with Hkwon at the kimchi article: [1].
However, rather than keeping our dispute confined to editing of the kimchi article, Hkwon has been subsequently following my edits and harassing me in
articles that he has never participated in before:
Hkwon shadowed my edits to the Korean Teachers & Education Workers' Union and left this bogus warning in the talk page of the article[2] as well as in my talk page[3]. He then filed a punitive 3rr report that was rejected[4].
Hkwon shadowed my edits to Byron Moreno and left me a bogus warning on my talk page[5] and also in the talk page of the article[6] He also filed a punitive 3rr that was rejected[7].
Hkwon has also shadowed my edits to nureongi where I was involved in a different edit dispute and joined in editing against me.[8]. I was going to overlook this and give him the benefit of the doubt when he removed all doubt by making it clear that he has and will be shadowing my edits.
He admitted to shadowing my edits and then threatened me with further harassment in my future contributions. "It's on. Your contribution list has been officially added to my watchlist. Try not to make any mistakes when editing articles."[9]
This is crossing the line from normal edit disputes and he has admitted and threatened future stalking of my edits. This is appears to be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Harassment: "pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." Please take appropriate action as you see fit. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Melonbarmonster has not been a paragon of virtue either, if it's true what Hkwon (talk·contribs) is complaining about here:
1) Why don't you start by swearing at me in Korean this time like you did before? I guess you don't have the guts. Do you think you can fool other editors who can't read Korean? "또라이" is translated as a deranged, lunatic, and/or demented person, a word cannot be used in official Korean documents by government or mass media. And do you think if "또라이" means "nuts", it is a less vulgar word that does not violate Wikipedia:Etiquette? Don't try to make excuses but try to think twice before you swear at other editors.
I'm not justifying Hkwon's actions, I want to make it very clear; and, my personal suggestion to both users, is to try and avoid the other (in Hkwon's case, it's actually not to follow up on his threat of harassment). Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 14:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Salvio point taken but just to clarify Hkwon's complaint of that word is disingenuous. It is not a swear word at all.[10] and here are many uses of the word in Korean media: [11] (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping Hkwon would heed admin suggestions but he has not and continued his stalking to yet another article, Korean cuisine, and left me another threat of Wikipedia:Harassment see [12]. I cannot avoid someone who has added my contribution page to their watch list and has followed my edits to what is now 4 articles. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you describe is impossible, you can't add a special page to one's watchlist. Further, your insults are unacceptable. Another editor bothering does not give you the right to insult them as you have been.— DædαlusContribs20:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible or not, that is what he has claimed he has done in his threat to hound my edits which he has followed through on rather than heed admin warnings. I can admit having played my part in the mutually heated talk page discussions on the kimchi article and I also understand calling someone's revert warring "nuts" or "crazy" can possibly be insulting but that's hardly "swearing" and doesn't condone threats and stalking my edits.(talk) 03:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't avoid someone who is determined to follow you. BTW do you speak Korean? It would be good to have translations from an actual speaker to determine if Melonbarmonster2 really is swearing - machine translations miss so many nuances, don't you think.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
한심이 아니라 무식인가? Are you being ignorant and not stubborn?
장난하냐? Are you kidding?
ㅋㅋㅋ 야 지나가는 똥개가 웃겠다. A mutt walking by on street would laugh at that
야 나라 망신 그만 좀 해라. 넌 양심 도없냐? stop embarrassing your country and stop. don't you have a conscience
완전 또라이 아냐? ㅋㅋ Are you totally nuts? LOL.
저질 low quality
Mind you these are comments collected from a long heated exchange. As I've stated, I definitely admit to playing my part in this dispute but these are not "curses", the heated exchange was mutual nor do these comments condone WP:Stalk.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Machine translation of this appears to be a personal attack. User Melonbarmonster2, See wikipedia:personal attack.
I wanted to take this matter to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, but I didn't, because I wanted to solve matters by discussions.
And shouldn't I get a chance to defend myself if someone report me concerning such a serious matter? I found about this report just now, as there has been no warning message or anything on my talk page or anywhere I could see. Hkwon (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hkwon is not letting up on his disruptive stalking of my edits. [14] He is continuing his threatening tone in Korean cuisine talk page, "It is a waste of time arguing with User:Melonbarmonster2 until we get a real evidence...If the quotation from the book is true, User:Melonbarmonster2 will be in utter humiliation". Hkwon is also lying about not knowing about this report. He was notified when this report was filed. [15]Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Chrisrus is a user who had gotten into an edit dispute [16] with me at the nureongi. Hkwon stalked my edits to nureongi and joined with Chrisrus in the dispute. [17] Hkwon has threatened that this was what he was going to to. [18] He has ignored admin warnings. [19] And continued to hound my edits to new articles. Please take appropriate action. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, you still need to read WP:NPA your hands are hardly clean in this matter and you've been tossing around all kinds of personal attacks. Oh and in regards to the first "punitive" 3RR you did violate 3RR on the article. You didn't have 8, but you had 4 reverts. It was only rejected because it was stale, not because it was invalid. I would also note that your last diff above is wrong you quote it like he said it, but no where in the diff does he say anything about "it's on.."--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I posted the the wrong previous version that doesn't mean the threat wasn't made. Here's the correct version comparison [20] There was already an admin warning which has been ignored. That is not "fine". The so called personal attacks were mutual and I've already admitted my part in it. Hkwon has not. He has lied about my Korean comments as being "swearing" and is continuing to hound my edits. He has also lied about not being notified of this report. Even if my comments can be seen as personal attacks that does not condone WP:Stalk and threats. That includes monitoring my contribution page and filing punitive 3rr reports even if they are 'stale' violations.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see, that was made in response to about 4 or 5 personal attacks from you. You don't do a very good job of trying to play the innocent victim here. There is nothing punitive about a proper 3RR report. It might have been a couple days late, but you were edit warring or do you deny that you made 4 reverts in 24 hours? It is clear that he didn't understand how a revert works and I've explained it to him on his page.--Crossmr (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have to agree with Melonbarmonster on this issue. The fact that I agree with Melonbarmonster (an editor, who I have criticized, filed ANI reports against, and vice versa) should make the gravity of the complaints against Hkwon quite clear.
[[21]] To User:Sennen goroshi: S**ks a**...I don't know why you need to use that kind of expression in public. Is it your sexual orientation?
[[22]] To talk: Upset? You are not some kind of humorless blob, are you? Helping me to find content that I was unable to locate. Wow. Such an "大きなお世話". If it's not too much trouble, try not to stain my talk page any more please. Although your rambling amuses me every time, I don't want other people who look at this page to think I am associated with kinds of you in any way. Report me? Maybe you haven't completely lost your sense of humor yet.
[[23]] User:Sennen goroshi Wow. A friendly advice to me from a wannabe-admistrator who is supposed to be "no longer interested in this bulls**t" and enjoying his/her social life. Did you want so much to butt in my conversation with another editor? I don't understand your obsession with me. Do you love me or something? Well, if you are a woman who fits my standards...Oh, and I thought you were busy wiping your minion's butt in 3RR noticeboard. Or are you out of tissue?
The above are just recent messages, if I could be bothered, I could dig up numerous similar messages that imply homosexuality, parental abuse, etc - I could also dig up threats to stalk me, and references of a racist nature. I don't care if I clash with an editor regarding edits, different opinions are how consensus is formed - however this editor is very abusive and talking about my sexual orientation and suggesting that I am doing something with someone's butt in 3RR is way beyond anything I should have to accept on Wikipedia. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Continued attacks during RFC/U
Last month, I blocked Mk5384 (talk·contribs) for two weeks for continuing personal attacks. I was convinced to lift the block shortly after I imposed it, in favor of attempting to deal with the situation through a Request for Comment, which OberRanks (talk·contribs) filed. However, Mk5384's behavior throughout has been combative, and much of his response (on the RFC's talk page) has consisted of further personal attacks. I would like an uninvolved admin to review the RFC and see if Mk5384 shows any sign of understanding what the issues are with his conduct, and whether he needs to be blocked for the continuing attacks. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am uninvolved in the RfC, but have concurrently been involved with the user here and here, and I would say that Mk5384 does not appear to understand the conduct issues. No opinion on the attacks; I wouldn't block except in the most egregious instance due to my involvement, even though it isn't with the RfC. If it's so egregious, someone else will be able to take care of it without the controversial claim of admin abuse that would inevitably result. Frank | talk 21:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, first of all, someone told me on my talk page that my unblock was unlikely to last. I responded that I knew it wouldn't, "As people like you won't be happy until I am railroaded out of here". For that quote, Sarek blocked me for "vandalism". Now since picking up his admin tools again, Sarek has shown an uncanny infatuation with the block button. That block, however, was simply absurd. Furthermore, in the interest of full disclosure, Sarek should have noted that I said from the beginning that I had no interest in the RfC, that I wolud not participate in it, and if he wanted to reblock me in light of that, then he should go right ahead.Mk5384 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of MKs responses can be found on the RFC Talk Page. I've asked for a Motion to Close, so that this editor can perhaps walk away in one piece since, as Sarek has said, most if not all of MKs posts on that RFC thread have been vindictive personal attacks (I have lost count of how many times MK has called me a liar). An attack which I felt was extremely uncalled for was a snide remark about my participation on the Alex Haley article, mainly: "OberRanks, who, far as I can tell, wouldn't know Alex Haley from Haley Joel Osment" [24]. My response to that can be found here [25] where I point out that not only do I know members of Haley's family, but have actively participated in helping bestow honors on this famous author. MKs comment about that was completely uncalled for and, had it not been in the midst of a heated RfC, I would have asked for administrative action due to what I saw as a severe personal attack. Beside that, though, I think MK needs to accept this Motion-to-Close before its too late and avoid making any more inflammatory comments like this one [26]. -OberRanks (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the RfC should be closed: it is an abject failure, thanks to MK's inability or unwillingness to accept any part of the responsibility for his problem; according to him, it's all someone else's fault. It's OberRanks', or it's Sarek's or it's Malik's or whoever, but never his. This person clearly has no understanding of what "collegiality" means, and has difficulty maintaining civility. I thought once that he was redeemable through mentoring, but I no longer believe that - at this point, with his current frame of mind, he's a net drag on the project. Someone can indef him now, and get it over with, or we can wait until the next timne and the next time and the next time, but sooner or later he'll be indeffed -- and that may be the only thing that can save him at this point. Someone gets indeffed, they either walk away, they sock or they change. I don't have a clue which option MK would take, but I'm fairly sure that only the shock of an indef has the chance of getting him to look at his own behavior and changing it. He's got to want to come back and be willing to change to do it. In the meantime, he's just a ticking bomb. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ken is absolutely correct in what he says. I also think a very stern, unrevoked block, on the order of one to six months might be what is needed here. When it was suggested that this would escalate to Arbitration if MK did not change his ways, MK practically laughed in the face of that idea and stated he would like nothing better [27]. Given the fact that MK is clearly acting inappropriately and used the RfC for no other means than to spread personal attacks, bringing him to ArbCom at this point would most certainly led to a spectacle with more of what we have seen on the RfC. I think a lengthy block might be the "splash of cold water" that MK needs and I would encourage administrators to act on this. If things don't change, it is not a question of if MK will be indef blocked, only a question of when. -OberRanks (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, Mk, the next step isn't Arbcom -- it's somebody proposing a community ban here, and the odds are that nobody is going to look at that RFC and speak up in your defense. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either Mk5384 is wrong, or just about everyone else he's ever encountered is wrong. Mk either needs to change his behavior now, on pain of being blocked permanently, or he needs to find other pursuits. So, therefore, I propose a conditional community ban, to be lifted when Mk agrees to carefully review the RfC, and discontinue the behaviors found problematic, with the understanding that resumption of those behaviors will result in a reban without further discussion. ++Lar: t/c18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I agree with Lars and reaffirm what I stated above that a one to six month block probably would do some good here. At the end of that block, if MK returns willing to work with others, I would imagine there should be no further problems. -OberRanks (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. His behaviour has been very poor; however, I don't think he's even close to anything that would justify a community ban. I'd support a longish block (even up to three months — even conditional, if we think it would help), but certainly not a community ban... Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Community ban" is essentially a community-imposed block, so since you support a longish conditional block, I'm not sure why you're opposing here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because bans are a way of saying: you're no longer a member of this community and your edits are no longer welcome. It's maybe just silly formalism on my part, but I think he is not being disruptive enough to show him the door, but he is being disruptive enough to keep him on ice... Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mk5384 seems to have been doing some self-reflection [28], and as such I don't think a community ban is in order at this time. A bi-directional interaction ban with OberRanks (they clearly don't get on well together), and some kind of civility probation would allow Mk5384 to continue with his constructive contributions while addressing the NPA/CIV concerns. –xenotalk21:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Support. Shit, despite what others may think of my habit of dropping the banhammer on certain individuals, I don't like banning people. However, after reading the relevant RfC, I cannot come to any other conclusion than that Mk5384 has failed to behave in a collegial manner towards other editors. Look at MK's responses to Montanabw & Curtis Clark: they approached MK in a reconciliatory tone but MK failed to respond in anything close to in kind. If an editor can't, at some point, simply stop thinking of others with whom she/he has a disagreement & walk away from a disagreement, then she/he can't help but be a problem for every other editor. -- llywrch (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Oppose, conditionally - I certainly hope I don't come to regret this, but given MK's comment as linked by xeno, I oppose the community ban at this time, but agree with xeno's suggestion of a two-way interaction ban with OberRanks and, importantly, a civility probation. If that is not possible, for whatever reason (i.e. MK does not agree to it, or the consensus does not support it), then I would have to say that a conditional community ban as outlined by Lar is the next best choice, and this should then be counted as a support !vote. I have never doubted MK's potential value as a contributor, which is why I proposed mentoring on the RfC, it's been his behaviorial issues that have been problematic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I announced my intention to begrudgingly apologise to you. I don't know what would give you the idea that you are "about to come under attack".Mk5384 (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Per Lar and Montanabw mostly. Terrible behavior. Preferably an indefinite ban. Oh and you adding yourself as a vote to oppose doesn't help either. --Bender176Talk to me22:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I'm unsure of the rules here. If I'm not permitted to !vote, feel free to remove it. I'd like to state, that the message I left for Guy came before this discussion began, or if it didn't, I was, at the time, unaware of it. I announced my intentions to him because that is what I felt is right. Not because of anything happening here, or anywhere else.Mk5384 (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to state, as far as the conditions proposed, that a two way interaction ban is exactly what I have sought for some time. As far as civility probation, I have no issue with that.Mk5384 (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ANI needs to be more serious about civility issues. Since this is a chronic problem, a civility probation will just drag this thing out. LK (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support a block until Mk5384 presents clear evidence of a different viewpoint on his/her behavior. The post cited by Xeno does not reassure me; it suggests that Mk5384 is so far away from WP:AGF that the light from AGF takes a thousand years to reach him/her. I think in all cases like this, one has to look at the net value to the project, and I think currently Mk5384 is in the red. I'd be happy to see that change, but I don't hold out a lot of hope.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. I'm concerned that the whole process that led up to this was thoroughly unconstructive and has made matters considerably worse. What we need here first of all is for this person to be left alone for a few days and for the civility police to back off. Fut.Perf.☼07:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No ban, but this is a pretty quick escalation to trouble. How about a little fresh-start, clearly understood as demarcated by this issue, understanding that additional problem will be treated less sympathetically. An aside, I'm a little concerned that the concerns with this editor seem to be already understood by everyone commenting above; in other words, not enough diffs for people to actually prove their claims so others can evaluate them, and so outside editors have to dig through contrib summaries to understand what's going on. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It appears that Mk is finally taking on board the issues that were raised, as shown by his recent apologies, so no need to ban at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Call for a close of this request, as initiator. There is no consensus for a community ban at this time. Reading the comments above, both support and oppose, what I DO see consensus for is the notion that Mk needs to change his approach, or sooner or later there will be consensus for a ban. Happily, there is evidence that Mk is taking on board the issues raised and that maybe a change in approach is in the offing. So, with the note that this ought to be taken as a very serious warning to Mk (rather than a victory for him or a vindication of his previous unsatisfactory approach) I think we've done what we can here, unless someone wants to take up imposing a civility parole/probation (mentioned by a few commenters) and get consensus for that. ++Lar: t/c13:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there's no consensus for a community ban at this time, but unlike Lar, I see no evidence that Mk is taking on board the issues raised, particularly in the RfC/U. The "begrudging apology" (his words) to Montana and an apology to Lar where he tells Lar that "Your comments on my talk page were some of the most offencive I have heard in my time here" simply reinforce the original complaints. Having taken the time to read the RfC/U, there are five desired outcomes which any editor should be able to subscribe to. That Mk has not taken the opportunity to do so speaks volumes. --RexxS (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, though, he acknowledges that while he was offended, not everyone might, and that his offense was no excuse for his behavior. I think this is a Good Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note he's already agreed to a two-way interaction ban and civility restriction above. Can we get these implemented formally? N419BH14:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heho. The first edit was discussed at the milhist discussion. It was a very long and heated discussion. With many misunderstandings and so on. The problem was solved there with an apologize by me. Regarding the "kindergarden", in german this simply means that the discussion lost the point. Like i explained there already it isnt insulting or anything like that :-) . I also want to remind that i was called "twit" and stuff like this without even responding. So even though i was personally insulted by other editors i stayed "calm" and didnt respond. Admins like parceyboy, who watched the discussion there, saw no reason for blocking me. He warned me for the "erruption" and the issue was solved. I see that anotherclown raised the same issue there and got the answer that the problem is solved, but one week later ( there was no other conflict after this ) he comes to ani board to get a block against me. Hm thats not reasonable for me. I also question the style of anotherclown. When he raised his concerns he wasnt very objectiv. [[31]] . Why provoking the uninvolded editor caden? Why, words like "disguted" ? Why calling me "Bloke" ( sounds not kind for me ). Even if i get blocked, please reconsider your behaviour too. After one week u try to bring this to ani boards, while admin there said no need for further sanctions. If i will be blocked i guess its kinda justified with my "erruption". I apologized there for it and stayed calm after this ( and before ). But if u think its worth a block then i will accept. With regards... Blablaaa (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue why User:Another Clown is dragging me into this. I have zero to do with this. His cheap shot at me (you can read it in Blablaaa's dif above) is a personal attack against me. I've never spoken with Another clown so why is he attacking me? I don't even know the dude! He's the disruptive one who's being incivil, making personal attacks and being a hypocrite. Cadencool18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs as below - if they don't a personal attack or uncivil behaviour I don't know what does. I have only drawn the administrators attention to the behaviour of Blablaaa, and what they now chose to do or not do about it says more about the WP processes than anything. I will point out that this behaviour is only the tip of the iceberg as this user has been blocked on 5 previous occasions. Apologising for your actions is meaningless if you keep doing it. Anotherclown (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In specific response to Blablaaa, firstly a bloke is a man in Australian slang... I assumed you were one (if you are a female then my apologies). Secondly, how am I not objective? I haven't been involved in any of your previous blocks, ANIs or even discussions. I am however offended by your language and your behaviour. Thirdly, to say that you were warned and that nothing happened later is simply wrong. You first outburst here: [32], was followed by your apology and then you said this: [[33]]. That is the crux of my objection. Are you forgetting your "Kindergarten" comment already, or are we now allowed to belittle fellow editors and call them children? Anotherclown (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for Caden, seriously... I didn't even mentioned you here (Blablaaa did and then you turned up as his defender). My single mention of you was and I quote "still waiting for his mate Caden to chime in and award him another Barnstar." Feel free to file another ANI about me if that makes you feel better - but it seems to me to be an attempt to reflect the attention away from Blablaaa. It is kind of funny that where one appears so does the other though, and I think you may have just proven my point. Anotherclown (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anotherclown, in what way is your first diff (repeated in the section above) in any way offensive, except to the humble exclamation mark? "Nr 1 allied suffered higher casualties!!!!! No quote regarding tactical victory and casualtie correlation" That's not offensive. Your second quote " Here the edit of another editor in the middel of a finished discussion: [[34]] . So i hope u are satisfied now, it wasnt me. Kindergarden..." isn't offensive either. Blaablaa did post something really offensive, but he struck it immediately when requested and apologised, and everyone moved on except you User:Blablaaa|Blablaaa's uncivil language and WP's gutless response. Effectively, this complaint is forum shopping. I can see that the talkpage discussion has been heated, and Blaablaa is annoying a number of people because of his pov, but the answer is to stick to the serious discussion, not make a complaint here because you didn't get what you wanted the first time.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree here; not even the "kindergarden" comment (despite being misspelt) was made in a way which could be offensive or considered a personal attack; there's no need for admin attention here so I'm marking it as resolved. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]11:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you guys are missing the expletive-filled all-caps statement at the bottom of the first diff Anotherclown linked. That being said, I warned Blabaaa for that when he made it, and I can accept his explanation for the "kindergarten" comment. Parsecboy (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but it's already been dealt with and the user apologised (or so I've been told, I admit I haven't checked); no further action is required there. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]11:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Blablaaa explained the whole kindergarten issue already but it looks like none of you dudes paid any attention. Let me explain it for the record. It's not a personal attack nor is it incivil to say. In German, kindergarten refers to a discussion having hit a dead end. In other words, it means that a discussion has lost its direction. It was not used at all in a insulting manner. Regarding Anotherclown, he's forum shopping in the hopes of getting a block handed out because he dislikes both Blablaaa and me. Furthermore, it is he who has been incivil, made personal attacks and is being disruptive not to mention he's being a hypocrite. As for the slang term "bloke", most Germans have no clue what it means. Therefore it makes sense as to why Blablaaa was confused. I'd like to know why Anotherclown filed this report (and the other one) over a discussion that ended a week ago. Cadencool13:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the "Kindergarden" comment was not a week ago - I raised this ANI in immediate response to that and anyone can see that from the timing of this [35] and this edit [36]. The matter was apparently resolved after he struck his previous expletives, however he then proceeded to label another editor childish - hence my complaint. Secondly, what in my comments are you objecting to? The part where I said you were a mate of Blablaaa or the part where I said I was waiting for you to award him another barnstar? Anotherclown (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I object to is your dirty cheap shot that you directed at me. Your comment was done in bad faith so don't deny it. I asked you to strike it out and apologize but you ain't man enough to do that. Whatever. I'm done with your little games. Cadencool14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trying to make this about you. And no I won't strike the comment - raise an ANI if it bothers you. Nothing about it was rude or uncivil (and certainly not by the standards now being applied here)... Anotherclown (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude wake up to reality. YOU made this about me when you dragged my name into it. You're upset over your buddy Nick-D. Nick-D's 5 bad blocks (all on Blablaaa by the way), raised red flags on a previous ANI. The community decided that your buddy's blocks were bad blocks and that they were unjustified. So here you are seeking retaliation in honor of your friend, just because he was exposed as a bad admin. Come on, we both know why you're after Blablaaa. You have an agenda just like another editor mentioned on this ANI. Cadencool14:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giftiger wunsch and Elen of the Roads did either of you read the diffs fully? I am I now to assume that calling other editors "noobs", "children" (which is what the "Kindergarden" comment clearly implies), and swearing repeatedly is now acceptable? I quote:
FOR FUCK SAKE WHO QUESTIONED THE OUTCOME ????????? U QUOTE STORIES OF SOLDIERS TO SUPPORT THE POINT ??? ARE U SERIOUS ?????? THEN QUOTE ALLIED SOLDIERS WHO SUFFERED MORE CASUALTIES IN EVERY ASPECT ???? ARE U SERIOUS ????? THATS NOT THE FUCKING POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blablaaa (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Again noobish comment. Here from charnwood article "With support from the 10th Canadian Armoured Regiment, by noon Buron had been taken, although the 9th Brigade's assault companies suffered 60% casualties in doing so" , WOW 60% !!!! of a fully equipend brigade WOW. omg u didnt get it, hu ?
Here the edit of another editor in the middel of a finished discussion: 8 . So i hope u are satisfied now, it wasnt me. Kindergarden...
End quote.
As I said above I took offence to the "Kindergarden" remark because it was part of a pattern of behaviour which occurred 'after' he was warned by another user and apologised (which he did the last 5 times he has been blocked anyway) and 'after' my original post, not before as Blablaaa implies. So as far as I see it the behaviour has continued and the warning was ineffective, it is not a case, as Elen of the Roads suggests, of me not moving on (I wasn't even involved in the original discussion). Forum shopping indeed... must be my mistake I thought WP:ANI was indeed the forum to make such a complaint and I was advised to do so during the discussion in question... IMO this discussion is not resolved. Sloppy effort guys. Anotherclown (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FOR FUCK SAKE WHO QUESTIONED THE OUTCOME ????????? U QUOTE STORIES OF SOLDIERS TO SUPPORT THE POINT ??? ARE U SERIOUS ?????? THEN QUOTE ALLIED SOLDIERS WHO SUFFERED MORE CASUALTIES IN EVERY ASPECT ???? ARE U SERIOUS ????? THATS NOT THE FUCKING POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blablaaa (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Salvio, an admin at the time (Parsecboy) said "if you revert that NOW you may avoid a block". So Blaablaa reverted, and muttered something that looks like an apology. And he hasnt posted anything like it since. He is annoying people because he has some specific - and as it were from the other side - views as to the outcome of a battle where it is somewhat debatable what happened, and whether anyone can be said to have 'won' (battles are often like this it seems), and the debate did get heated. However, everyone else including Blaablaa moved on, found WP:RS and started debating those. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elen the chronology of the complaint needs to be clarified - as I have already explained above the events occurred as follows. First the expletive filled comment by Blablaaa, then the warning and my post on MILHIST, then his "Kindergarden" comment, after which I made the complaint at ANI (as I was advised to). Neither did he immediately strike the comment - it was only in response to my original post there that that occurred. Regardless of Blablaaa's explanation of what he meant by "Kindergarden", other users at the MILHIST talkpage also took offence to this final remark. Not sure what agenda you think I'm pushing here but you should at least get the facts right. Anotherclown (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote kindergarten after another user opened a section only to discuss why i responed in the middle of an older section. Actually it was not even me who did this and it was totally unimportant. I responded with an explanation of the issue and said its kindergarten. And kindergarten doesnt mean i imply somebody is a child or has the intellect of a child. I imply that one or more users maybe act like children in some aspects. I guess this even includes me when i respond to such statements. When somebody calls me twit ( like happend there ) i not even bother to respond because its unimportant. When people start funny discussions about me on their talkpages it dont bothers me. So lets relax, nothing happend. The simple reason that i didnt "strike" my comments is that i didnt understand what people want. I said i didnt delete because i dont want do conceal my words. Then somebody told me how to "strike" and i did it then. Blablaaa (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Captmonkey has, for the last month and half now, tried to delete any mention of St. Totteringham's day from WP (see Arsenal F.C. supporters#St. Totteringham's day for details). Despite the fact that St. Tot's day has been mentioned by the media (BBC, Sun, Mirror, Mail etc...) and seems to be worthy of inclusion; this user seems to be on a crusade and has repeatedly ignored any discussion on the subject and has taken upon himself to unilaterally delete any mention of it.
St. Totteringham's day is mentioned on two articles: North London Derby and Arsenal F.C. supporters, as it is an Arsenal F.C. custom. There has been an extended discussion, about whether or not the section should be kept, here, the consensus seems to indicate the section should be kept. Nevertheless Captmonkey keeps on deleting it over and over again with no regard whatsoever for WP procedures. This has been going on for almost 2 months now and some of us are losing patience. Is there a way an Admin could look into this? Thanks a lot. SaebhiarAdishatz15:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an admin, but when I look at the content I see: non encyclopedic tone, heavy reliance on primary sources, and blogs and facebook used as sources. Best case scenario - It needs serious clean up.Active Banana (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guys - please take whatever Saebhiar says with a large pinch of salt. He's the progenitor of this fatuous nonsense, and is aiming to keep it on Wikipedia in order to make it a self-fulfulling prophecy. It's a clear-cut case of circular referencing. Please read the discussion on the Talk page, which emphatically does *not* come to the consensus that a section should be kept. Indeed - the WP:3O which I instigated came to the conclusion that the section should not be there at all, and anything more than even a passing mention was probably too much.
Additionally, I wholly refute the claims I've been uncooperative - and anything more than a cursory glance at the Talk page will confirm this. Captmonkey (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no comment about the concept itself(I have now commented below). However you haven't exactly shown good faith by slinging around phrases such as "complete and utter fabrication, and is only being kept present on the article due to the antics of Arsenal fans", "crackpot internet-generated fabrication","puerile nonsense", "un-notable internet twaddle", "fatuous bumpf", "tripe" "Bullshit. Get this tripe off", "fatuous nonsense" etc. The comments "Are you being monumentally disingenuous deliberately, or are you just plain thick?" and "Ah-ha! Just thick then" directed at another editor are way over the line, as is "As trolls go, you're quite good, The C of E. I do hope that when you grow up, you read things like this back and realise just how remarkably silly you look. When can we get someone with a modicum of common sense to have a look at this and see some wood for the trees, then?". Your attitude is extremely combative, please dial it down. Exxolon (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the actual concept - the section on it is currently too large and it needs pruning. The Daily Mail reference is reasonable, and while The Sun & The Mirror are not reliable sources for serious topics references to them are probably okay in this context. The BBC ref appears user generated and probably fails WP:RS. It looks okay to have a paragraph in the relevant article, I might draft a potential version and post it on the talkpage if I get time. Exxolon (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Exxolon. I freely admit that my tone has been, on occasion, somewhat colourful - however, it's usually only a product of my considerable frustration with the two editors involved in this dispute, who have been completely uninterested in attempting to resolve the situation and ignored my questions and requests.
I'd also like to clarify your comments about the mistagging of a redirect page - as they are incorrect. Saebhiar created a redirect page - St. Totteringham's day, which redirected to a section on the Arsenal F.C. supporters page - the content of which is a copy of the entry which was present on the North London derby page. I reverted this content, and then I noticed the redirect, and believing as I do that this has no place on Wikipedia, I - erroneously - tagged it as WP:G10. I realise this was incorrect. As to the NPA warning - I think you're confusing The C of E's actions with mine - I have issued no such warning.
Clarification - The NPA warning I'm referring to is [39] - it's then generic warning from the speedy deletion template you tagged with which includes the phrase "Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people" - a NPA warning. You mistagged as an attack page then issued a generic warning based on that assertion. Exxolon (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either way - this is *all* fictional, fatuous internet-created bumpf, which just does not warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Shall I edit the Emirates Stadium page, just because a lot of non-Arsenal fans refer to it as 'The New Library' (what with Highbury being the 'old' Library)? Or maybe I should edit the page on Arsene Wenger, and add a section on how other fans call him 'A-hole W-nker' and that he is jokingly referred to as a paedophile in football chants? Of course I wouldn't - because it's not notable and not worthy of inclusion. The same goes for St. Totteringham's day. Captmonkey (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think an admin's going to do anything about it now. Take this back to the talk page and figure it out. I agree the sourcing needs MAJOR work if this article is to meet the general notability guideline. However, we don't debate that here. That's handled at the talk page. If reliable sources do not exist, the place to debate deletion is WP:AFD. N419BH19:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said it to Captmonkey on my talk page and I think I can say it again here: Take it to Talk:Arsenal FC or, if this does not work, to WT:FOOTY in order to get people to discuss the content itself (or start a request for comments!). Captmonkey seems to have understood now that they were not handling this issue correctly and hopefully WP:CIVILity will return to this debate. I think everyone involved is aware that edit-warring over this issue, as well as further incivility and personal attacks, will result in sanctions against the editor(s) involved in such behavior. At the moment, I see no need for any admin intervention - hopefully this will not change. Regards SoWhy21:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble accessing Youtube from my location, but I assume this isn't a helpful link. Additionally, all of McYel's edits are tagged as minor. Not good. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Wow! Never got a video response before. Unfortunately, once personal information of this sort is divulged, I have to evaluate it and decide whether to suppress it or not. It's my job :/ I've no way of knowing who's details are who's and I have to act in the best interests of whoever owns these. In the video, you show that they're yours, etc, and I'm cool with that. These have also been suppressed on Wikimedia Commons for the same reasons. Anyways - you're free to do with your own proven personal information what you will & if you wish to put them on your website, Twitter, posters, whatev - then knock yourself out. You can even put them back on WP within reason (see WP:USER), but I seriously recommend you don't do that stuff. Identity theft isn't something that your neighbor in El Paso is going to do, it's going to be something some opportunist will do and once that genie gets out of the bottle, it's very hard to stuff it back in. In short; I can only do so much to protect you here, so over to you ... - Alison❤02:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the user has added the same information to their MySpace page, but I find is highly suspect regardless and would argue against it being readded to any site of Wikipedia due to the indentity theft concerns it poses. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just confirming evidence that the user has posted the same material on MySpace etc. I think that doing such a thing is a really terrible idea, but I also think that the confirmation that this material is available more publicly than on Wikipedia, by McYel's own deliberate actions, removes protection of the user's privacy as an immediate reason for deletion. — Gavia immer (talk)02:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's more then that.. he documents his birth certificate, asks his mom about the rape that led to his birth, its... creepy. -- ۩ Mask02:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Wouldn't the documents be considered the intellectual property of the US State that created them rather than whomever happens to have them in their possession? They aren't products of the Federal Government but a State Govt, so aren't considered in the public domain. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Property that derives from the work of an individual's mind or intellect should be afforded the same protective rights that apply to physical property. As long as property exists, it will accumulate in individuals and families. As long as marriage exists, knowledge, property and influence will accumulate in families (not in a State Govt).--McYel (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the property was created by the state where you were born. Owning a newspaper or a photo doesn't give the owner the right to republish them in other media without consent. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support likewise. Editor has much higher overhead then they are worth, also seems unable to deal with conflict correctly and instead amplifies it. -- ۩ Mask05:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Reopened this thread, I'm not in anyway sure how we could consider the above 3 votes close to a consensus on a community ban: 1. they are very quick succession (the first vote and the block are only about an hour apart) and 2. at least some of the votes appear they could be more in jest then anything else. I'm going to let Toddst1 know and haven't unblocked the user again yet, though to be honest I'd like to if others agree. James (TC)05:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My !vote did have some jest to it with the "TEH DRAMAZ" but I removed that part (removing the jest). I am completely serious in my !vote, McYel needs to be and rightly is blocked. He wasn't contributing constructively to the community and the LOLcat and Dark Knight above posts show that clearly. Combine that with of images of personal information (since deleted and oversighted), I see no reason he should be here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest that is fine though I agree more with Alison, but an hour of conversation and 3 users does still not a ban make ;) James (TC)05:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guys?? Are we that ban-happy these days that WP can community-ban someone on the say-so of three people and with very little justification. Sorry, but I oppose this heavy-handed action here. Good grief, folks, whatever happened to WP:AGF, WP:BITE, etc, etc? Indeed, I thought we were done here. Let the guy alone - the issue is resolved. If he persists in low-level trolling or whatever, then consider blocking. But not a community ban- Alison❤05:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he should probably be unblocked and allowed the chance to edit, but I don't think those documents should appear on his userpage. I don't see why anyone would want to do that anyway. They're not funny or cool they're just some boring government documents that could be copied and then used to steal his identity. Let him edit but make him promise to leave those off wikipedia. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. Whether blocked, banned, or whatever, this user needs a stern lecture from someone in the real world about the dangers of posting so much personal information online. If he is unblocked at some point, it needs to be with the condition that he will refrain from doing it here. We can't stop someone from being stupid off of Wikipedia, but good grief, we can at least ask him not to do it here. I have trouble imagining a user who felt like that video was a good idea being mature enough to edit an encyclopedia, so I have no problem with a ban. But if someone does decide to unblock him, it needs to be with a stern warning not to engage in such behavior again. --B (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, the user has posted this documents on a [redacted]. So they are out there with or without Wikipedia. But I agree with B, a very stern lecture about the real world is needed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this one of the situations where it is better discussed off wikipedia pages than giving more and more ideas of where to grab this guys personal information from and leaving those comments for longer and longer in public view? Theres real life consequenses here.Active Banana (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user's edits were not all bad. Misunderstanding about free vs not free images, clearly. Also the user is not a minor as age of majority in his state is 18 [40] and he passed that some years ago. If he wishes to disclose his personal information and the law considers him able to make that decision it seems a bit much to hide it, especially since he has it elsewhere and above linked video confirming it is indeed his info. As to it being appropriate for a user page, not really. To me this reads like a pothole that was turned into a mountain. Community ban was way too much. An explanation of why it is not appropriate to have on WP even with it being his info would have been better than a community ban. deliriousandlost ☯ 06:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Just so that everyone knows: I unblocked McYel. I did this for a couple reasons: 1. I obviously was unsure the block made sense given the discussion at the time already and 2. Because the original "ban" (he actually said bollocks not ban) proposer (Tim Shuba made a comment on the users talk page saying that he did indeed mean his "vote" as a joke (NH also supported per Tim but he has since confirmed what he meant). I also decided that it would be right to do it now given that it appears Todd went to bed/away shortly after the block was implemented and I did not believe it was right to leave it up while we all wondered away. Obviously any admin is more then welcome to revert me based on further discussion here or disagreement with my actions (including Todd) I do not consider it wheel warring. James (TC)08:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were right to unblock the user James, there was clearly no community consensus there, especially as the original mention was meant as a joke and the motion received a total of three opinions; and I don't think the user's actions could warrant a block at admin discretion, either. I don't think he should be allowed to upload such files again though (whether he can prove they are his own details or not, surely we can protect him from his own... perhaps naïvety is the least NPAey term?), and if he does reupload them then I feel that a ban or block may indeed become necessary. We may not be able to stop him uploading them elsewhere, but we can at least stop them being published by wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]10:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the first ANI thread about me! Umm, well, let's just put it this way -- for the protection of the project and yourself, we don't really want your birth certificate published on here. The reasons are simple:
ID theft is quite easy if you have documents like this. Obviously people would not have the original, but usually places will accept facsimiles under the assumption that you're protecting the original document and any copies.
If you are a victim of ID theft, and it becomes known that your birth certificate was published here, and we didn't do anything about it, guess who gets to be the topic of a scathing story on the 6 o'clock news? Ok, yes, it's on MySpace too, and we all know how much the media likes to poke at that site, but still. It's just not a good idea for Wikimedia to be hosting information like that.
In closing, note that the removal is supported by policy:
Privacy-breaching non-public material, whether added by yourself or others, may be removed from any page upon request, either by administrators or (unless impractical) by purging from the page history and any logs by Oversighters. --Wikipedia:User page
So I don't think there was anything wrong with the initial reaction to purge the birth certificate, and I will continue to support such action for the protection of everyone involved. --Chris(talk)13:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify that the only issue with the user page was the birth certificate. I see no harm in allowing the diplomas to be published. But I would caution McYel to read WP:NOTWEBHOST. --Chris(talk)13:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It still strikes me as a pretty dangerous thing to be publishing... a diplomas is a pretty official document, and could very well contribute towards identity theft with or without the birth certificate. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]18:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Break
Having had some of the earliest interactions with McYel, I watch him closely. My personal belief is that he is a sock of some other user and is using this account to make some point about minor edits, a point that would probably make more sense if I knew the history of the other account. That said, there isn't enough evidence of disruptive intent to block him. I'll continue to monitor him, but I don't think there is any need for further action at this time.—Kww(talk) 14:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note on birth certificates As a genealogy researcher, I can say that birth certificates are public documents in most jurisdictions including the UK and US, and it is perfectly legal to obtain the birth certificate of any individual in these jurisdictions (whether they are you or not, and whether living or dead - I have an account with the Office of National Statistics, and can obtain anyone's birth certificate for £7). Nor is it an offence to post anyone's birth certificate online - just log on to Ancestry.com to confirm this. However, McYel, I think you're barking mad mate :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just an addition to Elen of the Roads was talking about. You can get most birth certificates at either the county courthouse, the hospital of birth or the branch of service's Department of Records in the US. The prices range from free to $10. In most cases, unless you are law enforcement, you can't obtain anyone's birth certificate but your own or your child's (if they are under 18). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there are other ways to get a hold of someone else's birth certificate and other documents. Silly question, but has anyone any basis to conclude that the information this person is publishing actually pertains to him/her, rather than to some other unsuspecting person? Steveozone (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Steveozone. Unless there is a picture of this person actually holding these documents, documents you can clearly see, I am not convinced and do not think the video shows anything but someone repeated what is on a piece of paper. I could read off the life and times of anyone if I had their birth certificate, wouldn't make me that person. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:McYel holding his NSHSS certificate.JPGMcYel Christ of El Paso County, Texas; America, holding his NSHSS certificate. McYel is an official member of the National Society of High School Scholars.
Thank you, McYel. I apperciate your posting those pictures for proof. While I don't feel it is a bad idea to have on Wikipedia due to the indenity theft concerns, that does convince me the user is the same with the documents. I would ask for some input. With the showing of the documents by the user to prove they are his, if the user wants the documents on Wikipedia, would anyone be against it? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes – I oppose the posting of birth certificates etc. This user may be of sound mind and fully informed, and consequently choose to post completely inappropriate personal details on their user page, and we may not care. However, other people will possibly encounter the userpage and think that it is somehow a good thing to emulate. Then we will have more timesinks where we debate whether or not to save users from themselves. There is no benefit to Wikipedia from encouraging/permitting the posting of such excessively personal details. Using Wikipedia to publish documents like birth certificates is disruptive because other editors will waste time wondering whether the information is an elaborate scam intended to attack the person named in the personal data, or will start dramas such as we see here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about this situation but can tell you those pictures need to removed and deleted from the database immediately. In the real world, I work with military records and personal documents to verify veteran identities. Just by the information displayed in those three pictures, anyone could get a fake drivers license, social security card, as well as several other fraudulent documents. A terrorist in another country could also use that information to obtain a false Visa. In my professional opinion, take them off now. -OberRanks (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Johnuniq ~ what possible benefit to us, the community, is it to have these items here? Again, in what way does it help improve the encyclopædia? None. I say remove them.
On the other hand, it is nice to see something a little less drama-ey on ANI than some of the more usual suspects. Cheers, LindsayHi06:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, this whole section is crazy - from the video and the images being here at all through to the ban. I can't understand what McYel thinks he's doing and I don't really care that much but there are BLP issues here because he's claiming his mother (who is very clearly named in full on the displayed birth certificate) was a rape victim and implying his father (also named in full) is a rapist. Posting the high school diplomas are his business, really, but I can't see how posting the birth certificates with the full details for his parents (names, date of births, address etc) and claiming that named people were involved in a rape can possibly be acceptable. He can accept responsibility for posting his own information but he surely can't for his parents. I'm just about to go out for the evening and don't have time to deal with this further but I think these should be taken down and at the very least the rape claims needs to be removed from all these image description pages and the birth certificate should really go. Sarah06:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we all still here?? O_o - Either way, I've suppressed the mention of what Sarah refers to here as not only is it non-public, personal information relating to someone else, it's potentially problematic as it relates to a criminal act. Not only that, but his mom was clearly uncomfortable in discussing it in the video above, so it's only right that it be redacted. So ... are we done here now? Can we all go home happy? - Alison❤07:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So he immediately added that again. It's suppressed again. I consider that highly inappropriate and unfair to the woman in question. He's been final-warned, far as I'm concerned. If he does it again, someone contact WP:OVER and block him for a short while. His userpage is now fully-prot'd for 24 hours - Alison❤08:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think this edit demonstrates that he can't take wikipedia or other people's privacy seriously; it's looking more and more likely that a block is going to be required, especially given the very serious BLP issues (and potential libel) demonstrated in some revisions of his userpage which have now been revdelled and/or oversighted, which he is apparently treating as joke. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]08:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK...obviously I have caused a fuss by asking for the images to be held up by the person in a picture (which I never really expected would happen...color me surprised) and asking for opinions. I am just at a loss of what to do with this user as they seem gung-ho about having this information on his page. If I have upset anyone by all this, I do apologize. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article reports people 'stealing' fuel from an overturned petrol tanker. The media, almost without exception, call the act 'taking', displaying tact and a sensitivity to the human tragedy aspect of the incident. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to our three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V) and No original research (NOR)"
There are survivors of this incident, some badly burnt and some unhurt. My feeling is that labeling their act as 'stealing' is legally prejudiced and insensitive, ignoring NPOV, and disregarding the complexities of law, both in the DRC and the US, regarding ownership of material which has spilled onto a roadway and to all intents and purposes has been abandoned.
Some guidance here would be appreciated. Androstachys (talk) 08:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While AN/I is loathe to get involved with content disputes, there are some problematic / very heated diffs on the talk page: [41], and in particular [42], which sounds like something one might expect to find on GameFAQs. Badger Drink (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out there is nothing disrespectful with using the word 'stealing', which best describes what they were doing. One person's stupidity caused those deaths, and it is accurate to report they were in fact stealing, not 'collecting', 'salvaging', or 'taking'. Survivors or not, there is nothing disrespectful with reporting facts instead of the bias of one particular editor. Wikipedia is not the 'Sensitive Encyclopedia anyone can edit'. Was this event tragic? Yes. Is it sad that so many people died because of one person's stupidity? Yes. Is it OK to misconstruct the facts to be 'sympathetic' or 'respectful'? No. ToaNidhiki0514:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I've nominated this thing for deletion. Tired of seeing the project be a dumping ground for every minor catastrophe across the globe. The hyper-inclusionists will have a kitty of course, but I hope for once this will start to gain some traction. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already made this point on the AFD but will reiterate it here. The AFD process is designed to get community evaluation on whether the article in question meets our criteria for inclusion and to keep or delete it accordingly. It's not designed to generate a sitewide consensus/policy/precedent on 'news' articles or to deal with recentism. Exxolon (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is bullshit, to be honest. Thanks for the abuse of process, but I can't say I'm really surprised anymore around here. Tarc (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, you need to calm down. I'm happy for you to insult me all you like if it'll make you feel better, but it's not abuse of process to follow the long-standing rule that articles linked to from the main page should not be nominated for deletion. It's disruptive to make such a nomination and, frankly, you're grandstanding. First get the article out of ITN by posting an objection to its inclusion, and then nominate it. You can of course go to DRV if you honestly think my speedy close was incorrect, but my crystal ball tells me you'll get little support. My speedy close has no bearing on the outcome of any future deletion nomination. I would suggest that you delay a nomination by a few weeks to allow some editors some perspective. Fences&Windows15:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The edit war is resuming. Don't know if Full Protection is appropriate as it's a current event and information might rapidly change as it progresses, but some admin eyes on it would be extremely helpful. Probably best course of action is to warn/block primary combatantseditors. N419BH15:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like splitting hairs to me. They were taking fuel without permission. That's the definition of stealing.
Bottom line, they were stealing fuel, it was reported by the news so we have it as a ref.
My initial phrasing in the comment directing the user to the WP:NLT policy was really really bad, I will admit that right up front- and after an edit conflict I corrected myself. [43]
However, after a more considered description of the policies and consequenses [44] the user still appears not to wish to take any steps to clearly retract statements which include "This is now bordering on harassment which is legally actionable " in a statement which concludes "This is abusive, disruptive behavior and it will be acted upon" [45] which I do not see as anything other than a legal threat, despite the user stating Identifying harassment and stating that it is legally actionable does not constitute a "legal threat." .
The user has followed those actions with [46] calling me "an editerrorist on this site".
I am fully aware that any comments from me directing the user to the policies will not have a good effect, and would like some third party intervention. Active Banana (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I requested that the block for edit warring be lifted due to my belief that such action is not needed at this time to prevent further edit warring. And I am hopeful that the comments from other editors will be effective in addressing the other concerns.Active Banana (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On May 29, 2010, User:Ahmed shahi was indef blocked by admin MuZemike because another admin (Kevin Rutherford) stated "It looks like a duck to me" about User:Tasal on the Sockpuppet investigations form.[47] I have emailed MuZemike rightaway and explained that Tasal and me are not the same but MuZemike didn't want to hear it or do anything about it so out of anger I decided to make new names. It now proves with confirmation that Tasal was not me according to this check user done by admin User:Avaraham (Avi) [48] Let me repeat "I NEVER USED THE NAME User:Tasal" and therefore I should not have been indef blocked.
Yesterday MuZemike told me to write to Arb.com or something, I don't know how to do all that. I'm American on assignment overseas and this is why I created this new name so my IP location isn't shown, for my own personal protection.--ImAhmedShahi (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I just illustrated all this on the user's talk page. This can be marked resolved now. Is there an ArbCom or ER page I need to update regarding the above? It's all marked and tagged. S.G.(GH)ping!15:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been previously blocked for Wikipedia:Tenditious which including removing redlinks. Also just about anytime you address the content work the author will automatically accuse you of commenting on the contributer instead of the content. I've tried to asume good faith one more time [[53]] with this user and attempted a dialogue Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools#smartmontools. Previously A few editors tried to explain to H2mk that WP:WTAF is a guideline and not a policy and unless redlinking is completely excessive serves a great purpose of organization and indicating where articles can be written. I've given examples such as State Park lists etc and nothing seems to get through. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
doe the following instances [[55]][[56]][[57]] [[58]][[59]] [[60]]Basically anything with a redlink he is removing.
The mentatitly of the editor in disputes can be seen here in the Ani discussion (this highlites the issues of claiming people are attackign him when we are only talkking about his content work. [[61]] [[62]]
Review Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools#smartmontools: The user is continually hostile and continually talks about me as an editor (previous edits) instead of my actual current edits on that article.
Possibly because you are not modifying your behavior which means a block is warranted to prevent further disruption from you. Do please show me specific comments that are hostile to you and are personal attacks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE: I feel I've made my position here clear enough. I trust an administrator will make the right decision. Should an administrator require further input, feel free to drop me a message. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm2k was wrong about the standing of WTAF in the community, but it's good advice nevertheless, especially on Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools where we're talking about applications which people have re-added continually for over a year without thinking to try starting the article instead. What with bringing up hm2k's unrelated block log, this looks like a pretty transparent attempt to win a content dispute by getting the opposition blocked. If more eyes are needed on the discussion, start an RfA. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk13:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually his block log in this is key. His previous two blocks have had to do with lists. He was blocked for disruption at ANI after he created a completely unsourced list on Shell Providers. The link is above, he was then later blocked for edit warring and disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. The behaviors are related by the inclusion of lists and the disruption in edits between time in content removal and misguided policy enforcement. This is not a Straw man argument, this is saying the user has a history there is a lot of them but read the diffs provided above and then consider the "attacks" this editor has accused me of, in no way have those been uncivil or against a personal attack policy. I challenge H2mk to show me an actual attack a administrator would block me for, there are plenty out there that are block happy. Hasn't happened yet. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, his own behaviour is not really worthy of a block right now. If we blocked everyone that hovered over an article, or called people they disagree with trolls, then an awful lot of people wouldn't get a lot done. Okay, WQA is largely a waste of time, but far better to try to drag the content issue to a close with an RfC or the like than to take it personally. If that fails then it might be time for harsher measures. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk17:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could care less about being called a troll. My concern is the removal of redlinks. My main work here has been a result of redlinked lists. Unless they are completely non notable or excessive they shouldn't all be removed. It indicates a need for improvement and also a focus for editors that have a focal point they enjoy. Consider work on List of Colorado state parks or National Register of Historic Places listings in Pueblo County, Colorado. Removing the links or info just because it doesn't have a article on it actually will make things be missed sometimes. It helps us fufill our goal which is to write a comprehensive encyclopedia, deleting things properly is not the problem it does and will happen regularly even in cases where I disagree. My question I pose to the community is after a history of the same issues does the rope get longer or shorter? In any of the diffs where H2mk has been told his actions were not in accordance to policy he insists we are attacking or refuses to agree. I understand not agreeing, I do it regularly but if I do it in certain ways it ends in blocks. This is disruptive the encyclopedia and whether the action is dealt with by words or a block is in the hands of a admin. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must be honest, most of those are not personal attacks or even combative, or even... negative comments... or even comments. S.G.(GH)ping!16:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basic dispute resolution....What he fails to present is the edits between time where I clarify my remarks like here [[65]] or the very nicely worded request before the prior example [[66]]. This is classic disruptive behavior and the WP:NPA deals with this explicitly [[67]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My advice to you both is to avoid each other. I will note however that the relevant guideline encourages the keeping of any redlink where it is plausible that an article could be created and that WP:WTAF is not a policy or a guideline, it is an essay. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user has, over the last week or so, continually reinserted poorly sourced or unverifiable negative material about the alleged sexual improprieties of a BLP Eido Tai Shimano. It appears that WP is being used as part of an external dispute about the man and his reputation. There are actually some very reliable sources about the allegations (which I myself mainly found and added to the article) but not they do not include specific additional material that Tao2911 and others have apparently wished to include.
In the past Tao2911 has regularly reverted to include primary sources (letters, unpublished drafts of articles) hosted on two web-sites which were viewed as not meeting RS standards on the BLPN- which is where I had become involved. Another website used as a source is under discussion at the RSN, but overall, Tao has received no support for his sources from any independent editors. There have also been several unverifiable edits, in which citations are given but do not contain the material claimed. Despite the problems having been explicitly and clearly have been explained several times, and several warnings given on Talk:Eido Tai Shimano[70][71][72][73][74][75][76]and at User talk:Tao2911[77][78][79][80][81], unverifiable material-about why Shimano left Hawaii- has been repeatedly inserted and reinserted in the last 24 hours.[82][83][84]
At this point, I believe administrator is required. It's worth noting that there are other problematic behaviours from this editor, including this personal attack to another editor on another subject. [85]. --Slp1 (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please carefully review ALL discussion on various boards regarding this page. Also review this editor's tone and pattern of editing. I believe this is primarily a personal attack against me - confirmed by the somewhat excessively vigorous activity demonstrated here, and elsewhere.Tao2911 (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is up for interpretation - this kind of wiki-stalking could be construed as harassing, especially when the issues are in process of debate and discussion.Tao2911 (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Below are some more diffs illustrating recent behavior by Tao2911. Most of you will not have heard of Tao2911 before as 85% of his edits have been to the Adi Da page and its talk page.
July 3: Removes talk page discussion started by another user [86] with edit summary of "removed pointless section, no substantive issues discussed; just a distraction"
July 4: Edit wars to remove Shawnee Free Jones' book from her page[87]
July 3: uncivil remarks to a user on the Adi Da talk page: [88]
June 24: accuses new user of being a sock puppet [89]
June 19: changes section header title created by another editor [90]
Diannaa has had it out for me for months. Nice to see you again. I do actually still believe Norm Declavier to be a sock puppet, issued apology if mistaken, and was supported by stellar admin EyeSerene who thought my suspicions understandable (Eyeserene also showed that Diannaa's accusations that I had created sockpuppets was unfounded - nevertheless I was blocked for some days from editing). Editor Jason Riverdale consistently used adi da 'talk' headers to write lengthy defaming comments, all of which on arguments he subsequently lost. I abbreviated more than one of these after they led to confusion for visiting admins, explained as much in talk, and they stayed, undisputed. I didn't call editor stupid - I called particular phrasing so. A big difference, Diannaa. I disputed book listing on Jones page, removed it per wiki guidelines, proof was provided for listing, I conceded point and even wikified listing in keeping with sources. Etc. I'm not the most demure editor, but you've all encountered worse. But I will say Diannaa is about the worst admin I've yet encountered.Tao2911 (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an admin. Below are remarks Tao posted on my talk page; these are all from Feb 27, 2010. When Tao returned from his block for sock puppetry I did not return to the Adi Da page and have avoided this user and his topics of preference. Here are the diffs:
These are simply mischaracterizations. Maybe you did "conspire". There's no rule against reasonable suspicion, D. And btw, I think you have at times acted, and perhaps are acting, "improperly." But I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.Tao2911 (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the apology. Tao, it looks like no admins are going to respond to this thread, so excuse me if I give you a bit of unsolicited advice. Even though there are literally millions of registered users, the core community of daily users is numbered merely in the thousands, making Wikipedia the equivalent of a small town. People have fairly long memories and the more often you get reported here at WP:ANI the more likely it is that someday you will get blocked or banned, if your behaviour does not improve. Just take a daily reading of the ANI board and do the opposite of what you see people being reported for! Like George Costanza. As you branch out from Adi Da and into the wider world of Wikipedia, this will become more important. Good luck. --DiannaaTALK00:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just stumbled across this and, as I still keep half an eye on Adi Da, recognised the names. Diannaa gives some sound advice, Tao, regarding the sort of reputation to avoid building up for yourself. My impression is that you'll argue hard for your position but will eventually concede points and compromise where consensus is shown to be against you. There's nothing really wrong with this approach, but obviously care is needed not to press argument too far and alienate other editors; WP:TENDENTIOUS is an easy line to cross. To put it crudely, if you piss off enough people you will eventually run the risk of being banned, and in the chorus of voices calling for your head not many will care if you were actually right or not. As you've accepted you are sometimes quick to jump to conclusions about other editors and personalise content discussion. To your credit you are usually also quick to apologise, but by then the situation has already been soured. I'd also note that continuing to insert controversial material, especially in a WP:BLP, that is resisted by multiple editors is most definitely a blockable offence. You've a habit of making edits while discussing instead of after discussing - this bypasses discussion, leads to edit wars and is generally unconstructive, and will lead to blocks if it keeps happening. I (or other admins) shouldn't have to protect every page you work on just to head off this kind of thing... I hope I'm not coming over as preachy - I believe you have lots to offer WP and you do generally good work so I don't want to see you going the way of similar editors I've known. It might be worth reading Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic :) EyeSerenetalk08:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I always appreciate your sane voice, Eyeserene. All points taken. Sometimes it is one's role to be the voice of sanity and reason; sometimes you have to be the muckraker. I will say that I quite simply found that if I didn't act the ass on Adi Da, the page was utterly dominated by cadres of whitewashing devotees - they are, in a word, crazy. I've been willing to be cast in the role of idiot or villain to get reasonable changes to stick. It ain't always pretty, but I think I play pretty much between the lines. I just check hard sometimes; and sometimes I get stuck in the penalty box. So be it.Tao2911 (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Pdfpdf contributing constructively to the project with these snarky comments to everything. I recommend a short block (31 hours?) for at least personal attacks and disruptive editing. The user needs to also review the policies of Wikipedia. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching all this take place for some time and also agree with the move to block. (Note: I am not an admin). Yworo (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone the edit and posted a 3RR warning to Pdfpdf's page. I should remind Ronz though you are bound by those same 3RR rules. There are more eyes on the page now, let someone else revert so you don't get blocked as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. Exactly my thoughts when I requested it be reverted rather than reverting it myself. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would somebody please explain to me why Ronz is permitted to alter my contributions on talk pages, and thus change the intent of my contributions and statements?
Would somebody please explain why when I restore the text to my original intent, I am persecuted and threatened?
I don't see Pdfpdf contributing constructively to the project - Well, please look at all of my contributions. I am trying to add value to WP. Ronz seems to be going to considerable effort to prevent me from doing this.
Ronz refuses to engage in discussion, ignores consensus, and will only countenance his view of the world. The ONLY "contributions" I see Ronz making are to disrupt me from trying to make improvements to WP.
I have five or six articles on the go to which I am actually adding value. I don't see Ronz adding any value to anything - just complaining, without explaining his complaints, and hindering me. Why isn't Ronz contributing to a solution to the problems he is complaining about? When I read Ronz's comments on talk pages, I see more about WP:Point than I do about anything positive or useful.
I could go on at length, and in the past have done so, but it was a complete waste of time and achieved nothing.
This is not of "value". It is a snarky personal attack intent on starting a fight and Ronz is right to collapse it as it is completely not necessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, first don't add posts like that so it appears that a user has posted to this thread when they haven't. Second, I agree with Ronz's removal, which I thought I made clear above. It was a snarky personal attack that was completely unnecessary and brought nothing to the conversation. Your intent was to start an argument with that comment and I believe it still is. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence appears confusing enough that this not a good candidate for action at ANI without more data. The dispute at Talk:Independent Order of Odd Fellows seems to be where this ANI post came from. Maybe some admins could take a look at that dispute and see if they can assist. Opening a WP:RFC about the article could be worthwhile. A temporary halt to all modification of the talk page by anyone except the original poster might be in order. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've demonstrated with diffs that Pdfpdf has continued the same type of behavior which he was told just a week ago to stop at risk of being blocked. Pdfpdf has responded as before, with further attacks on me here in this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User: Beamathan (talk) has been engaging in personal attacks against other users, both on Talk:Kosovo and on his own talk page. For example, he called another user "a joke" and "retarted" (sic). What's even more worrying is that he refused to apologize, indeed doubling down on his comment, by posting the following snide message: "
Special note - The user whom I mentioned was retarded has now been banned for retardation." [101]
The term "retarded" is not just a simple insult; it is considered to be a very offensive slur within the disability community (which I am a part of, by the way). In fact, we view the term as equivalent to a racial slur, like the n-word. Likewise, using the term "special" as an insult (as Beamathan did in the title of that discussion thread) is considered offensive, just like using the word gay for the same purpose would be. Of course, it could just be that Beamathan is ignorant of how offensive that term really is; if so, he should probably be educated on sensitivity. On the other hand, if he knows full well that the term is offensive and continues to use it anyway (which seems like the case, since he was warned about his conduct and refused to apologize), I think there should be consequences. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May have been involved eh? Thanks for that "notice" on my talk page. Oh and you may want to check out WP:SPADE, and may want to tone down your political correctness, as to not appear naive and foolish. I'll let my edits speak for me. Especially about Kosovo, for which I battled for almost a full year straight, defending the values of Wikpedia. Retardation is not a slur, it's a fact of life, and sadly a fact of Wikipedia. And LOL at you claiming that you're part of the disability community with Aspergers. Go talk to a family with a child with down syndrome, or perhaps a para-palegic, and THEN say you face similar burdens. You don't, and it's insulting to EVERYONE to think you do and also a sad trend among the current generation. Beam17:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My younger brother has Down Syndrome. In other words, I am part of the family of a child with Down Syndrome, so your personal attack against me doesn't hold any water. And "current generation"? How exactly do you know how old I am? There are 80-year-old men editing Wikipedia, for crying out loud. I'm not that old, but I never told you or anyone else how old I am, so it seems a little odd to me that you would try to guess my age. And "the disability community" is an umbrella term that includes everyone who has any disabilities, not just the ones you think are worth mentioning. Kind of like the way the term LGBT includes both gay and transgender people. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you want people to stop using the word Spade too? THIS is what I'm talking about. If people like you with your views are allowed to have their way than free speech will be worthless. And regarding my comment on my generation, the advent of increased Aspergers and to a lesser extent "actual" Autisum, has led to people self-diagnosing as well as having a little pity party for themselves regarding such things. "Have trouble in school? DON'T WORRY IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT, YOU HAVE DISABILITY!" It appears to be similar to the way ADD was treated in the late 90s early 00s. But I'm no Doctor so that's just a personal opinion. I'm allowed to have one, right? Beam17:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're allowed to have a personal opinion, just like Michael Savage (who more or less shares the view you just expressed). But if you keep expressing your opinions in such a combative and snide fashion, you're going to offend a lot of people. And we don't have absolute freedom of speech on Wikipedia; if we did, policies like WP: NPA, WP: BLP and WP: NLT would not exist. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I consider "retarded" borderline-acceptble considering its wide use here. (btw, Spade is not objectionable language when it refers to a physical spade, or the standard phrase to which WP:SPADE links. It is objectionable when applied to describing a person. But considering the wide acceptance of insult in WP discussions, where much worse is tolerated rom established editors, I'd take no action here, except suggesting the two acoid commenting on each other, as all editors should be treated alike. A 4im is in my opinion excessive. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is in "wide use" doesn't mean it's acceptable. That's basically a peer pressure argument. That would be like saying it should be legal to do cocaine just because cocaine is in "wide use". Stonemason89 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Beam, I would encourage you to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before commenting any further. Note that Wikipedia is both a community and a publisher. While you may have the right to freedom of speech in your country, do not construe this with the right to have whatever you want published by whomever you want. Wikipedia as a publisher is under no obligation to publish your opinion (either in article space or in talk space) and the community is under no obligation to put up with an editor that it perceives to be disruptive to the project. I would very carefully consider how you respond to other editors from now on. --Chris(talk)17:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DGG, I was beginning to worry I had been editing at a different Wikipedia for two years. And I had never even seen this editor before he made this incident report, seems to be a personal crusade with me as an intended victim. Beam17:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack? Can I get a checkuser on him, is this someone from my past? I've worked on some tough articles including Israel and Kosovo so it wouldn't surprise me that this is someone trying to get me back for stopping their POV war. Any chance of looking into that? This is kind of silly.... Beam17:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet? Because that is also a personal attack, and it is not true, since I've been registered since 2006. For the record, I have not been involved with either the Israel or Kosovo articles. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible, and not unheard of. Otherwise it makes no sense, I have never interacted with you to my knowledge. Why would you, out of nowhere, start these proceedings? You either are on a personal crusade of some sort, or you are trying to harm me for some reason. That reason, on wikipedia, is all too often related to differing views on articles. I have never displayed POV Editing, and have worked on some tough articles in which I've had to "fight" other users to get a NPOV. Maybe you were one of those users, it would fit what you've done. Beam17:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personal crusade? Certainly not....I just think Wikipedia should value civility, so when I witness other editors who display long-term patterns of being uncivil or obviously breaking rules, I try to ensure that they should be held accountable for their actions. I don't think people should be able to slime other users (or vandalize, or push POV, etc.) and "get away with it". I'm just doing my part to ensure justice on Wikipedia, and in return I'm being accused of being a sockpuppet.. I was looking through your edit history because I have learned over time that users who make one personal attack generally have made many, so after seeing your out-of-line comments while wandering through Wikipedia, I decided to investigate further. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And started an AN/I about comments from a year ago? Given your alleged personal problems it seems to be a personal crusade. I'd relax, if I were you, and not try to instill your value system on everyone else. Anyway, unless anyone is going to pursue me for this, this will be my last comment here. Beam18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my value system I'm trying to uphold, it's Wikipedia policy. I'm just trying to ensure that Wikipedia policies are followed. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stonemason89, don't take this the wrong way mate, but "shut up and stop arguing with him." When two users start arguing, everyone switches off and takes no notice of the underlying issue. Just give him enough rope - he's hanging himself as it is.
Beam, making cracks about mental health issues or learning disabilities is not acceptable, so give it a rest. If you have an actual disagreement to do with actual content on an actual article about learning difficulties, then discuss that civilly on the talkpage. Otherwise, I recommend that you keep your views on people with learning difficulties to yourself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Implying something along the lines of "I have the right to free speech and I can say anything I want on Wikipedia and if you try to stop me you are breaking my rights!"Active Banana (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, since we're technically a private organization, we can remove whatever we want from this site. I've seen the free speech argument used on Facebook, and that was the answer. N419BH19:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
91.110.*.*/17
This address range is registered to Orange. They are a mobile phone service provider in the UK. The edits coming from a particular user of this service have been extraordinarily disruptive for months. The earliest that I can find disruption is with this edit in December 2009.
Since then there have been multiple incidents with vandalism to Input/output, Input, and Solihull College. The vandalism has included apparent personal information including phone numbers and facebook accounts. Many of the individual entries have been suppressed.
The frequency of occurrence is right around every few weeks. This has been a bit of work to clean up. We're getting owned by this individual.
So what we have is some person using their web capable phone to insert rubbish in the encyclopedia. Is a block to this IP range justified? Dawnseeker2000 17:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The range would appear to be 91.110.128.0/17 by the way. Semi-protection would seem appropriate given the target concentration and usage by other users. -- zzuuzz(talk)18:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soxred93's tool shows the most recent 50 edits from this range. The edits are about 50% vandalism since 1 July. I could see the logic of blocking this range for about a week each time there is a new outburst of vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nineteen Nightmares (talk·contribs) had been referred to WQA and then to AN/I. This occurred on June 19, 2010. Following a discussion in which a community block of two to three weeks was discussed, Salvio giuliano (talk·contribs) offered to mentor Nineteen Nightmares, and the AN/I was closed, with a comment that if 19N started such conduct again, to refer it back to an AN/I. These previous attacks typically involved allegations involving our being socks of Dmartinaus (talk·contribs).
Note that Dmartinaus served a two-week block for being a puppetmaster, which involved a check-user. SPI is here. Following his block being released, he apparently continued to edit on Austin based articles, but I haven't seen anything with a possible COI that would prompt the above attacks.
Also note that on a separate issue, both myself and Minor4th went through a separate SPI, also involving a check-user. That SPI is here. In that SPI, both Minor4th and I were cleared of the sockpuppet allegations.
I was notified of the attacks by Dmartinaus. I will, immediately after I post this, notify 19N and users that were involved in the initial AN/I.
I would request that an admin look at this and that the proposal for a block be re-opened. The mentorship has apparently not worked - he has continued his pattern less than a month after the ANI. GregJackPBoomer!20:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already notified Salvio giuliano, I would like to hear his views on whether the mentorship "failed" before we make any major judgements. S.G.(GH)ping!20:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been mentoring Nineteen Nightmares for few weeks, I don't know what results could be expected in so short a time; however, I think that it is positive that this user was willing to remove an inappropriate edit on my suggestion, because it shows that he is willing to heed advice and change his attitude. As far as the other diffs go, I've read them and, sincerely, I don't see any personal attacks there. He is firm, I grant you that, but he is referring to policy (in my opinion, correctly, by the way) and he is not even incivil. I don't think he needs to be chastised, unless there's something I've missed. Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 20:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Salvio, he is accusing us of being socks for Dmartinaus, again per his statement: "If they were not working on your behalf somehow (or more socks?), they would not have made it such a crusade and then had no interest in Wikipedia at all when the dust settled". This is what brought it to AN/I in the first place, and there have been two SPI's that have cleared us of being socks for Martin. GregJackPBoomer!21:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's inappropriate, since you were cleared (however, please, don't get me wrong, but if I recall correctly, your SPI investigation was a little complex, even though, I reiterate, you were cleared), but I don't think that warrants a block. I'll have again a word with 19N, to avoid:
I also welcome uninvolved input - and you might tell him to stay away from making determinations as to who has an interest in Wikipedia or not - I have plenty of contributions that came before the Don Martin article, and have several since, that I'll stack up against any other editor. GregJackPBoomer!21:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from involved editor -- I have personally had no interaction with NN since he got a mentor, and I don't intend to have any because he is so unpleasant and does not appear to be capable of controlling his animosity and accusations and venom. I noted that he immediately went to Don Martin's talk page and started in on the attacks and has also continued to make accusations about me and Greg (although he did strike one of them at his mentor's suggestion.) He appears to be wikihounding Dmartinaus right after his two week block. I would recommend an agreed no-contact parole between NineteenNightmares and Dmartinaus. I would also hope that his mentor can successfully counsel him to knock off the accusations about me and Greg. Minor4th• talk21:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll certainly try; however, if I may, he is so unpleasant and does not appear to be capable of controlling his animosity and accusations and venom are not very kind words... Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not very kind words, but soft pedaling is not really helpful here. I have found it necessary to avoid interaction with him, and the context of that decision is relevant to this discussion. It's not like I'm alone in this view, and his behavior is not just offensive to me. There are many he has offended repeatedly, and it apparently continues to this day. I thank you for the work you are doing with him and hope that it is ultimately helpful to him. I do believe that he has difficulty controlling his anger and impulses to act out against people he takes issue with. Minor4th• talk21:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that it is a little inconsistent to come here complaining about someone else's personal attacks, throwing in personal attacks against them; however, if you're keeping an eye on Nineteen Nightmares' talk page, you'll have seen that I've asked him to keep away from everything even remotely related to this entire unfortunate affair, hoping this will help. Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on no-drama week, but a note on my talk page specifically brought me here, so I'll suspend my no-drama pledge for long enough to say: The diffs above are not enough to show that Salvio's mentorship of Nineteen Nightmares has failed. In fact, I can see some early evidence that the mentorship may be beginning to succeed. Give it time.—S MarshallT/C23:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this report, I'm inclined to simply bash the heads of both Dmartinaus and Nineteen Nightmares together. Neither of them have done anything actionable, but Dmartinus is just as guilty of trying to aggravate Nineteen Nightmares [104]. They both need to leave each other alone. --Deskana(talk)00:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Deskana. I really wish these editors would just go their own separate ways and stop commenting to or about each other and stop monitoring what each are doing. I am busy with chapter work and not editing much at present but from a cursory check, I think 19Nightmares has been responding to Salvio's mentorship and the mentorship should be continued if Salvio is happy to do so and feels 19Nightmares has been making progress. As I have told Dmartinaus a number of times, I have concerns about what he's doing here and I was particularly concerned with the "clean-up" mission he was on for days after his block expired, but it's obvious that no productive or constructive discussions will ever come out of this group of editors engaging with each other, so they really need to go their own ways and focus on their own editing without monitoring each other and commenting to/about each other. This whole thing has become too disruptive and too much of a time-sink and if they can't come to an understanding on their own to let each party edit in peace and find their own corners of this very, very large project to work in, the community will just have to take it out of their hands and enforce interaction bans. Sarah02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I am requesting is that he stop the personal attacks on me. I have made a point to stay away from him and did not know of this until it was brought to my attention. I just want him to leave me alone, along with any editors or admins that he is associated with. GregJackPBoomer!07:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I didn't start ANY of this. I responded to a series of very personal attacks. Nevertheless, as an effort to Assume Good Faith in the other editors here, to take their advice, and to show Civility toward 19N, I am reverting my comments about this person on all other pages (mine and his)and striking out the quotations below. And I am moving on to making actual edits to articles again, and not add to this discussion at all. I have no problem with the suggestion above that he and I not communicate to each other in the future. Dmartinaus • Talk04:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you did start it. What I am saying is that if you ask 19Nightmares to stop posting on your page and you don't post on his page or make comments about him elsewhere, and he keeps coming back and posting on your page anyway, one of us would likely block him. But when you have two users taking shots at each other, we are more likely to either block both or neither and 'knock their heads together'. Sarah06:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spamfilter his emails and you won't have to read them. I do understand why you want to portray yourself into the victim role here, Dmartinaus, and I don't think you're succeeding.—S MarshallT/C00:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Dmartinaus -- ignore him and don't respond as I counseled you on your talk page. You have offended plenty of people as well, and now it's time to make good on your second chance by being productive and avoiding these unpleasantries. It takes two to keep the drama going. Minor4th• talk00:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Excellent advice that I should have taken 100% at the beginning. I had actually written point-by-point responses but decided not to send them and thus prolong the fight. It is just so infuriating to be characterized as the money-grubbing bad guy businessman. From now on I am blanking his emails and not responding. So on to more productive activities and edits. Dmartinaus • Talk01:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh geez -- I had not ventured over to NN's talk page to see the commentary you left for him. Don, you make it really hard to stick up for you when you're treated badly because you give as well as you get and even up the ante. I am not your mentor, of course, but like Salvio advised NN, I am asking you to stay away from everything related to NineteenNightmares. Please do not comment on his talk page, and consider reverting yourself on those edits on his talk page because Salvio was right, you are taunting him. Minor4th• talk02:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I just noted above, I just want 19N to leave me out of his comments. It was not appropriate for 19N to leave a diatribe on Dmartinaus' talk page, nor to make the comments that he made about his recent block. While I note that Dmartinaus did not start this, he should not have gone over to 19Ns talk page either. I don't really care what either one of them do, so long as I am left out of it. GregJackPBoomer!07:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My final comment. I'd eco the above. To everyone who's bashing me for responding, please keep in mind that I didn't start ANY of this. I only responded (yes, in anger) after three days of repeated accusatory and rambing messages from him. Surely many of you would have responded as well if you were being attacked in such volume. Next time I will have learned this lesson and ignore him completely (which is easy for you all to say but very hard to do when you are being personally attacked). Honestly I'd be perfectly happy to never post another word about him. Or as suggested above, perhaps a mutual pact not to ever post about each other. Meanwhile out of a desire to show and promote civility WP:CIV and in respect of the comments from many editors here about how I should not have responded, I have removed all of my remarks about him on all pages. And as you can see from my log I have gone back to making constructive edits as well. Dmartinaus • Talk11:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just put a communication ban in place? Or something like that? That way the drama of 19, Greg, and Dmartinaus ends. Cadencool14:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg I don't know. Maybe Sarah or Deskanna can figure something out? I'm just saying that a ban of some kind could be good. Sort of like the way topic bans are set up? I know it worked for me when the community topic banned me. Cadencool15:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah's an involved party, having made similar statements in the past. I don't have a problem with another admin figuring it out, but I do have an issue with her being involved in the solution. GregJackPBoomer!18:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet of Rangersarecool requests a second chance
As per standard procedure, I've indefinitely blocked Programmer101 for block evasion, as well as an older account of the same person, Programmer13(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). But in recognition of their candor and of their spell of apparently nonproblematic editing since 2009, I would like to ask for community input whether they should be given a second chance and the block lifted. While their contributions to mainspace (Programmer13, Programmer101) are not impressive, consisting only of relatively few automated vandalism reversions, they are still a net positive.
For these reasons, I recommend that we allow Rangersarecool to resume editing as Programmer101. I'll be on semi-break starting tomorrow, so I'd appreciate it if another administrator would unblock Programmer101 after a day or so unless the discussion in this thread shows that the community is opposed to this. Sandstein 20:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If their edits have been constructive and they have not engaged in further abusive sockpuppetry, I see no reason to maintain the block. –xenotalk20:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OFFER I'm inclined to agree. If they've been constructive, let bygones be bygones. (I would have appreciated a bit more up-front honesty from the user, but I understand that sometimes pretending to be someone else, doing good, and then revealing your true identity may actually be the only way to get people to trust you. Oddly enough.) --Chris(talk)22:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Unblock Programmer101 and let him continue to edit constructively. If problems arise, reblock. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Why not? If they're going to be a net positive the community gains. If they turn net negative a block and rollback will fix any problems and the community ends up neutral. Let them back, especially concerning the positive contributions of the new account. N419BH04:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MikeHydro repeatedly adding personal commentary to articles
MikeHydro(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has repeatedly, over a period of about six months, added personal commentaries and unsourced additions to a series of articles. He has been warned on several occasions by several editors but has not ceased or even responded, either on his talk page (which he has never edited) nor on article talk pages (only one of which he has edited during his entire career as an editor). Virtually every edit he has ever made appears to be original research or personal opinion, often criticising the rest of the article's content. I have not found a single edit that appears to have any encyclopedic value. He appears to see Wikipedia as an outlet for his personal views on various topics.
His user talk page is full of warnings, dating from 20 January 2010 to today, none of which he has responded to. I see no sign that this editor has any interest in following Wikipedia's basic content policies, nor of heeding any of the advice and warnings that have been given to him over the last six months. I suggest, given the total lack of response and his persistent bad editing, that he be indefinitely blocked for carrying out what amounts to persistent low-level vandalism. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the edits given, I must agree, none of what the user has added is encyclopedic, some of it (like the first diff) is just mindless drivel that makes no sense. Recommend block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've indefinitely blocked him, Chris. His comment in February on Dawnseeker2000's talk page here makes it pretty clear he has no intention of complying with policy. Sarah02:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This might be moot now that the user is blocked but in the link Sarah provided is the passage "they will receive their legal requisitions in due time". To me that reads as a legal threat. Even if the user wasn't blocked for anything, a block for legal threats would be necessary. So, if they are to request unblock, they will first need to rescend that legal threat. Either way, it is moot with the block but worth noting. Good block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that's a legal threat, but I'm curious about something. From what I can discern in his posts, the user claims some kind of college education. How is it possible that in the course of this he never learned to compose a simple declarative English sentence? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was recently invited to WP:3O at Paige Matthews over non-free images as discussed here here
I saw this edit on my watchlist [105] and the edit sumary "agree w/AniMate, these are gratuitous usages that are at odds w/NFCC. will opine at talk, too" So I click on the user to see if it was an Admin bureaucrat etc. and too my suprise it says its a WP:SOCK! so i brought it here Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Until Jack Merridew replaces the unexplained "sockpuppet" notices on his userpage with a neutral statement, this kind of misunderstanding will keeping recurring. Fences&Windows03:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What purpose does this serve since it is confusing to editors who don't know your history? Why not just remove it now? You got in trouble for socking with multiple account and got indefinitely blocked. You made a recovery, good for you. Leaving this up serves no purpose anymore other than to cause confusion. I agree with Fences and windows, If you want just put a notice in prose about everything with difs. Not so hard and less confusing to editors who see the tmeplate. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk17:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was the only person that never found it confusing. Just clicked on the link, read the history and nodded in agreement. Just a lotta ado over nothing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First time I saw it, I read it, got confused as he'd just commented on a talk page, read it again, and laughed all the way to the investigation page, where I read all about it. He certainly has his own unique tact and approach when dealing with his past. N419BH18:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ewawer has engaged in slow moving editorial conflict across a number of articles regarding the State of Palestine. He engages in WP:TEDIOUS edits in order to remove pertinent material and citations which say Palestine was a State. He replaces that content with unsourced narratives.
Although Ewawer has participated in discussions regarding the general sanctions in the Wikipedia:ARBPIA case, it appears that no official notification has ever been logged. [106] So, I am requesting that a notice be given.
Justification: A number of very high quality third-party verifiable published sources say that the British Mandate for Palestine was composed of two states, Palestine and Transjordan. [107] Both states were formally recognized by many other countries, including the United States. Here is an example:
"The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations Mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit. ... Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nation provision in treaties of commerce." See Elihu Lauterpacht, International Law Reports, Volume 20, Editors Elihu Lauterpacht, Hersch Lauterpacht, Cambridge UP, 1957, ISBN 0521463653, page 254. [108]
This is not a content dispute: Removing well-sourced references to the "State" of Palestine from State of Palestine article(s) is disruptive. The final decision in Wikipedia:ARBPIA requires editors to utilize reliable sources for their contentious or disputed assertions. Editors who claim that Palestine was not a state are welcome to add opposing views from reliable published sources. However, Ewawer does not cite any sources to support his/her edits and engages in WP:Battle tactics that interfere with the Wikipedia goal of providing neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the issues and the positions of all the interested parties.
I've notified them of the arbitration statement on this. They've not edited for over a fortnight, and their focus letely has been away from Palestine/Israel articles. Why have you brought this here? Have you tried talking to Ewawer? Fences&Windows03:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. I only wanted the user to be formally notified. Consensus is achieved through the editing process. I backed off on editing the articles for a while, after discussing the problem on user talk pages, article talk pages, and at WP:IPCOLL. I intend to resume editing the articles again to incorporate information on boundaries, citizenship, state lands, state property, LoN and UN decisions, & etc. harlan (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's as much proof that Elmer Fudd or the fictional character Arnold Snarb won this award. If there's no proof for those awards, where's the proof for Julian Assange? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.254.152 (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do not yet have a reliable source for the award winners in 2009 and 2010, which is why a "[citation needed]" tag is provided, but the two men listed are at least viable candidates. If you would like to discuss removing the 2009 and 2010 award winners altogether, I would be happy to do that on the relevant talk page. But replacing a viable candidates for the award with fictional characters is vandalism and if you continue to do so you will be blocked. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please - I need help
I just tried to move the article Public security bureau to Public Security Bureau (as I felt the elements of the name should be capitalised) but my computer started acting up and closed the file and the heading came out something like PublicSsecurity Bureau. When I tried to change this to Public Security Bureau I got a warning that there was already an article with the same name and now I don't know what to do to fix it. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We had a dispute with editor EENG over a page we wrote, with permission from the principal (Joaquin Fuster) to use his material. In fact, he even added GNU copyright-free language to his site just for Wiki! EENG recruited other editors and deleted our work, and the entire page, which is fine. However, thereafter, EENG systematically went through ALL our articles and began adding numerous templates to all of them, including many that had been through entire editorial cycles, asked and answered. The behaviour has become a vendetta by EENG! This kind of "target the newbie" behaviour is beyond discourteous and disruptive, it is downright abuse of editorial power. It has nothing to do with articles, and everything to do with targeting another editor! Check his recent pattern of templates vs. our articles-- you will see a clear pattern of sequential disruptive editing (see WP:DIS). We have notified EENG of this behaviour on every page he spammed, the articles he deleted, his own talk page, and the editor he recruited to help him delete the Fuster page's talk page, who was courteous and not a problem.
EENG needs to be stopped, frozen, or disciplined for this conduct. The etiquette here is to help new editors, not target them! Thanks for investigating this behaviour. Phoenixthebird (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind, I've changed your original title for this thread to something more neutral and accurate, as there's no spam involved. The Talk:Joaquin Fuster page seems to show that the article was a substantial copyright violation, as pointed out to you by more than one editor. From there, EEng (talk·contribs) looks to have added templates to several articles you've edited in the past. Do you have a specific problem with any of those templates, or just the general addition of any material to an article you've worked on? Also, when you say "We had a dispute," what "we" are you talking about? Dayewalker (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Phoenixthebird, it looks like you chased EEng onto the Phineas Gage article and left a bunch of retaliatory tags there. You don't have clean hands, regardless of what EEng may have done. In any case, copyright violations are a serious matter that must be treated seriously, so if he saw a problem with your edits elsewhere, he is supposed to remove them. That is not optional. — Gavia immer (talk)04:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going off the deep end in response to someone who has obviously just looked at Special:Contributions/Phoenixthebird isn't good etiquette, either, even though it's something that novices (and those who wish to defend the indefensible) regularly do. Look at your edit to Gareth Loy. Because you're so convinced that someone is stalking you over the the seven or so articles that you've touched, you've removed an orphan notice from an an article that … well … was and still is an orphan. Knee-jerk reversions and over-reactions are things to avoid. As, too, are lengthy rants about how other editors are not creative and productive, in defence of text that you just took from someone else and that wasn't creativity on your part, either. Yes, we do indeed turf people out on their ear. Some of the people that we turf out on their ear are those whose idea of "writing" is taking other people's work and passing it off as their own, copying it wholesale into Wikipedia. Those who come to the administrators' noticeboard drawing attention to lengthy and highly erroneous tirades on the subject tend to get administrator attention even more quickly than most. So think very carefully about what you say and do next. Uncle G (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Loy, but the page Gareth Loy that you created looks like something I'd expect to find on a promotional website, so don't be surprised if people tag it. You don't seem to have read WP:BLP and certainly need to read WP:LEAD, and it needs the promotional language and tone removed. When you write articles like this, and someone notices it, then you can expect editors to look at your other articles. You might want to read WP:OWN also. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified EEng - Phoenixbird, you should have done that, it says it clearly at the top of the page. Everyone else, you might want to see Talk:Joaquin_Fuster - the talk page of the deleted article on Fuster which the deleting Admin has deliberately left undeleted so people can read it. Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, excuse me, but what you mean "we", Kemo Sabe? I've noticed that you use that word in a number of your posts. You also refer to "our articles" a number of times. Just how many people are editing from the Phoenixthebird account? You wouldn't be some kind of PR firm editing Wikipedia for pay, would you? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more question. If you're not a PR firm, do you have any WP:COI on the Joaquin Fuster article that you should disclose? Note that this does not prevent you editing such an article, but the fact (if it is a fact) should be disclosed and certain restrictions complied with. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just one small point. Phoenixbird says "EENG recruited other editors and deleted our work". I see no evidence that EENG did any recruiting. Phoenixbird (not EENG) called for intervention by a "third party administrator", and I, as an uninvolved administrator, responded to that call. On the face of it this looks rather like "I want a third party to mediate, but only if that third party supports my line". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good comments all of you, except for "Steven Anderson." For Steven: I'm a 70 year old professor in the MIT system, with a JD in IP and a PhD in molecular biology and supercomputing. If someone above used the word "we", (and, do you know what an editorial "we" is?, assume you do), and Anderson is now making accusations of Socking, will the person above please let Anderson know that you're just being supportive and balanced, not using some other account. We have one small account here, and are rapidly losing interest in that. PR is laughable, juried publications are where you cut your teeth in our field. I'm tenured, so what exactly does PR get you again? Young man's game, sir, no interest. In our opinion Watson acted much too quickly here, but then I guess he's got an agenda too-- we're happy and have no axe to grind regardless of the decision, just wish an experienced admin would have allowed more time, since the subject of the article was willing (and has) put free use language on his site, which negates all the copyright hullabaloo. You know, he was going article by article with us to be sure the ones on Wiki were juried! COI? We have no knowledge of this gentleman at all (Dr. Fuster) other than his wonderful credentials and contributions to the Neuro field. He wrote the leading text on the prefrontal cortex in the world, and if you check PFC on Wiki you'll see him referred to, and if you Google him, notability will be no issue. Other editors have contacted us who also are expert in Neuro, and our only motive is the hope that Wiki will keep up with special fields like this, given the many spinoffs like Wiki Neuro that are juried and represent a brain drain from the "real" Wiki. We'll stick to adding technical corrections to articles.
For the "insult" that "you've ONLY worked on 7 articles," hey-- that makes us a newbie, is there a little neuro circuit running in the PFC of that individual wanting us to tell him he's great because he's a veteran? Well, no biggie, our hats are off to you-- go ahead and allow yourself a little GABA and dopamine in that circuit. But, you don't have to blow the candle of another out to make your own seem to shine brighter, yes? And with a little more maturity you'll want to help newbies, not zonk em for beginner level contributions. I've got dozens of young stallions working for me here that are avid Wiki types, contributors and fans... they have the adrenalin for this ride, I'm just trying to add a few notable folks who seem to be missing for no particularly good reason! Phoenixthebird (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Constant personal attacks, misuse of warning templates, and general incivility by Bender176
User:Bender176 has been biting newcomers, misusing warning templates, attacking users[128][129], and some more (Just look at his contributions). Despite warnings from several people, including myself, he says that they're "bogus", or thinks that they're send to the wrong user. Almost always after someone uses a warning template on his talk page he'll revert it, and call it vandalism. He won't allow users to edit his talk page without it being reverted/undid by him. if this should be at WP:WQA, feel free to move there if deemed necessary. Pilif12p : Yo 06:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting. The user's first edit was less than a month ago and has been questioned by an established editor with a cite. Some non-civil but accurate warnings to an new account, a l4 warning to a sandbox edit (an offensive one), a crazy edit summary to a user response that seemed relatively civil, and a few others to boot, and that's just from the above.
I agree, that's a very concerning set of diffs. Since warnings and friendly advice have not been well-received I've issued a 24 hour "shot-across-the-bows" block to drive home the fact that either users play by the rules or they don't edit. Please re-report if there is further disruption. EyeSerenetalk07:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three editors have already answered your question at the 3RR board. If they have all ruled in the same way you may wish to take it as given that they are right? S.G.(GH)ping!09:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't "rule" in the same way.
Mathsci is the 1RR violating party and has no business to rule.
One was indeed unambiguously a revert, the second edit is far more of a grey area. Yes, I could see an argument for blocking him over it under a strict interpretation of 1RR, but I think that personally I'd have given the benefit of the doubt here too - it was a substantial edit that happened to remove some of the content. This is less clear-cut than you seem to be making out - I'd caution Mathsci to be extra-careful with these things, but I'm not inclined to disagree with Spartaz's decision here.~ mazcatalk10:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly at least 4 people disagree with you about there being a grey area, and just stating "there is no grey area" without explaining why you feel that this is the case, isn't constructive and certainly isn't going to persuade anyone that you're right. In any case, whether Spartaz' decision to give the user the benefit of the doubt is overturned or not, he was well within his discretion to make the call, and since it's Spartaz you're complaining about here, I think this thread can be closed. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]10:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the revert rule was a bright line. There is no "benefit of doubt". There are no "grey areas". I have demonstrated with no ambiguity or possibility of interpretation that the rule was broken. Removed personal attack. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 11:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC) mikemikev (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll caution him (if it hasn't been done already) since it seems that at 3RR and here there is little consensus that a blatant problem needs fixing. S.G.(GH)ping!11:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(several ec and a phone call later) There has been no notification on my talk page of this thread. Nor has there been any attempt by Mikemikev to discuss this with me on my talk page. I see that he continues to throw personal attacks aropund concerning me. Calling me incompetant and now alleging corruption. Can someone deal with this incivility please? Oh and Mikemikev, the reason I did not respond to you at AN3 is because of the personal attack. If I did miss the substance of the 2nd revert you lost all chance of getting me to review the close when you chose to attack me. I would have been more then happy to revisit had you simply neutrally pointed out the sentence removed twice and asked if I had picked that up. Maybe if there are any lessons here it would be that you catch more flies with honey then vinegar. SpartazHumbug!11:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment suggests that mike has not taken on board your warning, so I have left him a final warning on his talk page. If he is not careful he is liable to get a "necessary restriction" of his own. S.G.(GH)ping!12:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(more edit conflicts but no phone call this time)No chance. I'm not interested anymore. I have better things to spend my volunteer time on then helping users who behave in a nasty and agressive way. You reap what your sow. SpartazHumbug!12:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at this report upon seeing this. I pretty regularly handle AN3 issues and have nothing to do with this article or this dispute. Spartaz made unambiguously the correct decision. I would have done the same thing and I think any admin who patrols AN3 would have done the same thing. --B (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear admins, I request some additional action. This edit is not unique and over the past several months my user and talk pages have been redirected or subjected to vandalism making fun of a debilitating medical condition that I suffer from. I would like to request some additional action be taken. Possibly a checkuser to find who is making these edits and a permablock on all their accounts. I have a sneaking suspicion (without any proof) that there may be a goodhand-badhand account that is active. I am crying as I write this because it hurts so much to be made fun of, on top of all the physical pain and emotional pain that I suffer from the loss of my health. Basket of Puppies09:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see it was Alison that blocked that account - I believe she has checkuser access so you could ask her to take another look. Semiprotection of your talkpage may be another option. Beyond that, really the best strategy is to ignore as far as possible the provocation. It's difficult I know, but perhaps you can take some comfort in the fact that this type of behaviour merely exposes whoever's doing it as the worst possible sort of coward. Frankly, edits like that are beneath contempt and I think you should give it no more notice than you would a fart in a thunderstorm. EyeSerenetalk10:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can be fairly certain that it's a certain banned user who made the edits, but it's actually impossible to permablock them or anyone else. I'll semi-protect the userpage if you're happy with that; the talk page can be semi'd if it continues much. The best thing would be to completely ignore it. In short there's not much that admins can do about it, other than RBI. -- zzuuzz(talk)11:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just ignore the ignorance posted to you. It's not worth it to let yourself get so upset by things like this. Don't give them the satisfaction. As someone with serious medical problems I totally understand how you feel. Keep in mind that trolls like this are just out for attention and you are above it. If you'd like, feel free to email me. You can see on my talk page that we have some things sort of in common. Take care and don't worry about this. Just remember the revert button only takes two clicks. :) I'll put you on my watchlist to see if I can help at least make it so you don't have to see anything in case they get through the protection that is up. Hope you are ok now, --CrohnieGalTalk18:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous user is aggressively adding and re-adding a wall of gobbledegook to Foreclusion: see recent edits at [131] Please could an admin take a look and take whatever action they think appropriate. Thanks in advance, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have blocked the IP editor for personal attacks and disruption, may I remind you of your role in this. First, if the editor does not know the rules, how can he abide by them? A Welcome template is always useful. Next, when an editor breaks policy you discuss it with them: escalating warning templates can be used, but discussion is best. Third, before bringing an ANI (or even a WQA), you are supposed to try and resolve the issue directly with them on their talkpage. Finally, after appropriate warnings, vandalism is supposed to go to WP:AIV - if it's a content dispute, there are other methods as per WP:DR. so, the 3hr rest I gave him will be enough for him to read policies and learn (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For much of 2006 and 2007, this article was the site of a hyper-nationalist edit war until several members sought to put an end to the foolish conflict and change the article to a serious work on subject. After several weeks of work, multiple ANI reports and a spate of blocks on the worst perpetrators, including Melonbarmonster, we succeeded in our goal. Since that time, many contributors have worked tirelessly, devoting themselves to keeping the article stable and bringing it to the verge of good article status.
On July 4, an anonymous IP contributor posted a long winded attack message on the Korean cuisine talk page disparaging the article as racist, a posting that contained references to multiple policies and essays showing that the contributor had extensive knowledge of Wikipedia and it workings. I left a quick reply disputing the IP contributors assertions and explaining why the post was inaccurate.
A short time later Melonbarmonster returned to the talk page for the first time in years and entered the discussion declaring that he agrees with the IP editor and will fix all of the issues raised by the IP editor. This was in spite of more than 18 months of continuous improvement to the article and multiple contributors not finding any of the claimed neutrality problems the IP contributor was contesting. Melon proceeded to blank out the sections that he disliked the most and began to rewrite the whole article with a pro-Korean bias, eliminating what he percieved as racist. Almost all of the stuff he removed was fully cited and vetted in the GA review and had been accepted as factual and neutral.
My self and others repeatedly restored his deletions and contested his additions. It took a request for page protection to stop his repeated attempts to rewrite the article. Since that time he has begun a barrage of posts on the talk page claiming that the article violate multiple policies and accusing myself and others of ownership and generally violating civility and launching personal attack with thinly veiled accusations of racist agenda on the part of the contributor who did a majority of the initial work on the article, Chef Tanner. In these accusations he claimed, without ever seeing the source itself, that it did not contain any of the information about the subjects he claims to be racist and Chef tanner was making up the additions to demean the Korean people. When another editor, Hkwon took the time to go to the library and look up the research in the book Chef Tanner used, he found it exactly as Chef Tanner had stated it to be. Despite multiple editors telling he is in the wrong and telling him his methods and reasoning are flawed, he has continued to war away at the talk page. In his postings he has also claimed that there are multiple editors who have raised concerns over the content and that there has never been a consensus on the content he is disputing.
I am sure that once the block expires later next week, he will continue his assault on the article.
I need for an uninvolved editor to look into his behavior and see what can be don to stop his edit warring.
My main issues with him in this matter:
He cannot accept that Wikipedia is not censored and is insisting that the article is racist and all that he feels to be racist must be expunged;
He is disrupting the articles to prove a point, which this whole thing is really about.
Articles on Wikipedia must adhere to a neutral point of view, which most contributors agree this article does.
Assumption of good faith, in the posts on the talk page he has made multiple accusations that other editors have a racist agenda and have made up stuff to push that agenda. These personal attacks are what are riling me most in this issue.
My final and deepest concern is about the IP posting that reignited this whole issue. In the posting, the language the IP user contained similar arguments, phrasing and grammatical patterns that Melonbarmonster has used in past postings and arguments concerning these subjects. I am deeply concerned that this whole thing is a macguffin based on an IP posting that is nothing more than a sock message posted by Melon himself. I requested a check user, but the check was declined because CU requests cannot be used link specific users to IP addresses.
Hkwon and Melonbarmonster have been engaged in hostilities with each other recently, and I did warn them both that the article and talk page are no place to attack each other. After that warning, Hkwon was fairly civil and provided a more balanced series of postings, including the trip to the library.
I don't understand why the IP edits on a talk page is even being discussed. It's a talk page, there are no questions of the IP being used to get around any Wikipedia rules or blocks. People often use an IP to edit Wikipedia, when they forget/can't be bothered to login. In addition to that, none of the other articles that have been edited by the IP, are shared with Melonbarmonster - plus a quick WHOIS check reveals that the IP is located in UK. As far as I was aware, Melonbarmonster is not located anywhere near UK. The chances of the IP being Melonbarmonster are minimal. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Following up this thread from the other day. Handicapper (talk·contribs) has already been through [RfC] where he was chastised about marking major edits as minor. He continued to do it and was warned here and here to stop. Regardless of that, he pretty much spits in the face of the warnings here and continues to mark major edits as minor...including a somewhat questionable page move and a redirect. It's becoming more and more obvious that the editor has no intention of working collaboratively. Due to his refusal to accept consensus, continued ownership issues and inability to edit collaboratively, I recommend an indefinite block until such a time that he shows that he is actually able to accept consensus and edit collaboratively. I would do it myself...but seeing as I participated in the RfC, that probably wouldn't be my greatest idea. --Smashvilletalk13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, wait... If we're willing to get rid of the setting altogether (and it appears nearly everyone commenting on this thread agrees), why are we blocking people for using it incorrectly? Just because he won't bow to our will? If you don't think the setting is useful, then don't pay any attention to it now. The only people who should be in favor of this block are those who think the little m has some use. I see other issues besides the minor edit one were brought up in the RFC; have those re-occurred since the RFC? If so, then modify the block rationale. If not, then this is a silly block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has said that minor edits have no use, but it shouldn't be a default setting. There's a perfectly valid reason for the "the little m" and they are misusing it, which is considered disruptive editing, especially after this editor has been asked numerous times to stop doing so. Jauerbackdude?/dude.15:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My name is David Schlesinger, and I have become aware over the last week or so of repeated vandalism on the part of the editor Ender2070 with respect to the articles on ACCESS and the ACCESS Linux Platform.
That change was again reverted, and Yworo went through the work which Ender2070 should have done in properly sourcing the various statements. This was not, reportedly, difficult and shows that Ender2070's interests were clearly not in producing a better article on ACCESS.
These changes were again undone by Yworo. In the course of the discussion over these various edits, Ender2070 attempted to "out" Yworo by (apparently) claiming he was me, see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Ender2070
User Ender2070 has not revealed that he has been harassing myself, my employer and my family off-wiki for a number of months, and therefore has a clear conflict of interest in editing these articles in any way. I request that this user be banned from future editing activities, by IP address, since his sole contributions here have been to vandalize articles in pursuit of an off-wiki vendetta rather than to improve them.
A check by administrators will validate that Ender2070 uses the same IP address as was used for some of the improper edits, 174.89.137.12. My own identity can be verified by contacting me at my email address, lefty@shugendo.org. I have notified Ender2070 of my intent to report this incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.206.84 (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That IP address does not belong to me whatsoever. Check my edit history and what IP addresses I have been editing from. I gladly invite the administration to look into this. Ender2070 (talk) 10:51AM, 7 July 2010 (EST)
The preceding statement by User:Ender2070 is a falsehood, or at least, so the available evidence strongly suggests. Please see the article at [redacted]. Note that in the IRC log cited, a user, also using the name Ender2070, joins the conversation from an address ""bas22-toronto12-2925103372.dsl.bell.ca", which maps via DNS to the above-mentioned IP address, 174.89.137.12. Note also that, when his own edits to the ACCESS article are pointed out to him, he immediately denies any knowledge of them at all. I find it noteworthy that User:Ender2070 denies none of the other allegations, including the most serious, an unstated conflict of interest and bringing an off-wiki dispute into factual articles. 68.126.206.84 (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that Ender2070 attempted to out me as Mr. Schlesinger using Mr. Schlesinger's nickname "Lefty". I had TFOWR redact the edits and inform the user about our policy on outing. Since it was a mis-identification I was not overly concerned about it, but did begin to keep an eye on the user and observed the editing to which Mr. Schlesinger refers. I attempted to educate the user and he seems receptive to learning and observing our policies. Another user brought the issue of possible off-wiki harassment up on the article talk page a few days ago, at which point I advised the user that if the allegations were true, it would be best to avoid editing any articles related to Mr. Schlesinger. I've been busy with other discussions and haven't paid attention to whether the user heeded my advice.
However, looking back at the IP edits and comparing them to the edits of the user, my duck alarm is quacking loudly., FWIW. Yworo (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just redacted the link that claims to identify Ender2070, and removed the intervening edits. Can someone confirm whether or not I did that correctly?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's gone. Dunno if you had to redact all the intervening ones though. I think you just have to redact the original one. Someone else with teh toolz might be able to confirm this. N419BH15:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from involved admin: I've previously blocked Ender2070 for removing valid tags, and had cause to caution them about WP:OUTING very shortly thereafter. I redacted part of Ender2070's comment - that part suggested, as 68.126.206.84/Lefty notes, that Yworo was Lefty. At the time I did not extend Ender2070's block, partly because I did not immediately realise that "Lefty" was a noun (apologies, Lefty). As this appears to be part of a wider pattern of off- and on-wiki behaviour I would consider a block at this point as preventative, and a valid response to a serious problem. I am looking into this further, and encourage others to do so. TFOWR15:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It had, I think (Yworo, can you confirm?), been reported at WP:AIV, and I saw >3 reverts, removing what appeared to be valid tags, without any attempt to respond. A better explanation for the block log would probably have been in order, however... TFOWR15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IRC log cited is a non verifiable and user modifiable source. In addition my previous block was due to my own stupid ignorance of the Wikipedia Rules. I was trying to protect the GNU article from being labeled as an 'incomplete' OS and was removing citations I believed were not needed but I was ignorant of the process to properly fix those issues. As for the Access Co article I added citation tags to areas I believed needed direct citation so that nothing would be missed. I had planned to go back and do research to fill them in but I ran out of time. I did go back and try to fix the misleading statement that ALP was an open source platform when most of it is proprietary. Yworo and I had a productive talk and we worked out a solution which worked for both of us. I am new to Wikipedia and I am asking that I not be banned just for ignorance. Ender2070 (talk) 11:45, 8 July —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I would simply note that, subsequent to Ender2070's characterization of Yworo as "super biased", and his attempted outing of Yworo as myself, Ender2070 immediately embarked on a series of edits which (as noted above) constituted direct personal attacks, again directed at myself. This, I would say, provides some support for my saying that his activities here on Wikipedia are directly motivated by a grudge he holds against me personally, and by extension, against ACCESS. 68.126.206.84 (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is hardly evidence at all. The irc logs sited are from a network called Freenode which allows users to talk in some channels without identifying their nickname with nickserv. In fact I was accused of this long before I made neutral 'citation required' edits and removing misleading statements suggesting they sell an open source platform. The harassment site run by the user complaining brought my attention to the issue and I noticed the article was incorrect and had all kinds of unverified information. Have I not complied with all warnings I've received since being blocked the first time? I would suggest if any action is taken at all, it would be to put restrictions on editing the ACCESS Co Article, and not by blocking me. I've done nothing to it in days and I was quite unaware of most of the rules, not all of them are common sense like most sites. I did quote a mailing list post because it's the only source I could pinpoint which said they didn't contribute to GNOME or GUADEC anymore. I could have referenced the Gnome quarterly earnings as a means to show the 'lack' of ACCESS support but I figured it would be just as unreliable. Ender2070 (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2010 (EST)
Is it your assertion that the IP is not you? There's a big difference between "That's not me" and "You can't prove that's me".
In court, an attorney making that argument is one thing. Here, it's essentially an admission of guilt.
We can't force you to identify yourself, but you've put the question on the table.
If that was poor choice of words and you in fact actively deny any connection, you are welcome to clarify.
I am, as we've seen, unable to provide external evidence of the unlikelihood that Ender2070 and the IP address in question represent two separate editors without running afoul of the "outing" policy. Perhaps some "non-outing" support for their being the same might be found by examining the IP address at issue, and the IP address being used by Ender2070, to see whether they're in the same general geographical area. If they were, this is admittedly not conclusive, but it would certainly be suggestive, I'd say.
I'd note, in passing, that Ender2070 both propagated the address of my so-called "harassment site" in one of his edits here, as well as immediately claiming that he was being "outed" (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Access_Co.) when another editor pointed to precisely the same site as evidence of Ender2070's off-wiki vendetta. This seems rather inconsistent. 68.126.206.84 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a poor choice of words. The IP address has nothing to do with me. That was what I was trying to imply by insisting that there was no proof to correlate that IP address with my userid and I am 100% confident that there is no direct link. In science, when you have no proof then it's not fact. As for 68.126.206.84, it's very reporting of this issue is a 'conflict of interest'. The outing I referred to is by linking Ender2070 to my real life personal name on his harassment site, not the unverifiable irc logs. Look at how many times my full legal name appears there, and how often that site harasses me. *If* It is decided that I am to be banned or blocked, so should 68.126.206.84 and I would not complain if that ban was equal towards us both. Ender2070 (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (EST)
Resolved
Resolved
Facepalm GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Wrong venue. Please move to WP:AN3