The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps this should be left to the clerks, but I'm putting up a notice here. Hipocrite made some fairly outrageous proposed decisions at the Workshop for this arbitration, and apparently decided to remove them. But he removed the whole proposal section, including comment by others. So I reverted. He then altered his prior edits, removing his name from the proposal section, etc. I have not warned him, because I'm sure it wouldn't be useful, it's up to the rest of the community what to do about this, I'm done with it now. --Abd (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Just report it to the clerk assigned to the case. It's their job to take care of this kind of stuff. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Dealt with. See workshop talkpage if interested (and arbitration clerks' noticeboard if excessively interested). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to bring this here other than to waste valuable time. It's well-established that the community aren't going to do much over this sort of thing at arbitration - arbitrator delegates exist for a reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, NCMV. I have never been a party to an arbitration before and never had to face or possibly deal with what's been encountered, so I'm learning. What you say makes sense; after all, most RfArs are being watched by quite a few editors with buttons, plus the clerks, etc. --Abd (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What's up with replacing Image: with File: everywhere? Doesn't everyone know that redirects should not be replaced just to replace them, as edits are very costly, and redirects are not? I happen to like calling images images, it helps to understand what they are, vs. calling them a file, which says nothing. Whoever is going around changing them needs to stop, such as User:MauritsBot. Please leave them as they are - if they say file, leave them as file, if they say image leave them as image. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not doing anything wrong. It is not changing Image: to File: exclusively, but doing that as part of numerous other fixes, including fixing interwiki links. Resolute16:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Adding or fixing an interwiki link is fine, but changing image to file is not, nor is changing WP to Wikipedia. For example, changing WP:RM to Wikipedia:RM is silly. Both are still redirects. Any other bot doing that needs to be stopped as well. Click here. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The bot page says it is running "cosmetic_changes.py"[2] from the tool server, which contains the comment ATTENTION: You can run this script as a stand-alone for testing purposes. However, the changes are that are made are only minor, and other users might get angry if you fill the version histories and watchlists with such irrelevant changes.[3]. Unclear if running that code from a 'bot is a good idea. --John Nagle (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The IP has also notified me, but I never run that script (except for testing purposes); just when it's making another change it also makes those trivial and almost useless minor changes, but they make the code look a little cleaner ;). Locos ~ epraixBeaste~praix17:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're so angry about here. The image to file namespace change happened months ago, because we needed a namespace that made sense for sounds and movies also and nobody wanted three multimedia namespaces. As for the WP thing, WP: has always been a shortcut for the Wikipedia namespace. At least as long as I've been here, WP:foo has always pointed to Wikipedia:foo, which was actually the name on the top of the page. So no change there either. Oren0 (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not angry, I am annoyed. Using Image: is more descriptive for images and should be encouraged; instead of some bot coming along and ignorantly switching them from Image to File. I have no problem with some of the "irrelevant changes", such as removing extra whitespace, but for example, at the end of sentences, some editors strongly prefer to use two spaces, others normally use one space, and I certainly would not want a bot coming along and changing any page with that change. The point that the script should not be used stand-alone to make an "irrelevant change" is secondary to the fact that I am arguing that the bot is making annoying changes, not irrelevent changes. If it could be edited to take out the WP to Wikipedia line and the Image to File line it is likely that I would not complain, although seeing those things I would want to scrutinize the rest of the bag of tricks it had to make sure that they also were not only irrelevent but annoying in any way. I also would not have complained about the WP to Wikipedia change if the bot had actually checked to see if the target was a redirect and not made the edit if it was. As I said changing WP:RS to Wikipedia:RS is totally pointless, as both are redirects to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and in fact, WP:Reliable sources doesn't even get redirected, it gets mapped to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, making changing WP to Wikipedia less than useless. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Reading back on racist, Amandajm - I've come to realize that in addition to his muslim name, he veritably hates white people. He deletes info about european history even if such info is based upon accurate inferences. Why he does this should be the subject of debate. My theory is that he's jealous of white culture and history being that he's muslim. Also, it's important to note that muslims of his poor ilk who exhibit such hatred additionally exude homosexual frustrations. This is well documented in psychiatric circles. Why a dirty, white-hating muslim should possess the reponsibility of writing an article on a culture and history not his own is WAY beyond me. If he wants to write about muslim history, he should. But, he shouldn't be given the chance to write about something he obviously knows nothing about and DOES NOT pertain to him. This guy IS NOT european. Honestly, he doesn't deserve to be on wiki at all. 'Stay on your side of the fence', is a motto I always quote.
An example of his ignorance shines through on the Castle article. He states that it was the romans who were the ones responsible for starting european castles. A little bit of research into the matter reveals that it was indeed the Goths (not the romans) who were the true architects and precursors to what we now see as european castles. I added this historical TRUTH into the article. Of course, he invariably deleted it because being the muslim that he is, he can't stand the truth.
To that, yesterday I followed up by sending emails to Homeland Security and the FBI Counter-terrorism Division for investigation into who he is and what his motives are. (No, I've not gone off the deep end). I received an automatic response email from the FBI stating that they will look into the matter, and will definitley be following up. Racist muslims of this type are tricky and can pose a risk to the US. Also, I sent an email to wiki complaining about this enemy of europeans and americans. I got an email back from wiki stating that he will be reviewed - thank god! His place in wiki - and in the US - shouldn't be secure.
We're really sick and tired of this "man". Davidx5 (talk) 6:05 pm, Today (UTC+1)
User:Amandajm hasn't edited since 1 May so probably doesn't know about this yet, and this is situation is ludicrous. The information Davidx is referring to was unreferenced and he is misrepresenting the situation. For example, I have recently been adding references to the article; so far it's only on the etymology, but Creighton and Higham are authoritive sources and to claim otherwise is displaying an ignorance of the sources. Also, it the changes I have made say the word castle has Roman origins, I have not made any changes indicating that the Romans invented castles themselves, indicating that Davidx is deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting the situation.
I also think Davidx is using 68.173.91.50 because of this edit and User:68.173.89.10 because of the similarity in editing pattern with 68.173.91.50. The discussion on the castle talk page shows that the IPs had been introducing incorrect information, such as labelling Italian castles as Spanish. Once references began to be removed from the article, the IP exhausted our reserves of good faith.
I think this issue requires attention, I would take action myself, however as an involved admin I would probably be accused of being racist or some other absurdity. Nev1 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Could we confirm that Davidx has sent an e-mail to wikimedia (or whatever he meant by wiki)? Nev1 (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
E-mail was sent to OTRS claiming that Amandajm "refuses to admit certain historical truths" and that "this is considered racist"; we were "urge(d) to ban him". This is not a reason to ban Amandajm, and that action has not been taken. Nakon18:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the screed in the section above his block notice; it's nothing but a bunch of harsh personal attacks. I noted that the full text is in the page's history. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker)19:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
LOL Swine flu I can avoid with handwashing and wearing a mask around the coughing/sneezing/madding crowd. Other things are harder to get away from. ;) Dlohcierekim 21:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I have just blocked Levineps (talk·contribs) for a week for splitting articles without consulting their talk pages. It appears he has been doing this for a while. He caught my attention when he split the last two sections from Harvey Milk (an FA) into a Legacy of Harvey Milk article that had no lead and no coherence and was subsequently deleted after an AfD process.
A peek at this user's talk page makes it clear he has been approached about this before. Any suggestions for mentoring or someone else to explain why this is a bad idea?
Is there a quicker way to revert all these Logos of articles rather than merge discussions and AfDs for all? --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
No offense, Moni, but it's surprising that an administrator since 2006 would not realize that immediate redirection was an option. Any merger or split can be performed without discussion (subject to reversion). And why would an AfD debate be initiated in tandem with a merger discussion?
I believe that this block was warranted, but I strongly suggest that you review the relevant procedures before engaging in further administrative intervention in this area. —David Levy16:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to recommend granting it or shortening the block. Seems a touch BITEy to me, unless there is something else going on. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
If he's doing copy and paste from one article to a new one, is he attributing the old article to maintain the GFDL? Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
A week isn't an excessive block in my opinion, given the number of prior warnings and advice he's received and the level of disruptions his splits have caused. Nathan T (formerly Avruch)16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The user's attitude doesn't seem confrontational, and he says that he regrets his actions. If he'll agree to an explicit limitation on splitting articles without every discussion step taken care of first, I'd support unblocking immediately. GlassCobra07:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This users' disregard for heeding warnings before and during the block makes the block length appropriate in my opinion. He was told numerous times in very specific and detailed language on how to properly present an unblock request. He simply did not listen and therefore I've changed the block to prevent talk page use to stop abuse of the unblock process. Nja24709:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
User:81.214.147.154 is blatantly canvassing support in order to influence the outcome of a CFD discussion. They have left over 100 user talk messages in an attempt to stack votes, I think the CFD should probably be prematurely closed as a sort of "mistrial". The fact that these are the only edits made by this user also strongly suggests that this ip is a sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe I have identified the sock/puppeteer relationship and have filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saguamundi, but I would still like an uninvolved admin to take a look at the CFD. There hasn't been much action since the canvassing, but it hasn't been very long yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocked the IP for 31 hrs. I don't think the CFD has been affected yet, but any closing admin needs to review the situation as it develops. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I closed the CfD. There's no point in keeping it open when extensive campaigning has taken place, especially since we can just close it without prejudice to a future nomination being made. As for the user, is a sockpuppet investigation even necessary? In the canvassing statement, the anon IP says, "Will you support my arguement for the deletion of the Category:Anti-Armenianism that I put forward on May 1, 2009?" To me it's fairly clearly User:Saguamundi; the only real question to me is whether User:Saguamundi meant to be logged out when the canvassing took place. It could be an "innocent" mistake of not being logged in, though the canvassing would still have been inappropriate. The IP didn't vote in the discussion in an attempt to "votestack". Good Ol’factory(talk)07:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
There is an issue with 293.xx.xxx.xx (talk). over the page VIA FP9ARM. They insist on having one particular photo as the main photo on the page, no matter what other photo is added to the page he reverts it. They initially changed the image for an almost exact same shot as an earlier one that I had added when I created the page. When 67.193.221.128 (talk) reverted it with the note that changing the photo was pointless as it was the same angle, etc. However it was reverted back. To stop a potentential revert war I added a totally different photo but this was not good enough for User 293.xx.xxx.xx who still continues to revert it. I have asked User 67.193.221.128 to not get into a revert war (I know them in person and they thought they were helping me by reverting the image). I am however totally flabbergasted by the continued insistance by User 293.xx.xxx.xx that one particular photo is to be used for the main shot.
Also it was brought to my attention by User 67.193.221.128 that User 293.xx.xxx.xx wrote something not pleasent on the talk page of User 67.193.221.128. The comment in question is:
Uh, whoopie ladi freakin' dah? Maybe you need to relook at your comments first before flinging accusations.
Not sure what he means at the beginning but I agree it doesn't look pleasant.
It seems that the thread on WP trains has the situation covered. One thing that I find appalling is that Talk:VIA FP9ARM is completely empty despite all of this supposed negotiation over pictures. Here's a rule to live by on WP: except for vandalism, if you revert someone and they revert you back, always discuss it on talk. If you believe that the user has not been civil enough, take it to WP:WQA. There's nothing here that requires admin attention. Oren0 (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
May not be "resolved"; User:Jsp3970 seems to be throwing a hissy fit, removing "his" images from articles, "reasserting copyright" over said images, and placing Ffd templates on the images description pages. His actions were followed by similar actions from IP user:67.193.221.128 (IP edits were reverted by me, and user was reported to AIV).
Question, is his reassertion of copyright even possible, given that he previously released the images under GFDL-with-disclaimers and cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0 licenses? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It sure isn't possible. He released these images and there's no undoing that. I have rolled back the removals. Oren0 (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
JSP3970 appears to be quite insistent on his position, as he has reverted all the reversions. Looks like another potential edit war. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless Wikipedia gives me restitution for the copyright to the photos thereby buying the copryight, which they didn't, the copyright remains with me for a duration of 50, 75, or 100 years after my death. Therefore I have everyright to reclaim the copyright. All I want is for the photos to be deleted so that I can leave Wikipedia as I want nothing more to do with it. But no one here seems to understand that I just want to leave with my photos, there are only 8 of them after all. Jsp3970 (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Jsp3970 has the copyright to the pictures. What Wikipedia has is an irrevocable license to use the image. The image allows Wikipedia and downstream users free use of the image with no compensation required to JSP3970. —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's the relevant text from the CC 2.5 legal code: "Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above" (emphasis added). —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Over the past two and a half weeks Npovshark (talk·contribs) has continued (slow) edit warring and POV pushing on Europe. They are currently disputing the neutrality of the current edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic. Having initially strongly objected on the talk page to the mention of any countries with predominantly Muslim populations, they have challenged the use of the term transcontinental country.
Their edits have been reverted by several editors. They have spammed the talk page with unsourced claims and have refused to take their worries to WikiProject Geography for clarification. Europe has been an anodyne and neutral article for a long time; it is one of the 200 most read articles on WP. There is no need for this kind of tendentious and unsourced editing on such a major article. Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
(noindent) The above remarks were edited by Npovshark. I have restored what I wrote. His remarks are below. Since he says everything is a lie I will later add diffs. However, it should be clear from the manner in which he treats the contributions of other editors, that something is badly wrong. Mathsci (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(noindent) Again Npovshark is displacing my comments. I have a collected a set of diffs from the talk page of Europe. It shows his failure to recognize secondary sources and his use of the talk page as a forum to soapbox his own views, without sources. What I do not understand about this editor is that, even after two scholarly sources had been added to the main article that carefully explained why the Urals and their watershed had become used as the Eastern boundary of Europe since 1730, he refused to accept this. I will not comment on the diffs, although at one stage he does accidentally slip into german (dafür instead of therefore). I don't see any need to pick examples from the main article, since almost all his
proposed changes were reverted by five or six different editors. These included a complete rewrite of the lede, the separation of trancontinental countries into a new list, the removal of the principal map, the rewording of text from newly added content which contradicted the sources, etc.
[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]
(slips into German)
[30][31][32][33][34][35]Mathsci (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
First off, I don't understand what Mathsci's problem is. The way the user phrases things above, it sounds like I deleted his comments or tried to hide them or something. I get the feeling this is the impression he wants to give. This should be your first clue that this user has an axe to grind, and a personal vendetta against me. I would like to note that HE refactored his text, leaving one of my responses floating out in the middle of nowhere, so I was forced to delete it and move it to "NPOVshark'S edits are making this section unreadable" - a bit ironic I know. Anyway, what I did originally was reply line by line to Mathsci's text above, but this is something Mathsci has no right to complain about, since I undid it and refactored his text. I note that on three occasions, including the section "NPOVshark'S edits are..." he has pointed out how I have supposedly "distorted" his text. Yet another bogus claim. I don't have the time or patience to collect every single edit Mathsci has made that has issues (!?!), but I will address some of his bogus claims, listed above, for my own sake:
This is a lie. The current debate began over how to phrase the surtitle, and he thinks two sources - Nat. Geographic and Encycl. Britannica - have primacy over all others, including World Book Encyclopedia, the world's best-selling Encyclopedia. You yourself have made a number of edits over the last two weeks, and because of your constant position (you also once called Europe a "myth"), I too could say you are "pov-pushing". We have reverted back and forth, so this must mean you too are "edit-warring". Smoke and mirrors from Mathsci. --Npovshark (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Having initially strongly objected on the talk page to the mention of any countries with predominantly Muslim populations, they have challenged the use of the term transcontinental country.
This is also a lie. This user is bringing up a very old discussion which I already commented to him about, so now I have reason to believe that Mathsci is purposely misrepresenting his case here, for what reason I fail to understand. You know full well, Mathsci, that my intentions were not what you wrote here; you cannot claim ignorance because I spoke to you about this at length. If you are going to try to address POV-pushing, then find a factual argument to use against me rather than going on a crusade of dishonesty. Reading the talk page shows that my concern is what the logic was for making the border where it is. Is it religious? Well then it is odd that the Muslim countries are mentioned. If it isn't religious, then why are Iran and Iraq not covered? Only since then has the history of Europe, as a "thing" defined by Russian sources as limited by the Caucasus and Ural Mountains appeared in the article. My challenge to transcontinental is that, in calling these countries either European or Asian, some reliable sources are not calling them transcontinental. Sadly, Mathsci apparently has no interest in resolving this dispute by working towards a consensus, and so he is trying to find out ways to attack me and discourage me from working on the project. He has used intimidation as a tactic on several occasions already.--Npovshark (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Their edits have been reverted by several editors.
They have spammed the talk page with unsourced claims
I already admitted that my "thinking out loud" first post was a bad way to begin work on this serious topic, but again, you are avoiding the issue, which is your view of the surtitle and mine. I am not brining up your behavior on the talk page, or boastful I'm a wonderful editor and you're not statments. I don't care what you said or did thirty days ago. Let's resolve the issue, which is the surtitle. What is your problem?--Npovshark (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
and have refused to take their worries to WikiProject Geography for clarification. Europe has been an anodyne and neutral article for a long time; it is one of the 200 most read articles on WP. There is no need for this kind of tendentious and unsourced editing on such a major article.
Yet another misrepresentation. I have refused nothing. Again you exaggerate to create an argument where there is none, all part of your wild sensationalist crusade.--Npovshark (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Mathsci wishes to ignore the views of World Book Encyclopedia, the CIA and several news agencies. He has falsely accused me of breaking the 3RR. He has also failed to stay civil, to assume good faith, and to comment on content rather than contributors. Simply looking at my talk page makes this very clear. [36] Ah, and one other thing: it was Mathsci's idea to mention that there is a disparity of source opinions - that this version of Europe isn't the only popular one - only in the footnotes. We have tried various versions of the surtitle, but I note that in each one, Mathsci has apparently rejected mentioning that World Book has a different opinion from the Encyclopedia Britannica version. I find this also very odd behavior. --Npovshark (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
As an uninvolved administrator, I have reviewed the situation and I conclude that Npovshark is advocating a fringe position, trying to give it undue weight, violating NPOV by trying to promote it as the default viewpoint, and is clearly a single purpose account.
I have left a final warning on their talk page. Continuing to edit war on article contents is grounds for blocking. Discussion to change consensus on talk pages is fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
How in the name of anything have you come to your conclusion? What is your logic behind "advocating a fringe position" when I mention World Book Encyclopedia, the CIA, Europe.org, Asia news and other sites? Isn't "giving undue weight" what Mathsci is doing, which is to essentially ignore these sources? --Npovshark (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Since Npovshark has tried to defend his edits (now reverted by a fifth editor), I should mention that in his most recent edit to Europe he gave as a source CIA (sic) Presumably he meant the CIA World Fact Book. This source does not discuss the geographical delineation of the boundaries of Europe, indeed its map of Europe excludes part of the Ukraine. It's hard not to see this kind of careless editing as deliberate. For the list of countries, two recognized sources were mentioned by me - namely the CIA World Fact Book and the BBC - which classified transcontinental Eurasian countries differently (CIA in Asia, BBC in Europe, including Armenia and Cyprus). Again Npovshark has misrepresented this edit: both sources were mentioned by me without any further interpretation. Npovshark has not sought consensus on the talk page: he raises the questionable points he wants to push, fails to elicit any response within 24 hours and then interprets this as agreement. Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I have restored my comments above to the form prior to Npovshark's edits on them. He has a thing or two to learn. Mathsci (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Why did you write "(sic)"? Is this a joke to you? Let me interrupt you and point out that the CIA is behind the CIA World Fact Book, so obviously their version of Europe is the version that the CIA uses.--Npovshark (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You missed the point. The point is what you assume is a common opinion regarding what others depict as Europe is not common at all. The CIA uses a different version, World Book Encyclopedia uses a different version, Europe.org uses a different version (UNESCO), Asia news uses a different version...and this is exactly what your sources, Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic do. They give one interpretation of countries within, and do not say where the borders are. You make me so angry, accusing me of caring only if sources say country x is in "Europe" or not; accusing me of not providing the source that says exactly where the border for Europe is. I have, in fact, ASKED YOU FOR THE SOURCE THAT SAYS PRECISELY WHERE THE LINE BETWEEN EUROPE AND ASIA IS DRAWN and I am still waiting. Do not steal my ideas and try to use them against me here.--Npovshark (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Mathsci, why have you not mentioned the exhaustive list I have found which includes World Book Encyclopedia? You are lying here and exaggerating (which I have called you out on several times before...if I need to pull up these examples, I will). So you run to the Admin rather than answer my questions on talk...I asked for sources, they never came. And my comments on talk are over one week only. I'm sorry, but your BS about me giving you 24 hours...I have no respect for that. That happened one time: I waited, noted that 24 hours had passed and reverted your edits which I had addressed on talk. Having received no response from you, I figured you had no response to give...this was mostly because it was one day after a very heavy debate on talk, and I figured it would be important in your mind to respond, given your interest. And now, funny how you try to use that against me. Wow, you are really quite a spectacle, I must say.
As for Piotr, you remove mention of Poland bombing Silesia, which means the statement of "these were the first few bombings of the war" is no longer accurate. Then, you add that the purpose of bombing Wielun was not to test bombing but to "simply" test bombing. Then, you added an unsourced and actually untrue statement about Germany "leading the bombing" early on, although the facts suggest otherwise and Britain attacked many many sites in Germany before Germany opened up the air war over Britain. This is a FACT. Scroll down further in the article and you can read the summary of attacks, month by month. Also, your edits, buried deeeeeeeeeep in the article history, have totally messed up the text, and I refuse to sort through them. Sorry Piotr, I will not stand for your blantant POV-pushing and then listen to you accuse me of "pov pushing". Every edit you have added, all unsourced, pertains to how a Polish nationalist would like to look back and see the war.--Npovshark (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting that Npovshark is calling Piotr a "Polish nationalist. Isn't that a serious personal attack? I ignore most of what Npovshark writes now. He obviously has no idea how to source articles. Never a mention of academic geography books or for that matter the Times Atlas of the World. Just what he apparently knows as "FACT". Mathsci(talk) 18:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't call him a Polish nationalist. In fact, I did exactly what you just did on my talk page: [37]
and I quote:
Mathsci: "your persistent slow edit-warring on Europe over the last two weeks combined with these kind of statements could easily be misunderstood as the POV-pushing of an editor with sympathies on far right, eg from Stormfront (website)"
I ignore most of what Npovshark writes now. This was fairly obvious from your "inability" to address my concerns on the Europe talk page. You ignore everything you don't want to hear, including the fact that World book encyclopedia, for the 13 thousandth time, does not agree with you.--Npovshark (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Never a mention of academic geography books or for that matter the Times Atlas of the World. Just what he apparently knows as "FACT".
I'm sorry, did you forget my exhaustive list of references which seem to avoid your cookie-cutter classification of the world?
Here it is - again:
World Book - these regions are not included in Europe: [38]
CIA - these regions are not included in Europe: - [39]
Europe.org - these regions are not included in Europe: [40]
Middle East times - on Georgia: (called "European" because it serves political objectives): [89]
Conceding Georgia as being in the Caucasus leads to the equally hypocritical parallel of Armenia's occupation of the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which for 18 years has been tacitly approved in Washington because of much muscle flexing by the Armenian-American lobby. If, on the other hand, Georgia is considered to be squarely part of Europe, then Putin will be seen as spearheading yet another Prague '68, Hungary '56, or Sudetenland '38 -- just as American neocons are now calling it in their effort to get key European allies to buy into their rhetoric. Sarko l'Américain already has. Yet what might a loyal NATO ally like Turkey, whose territory is all to the west of Georgia, have to say about this -- especially when told by many that they are not sufficiently "Western" to qualify for EU membership? Isn't there a better place for Georgia -- in neither Europe nor Asia? From now on, why not think of the Black Sea as the Russian Caribbean, and let Georgia be renamed the Cuba of the Caucasus? Turn it into a fully fledged U.S.-allied junior NATO member and give it a few rusty missiles pointed north. U.S. military advisors are conveniently already in residence there.
Odd interpretation of Europe (to Siberia and beyond): [90]
(filed under Asian news: [94]) (filed under "middle east"): [95] (as "far east asia":[96][97]
Cyprus: (not filed under European news, but "World")[98]
Europe and Eurasia:
CSIS (center for strategic international studies) uses "Russia and Eurasia" as a grouping, no mention of Europe or Asia:[99]
Georgia: (listed as "World" when the issue deals with Georgia, "Europe" when the subject is Europe's response to Georgia:)[100][101]Georgia as "Southwestern Asia":[102]
So as we can see, these definitions are not set in stone and it is important that we do not play favorites to certain views (ex: why the EU and BBC's opinion and not the CIA, World Book or typical "of-the-region" publication's opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC) --Npovshark (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, good plan Piotrus! Then you can continue to make the grossly POV edits you've made to Strategic Bombing of World War II without restraint - and yes, I mean those edits which I addressed after you, of all people, reported me. Now I know my tone here has been really sarcastic, but really, if you want me to respect you, either of you, you are going about it the entirely wrong way: fabrications, hypocrisy, and a lack of interest in neutrality, for example. --Npovshark (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Note to the adminstrator: Piotrus has again added the false, unsourced sentence that Early in the war, Germany led the bombing, in particular, with The Blitz campaign against the United Kingdom, which I have spoken of on his talk page, on the administrator discussion page and in the edit summary (at least two times). Unfortunately, to write such a thing goes against the facts which, fortunately, appear later in the article. His other edit removes mention of Poland bombing Silesia as the war began, which means a paragraph about "the first few bombings of the war" is no longer complete. Thankfully, he has not reverted to a version where he changed this town was bombed as target practice to this town was bombed simply as target practice, which smells awfully POV-ish. This appears to be POV-motivated editing in general, which...ironically, I have been accused of. I encourage the administration to follow Piotrus' link, given above, in which I have explained why Piotrus' edits were detrimental to the article. Nevertheless, he has restored several of them minutes ago.--Npovshark (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Piotrus and GWH. Npovshark is making trouble on various articles because of his extreme views on the eastern borders of Europe. He is evasive on talk pages. His attempts to push his POV on an article like Europe is misplaced; his accusations that other neutral editors are pushing a contrary POV (presumably because he does not agree with their edits) is exceedingly disruptive. From his editing history so far he does not seem interested in adding significant sourced content to this encyclopedia; he is however creating difficult editing conditions on normally tranquil talk pages of uncontroversial articles. Mathsci (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Because we all know how "extreme" World Book encyclopedia is. Typical. Say your view is mainstream, others are "extreme", that my edits are POV, others are neutral. Yawwwwnnn. Well, the actual content of Piotrus' edit is explained above, apparently Mathsci thinks these edits are neutral. As for that article, Mathsci, every edit I made has a source. Every edit Piotrus just made has not a single source. "Tranquil talk pages?" So now it is wrong, in Mathsci's view, to not only make changes to the text if it is wrong, but to also talk about it on talk. --Npovshark (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I have made no comment whatsoever on World Book Encyclopedia. How do you have access to it in Germany? This edit, like most of your edits to Strategic bombing in World War II, was unsourced. What you wrote has been reverted: you changed "Germany led the bombing" to "Britain led the bombing". No citations. Normally this would be called nationalistic POV-pushing. Mathsci (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Npovshark's edits are making this section unreadable
Npovshark seems to be freely moving around my text and removing introductory phrases. He started by adding comments between the lines of the inital report. I have added a series of diffs from the talk page of Europe which give a fair idea of his behaviour there. The history page of the article
with the edit summaries tells its own story [105]. Mathsci (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Stop blaming me for everything that is wrong in your life, including your inability to follow the text. Yes, I responded to you line by line, but you complained and I put it back exactly as it was. So now what is wrong with you? And by the way, you still haven't answered me about World Book, and why we should overlook their considerations instead of Encycl. Britannica. I am not saying either should be overlooked, only that the surtitle should make it possible for the reader to understand that neither version is actually inaccurate. I think you simply have a bone to pick with me. I really don't understand what your problem is.--Npovshark (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you removed the first sentence of my second comment when you displaced it. Why on earth did you do that? (I assume that this German IP, 88.73.213.97 (talk·contribs), is Npovshark.) Mathsci (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. I just reread the convo and it appears that Your edits are what has made it unreadible, and as it is, I am responding to myself. You have removed the following:
Since he says everything is a lie I might later add diffs; what I say has been supported by 2 admins and by the multiple editors that have reverted practically all his edits to Europe. However, it should be clear from the manner in which he treats the contributions of other editors, that something is badly wrong. Mathsci (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, you lie. Before you said that my complaints about the article got you to see some things that were missing and incorrect. I've fixed so much that was wrong on this article and helped plan the definition section. I have every right to make a liar look like a liar, and why you are willing to go to such lengths here but not discuss my objections on talk (which have been there for nearly a week now) really blows my mind.--Npovshark (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
...and changed your text to sound more credible. Mathsci, just give up. Nobody cares that you have a bone to grind. And since I have your attention (maybe?) take a look at this image: http://www.worldbook.com/wb/media?id=mp000070
They call it Europe. Now do your edits make it possible for the reader to understand that this version is supported by THE best selling Encyclopedia in the world? NO. Now will you please STOP ignoring that and wasting your time on this noticeboard instead of helping me come up with a surtitle that is fair to both versions? --Npovshark (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(noindent) Npovshark it is you that broke up the initial report. You have also claimed that all your namespace edits are sourced when this is evidently not the case. Here for example is a diff where you have inserted material without a source. The two nearby citations (NG and A.J.P. Taylor) were put there 1 1/2 years ago by User:Hemlock Martinis and me respectively. For some reason you also decided to complain that antiquity and Ancient Greece were different things here: you obviously hadn't bothered to look in the source. This kind of uninformed criticism is extremely unhelpful and disruptive. I have no idea why you have gone out of your way to misrepresent and attack neutral editors. As far as sources go, there are many definitive places to look, eg Times Atlas of the World or for that matter the Larousse Encyclopedia, etc, etc. The administrator User:Husond explained to you about the Urals being generally taken as part of the Eastern boundary of Europe, something that you seem to have a problem accepting this evening. This is carefully explained in the namespace article using the following sources:
Lewis, Martin W.; Wigen, Kären (1997), The myth of continents: a critique of metageography, University of California Press, ISBN0520207432
Jordan-Bychkov, Terry G.; Jordan, Bella Bychkova (2001), The European culture area: a systematic geography, Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN0742516288
I never said that about the Urals, in fact I never said anything about the Urals. Still, World Book does not include Kazakhstan in Europe and throws it into the Asia category. As for the Caucasus, do the above sources say where in the Caucasus the line is drawn? Is it just as the mountain begins, halfway through the mountain chain or to the end of the mountain? That is the whole point, and why sources can say "to the Caucasus" and still exclude Georgia and Azerbaijan as many do. Well, you missed it. And then you attack me again. And lie again. This time, now I'm "attacking neutral editors". Who decided they were neutral? Who decided it was an attack? This will be my last post on this page. You win. I cannot tolerate you anymore. At the moment, I regret that I have, for the last 6 years, been adding any material to this website or fixed any errors. I want the world to know that Wikipedia is not reliable for anything, and I wish to God that it was the last possible result in Google and nobody ever used it. Have a miserable life editing Wikipedia.--Npovshark (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
In Npovshark's proposed list of so-called "sources" he continues to challenge transcontinental countries. He still challenges the boundaries of the prinicpal map because of this. He writes above, quite inaccurately "Only since then has the history of Europe, as a "thing" defined by Russian sources as limited by the Caucasus and Ural Mountains appeared in the article. My challenge to transcontinental is that, in calling these countries either European or Asian, some reliable sources are not calling them transcontinental." What makes Npovshark's position completely untenable is that there have been detailed articles on wikipedia about Transcontinental country, continent, etc, where the material that I added from my two sources is already discussed in greater depth, and has been for years, including the Swedishcartographer and geographerPhilip Johan von Strahlenberg's proposal to use the Urals and Caucasus mountains as natural eastern boundaries. Some atlases do draw the boundary and have explanations (eg the Times Atlas of the World), some text books explain the boundary in detail. But this is still missing the point. Npovshark also made tendentious edits to Strategic bombing during World War II, whitewashing the Nazis, the inclusion of a Nazi map; and now for over almost three weeks he has persistently tried to declassify transcontinental countries in Europe, starting with his anti-Muslim rant on the talk page. The changes he wished to make to Europe have been reversed by multiple editors. He has continued a game of sometimes polite arguing without ever consulting or citing a source (eg antiquity vs Ancient Greece). As above, rather than consulting secondary sources about transcontinental country, he seems to be presenting an argument himself based on his interpretation of primary sources. His changing of the phrase about who started the bombing typifies his style: he seems to believe he knows what's true and by hook-or-by-crook, perhaps by sheer persistence, will get it into the article, source be damned. Npovshark has only been editing for a short time under this username, yet he now writes that he has been adding material for 6 years. Did he edit anonymously before or have a former account that can no longer be used? Mathsci (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Following the personal attacks made by NPOVshark, editwarring, and violations of policies (such as refactoring others comments) - made on this page - I would support a preventative and educational block. A topic ban from Europe related editing might also be in order. Verbalchat08:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. This editor needs to learn how to edit properly. This recent diff has him challenging the data of the distinguished historian Richard Overy, from a published book, simply because he cannot find an online version of it on the web (I could partially check the dates on www.amazon.com). Mathsci (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Is something going on with wiki, i can edit this and any talk pages fine. However, on articles the option doesn't even come up for me to edit them? Help Please. OgiBear (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, earlier today I tagged an article for deletion via PROD with an anonymous IP address. My edit was reverted [106] as vandalism. This is unacceptable abuse of the rollback function and amounts to bullying of anon users. This user needs to be banned. Thank you, Myownusername (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that one mislabeled revert should result in blocking the editor. Please try discussing it with the editor on his talk page. Nakon19:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Essentially I saw it as vandalism/trolling in that the reason for the prod goes directly against the content of the article (it has multiple sources, all of which are sufficient) and I am suspicious of any new user that finds AfD and PROD in his first edits, which rather kicks the good faith chair out from under someone in my mind. Ironholds (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks like a legitimate prod reason to me. When you remove a prod you need an edit summary explaining why you disagree. Rollback does not provide that, so it is not appropriate for removing prods(imo). Chillum19:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see it was not rollback but Twinkle, still the same logic applies. I have a rollback (AGF) button that asks for a summary, I think it is part of Twinkle. That would be a better choice. Chillum19:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Totally legit prod. I'm not convinced that this article as it is now would survive an AfD, and to take a prod with a well-written reason and to revert it as vandalism with no reason is inappropriate IMO. If this was rollback, it'd be a bigger problem. Oren0 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Also agree that this looks like a legitimate PROD; however, Ironholds made a mistake in that he rolled back when he should have simply contested the PROD. It is of course any editor's privilege to contest a PROD, in which case is then the original editor's prerogative to take the article to AFD. However, this is an extremely minor mistake and clearly is not grounds for disciplinary action of any kind, much less banning. GlassCobra06:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It appears that Ironholds has made a mistake. It happens, but one mistake is no grounds on which to start questioning the good faith of an editor let alone start turning it into an inquest on whether they should retain huggle/twinkle. A prod can be replaced in certain circumstances, and per WP:IAR, I think this is a case where the prod remover might replace the template as "removed in error" and we can then all move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we close this and move on. Yes he misidentified a legit tagging as vandalism, which isn't good, but things happen. Importantly however is it wasn't done via the actual rollback Wiki software feature as implied in the initial report. Lesson learnt, case closed. Cheers, Nja24709:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If someone could please review this diff. I'm involved, so I can't perform any actions myself. In a nutshell, this user uploaded a bunch of images and licensed them for use on WP. This user has since attempted to "reclaim copyright" because he is unhappy about the way the images are being used. Oren0 (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That diff alone doesn't contain any kind of legal threat, imo. Saying that it is a criminal offence is (as well as being wrong) not the same as saying he's planning to inform the police of your activities. Ironholds (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
There was no legal threat made against you, I was very careful in the wording in that aspect. My comment was meant to point out that it is illegal for someone else to change the license on my work. This is to do with moral rights of copyrighted work, there is even a page on Wiki regarding that Moral rights (copyright law) with a section pertaining to Canada. As far as I know I did not agree to sign over the moral rights to my work when I uploaded the image. If I am wrong, and someone can provide evidence concerning my moral rights, then I will apologize and personally revert each image to where it was when I removed them. But until then I truly do believe that I have the right to reassert the copyright to my images. Jsp3970 (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This was covered in another thread. You did, when you tagged the images as under a Creative Commons license, grant rights for the image to be freely used and copied. Yes, you retained moral rights such as attribution. However, the grant to use the images on Wikipedia is irrevocable. —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou C.Fred. Since I am obviously wrong in my reassertion then I apologize to all concerned. Further as I stated above I will now go and revert my reversions and return the pages to what they were. Jsp3970 (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Please that although the licensing of contributions under the GFDL is irrevocable, there is precedent for allowing deletion of images at the uploader's request if a reasonable reason is given for the request. I don't know whether the uploader still would like to pursue that here, nor whether he has an appropriate reason to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't know what to make of it: a whole slew of (mostly) SPAs have been creating new pages with edit summaries that end with "(Nonsense movies?)". Some of the entries are dubious, but none look like out-and-out vandalism. It's just... weird.
A sampling of the user names that have come up in the unpatrolled new page log:
And, erm, I just discovered the tagging function. In the software. What does the tagging. To include things like "(Nonsense movies?)" Move along, move along, nothing to see here except me missing the obvious. 9Nak (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Speedied one, prodded another, AfDd a third. This one looks as though it might be OK (though it is currently an unreferenced BLP and needs sources), and my knowledge doesn't stretch to working out whether this one is notable, redundant or anything else - needs someone who's familiar with the subject. Black Kite15:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Added one source to the Oberski article. It exists in a number of other wikis and appears to be notable. Black Kite15:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
An obvious measure to reduce confusion would be to link the "tag" back to the filter which appends it. Was this change announced anywhere (other than the extremely vague note at WP:VPT)? It doesn't seem to be covered on WP:AF, unless I missed it. Expect more confusion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The ability to "tag" edits actually existed in the abuse filter from the start (i.e. 6 weeks ago, or whatever its been); however, at the time the tags didn't do anything all. Hence adding a tag had no consequence. This may have led to some sloppy assignments and poorly thought out tags which should perhaps be looked at again. Incidentally, the appearance of tags can be modified at: Special:Tags. As far as I know there isn't currently a way to add "AF:" in front of them automatically, but one could modify the display codes for each one individually. Dragons flight (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Xeno has indefinitely blocked DougsTech from editing WP. To my knowledge, there was no discussion or concensus to block DougsTech. I think the WP community should look into this issue. AdjustShift (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
(Duplicate report)
Xeno has indefinitely blocked DougsTech on the grounds that "you no longer appear to be interested in building the encyclopedia; having not edited the mainspace in nearly a month"[109] and that he has caused "disruption in our internal processes". This comes after a proposal to topic ban DougsTech from RFA was soundly rejected. I feel that this is an end-run around community consensus, has been performed without - indeed ignoring - consensus, and should be overturned. Skinwalker (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't read the WT:RFA discussion until after, having not noticed the short note here about it (shouldn't topic ban discussions be held in a central location?), but I've made a short comment there regarding the block. –xenotalk16:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
He's clearly turned into a single-purpose account solely trolling RfA. I 100% agree with what Xeno's done here, though doubtless others do not. ~ mazcat|c17:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Kurt Weber was also indefinitely blocked by Nick for disrupting the RFA process.[110] What happened? The indef block was overturned, and Kurt continued to vote at RFAs. Smashing an indef block is not a solution. AdjustShift (talk) 17:02, 3 May
I won't oppose the block, but it indicates that our community is still in diapers when it comes to dealing with troublesome users. I look forward to the day when we can handle such situations more effectively. -GTBacchus(talk)17:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That's what we find out now. If he hasn't really exhausted the community's patience, then someone will unblock him. If no one is willing, then he truly has run out. -GTBacchus(talk)17:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Characterizing someone's contribution as "trolling" is (a) never necessary, and (b) generally a bad idea. Since we can indef block him without saying, why say it? -GTBacchus(talk)17:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment (my first-btw): I suppose it could be overturned. . .just need to find an admin willing to re-enable the disruption. The indef block doesn't appear to result in a loss for wikipedia. . . R. Baley (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
DT has not violated any policy to warrant an indef block. Majorly, DT also fights vandalism. Oh boy! This will turn into another long long meaningless discussion. AdjustShift (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Exhausting the community's patience counts. You don't have to violate a policy, you just have to make yourself unwelcome. It's always been that way. Remember, this isn't court. -GTBacchus(talk)17:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You might want to check Xeno's comment on User talk:DougsTech as well. The account has not edited mainspace since April 7ish, and most of the last 500 edits are actually minor edits that violate AWB's rules of use anyway (eg no significent edits, the edits were only "minor cleanup/reformatting"). See AWB's Rules at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_of_use number 3. —— nixeagleemail me17:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Indefinite block and oppose any form of undoing until DT makes a response on his talk and xeno agrees to lift the block Wisdom89(T / C)17:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, Doug is not worth edit warring over - but any admin reviewing any unblock appeal should find evidence of the no consensus to topic ban and will likely accept the appeal.LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not interested in the topic ban. Template opposes are silly, people arguing over them moreseo (they probably help more candidates than they hurt). However, if the users are doing nothing but pasting opposes and not contributing, they should be viewed as single-purpose accounts and dealt with as such. If the user is willing to use his account more productively, I've no objection to unblocking. –xenotalk17:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This will probably go on both WT:RFA and here, but I'll try and funnel discussion here. I have unblocked Doug. Xeno made a bad choice (but not a malicious one) to block without reading through the discussion. While I can't say that those who oppose a ban have any better points than those who do, there's no policy violations going on here, it's strictly based on conduct, and from the discussion it's clear that there was no clear support for such a proposal. We don't make hasty blocks and then decide to leave them in violation of agreements to the contrary. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Here we go. Let's start a block/unblock war! DougsTech was clearly causing disruption and not making any encyclopedic contributions, which could be considered as a valid reason to WP:BLOCK him. Timmeh!17:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That's essentially my stance - in fact one can look at it separately from the topic ban discussion. Wisdom89(T / C)17:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The day we learn, as a community, how to avoid being disrupted by something as harmless as what DougsTech has been doing, will be a great day for Wikipedia. -GTBacchus(talk)17:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
We had a long and meaningless discussion at WT:RFA[111], and now it seems we heading for another one. I support the unblocking of DT. I don't agree with DT's method, but smashing an indef block is not a solution. AdjustShift (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As I said, my block had nothing to do with a topic ban. I didn't realize discussions at WT:RFA dictated our actions with respect to preventing disruption to the enyclopedia. However, I won't wheel war over this, and I don't blame David Fuchs for trying to avoid a shitstorm at ANI over this. –xenotalk17:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I would recommend that Xeno puts himself up for admin recall. Indef blocking this user is 100% inappropriate, especially without a community discussion. The "disruption" is one of perspective, with as many frivolous, if not more, "votes" being casted in the opposite direction. As such, Xeno has taken it upon himself to attack many of our core principles at Wikipedia. This proves that he cannot be trusted. I am thoroughly disgusted that he would even think about doing such a thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't suppose there's any chance of archiving this without any more drama, is there? (And for what it's worth, I opposed topic banning DougsTech - ignoring him is much easier). Black Kite17:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely not. What Xeno did was completely appropriate, seeing as DougsTech was causing disruption (everyone agreed that there was disruption) and has not contributed to the encyclopedia at all over the past month, becoming a single purpose account. He offered to unblock DougsTech if he simply claimed he'd start contributing to the encyclopedia. Xeno was behaving appropriately in my opinion. Timmeh!17:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Completely appropriate? You cannot indef block someone without a good reason. There was none. The fact that people wouldn't even support a -topic- ban is proof enough that there was no support for this. Do you even know what the blocking policy says? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Please stay civil, Ottava. It says, "some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely". DougsTech could be considered one of these accounts. Timmeh!17:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to see me being incivil, just ask. However, having Doug be deemed not a big enough problem to warrant a -topic ban- is evidence enough that no, he cannot be deemed an account that could be indef blocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, for Ottava, this is immaculate behavior ;-) But seriously, I see nothing in his comments above that are uncivil. Saying that an indef block that is ongoing while a topic ban was ongoing is not incivil. In fact, IMO, Xeno should have unblocked DT when he realized that there was an ongoing discussion. I will trust him when he says that he was unaware of the discussion, but when he became aware of it, it should have self-reverted as it was apparent that the action was not fully supported by the community.---I'm Spartacus!NO! I'm Spartacus!18:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that a topic ban would've been inappropriate - it would set a precedent that contributors can be disenfranchised of their opinions. However, in my review of the user's recent activity, I felt he could no longer be considered a 'contributor'. I had hoped this would change and would've been willing to unblock the user had he issued an unblock template confirming the same, but as you can see, it never came to that. I'm not in the category, but I am up for Administrator review at User talk:Xeno/review. best, –xenotalk17:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If, as you say, that you were going to unblock, or were willing to, then your original block was simply to make a point. You do know that such things are inappropriate, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocking to prevention disruption to the enyclopedia is entirely appropriate. You may have the last word. –xenotalk17:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Bullshit. Don't be a fool, Ottava Rima. This is horseshit. good on any admin who throws out someone that disruptive to the RfA process. We cannot disenfranchise someone from the single area of voting, so the only recourse is to block them from the project. Given that RfA disruption was the only thing going, it's no loss to the project. It's not like this guy was consistent, as has been amply demonstrated, and he wasn't providing any substantive reasoning behind those votes, so it's hard to take them credibly. I'm with Xeno - had DT provided any sort of serious reply in an Unblock Template, then his block could be considered. It's not POINT to use a block as the last recourse to provoke discussion, it's done often here. ThuranX (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX, all you do is sit at ANI and cause problems. You fill the place with hate, and you, like many in this thread supporting Xeno, just use ANI to cause problems. If anyone should be removed, its not Doug. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It's an indefinite block to stop disruption. It isn't an unreasonable thing to consider him as being disruptive, and an indefinite block is just that - indefinite. As ThuranX points out, we do block if nothing else works in order to provoke discussion. DougsTech can get it lifted simply be agreeing to stop his disruption. There's no need for drama here and there should be no question of recalling Xeno. Dougweller (talk)
The community has already determined that he isn't "disruptive" enough for a topic ban, so yes, it is unreasonable. That is clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
What a surprise another voluminous cry of foul from Ottava Rima regarding admin behavior. Seriously, this drama shit has to stop. I suggest somebody archive these discussions promptly. Wisdom89(T / C)18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I see trouble from several sources, not just DougsTech and the block:
Community ban discussion on RfA talk page. Wrong place.
Nobody paid attention to DougsTech. The assumption at the talk page is that he was just venting about the process, not voting. But here[112] he says he takes the time to consider each vote, he just doesn't bother explaining it each time. That changs things considerably.
Indignant cries of foul by DougsTech supporters. DougsTech has a right to protest on RfA nomination votes, they say, and people who disagree are part of a censorship cabal. But accusing people of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when they explain their reasons in detail is an WP:AGF violation.
Wheel warring - see above. Xeno's block is questionable given opposition to a ban, but a simple mistake of not noticing the forum. Once it happened David Fuchs should not have unblocked without some discussion. That makes a messy process even worse.
Claim that a block / ban requires consensus. Whereas a community ban requires consensus, admins can deal directly with behavior they consider disruptive. Opposing administrative action by invoking demands for consensus is a process obstruction.
Claims that there is no policy basis for complaint. Of course there are policies and guidelines at play here -- WP:SOAP, WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT, to name a few. Some simply disagree that they were violated.
Bad sportsmanship. RfA is harsh. DougsTech's voting method is obviously less than ideal, but there's an impasse over what to do. Messy RfA leads to an even messier discussion on the RfA talk page, full of alarmist language, hyperbole, incivility, and battlefield mentality, and editors insulting each other. Bad form. Far from calming this as they should, administrators fan it. Thoughtful editors who value calm and sanity get chased away. Not a good way to resolve RfA issues. It makes one wonder whether those watching that page are the right ones to be choosing administrators.
To clarify, wheelwarring doesn't occur until the 3rd action. I don't fault DavidFuchs here, he simply had a different read of the situation. Good points on the other issues. –xenotalk18:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Point two changes nothing. I have considered my reasoning for this statement carefully, I assure you, but I don't have to demonstrate it. ThuranX (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Where do we go from here? I've created a template that might solve any misconceptions regarding DougsTech's votes. If DT can use them, it's a cheerful alternative to any further drama.
I would recommend that this AN/I thread put her or his self up for thread recall—that is, allow the community to remove the thread from our collective consciousness. Talking about frivolous nonsense that only serves to waste everyone's time while actually being more disruptive than the disruption it was supposed to address is 100% inappropriate, especially when it happens in the context of a community-wide discussion. This thread has taken it upon his or herself to attack many of our core principles at Wikipedia, particularly the one about writing an encyclopedia or something. This proves that the thread cannot be trusted. I am thoroughly disgusted that this thread (and this one) even willed her of his self into existence. Shame! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs18:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem submitting the thread to recall. I had no wish to generate additional needless kb's. =) –xenotalk18:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
And another thread will pop up sooner or later that will take up way too much unnecessary time and space. What have all these threads accomplished? Absolutely nothing, except too much drama and disruption. At least there would not have been any more disruption if DougsTech remained blocked. Now, we have him not contributing constructively at all while still able to pursue his single goal on Wikipedia: to cause disruption and heated arguments amongst the community. Timmeh!18:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thread recall is a useless process, and promises thereof are made ad captandum vulgaris. Threads are free to ignore recall requests, or to renege on previously made recall pledges. I cannot support any thread that commits itself to such a broken process. Skinwalker (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose this thread. Wikipedia has too many threads already. Seriously, I can follow the arguments but I don't get the anxiety. The opposes believe that it's important to speak up whenever there's a possibility that people are being silenced for having unpopular opinions, and that's right, and the supporters feel that it's important to speak up whenever someone appears to be causing only harm to Wikipedia, and that's right too. So we took it to WP:AN, which was the right thing to do, and there was a majority but not consensus for taking some action, and those numbers are reflected at the recent WT:RFA discussion and here, which means that if Dougstech's behavior continues, it will wind up at ArbCom soon, especially given NewYorkBrad's summary at WT:RFA. Nothing is going terribly wrong; there's always a lot of discussion about cases that fall in the cracks between the established positions, and it will eventually get sorted. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Can someone temporarily block this bot until the operator can fix it? It's messing with the interwikilinks and adding them to the template itself without any <noinclude> instead of its documentation page.[113] --Farix (Talk) 20:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
– User causing most obvious disruption has been given a final warning and will be actively monitored. Nja24709:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This article has long had WP:BATTLEGROUND problems. Tonight User:Satyashodak reverted the article to an unknown earlier date, removing a significant number of sourced contributions by User:Mitsube and others. There was some reversion by Mitsube and Satyashodak. I reverted once and asked Satyashodak to reconsider here , and opened a section about reversions on the Talk:Buddhism and Hinduism page. There was some more reversion- 3rr may have been broken. Some personal attacks have been made. The immediate issue is a revert war over the content that was removed. The larger issue is that the article is a wreck- it's a battleground that draws a lot of attention from partisans from both sides, including the use of some fringe-y sources, a lot of OR, and a lot of reversions of good faith edits. I'm not sure what the larger action needs to be, but the article has eaten up a lot of editor time without producing a lot of improvement. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
There was a 3RR vio, and the personal attacks came from the same person. More detail on this at the edit warring noticeboard report: [114]. Mitsube (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As explained here, I have removed the dispute tag he's throwing out there. You need to have an active dispute, which he hasn't done (and a dispute that there should be a dispute tag doesn't count). I've also warned him here that he posts another comment about "Buddhist chauvinists", I've giving him a week off. He's been warned enough on his talk page to stop with the battleground nonsense and he needs to learn people are serious about it. If he cannot or will not explain his concerns in particular details, we move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
01:19, 7 April 2009: "2 IP users came and fucked it all up and demanded everyone specify every little problem that is wrong"
21:29, 6 April 2009: "I had to deal with some idiot IP address who wouldn't stop deleting/moving around and fucking up the article with fluff and irrelevant facts, ultimately forcing myself to leave. "
22:28, 6 April 2009: "I make one edit, it's reverted, replaced with b.s and/or fluff, then dozens of more edits make it impossible to insert the original sentence save from reverting back to my (or whoever else) version."
I have done my best to ignore this, but now Wikifan12345 (talk·contribs) has further followed my edits to Freedom House. He had not edited the article in two years and then showed up to revert my edits:
This concerns me because as he acknowledged it could be considered "hounding". I edit a very small subset of articles. I edit this article, and he then suddenly show up on the page reverting my edits, specifically after I asked him not to and while there is a mediation ongoing at Mohamed ElBaradei in which he and I are both involved.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. Ok. We're currently in the process of mediation at [115]/ User:Kevin instructed us to forgo previous disputes because all of us engaged in hostile discussions (diff can be posted if requested). It was literally part of the mediation, we all had to agree previous discussions would not be brought up. In regards to Freedom House, the IPer (who's IP changes frequently, he has about 5) was upset over my edits at [116]. He accused me of "hounding" here [117]. I said I wasn't "hounding" him. I have edited freedom house in the past and considered it a coincidence. But then I checked my history and found out I did click on the IP's address, I was about to leave a message on his talk but clicking on an IP takes you straight to contributions. The IP was incredibly upset over my edits at Freedom House. I provided a thorough rationale here, and here. The IP didn't dispute the content, just my "hounding." I didn't even add material to the article. All I did was remove a few uncited paragraphs, re-organized the article, and put all the criticisms into one section. Almost 2/3 of the article with the exception of the lead is simply criticism. IP kept on changing the section title so he could remove the criticism tag, here: tile and tag added. remove 1, remove 2, 4. Notice the rationale, "I thought you would agree to leave my edits alone. 5, 6. I repeatedly told the IP (remember, almost all the IPs in the history are the same user) that changing the section does not change the content, then I directed him to the criticism policy. His only response was, "you promised to recluse from editing." I did, outside of my original edits. And if you haven't noticed, the above dispute over "attacks" is nearly a month old. Could this be considered a disruption of the mediation process at Mohamed ElBaradei or an attempt to remove other editors at Freedom House? For brief background: The IPs edits (over a month of editing) at ME was removed and reverted to an early state for serious BLP violations by an administrator. The IP continued with BLP violations and I warned him that I would take it up with the noticeboard. He was extremely unresponsive, and accused me of POV-pushing (among other things) several times. Fortunately we agreed to several rounds of mediation, but this report is quite confusing. Anyways, I'll ask Kevin to chime in and see what he thinks of this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Part of the point of my mediating your dispute at Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei is to get you both editing collaboratively. Reports such as this where you both continue the dispute in other venues are extremely unhelpful in achieving that goal. If mediation is to continue, you will both need to agree to disengage at Freedom House for a while, and to avoid dragging up past history. Kevin (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– Page redirected, WP:RFD if we still don't like the leftover redirect
I don't know what to do about this article: Svissland. None of the CSD criterion seem to fit it, and yet it clearly needs to go--not word of it is in English! Where do I go, who do I talk to, what do I do? Unschool21:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know the exact policies, but the redirect could be understood as implying that "Svissland" would be synonymous to "Switzerland", which it is not. (I'll ask for removal of the redirect on the redirect page if there is no objection to this here.) Cs32en22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It is apparently another language mispelling or alternate spelling, redirect seems fine here. Barak Obama doesn't imply its synonymous with its target. RFD would be the correct venue otherwise. –xenotalk22:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to dot the final i's here, a little investigation shows that the page was written in Icelandic (or something very similar), and "Svissland" is the Icelandic name for Switzerland. Looie496 (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hiya... recently I deleted User:ChrisChanSonichu as G10 primarily due to BLP concerns. It was recreated. Obviously G10 this is normally done with articles, but since it was a user page it seemed like a weird situation for a couple of reasons. First, it's possible that the person who registered the account actually is the person named in the user page. Just a little while ago a user was on #wikipedia and dropped me a link to the dude complaining about it on youtube, and the page has since been re-created. Then again, it could also be a third party registering the username then defaming the subject. Since it's a weird situation, I'll let you guys deal with it instead. :P --slakr\ talk /02:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
MFD that. I suspect we'll see a speedy delete decision soon enough. Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen anyone asking for so much trouble. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the best response you're going to do, being personally familiar with the CWC trolling situation (to put it kindly). The situation with Chris-chan and the trolls is a complicated one well documented online and what it more or less boils down to is that Chris will keep creating a page so he can spread "the truth" about himself to counter statements made on Encyclopedia Dramatica or trolls operating in a false flag fashion are going to recreate it for him. I realize Wikipedians are to assume good faith but based on Chris's video and his comments on his talk page, his intent seems solely to use Wikipedia as a personal MySpace (WP:NOTBLOG) and seems to have no intention on contributing to the project as a whole. This page is going to be deleted sooner or later and Wikipedia is bound to do something to piss Chris off, might as well bring the inevitable. Yes, this is really Chris's user page but I still think this is part of the whole "Wikipedia is not a social networking site." Then again, I am a relatively novice Wikipedia user so by all means, correct me. --Champthom (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if locking it will do much. If you do a Google search, you'll see that this is a person who has been trolled for nearly 2 years now, or possibly even longer. I don't see it dying down any time soon either, due to the fact that he always reacts to the trolling (or even things like having an article deleted) with angry threats and videos. This is something that has been going on for a long time, and now has gone to Wikipedia, and I don't see it going away soon. This is drama that goes way beyond simply Wikipedia. --Judgespearmkii (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, not locking it temporary I mean. I guess you can lock it for now, but this is something that both the trolls and ChrisChanSonichu himself will just keep coming back to. A really long "conflict" that has been going on for years now and has unfortunately come to Wikipedia. --Judgespearmkii (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I speedied it. The spam tag wasn't correct, but I don't think this needs to get any bigger. If anyone disagrees they can bring it up at DRV or come to my talk page. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I only gave it a cursory glance. It seemed sorta spammy (promotional), so I went with that. It was gonna go anyway, so... HalfShadow04:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
No worries. For some reason I am ok with deleting it as basically IAR but would have been mad with myself for deleting it as a G11. I'm wired strangely. Protonk (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
So do I. I was just about to take the very same actions myself. I'd already deleted the article-space redirect that existed and protected it against re-creation. I also concur with the protection of User talk:ChrisChanSonichu, which was being mis-used. This is a conflict between a person and Encyclopaedia Dramatica (amongst others) that (from what I've just seen of it) we most definitely do not want to spill over into Wikipedia. It is neither to the betterment of Wikipedia to have this nor in the interests of the people writing it to become embroiled in this affair. Uncle G (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought the guy's talk page had been semi-protected before but it appears to have worn off or something as I saw an IP post, though granted the IP didn't do anything bad or against the rules, most of the drama will come from people who don't want to bother getting past semi-protection. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Please could another administrator look at user:Meowy breach of WP:CIVIL. I have directed him/her to this page in the past (see this edit to his/her talk page on 3 October 2008.
There were several examples at that time, but there has been a lull until the start of this month when there have been two attacks:
I'd let 1st May slip if it were an isolated incident but the edit on the 2nd May is in my opinion an escalation as it say nothing constrictive about the edit and is just a personal attack. -- PBS (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Looking through user:Meowy's talk page and block log there is a lot of problems with this editor's attitude. See for example:
PBS is objecting to two words I used: "malign" (used in relation to his edits on a particular article) and "pedantic" (used to describe one of his edit summary explanations). My description of PBS's prior edit history on that article as "malign" was not incivility but was fair comment that was justified by the facts. It is unfortunate, but PBS has a history of editing Armenian Genocide related pages with the aim of denying or minimising its genocidal aspects (he has also tried the same thing with the Greek genocide article). Here are some of the facts that justify the word "malign": for the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article he tried to get it renamed "Armenian Genocide debate". Using his administrator powers he did rename it, without following any of the proper procedures (he didn't even bother proposing it, see [118] and [119], even though there had been two earlier proposed name changes that had been discussed and rejected), and he then got the article protected to prevent it returning to its old title (see [120] and[121]), as well as trying to bully those who opposed his move, including accusing them of incivility (btw, PBS is referring to one of those accusations in his "I have directed him/her to this page in the past" comment - which shows insincerity here). When the article eventually reverted to the old title, he then tried to get the whole article deleted by merging it with the "Recognition of the Armenian Genocide" article ([122]). A lot of time and effort was expended by many editors to resist or repair the damage he did to that article, time and effort that could otherwise have been spent improving the article. PBS has also inserted a lengthy genocide "terminology" section into the article that is full of weasel words and is intended to make accepted facts appear vague or uncertain by disguising them within overly convoluted and unreadable sentences. He appears to have ownership issues with that article and the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide article - with his explanations for deleting material often descending into the breathtakingly bizarre - such as his explanation that statements released by organisations that no longer exist should be excluded because, quote "the think tank is not longer in existance therefore it can not hold a position". (What next - "nothing that was decided at the Nuremberg Trials should be mentioned because the tribunal is no longer in existence"?) My characterisation of that reasoning by PBS as "pedantic" is a fair description (if anything, I was overly mild). Just read through his talk page comments and edit summaries in both articles to find many more examples of his hair-splitting. Other editors have also called PBS's arguments pedantic - here for example [123]. For an indication of how far PBS's edits have affected the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article in a negative way, compare it to the equivalent Wikipedia Holocaust denial article. Meowy17:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Uninvolved party comment. The root of the problem here seems to be an inability on the part of both parties to work constructively with one another. Rather than run back over a folio of instances where either Meowy or PBS made an incivil or unhelpful comment, I would encourage both parties to keep their distance from one another. When you are required to interact, proof-read every comment you make to ensure that it is wholly helpful and is likely to benefit the project; if it doesn't, then don't bother posting. By extension, if either of you find yourselves unable to adhere to this, then I'd implore you to not contribute to that article at all: bickering solves nothing. Show friendliness to your fellow editors; it really does make everybody's lives easier. Regards, AGK10:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not think you will find one case where I have ever made an uncivil or unhelpful comment to user:Meowy. Meowy wrote above "PBS is objecting to two words I used: "malign"" as (s)he has not asked me I am not sure how (s)he comes to that conclusion. In fact I object to the whole comment:
I'm aware (of course) of your previous malign editing habits on this article. The paragraph you removed was in a section that you were substantially responsible for creating. It is unfortunate that no editor has bothered to properly cut out all that section, but the Churchill quote is important because it, in a small way, indicates how weasily-worded all your additions were.
If I was not the target of this abuse and was an impartial third party, I would not hesitate to block any user who used such language who had previously been warned and blocked for such behavior and was under an arbcom restriction for comments in this area. A quick look at this editor's recent history of edits show that (s)he is frequently being uncivil to other editors so this incivility to me is far from am isolated case. --PBS (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
58.8.251.89 (talk·contribs) continues to cut and paste legal threats, which are rather long and incoherent, involving Indian government heroin dealing and nuclear weapons used to create the Southeast Asian tsunami. Has received a final warning, but continues. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
He was blocked while I was looking at his contributions. I can't make heads or tails of it. It isn't strictly a legal threat...so I don't want to block an IP for a very long time citing that. But it is certainly odd and not exactly concordant with improving the encyclopedia. Maybe the IP lease will change in 12 hours. Protonk (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Officers of The United Nations will be prosecuted by Private Prosecution if they fail to conform and co-operate with this Notice sounds like a legal threat to me, but YMMV. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, there are a couple of other gems in there, but I'm not an officer of the UN (w/e that is) and I don't know what private prosecution is. Who is he trying to cow in discussion? Who is the subject? I'm receptive to a claim that this represents paranoid ranting and should be reverted where it crops up. I just don't want to construe that to be a legal threat. Protonk (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
From our article Private prosecution: The term private prosecution applies to criminal proceedings and is usually initiated, or brought before a court, by an individual or private organisation instead of a public prosecutor who represents the Sovereign State.Ed Fitzgeraldt / c05:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This editor is not in touch with reality; it's kind of silly to worry about legal threats. Nothing anybody says is going to make it through the delusional system here. Looie496 (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This is Erik Young, who popped up on our radars back in Jan/Feb - same international conspiracy stuff. A case of RBI (or report to AIV). I'll get the ip. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Advice please? I happened upon Remo Buess because of a spelling obsession of mine - I don't know the subject matter. Looking at the article I then see a mass of edits from 1 May onwards, many of them unhelpful or unencyclopaedic, and I could not see how to pick out the real (new) content, if there is any, from among the large quantity of PoV and joke stuff. In the end I did a huge reversion to what looked like it may have been the last stable version before the editing spree, and said on the talk page what I'd done. I don't like doing big reversions like this but I am not sure what else I could/should have done and felt that something needed to be done. I felt that the old small version is probably a better basis for future development than the much-expanded version of unverified quality. Hence this request for advice. I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to post this btw but it's not immediately obvious to me what is, and I don't think I know any football-interested admins that I can ask personally. Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, you're not kidding. A truly massive amount of unsourced and dubious stuff has been added by a huge horde of different IP addresses. I think your actions were completely correct here - per WP:BLP unsourced and dubious information about living people really does need to be removed ASAP. If this stuff keeps getting added without sourcing and/or justification I think requesting semi-protection of the article would be reasonable - but I'm wondering where this stuff is coming from given the large variety of different IPs adding it. ~ mazcat|c11:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I know nothing about football but your reversion seems pretty clearly in order. The half-dozen IP's appear to have stopped trying to vandalise the article - if the nonsense resumes I'm happy to briefly semi-protect it to bring the excitement to a close and encourage a stable version. Euryalus (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Mazca and Euryalus both for your help and comments. Thanks also Euryalus for stepping in with some editing which is great, as it's perhaps pushing it into a new-good-version-fork, or something. I'm hoping that the article will now be OK! Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It's because I live in Israel. I didn't want to keep editing and respect my block but again, I'm being put to trial in my absence. Bugs, it's rather evil that you've lead to Smedpull and Chingadiculous being blocked because of my errors, thus punishing the wrong parties. I never denied that these IP's were mine. I keep the same conversations and make it crystal clear that I'm the same person. If this is all, please let me retreat to my wikibreak. 87.69.177.26 (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
At least let me say a few words in my defense against these outrageous baseless accusations. As for the checkuser, it only serves as undoubted proof that these checkusers have little to no tools for dealing with such cases. I did it for a gaming site for several years and am quite familiar with blocks based on "hunches." This time their hunch failed big time, taking down two users that have nothing to do with me or this whole charade. Now please stop falsely indicting me so I can truly take my wikibreak block time by respectfully not editing. 87.69.177.251 (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad your solution to claim you're being immature and avoiding your block just to antagonize others is to avoid your block and continue to antagonize others. I'm sure there's no problems with that course of action. Meanwhile, we can add 87.69.176.215 to the list. Can anyone think of a rangeblock that could work, or is it time for hardcore WP:RBI? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
You would do better keeping your mouth shut first and letting us decide what to do. If you want to protect "innocent" users, how about you just flatly tell us which accounts are yours (especially since you keep claiming a long-run series of attacks with IP addresses that only go back a few weeks, so everyone knows there's something going on). Of course, I think you like the theatrics more than actually accomplishing anything, so let's see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
What is it about South Park that attracts such contentious editing? Maybe we should outsource the drama. Transwiki all South Park material other than one basic article to the fan wiki at "southpark.wikia.com", and let Wikia monetize the fancruft. --John Nagle (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Roylucier (talk·contribs) was the first to add content about a 2005 school newspaper controversy to Troy High School (California) ([126]). I removed the assistant principal's name out of BLP concerns, and Roylucier has been adamant that the name should be included ([127], [128]). Particularly troubling is that Roylucier has explicitly stated ([129]) that he intends to use Wikipedia as a "strike" (i.e., defamation) against his former high school assistant principal, who he has called an "SOB" and a "fascist" (see last diff and [130]). He has also been canvassing other users who seem to support his position, including a Troy High School IP, to get on the talk page to get consensus ([131], [132], [133]).
I'm requesting Roylucier be indef blocked due to posting unsourced, contentious information about a living person, or at the very least banned from editing the Troy High School article. I am not requesting intervention in the content dispute as a whole, as I have already done so at RFPP and BLPN.
Full disclosure: I went to Troy High School, but graduated before the assistant principal began working at the school, and before the student involved in the controversy became a student.
KuyaBriBriTalk15:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it okay for everyone to waste space and time like this or only if you are a friend of the Wikipedia elite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapinmies (talk • contribs)
Reporting one's ownself for a violation of wikipolicy is hardly a wast of space and time. And thanks for letting me know I got elite friends. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰echo18:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This section retrieved from archive as it remains unresolved.
I disagree with the closure of the ANI report regarding Hiberniantears actions. One side shouldn't be allowed to derail attention from the core issue here by using nationalistic polemic designed to muddy the waters. There clearly was no consensus sought for this unilateral split, I may have suggested the creation of some related articles, but my particular view doesn't override the views of others, i.e. there was no consensus, as User:Hiberniantears admits right at the beginning of this discussion "This morning I split, against consensus on the article's talk page". Not only did he then abuse his admin privileges to protect the resultant move as he knew it was against consensus, he salted the redirect, contrary to this ArbCom ruling as Biophys states. I don't think this is case is resolved by any stretch of the imagination. The article needs to be reinstated to its original condition and User:Hiberniantears sanctioned for abusing his admin tools in a content dispute in which he is clearly a party too. Martintg (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that the editor above himself seemingly agreed to the separation of the article as it was proposed before it took place. The fact that there has been fairly regular recent vandalism to the articles is why the redirect and article are now locked. I myself think that the move was perfectly in line with WP:BOLD, and note that there were parties who agreed to it in advance. At this point, considering the above editor has himself already declined the mediation Hiberniantears offered, all I can say is that the only remaining option would be ArbCom, who in every case look into the behavior of all individuals involved in any discussion. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
My particular viewpoint is of a single editor which may or may not be the consensus view. Hiberniantears knew his actions were against concensus, he admits this, thus WP:BOLD doesn't apply, nor is it true that regular recent vandalism to the articles occurred. Martintg (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, material was moved without discussion into the article from the daughter article which it had been moved to. And as I know from another ArbCom I am currently involved in consensus does not trump policy. Again, all I can say at this point is to try to arrange that Mediation is accepted or go to ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, to clarify, no articles were salted, or deleted. Likewise, I removed zero content. I did, however, move content. Everything that was in Occupation of the Baltic states was moved to either Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II or Baltic states and the Soviet Union. As it stands right now, the original article is currently a protected redirect, while Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II was move protected by me, and eventually ended up having all of the content from the original article restored to it before SoWhy edit protected it in that state, while Baltic states and the Soviet Union has been left relatively alone with the exception of receiving a bad faith AFD nomination. More importantly, I don't actually have a POV on this. I think that Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II should be reverted to a version approximately the same as it was in when I created it this morning, but I don't think that because of the POV of the article, but because I split the content of the Occupation of the Baltic states so that one article was about the World War II period when control of the territory was contested, and the other article was about the period of post-war Soviet control of the territory. I made no changes to the content itself, and have expressed throughout that there appears to be legitimate POV's that need a balanced treatment in the article. At one point I even tried making some changes to create that balance, as can be seen in this dif. However, that was not my editing as an interested party. I've never edited any of these or related articles previously, and I generally have disagreed with User:Dojarca (the editor who asked me to take a look at this in the first place) on most of our interactions, to the point of losing my temper.
I don't see Hiberniantears doing anything outside policy here; he didn't have any substantive input into the move debates; he followed the consensus, once established. All in all, criticism appears to me to be misplaced. To pillory him for something that he was perfectly entitled to do is disingenuous and misplaced. His actions were perfectly valid, unless I've missed a hidden agenda. Rodhullandemu23:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
In which case, I have incompletely informed myself, for which I apologise, and will recuse myself from further input here. However, I will still AGF. Rodhullandemu23:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
By "against consensus" I am referencing the stonewalling taking place. Take a look at my talk page, the talk pages of the articles in question, the talk page of the Medcom case I opened, and the growth rate of this and the thread above I opened this morning and you'll get a pretty good idea of what's going on. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The only stonewalling I see is your refusal to be engaged in consensus building based upon informed discussion of published sources. To initiate this I reached out and posted some sources to your talk page. You responded to this by effectively putting your fingers in your ears and humming. Admins have to communicate and set an example to the rest of the community in terms oh behaviour. Martintg (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: "while Baltic states and the Soviet Union has been left relatively alone with the exception of receiving a bad faith AFD nomination." (Hiberniantears)
--For the record, this is flatly false and an incorrect assumption of bad faith. The AfD nomination was because the article is titled "Baltic States and the Soviet Union", both of which existed since 1922, yet inaccurately begins in 1944-- 4 years after the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States. It was that simple. The historical error is, frankly, embarrassing to Wikipedia just existing right now. Like having an article titled "World War II" that begins in 1943. This is stated in black and white in the AfD.
--Such a statement is fairly shocking coming from an administrator. And, unfortunately, perhaps revealing.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
And perhaps just as revealing is the fact that the article was nominated for deletion within hours of being created, without any apparent attempt to even remotely address any of the questions which prompted the request to have it deleted. John Carter (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hiberniantears admits in the very first line "I just used the mop somewhat against policy", followed by his admission that he actions were against consensus on the talk page. It seems odd to claim on behalf of Hiberniantears that he acted in consensus or in compliance of policy, when he admits to the contrary. It is also seems some what disingenuous to claim he acted per WP:BOLD, when in response to the single revert (permitted under WP:BRD, apparently this single revert was the alleged "move warring" John Carter claimed justified the page protection) to his "bold" action was not to discuss, but to abuse his admin privileges to protect the page, then salted the resulting page re-direct to boot!
It is really appalling that someone of John Carter's experience should support the abuse of admin tools in support of a content dispute that Hiberniantears largely initiated within a stable article and in which both he and Hiberniantears have become intimately involved in. Martintg (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Martintg on that issue. Such blatant abuse of sysop status should not be allowed to be derailed by one party's 'nationalistic comments' (quote of the closing admin above). I have voiced my opinion in the closed thread above, already, and expect the community will scrutinize this thing thoroughly enough, given the importance of the raised issue of adminin tools used in a content dispute. --Miacek(t)11:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Hiberniantears page move was so disruptive to an article that had been stable for one and a half years, that admin User:SoWhy had to protect it with 5 hours [134]. Hiberniantears then even asks SoWhy to revert the protected article back to his version. Asking the protecting admin to revert an article back to the "correct version" is classic POV warrior behaviour in my experience.
It is apparent that the community has had its say, and as the matter remains unresolved I suggest you take up the issue on the article talkpage. Please allow this to archive if there are no further comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The issue of undoing the improperly applied indefinite page protection [136] cannot be dealt with on the article talkpage, as it requires admin intervention. Hence the reason it is here. Martintg (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It requires an admin to (un)action it, but a consensus to have it unprotected can be achieved at the article talkpage; once there is consensus then a friendly sysop can be asked to carry out the necessary. Presently, it appears that a talkpage consensus is more likely than an admin reading this and deciding to revert a sysop action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The source being shouted for by one of the parties has been provided and they have not participated further in article talk for now. I will request unprotect on the article talk page. PetersVTALK01:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
If anyone wants to ask ArbCom (which I am not sure), this should be a clarification of the AndriyK case. An administrator, who is personally involved in an editorial dispute and unilaterally protected a redirect, should be no different from any other user with respect to this ArbCom ruling. In theory, this should actually go to WP:AE (as I said eariler), but this apparently did not work. This has nothing to do with mediation. This has nothing to do with content disputes. And this has little to do with abuse of power. I am sure that Hiberniantears acted in a good faith.Biophys (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Note The relevant ArbCom case which needs to be enforced here is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia. A quick review of my talk page (all the sections that are hatted), the talk page of any of the involved articles, a look at the Medcom case which I filed last week to no avail clearly demonstrates that serious stonewalling by one group of editors is preventing any real consensus from being achieved. SoWhy applied the current protections, and has not been involved in the dispute in any way, shape, or form, and I strongly endorse his actions. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Nothing is being "stonewalled". This accusation of bad faith is the most egregious act yet in this sorry episode. The editorial community have come to terms with Hiberniantears' unsupported split in a manner which is consistent with historically verifiable facts, that is, one article for the period of Soviet/Nazi/then Soviet presence on Latvian territory, with all questions regarding the relationship of the Baltics and Soviet Union a separate article for the complete duration of the relationship. Hiberniantears' split was consistent with neither Baltic or Soviet "POV." Hiberniantears has obviously not considered any of the reasons that editors declined to participate in yet another mediation, obviously looking upon that as stonewalling as well. Only on WP is simply requesting for factual sources to support a WP:FRINGE theory (no Baltic occupation) called "stonewalling." Being an admin gives Hiberniantears no right to enforce their personal POV based on self-professed unfamiliarity with the topic or to accuse editors with mountains of reputabled sources as "stonewalling" against editors supporting the Soviet/Russian POV based on historical fabrication who produce NO SOURCES for their editorial contentions. This lambasting is now bordering on a vendetta against all Baltic editors. Per Biophys above, I am sure that Hiberniantears originally acted in good faith. However, the contention that anyone who disagrees with their actions is acting in bad faith crosses the line. Hiberniantears, this is not a contest about equal and opposite POVs. This is about facts of illegality of Soviet actions. That there is a POV that differs regarding illegality has always been noted in the article. That does not make that a valid POV where historical facts are concerned. You just don't get it, it's not a difference of opinion based on the same events, it is a set of events that actually happened and the account thereof (Western/Baltic) and an "opinion" based on a set of events that never happened, starting with the demonstrable and documented lies and fabrications used to "justify" Soviet invasion. PetersVTALK15:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a sorry day when a sysop demands that verified fabrications and lies be given equal space and equal ranking with verified facts. That is what is being done under the guise of supporters of the Soviet/Russian position maintaining it's only about opinion, the facts don't matter, we must have a "balance of POV." I am sad that Hiberniantears continues to escalate this as opposed to educating themselves regarding the historical facts having NOTHING TO DO WITH SO-CALLED NATIONALIST "OPINION." I can't be any more clear. PetersVTALK15:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
PetersV, you seem to be labouring under a misconception; Wikipedia does indeed place verifiability above "truth". If something is published by a reliable independent source then it is permitted to be used in a Wikipedia article, and if the opposing view is also published by a different reliable indpendent source we can include it, too - Wikipedia permits alternate or even contradictory content relating to the same subject to co-exist within the same article; we even have a term for it - Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. We are not in the business of determining the "truth" in any matter, we simply supply the reader with a synopsis of all the good references we can find.
If you are unable to remain in such a project, given that WP:NPOV is a major foundation of the encyclopedia building process, because you are more wedded to your concept of "truth" than you are of objectivity then it is perhaps best if you do leave. To make this very clear, if you wish I will write it again in ALL CAPITALS, perhaps UNDERSCORING OR ITALICISING for extra emphasis - just say the word. If, however, you do wish to be part of the encyclopedia I suggest you take a crash course in what it entails. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
You know, if I were the sort of person to look for hidden meaning in everything, I'd think you just said that we should examine the issue of whether Soviet propaganda is only published by Soviets, or also has independent backers. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος!21:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
If we can get past the CAPITALS, the UNDERSCORING and ITALICISING, (which I agree is kind of annoying), I think what Vecrumba is saying is that no reliable secondary sources have been presented to support this other opposing viewpoint, even though this has been requested many times in the past. That has been my experience too, all that is given instead is Russian nationalist polemic. The problem is that there is a demand for equal weight be given to this other view point, but that would violate WP:UNDUE. Besides, there already are several sections within the article that discusses other viewpoint, generously giving way more weight than is warranted by the sources anyway. This discussion is becoming a content discussion, so it should really continue on the article talk page. Martintg (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood Vecrumba's mention of "verifiable lies...", which I took to mean content that is verified but that he considers lies when he may have meant that the lies have been verified as such. These are some of the problems when faced with persons with nationalistic viewpoints who may be considered as not disposed to regarding anything other than their own interpretation of "truth" (a very malleable concept) as being correct. The underscoring and capitals (which I didn't bold - but then it appears I added italicising where it hadn't happened) don't help, since it appears to be shouting in an effort to drown out the arguments from the other side. I agree that this is now becoming a content dispute, where Hiberniantears actions are not being reviewed by the larger community (er, as I may have mentioned previously). It may be that this discussion can continue - in whatever style of emphasis - back on the relevant mainspace talkpages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Just to address Hiberniantears original claim for the need for ArbCom enforcement (which started this current thread), he has been attempting to virtually single handedly beat this non-issue into an issue via various means, from bringing it to the Ethnic notice board, Arbitration enforcement and mediation, even reporting himself to ANI (eyeballs rolling back), all in the space of a couple of days!!
But let's look at the reality of the situation:
The article was stable and without disputation for almost one and a half years before Hiberniantears attempted to resurrect some issue that was last discussed in 2007.
There are 83 Members in WikiProject Soviet Union and 45 members in WikiProject Russia, yet all the participants Hiberniantears could muster for the mediation case was himself and John Carter, both who have admitted they have poor knowledge of the topic, and User:Dojarca! There are a total of 128 members in those two Wikiprojects that could have potentially participated in mediation if there really was a real issue, but none did, because there isn't any issue.
This is an example of the type of wikidrama and polemics that is being offered in reply to reasonable requests for secondary sources to support assertions by lone editors like User:Dojarca. Hiberniantears has clearly become a party to this, and as such, should refrain from using his admin tools to advance his particular viewpoint in the content dispute in the future. In any case, this report appears to be becoming a dead horse, and as far as I am concerned, closed. Martintg (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
In the world of article space, reliable and verifiable sources are the bedrock standard for establishing notability. While the corresponding standard for retention of categories is "definingness", reliable and verifiable sources are often ignored by closing administrators from those arguing for retention of categories at WP:CfD. Such an example was a recent CfD in which a few dozen sources demonstrating that Category:Knuckleball pitchers was defining were disregarded by the closing admin. The deletion was just overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 28 after every single participant there who had not been involved in the original CfD voted to overturn and restore. In some sort of apparent retaliation, User:Good Olfactory posted a personal attack here, labeled as a "satirical comment", insisting that he found a source that proves that Category:Deceased stand-up comedians is defining because he found a source that lists a comedian as deceased. If his efforts to turn CfD into a joke are aimed at any other editor, I look forward to hearing from Good Olfactory just who the intended target was. As an administrator, Good Olfactory is expected to maintain a higher standard of discourse in such conversations. Good Olfactory has been ready, willing and able to find examples of incivility in others, but has failed to find it from those who agree with his interpretations of policy or from himself. I don't expect him to be held to a higher standard; I merely hope he will be held to his own standards. Alansohn (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
How do you figure that was retaliation? What he said at the CFD doesn't seem to be an attack nor uncivil, nor is it apparent that it has anything to do with the recent DRV. --Kbdank7115:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Problem with another user? Step 1. Post at ANI. No, wait a minute - perhaps a sarcastic response really isn't the best idea. Having said that, WP:WQA is probably a better venue than ANI, and perhaps a polite note on user's Talk page would be better still. To me, this doesn't look serious enough to merit any administratice action. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK15:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not even sure this requires a WQA filing ... it's a smart-arsed comment ... is smart-arsedness not allowed? If they had actually pushed the idea, it might have been different, but still not WQA material ... (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I realise that this has been marked as "resolved", but since User:Alansohn indicated that he looked forward to hearing from me, I thought I should at least make a token appearance and acknowledge his concern. In my view, this is quite an impressive case of presuming less-than-good-faith motivations, intents, moving causes, etc. in another user. I came across my find while I was looking for something else completely unrelated, and I added a comment about it in a moment of whimsy. I guess I just need to file this under "bad jokes poorly understood". A personal note to me that my jokes are bad probably would have been more than enough. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
So it does. I clarified that section of the policy (kind of). I think the intent was for folks who want to block a range but don't want to destroy the internet (by blocking a big /16) to get some backup on AN. Protonk (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
91.109.64.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is the range in question, by the looks of things, but a rangeblock is probably overkill at this point; there would be some collateral, and it looks like individual blocks or semi-protection might be able to carry the day, as tiresome as that can sometimes be for our end. – Luna Santin (talk)00:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Ramu50 was blocked indefinitely last November based on his editing in templatespace. Generally, he was rearranging templates like Template:Nvidia according to his own beliefs without discussion combined with a nasty temperament (see the ANI report). His nasty responses led to his talk page being disabled and he follows up with IP block-evading (see the checkuser). Today, User:203.218.195.66 decided to take up the fun and I've given that IP address a 24-hour block under a clear WP:DUCK test to me. Would like an affirmation of that decision and would like to list him as formally banned so that I can request his subpages be deleted under G4 or something and stop wasting time reviewing his editing. If someone wants a second checkuser, I can do that instead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Goddammit, I'm such an idiot. Completely misread the entire thing. You know what, I can't figure out what the hell is going on. Here, he's eliminating everything Ramu was saying, but at Template:Highways topics nobody seems to have any problems with the edits from days ago. Edits are all over the crazy place. I've unblocked the original one, and will have review the edits again. What a screwup. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Given the similarity of interests (the second-to-last one may be an exception), it's pretty obvious that these are the same person. They don't seem to be doing anything malevolent as of the moment, but the fact that this brand-new person immediately went for AfD discussions, where he or she cited policy pages like he or she already knows the ropes, while at the same time turning out sock puppets, makes me a little uneasy. I must get some sleep, but can someone keep an eye on this? Thanks. --Dynaflowbabble09:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
With the obvious similarity of names I don't see much potential for attempting to usurp consensus or those other abuses of alternate accounts. I should think the most obvious area of potential disruption is if they are part of a social networking grouping. I think we can wait to see what happens, if anything, before deciding if there is a need for admin attention, LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, looking at the contributions, they are going through each account in the order provided (pretty blatantly), all on the bilateral article AFDs (including breaking some links). I think people can guess which blocked-evading user this may be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this is pretty clear. I'm not in the mood for encouraging this guy again by giving him what he wants. Could a checkuser put a stop to the nonsense? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Disregarding my comments on my talkpage - yeah, it is howitzer time! If it is obvious who the original account is, I don't think we need a CU to confirm. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This user edited a sockpuppet investigation that has been closed and archived, and s/he admitted in another edit to being a block-evading sockpuppet. Would someone check my block, maybe fix the template I used on the talk page (there's probably a better one), and reopen the sockpuppetry case if appropriate? I don't have time to do anymore now. LadyofShalott13:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Re opening the case is probably a good idea if a checkuser has not done a check yet. I don't see any reason why it would be declined. —— nixeagleemail me17:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sort of a tiny bit involved, so I wanted to offer this user's contributions to the community rather than blocking him myself, if that's all right. He appears to be a single-purpose account who wants to promote the point of view that Philip Markoff is certainly innocent of the crimes of which he has been accused. Specifically, he wants to include a disclaimer on the section about the evidence in the case, although that's not the only change he's made. He does not appear to understand WP:RS or WP:NPOV (or, alas, WP:TILDE), makes possible legal threats, and does not respond usefully to warnings. I'd be interested in another admin's opinion regarding whether a short block, a long block, a serious warning, or a pat on the head and a cheery 'well done' is the appropriate response, and I'd appreciate it if someone else would administer the appropriate response. Thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)17:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the legal threat was meant in that way. It seems to be more of a misunderstanding about how libel works (there might be interesting jurisdictional issues here since Massachusetts actually has one of the stricter set of libel laws in the US (Disclaimer: I'm very much not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV) but even given that there's no worry). The main issue seems to be more about WP:BATTLE than anything else. And the point that anonymity of sources might make us treat reliable publications as somewhat less reliable isn't a new one (it has been discussed on and off at WT:RS and WT:BLP) so his point there isn't unreasonable. It's just that we've decided that that concern isn't severe enough. I've left a polite note as an uninvolved user. Hopefully that will help. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think he has much intention of working with other editors. We'll see how it goes, but unless he changes his attitude he's going to have a problem. Dougweller (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned that Theo789 states on the article talkpage that "The IP address that is referenced is a shared IP." when it is pretty clear that they are the same person. 63.215.27.57 (talk·contribs) has edited only on this article. Their first batch of edits started April 29th, ended 18:56, 30 April 2009 and Theo789 makes his first edit 13 minutes later. The IP has shown up again this evening, editing until 17:36 with Theo789 starting at 17:40 and then a bit of one and a bit of the other. It isn't even worth asking for a CU it's so obvious from content and timing of the edits. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
And the writing style is identical also. Incidentally, even without the IP he's running afoul of 3RR. He hasn't been warned about that previously so we shouldn't block him on that. I have however warned him, so if this continues a short block may be in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Was apparently already warned. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
(Disclaimer: I have also commented on the article's talk page, but have neither written nor deleted anything.) It would appear that there is currently a sensible discussion taking place on the talk page and that changes arising from concerns Theo and I have both raised are being considered, and, in some matters, taking place. I think that if this process continues, and if, particularly, the sources for all the "evidence" are carefully scrutinized again to ensure that the comments are actually in the source and there is no cherry-picking and no synthesis, then much of what concerns us, and others, will be eliminated. I think there may have to be a continuing vigilance in determining the reliability of any source and in checking to determine if old allegations have been debunked. (And in the latter case, it is not enough, in my opinion, to quote the debunking, but the whole allegation needs to be deleted with an explanation in the edit summary.) Theo may have taken too bold a line in the beginning, but his concerns are not without merit, and should not be dismissed. His behaviour may not stand up to scrutiny, but the issues he is raising, in general, do. // BL \\ (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I blocked him last night for edit warring. I thought I'd left a message here and then went off to bed, but I didn't notice the edit conflict (it was taking a long time to save, I thought) to say someone needed to watch the IP. I've found this message this morning: "evermind. The harassment is not worth it. I consider the articles on Philip Markoff and Casey Anthony unfair, biased, and defamatory. It is morally and legally wrong to defame people (who are facing the potential loss of life or liberty)--and thereby prejudice the public against them before they have had a trial. Just despicible. But have it your way. I will contact Mr. Wales about this. Theo789" Dougweller (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A new account is literally just going down the list of AfD with rapid fire copy and paste "*Delete Not notable" unlike anything I've seen before, we're talking multiple times in under a minute:
01:45, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin fox (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:45, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sapna Babul Ka...Bidaai episodes (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:44, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECOST.com (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:44, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybercamps (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:43, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Too Deep (novel) (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:43, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guelph Daredevils (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:43, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liahavichy Castle (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:42, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kopyś Castle (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:42, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Cromwell (2nd nomination) (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:42, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XODI Extended ODI Cricket Ratings (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:42, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Oblivion's Guide To Teenage Dating (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:42, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elexorien (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:42, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rising of the Storm (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:42, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latvia–Malta relations (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:42, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Warcraft Radio (2nd nomination) (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:41, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Barcelona World Series by Renault round (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:41, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duane Storey (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:41, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hotels in Bahrain (Delete) (top) [rollback]
01:41, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shell to Sea Fleet (Delete) (top) [rollback]
Based on this user's edits, I'm tempted to block it as being here to cause disruption. The problems that have cropped up in the last hour aren't just "newbie mistakes." either way (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This user's edits obviously resemble DougTech's editing style, and I can imagine that it is a sock of DougsTech. However, I'd wait for a SPI and checkuser. -download ׀ sign!02:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"Voting" in EIGHT AfDs in one minute (1:42, 5 May 2009) is perhaps the most I've ever seen in a minute's time before and as many know I look for this kind of thing: [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], and [150]. Now all eight of these articles are on totally different subjects, so does the exact same three word "vote" really apply to all eight? Regarding his comment on my talk page, I can maybe believe the reading discussions first and then commenting element. I have actually myself worked on RfA and AfD stances off-wiki over the course of even days prior to posting them in the actual discussions, but the difference is that I do so, because I like to work on unique comments for each RfA and AfD that is specific to the candidate or article under discussion. Just copy and paste textbook WP:JNNs, however, I don't, it just feels off, no? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk02:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
He's probably bullshitting you about having multiple tabs open and then making detailed considerations for each article. Concur w/ the block for a POINT/trolling SPA. Protonk (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Sceptre, why would you bring up a non-involved editor and connect him to a newly banned user? Please remove the user name here. Ikip (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Because it goes with what I have been saying all along, that admins do whatever they want and remain unchecked. Finally another user who seemed to agree with me, and they blocked him.DougsTech (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I have asked Synergy to revert his archival of the sock report, as, although the user was blocked, it was not found to be, or not to be, a sock yet. Considering the possibility of abuse of multiple accounts, I believe we do need a checkuser to review this.— DædαlusContribs02:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Also, should the account be found to be a sockpuppet there most certainly will be some form of a block necessary for the master account. Icestorm815 • Talk02:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead and get it over with. This is really ridiculous guys. Nobody else goes through this kind of harassment over his !votes.DougsTech (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A possibility is that s/he might be taking offense that you are putting template messages on his/her talk page. The account is over a year old and it's best to not template the regulars. Try talking to the user first and see how that goes. Icestorm815 • Talk02:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I just looked at the edits that the user provided where ucla90024 reverted the warnings off of his talkpage from FMAFan1990. Anyways, the point I was trying to get at was to encourage the user to try talking to them first before coming to ANI. There's more than a handful of situations here the can be avoided by engaging in good old fashioned discussion. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk02:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I've fully protected this for a week. Settle/discuss this on the talk page of the article. By the way, putting warning templates on a user's talk page is not "reasoning with him/her" especially if you're not happy to be templated yourself. either way (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Although technically it isn't wrong to have marked this resolved, the fact that Luis Napoles, who has now been blocked for a few hours, marked this Resolved, when he himself was involved in the dispute that caused Likeminas to be blocked, seems to be rubbing the block in Likeminas's face. The Resolved should have been placed by an uninvolved party. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I am an uninvolved party. :D The editor who brought up the issue is satisfied that it is settled, and no other editors have contradicted them. If you think there are unresolved matters here that need further discussion, please feel free to remove the template. Cheers, Skomorokh10:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like some outside editorial and administrative eyes on matters surrounding our article on Broda Otto Barnes. I nominated this article for deletion; the discussion was contentious, to put it mildly, and the strong of stomach can read it here.
I will admit to frustration with the de-evolution of the AfD, so perhaps my perspective is jaundiced. I'm definitely not happy with the status quo, so I would invite outside eyes and editorial or administrative input from anyone willing to sift through the AfD and talk page. MastCellTalk05:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The article problem is that MastCell keeps repeatedly claiming an absence of reliable sources, first at AfD, then continuing in article talk. He has been given point by point WP:V/WP:RS specifications for at least two sources, by at least two editors, but rather than taking the points he ignores them like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. That's tendentious, and it's disrupting the progress of editing consensus.
I politely warned him to stop and outlined the potential consequences of his continuing, including RFC/U – "threatening" to do what I'm supposed to do by guiderule.
I had to warn him during the AfC about misrepresentation of me, and now he's done it again for everyone to see: That long underlined sentence with no prefixed elipsis does not begin with "Dr. Barnes". In fact it begins with, "I'm disappointed that ..." I was trying to raise the level of discussion in that paragraph, so I'm happy to be quoted, were it done in context. The whole AfD debate makes it clear that I was criticizing him for tendentious denialism in failing to acknowledge existing reliable sources, not because Dr. Barnes didn't convince him. Another editor repeatedly tried to make the same points to no avail.
My position is that these are trumped-up charges thrown at the ANI wall to see if they stick, in another effort to get from admins what he could not get at AfD or at talk through tendentiousness. My impression is that anyone who firmly stands up to MastCell's tendentiousness will be deemed "aggressive". I reject his connotation. Being well-aware of who I was dealing with, I played it right down the center, being no more assertive and firm than necessary. As for his other ill-considered charges of PAs, etc, I've studied WP:NPA carefully, and I have evidence for every statement I made. I consider myself one of the good guys; readers of the looong AfD will find I was nice to him when the opportunity arose.
Suggestion: create a separate section for each source, to determine whether it fits the reliability standards. Nothing else, no discussion about the content of the source, just purely does it fit under WP:RS somewhere. Hopefully, some will clearly go one way or the other. The one in dispute, follow WP:DR, i.e., 3O, RFC, the like. No longer diatribes about the textual languages. Focus just on what sources first and then from the sources, figure out what works, i.e. the WP:UNDUE concerns. If you guys want an outsider's hand in this (and believe me, I have no interest either way), post a note on my talk page and I may get to it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
– User:JamesR unblocked all the bots after resetting the instruction block. Bots have been behaving for the past few hours now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 11:50
I updated the instruction block per a discussion at WT:AIV, and now the bots are edit warring over the correct version...[156] The reason I haven't just reverted is I don't know if that will actually stop them. Now I'm going to crawl under a rock in shame. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It was actually four bots total. HBC AIV helpbot's 2, 3, 5, and 7. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 07:27
When Chaser unblocked Helperbot5, it changed the instuction block back. To be honest, I don't know what the correct version is, so I haven't reverted that edit. Though the editing warring has stopped. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 07:32
Yeah, it worked. No more edit war w/ other edit-warriors blocked. If only we could do that with humans.--chaser (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, now it appears helperbot5 is editwarring with itself. Not sure how you fix that one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 07:41
The helperbots at WP:AIV are currently malfunctioning, and edit warring betweenthemselves to restore the intruction block. I've shut down three bots so far, but any help would be appreciated. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 07:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I know. Had an edit conflict reporting this, whilst also trying to sort out the problem, notify bot owners, etc. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 07:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
(helperbot5 operator) I strongly do believe that this edit killed the bots. In the bot code, this template is specified to be replaced when removed, so you may need to advise Krellis to update the bot code for the template change. In the meantime, can you UNBLOCK all the bots and continue to run as it was before the change. Thank you. — JamesR≈talk≈07:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought if anything, this might give away who's behind this. But I didn't see any recent comments from CoM for which that might be a response. Maybe CoM knows. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is in the right section, but I would like to request an IP trace on User: Higgys. This user is accusing me of vandalism I never made, just because someone from St. John's, Newfoundland made vandalizing edits to the article Kathleen (given name), and Ruby Gloom. What baffles me is that this person would go so far back through the Ruby Gloom edit history(as far back to September) just to accuse me of making a vandalism edit. I do not vandalize articles, I make constructive edits. I am not stupid enough to make accounts to vandalize articles, I know that they can be traced back to my originating account. I am aware that I have made edits through an IP address that is shared in a library in St. John's, Newfoundland, and that there have been vandalism edits made from that IP address before. I am also aware that there have been many accounts made to vandalize the Kathleen article(I don't even know anyone named Kathleen, and from the vandalism I looked at today,thanks to this user accusing me, the vandalism looks pretty personal,which is something I would never be able to write). I did NOT make those accounts, and if those accounts have been made from the shared IP address I just mentioned, then I do not believe that I should be held responsible for those edits, as I never made them. I also never made the vandalism edit to the Ruby Gloom article that was made back in September. Also, the reason I am requesting that I be told the IP address of this user(Higgys), is because I am suspicious of this person. I believe that the person that is doing this is a person that I know personally, since the person I think this user may be has harassed me in the past, both online and in real life. The person has even posted a hate thread about me four years since I seen or heard from him. If the person is this user, I wll be pressing charges on this person, since he(the person I think this user may be) has harassed me long enough, and I have proof. As I just mentioned, he posted on a site mean things about me four years after he last seen or heard from me(he posted mean things about me back in 2008), and the things he posted are still on the site. I have looked into pressing charges before any of this happened, and I found out I still can, since even though he posted things about me back in 2008, I can still press charges. The only reason I decided not to press charges was because I decided to let it go, but I made the promise to myself that if he did anything else, I would be charging him. I am aware he uses Wikipedia, as he has said so on the site he made the hate posts about me, and the reason I think this user may be him, is because this user made an account today(May 3rd) and looked through the edits made to two separate articles, and as I said before, went so far back to September in the Ruby Gloom article just to accuse me of doing vandalism to that article. I do make edits to the Ruby Gloom article, but the edits I make are constructive, as are all my edits. Like I said before, I am not stupid enough to make fake accounts just to vandalize, as I know the accounts can be traced back to my original account, which is what seems to have happened here, just because vandalism was made from one IP address that I use frequently(the library one), does not mean that I did make those edits. Many people watch/know about Ruby Gloom in Newfoundland, as it airs on YTV, which is broadcast throughout the country.
Just like many people know about Barney & Friends (and there have been plenty of vandalizing edits to that article, as you may be well aware of)not everyone that likes Ruby Gloom will make constructive edits to an article. Anyways, I have made a new account (Kagome_40) to make edits to, as this account may be blocked now,since the administrators that review this case may not believe that I never made those edits, and I am aware that Kagome_40 may be blocked too,since I have already made a few edits from that account,and if this does happen, then I am sorry to say this,but I will be losing a bit of respect for Wikipedia,since it will be unfair that I am getting blocked for vandalism I never did. Anyways, I hope that you will tell me the IP address of the person that is accusing me,since if the person that is accusing me is registered to this province, then I will have no choice but to contact the police, because I have been harassed by this person long enough,as I said before. Kagome 77 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a legal threat here. I see someone asking whether or not to protect themselves in the real world from a stalker. Recommend immediate unblock before wikipedia winds up with another muddy face. ThuranX (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you think that deserves a block? Would not a warning be far more appropriate? This is a long term user being accused of socking without a shred of evidence and they are the one who gets blocked! Theresa Knott | token threats20:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking with Kagome as we speak. As much as I think she got shafted here, I'm willing to unblock her so long as she retracts that threat. I think she will, given that Higgys is now indef'd. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker)20:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I'm blocking Higgys indefinitely for continuing a stalking campaign. As much as I dislike the fact Kagome hinted at legal action in the SPI case, I feel she's a victim of literalism. Is it possible to get a CU on Higgys to report this crap to his local cop shop? -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker)20:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering, is it possible for this user(Higgys)to trace my IP address on here? He is not an administrator,and, unless he is a cop,from what I have read on Wikipedia,when you make edits from your username,your IP address is hidden to the general public,except administrators (and police,since administrators can give police your IP address). I am only asking this because he claimed that he knew my IP address and where I lived. Kagome 77 (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. I won't be calling the cops or anything, however, I would like for my question to be answered on if the user that harassed me and claimed he knew my IP address really did,since according to Wikipedia,if you use a username account,your IP address is hidden from the general public, and only the administrators can see your IP address when you use a username to edit articles instead of just editing without having an account on here. I don't want to sound "pushy" or rude, but I would like to get a response to this(someone answer my question).Kagome 77 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Not even administrators can see the IP addresses of users who are logged in. Higgys could not have known your IP address unless he'd gotten it beforehand; he is not a checkuser. Checkusers are the only group that have the ability to reveal one's IP address, and as a result they are obligated to abide by the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, meaning that they would not expose your IP unless there is a very compelling reason. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker)18:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. We really need a couple of admins watching Uncle G's talk page. The latest incarnation seems to be Rolling Rick (talk·contribs). Because of the promised sneaky vandalism it's probably best to revert every edit by this user, and it shouldn't take so long to block them. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Caspian blue has composed a complex tapestry of words which appears intended to cause offense -- seelink. Unsurprisingly, these words do manage to succeed in offending.
As a constructive response, I used a sandbox to puzzle my way through a process of guessing how best to respond -- seediff.
WP:AN/I can help resolve an array of unfolding issues:
Teeninvestor now objects, arguing: "This is an attack page" and "I don't think it should be allowed to exist" -- diff. WP:AN/I can help resolve the problem Teeninvestor perceives, if indeed is a problem at all.
Regardless of what has gone on before, I need to figure out what to do now. Perhaps this will be construed as a constructive step. If so, this non-standard approach to a specific problem would seen to suggest what others should have done to avert an onslaught of escalating, extravagant claims? In the context created by the edit histories which led to Caspian blue's two most recent blocks, I would have thought that this link is problematic. If not, why not?
Bottom line: What could I have done differently? What can I do now and in the future to avoid being caught up in the swath of harms which attend this toxic long-term warrior? --Tenmei (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I objected because this page's only purpose is to insult and attack Caspian Blue, who I regard as a valuable contributor(he has dozens of good and featured articles under his belt). In the page, Tenmei insulted him(and even does now) and called him a "long-term toxic warrior". See WP:ATTACKPAGE.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The next two diffs were posted at User talk:Tenmei and moved here.
Just to add to whatever drama is unfolding here, I just declined to delete this as an attack page, as it has links to ArbCom. It does look deleteable at MFD, but I don't see it as an attack page per se. @User:Tenmei-- What purpose does this serve? Does it improve Wikipedia? Can we not dispense with further drama and delete it now? Let me know or tag for {{{Db-self}}}. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The time stamp on the diffs make clear that this unfolded in the following sequence:
Repeating for redundant emphasis: What could I have done differently? What can I do now and in the future to avoid being caught up in the swath of harms which attend this toxic long-term warrior? --Tenmei (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Well not making personal attacks while posturing here would go a long way. :) Don't know what's going on. Don't care. I'm tired. Want to rest. I can't cause i'm got up in this with y'all. Let me dlete the thing now, and we can all get some rest. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I can compromise by temporarily blanking the page. I can demonstrate cooperation in the service of averting a protracted exchange; however, there is no attack here -- no attack page. This so-called attack is a post hoc attempt to understand allegations unrelated to the issues ArbCom initially agreed to consider; and I am attempting to discern a way to parse the relevant and irrelevant material in a measured manner. For example, the so-called attack page captured the following examples of exactly the same sort of feigned indignation which is on display in posturing allegations about personal attacks, e.g.,
Excerpt: Caspian blue complaints that one sentence is a personal attack -- It's wretched stupidity.? You made the clear personal attack to me at this public place. Surely, admin would not condone such the violation on WP:NPA by you
Excerpt: After Badagnani asks "Would you kindly moderate your tone?" Caspian blue demands, "... do not falsely accuse me any more. That act is a personal attack."
Excerpt: Caspian blue creates section heading "Taemyr escalating the situation by his own personal attacks" ... but Taemyr observes: "The fact that you have been blocked over using NPA as a weapon in previous conflicts is relevant."
For redundant emphasis in this context, the fact that Caspian blue has been blocked over using WP:NPA as a weapon is relevant in terms of a complaint that a sandbox is an attack page.
It is not a personal attack to write plainly that dealing with Caspian blue is difficult. Juggle these diffs is tedious, but I see no other way to address such posturing except one-by-one ... and them the process of re-assembling them in a coherent fashion is also complex. Isn't this the purpose for which sandboxes exist? --Tenmei (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the page User:Tenmei/Ichijō, it looks like it was a sandbox to help the user compile evidence for the RFAR. If so, I would expect it to be deleted after the evidence has been submitted. Tenmei, could you please explain why your subpage it is named "Ichijō" ?
John Vandenberg(chat)02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the draft material is intended for deletion after it is posted in a dispute resolution context, or when I understand it sufficiently well that I don't need to manipulate it graphically as I am doing on this specific page using formatting tools which are made available in the context of the English Wikipedia, e.g.,
{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
{{col-end}}
As for my use of "Ichijō" ...:Emperor Ichijō is the name of one of the Japanese sovereigns. To a large extent, these figures existed very much apart from the issues of their day. In the semi-private context of User:Tenmei's sandboxes (which are either identified with names of Japanese emperors or minor Japanese islands), I'm replicating a peculiar structure -- a deliberate, self-conscious, counter-intuitive disjunction between label or title and the subject of my writing. I don't think this formatting strategy would serve any function with the royalty of other nations, but it makes sense in the unique Japanese context.
The subject matter of the sandbox is irrelevant in relationship to the name -- which is precisely the point I'm trying to develop in hopes of improving the way in which I handle the article about pre-Meijitennō and the nengō of their reigns. As an illustrative example, please consider the term dairi may refer to the building in which the Japanese Imperial family resided in the pre-MeijiImperial Palace, the women of the Imperial family (kōkyū), the Imperial court of Japan, or an indirect (now archaic) way of referring to the Emperor himself.
If you were wondering about this non-standard practice as an expression of opprobrium -- no, not at all. I would have thought that there is no way for anyone to be offended by this page name, but perhaps it would have helpful if I had appended the explicit label of "sandbox"? Frankly, I hadn't imagined that this might be perceived as a plausible problem; but you also need to understand that this is the first time I've encountered a situation in which anyone expressed any interest in what I doing in any sandbox. --Tenmei (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Reviewing WP:Attack page includes a paragraph which is relevant here:
Attack pages may be inside or outside the main namespace. However, this policy is not usually meant to apply to requests for comment, requests for mediation and similar processes (although these processes have their own guidelines for deletion of requests that are invalid or in bad faith). On the other hand, keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody.
The familiar children's story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf explains how to construe the array of disputes in which Caspian blue self-identifies as an innocent victim
When Caspian blue disputed a most recent block, a surprisingly regular history of recurring conflicts was brought to light by Georgewilliamherbert -- diff. For unmistakable clarity, I re-post User:Georgewilliamherbert's analysis of the limited data set:
"There are greater and lesser transgressions among those sets - some are far worse than others - but this type of pattern of repeat offense and repeatedly coming back before the ANI and AN noticeboards and repeatedly coming into massive scale conflict with multiple other editors are all highly problematic. I don't think anyone has tried to pull this all together so far - assuming CB was an irritation to be politely reminded again to be polite and AGF when he pops up every few weeks. But the scope and scale of the problem, now that I have put it together, is extremely disturbing. We have indefinitely blocked people for far less disruption and far fewer personal attacks than the incidents above demonstrate." -- diff
This incomplete record informs unavoidable conclusions which cannot be easily gainsaid: Caspian blue is a toxic, long-term warrior, who is far too well known for the wrong reasons. Like Rlevsehere, I can only wonder, "Wow, all I can say is why and how did this train derail?"
Comment Tenmei, you were originally reporting your attack page (you named it as such) that I did not complain. However I mentioned it to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty/Evidence#3. Tenmei's recent ad hominem attacks as another evidence for your ongoing and persistent WP:HARASSMENT on me. And you were a key player for the block because of your wikistalking and wikilaywering (you admitted your such wrongdoing). So your continued harassment campaign is really tiresome. Moreover, you were gaming the system to block me such as your repeated visits to Georgewilliamherbert. This comment that I once sent Georgewilliamherbert would be counter your bogus accusations. And what does this have something to do with YOUR attack page and YOUR ArbCom in which I'm not even a party? If I were you, I did not include files from YOU, your dear friend who has been labeled as SPI by an admin, and abusive sockpuppeters who also even harassed a 'crat. This background gives your history of harassment a bit. So you're so angry at me giving evidence on your long-term disruption but why are you quiet about other 7 editors who has criticized your behaviors? I'm not your prey. I'm gonna just use your current WP:GAME filing as another evidence. Thanks. --Caspian blue23:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Tenmei's ongoing harassment on and off ArbCom
Whatever Tenmei is doing here to harass me will be used as evidence for his ongoing ArbCom case to show Tenmei's behaviors.
Here is a summary for everyone who can not understand why Tenmei is doing this;
Tenmei (talk·contribs) has a deep grudge against me because I'm the second person to report his disruptive behaviors after admin Nick-D (talk·contribs)
Since then whenever I have a disagreement with others, Tenmei suddenly appears to harass me.
I gave a favorable statement for Tenemi as uninvolved editor and it was accepted.
Tenmei resumed to hound me and admitted his own harassment (wikilawyering and wikistalking) on Tznkai and George's talk page.
I gave him a warning.
Tenmei even requests a motion to include me as a party to get out accusations against him and to punish "his enemy". Teeninvestor sneered the ridiculous idea.
After two weeks, I began commenting to Workshop and Tenmei was not happy at all, so attacked me.
Except Tenmei, and one editor, all 8 editors (among them, 6 editors gave their evidences) heavily criticize Tenmei's behaviors.
Therefore, I started writing evidences on Tenmei's long-term disruption.
Tenmei does not like my detailed evidences and comment on Workshop because his WP:GAME is failing.
Therefore, I have been adding his recent ad hominen attacks to the Evidence page.
Driven by his grudge, Tenmei created his subpage to harass me two days ago
Teeninvestor gave him a warning and requested for speedy.
Tenmei forum shopped multiple editors
Tenmei files this for his own attack page about which I did not even complain because that is a good evidence for my sake to secure my other evidences.
Comment . Tenmei has had a history of harassing and insulting Caspian Blue, even seeking other editors to seek sanctions against Caspian Blue. I think if this behaviour continues, we may need temporary injunctions against Tenmei. This behaviour has intensified ever since Caspian Blue participated in the ArbCom Case.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be yet another example of Tenmei attempting to game the system and posting vast and unreadable posts in order to shut down discussions. Caspian Blue's above post is also a bit long; please try to summarise your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment: This is hardly an isolated incident. Tenmei is constantly making personal attacks, and rarely assumes good faith. His comments on talk pages such as this one are always exceedingly difficult to follow, due to both their length and his excessive use of, for lack of a better way of putting it, "big words". He rarely sticks to content-related discussions or debates, switching to personal attacks against editors. It's a terrible, terrible shame that someone who does so much good in article space should so frequently create so much aggravation for others in talk space. LordAmeth (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I am requesting that this user's twinkle privileges be removed. He has repeatedly abused them on me and others. He first put a warning on my page because of an edit I made on the article British Pakistanis, despite the fact that I had posted on the article talk page. I warned him to stop abusing it, and he continues to abuse it by adding another warning to my user page [161]. Further more, he is repeatedly suppressing an IP user from my talkpage here. I can remove vandalism from my own page, without him edit warring on it. Since I have no authority to prevent him from edit warring on my talk page, may I request that an admin tell him stop this as well. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, generally, I don't see an issue with reverting an indefinitely banned user but wouldn't it be better to just ask him to leave your talk page alone? In fact, some editors have posting on top telling other not to protect/revert/etc. their talk pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The editor I am referring to refuses to engage with me in civil manner. He refusees to stop trolling my talk page because of his personal hate for me. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC
so you agree you were lying as explained by me below. again another false allegation about hating him. removing nangparbats edits is not equivalent to trolling your page or hating you. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
this editor is plain and simple lying. regarding the British Pakistani article he removed a section BEFORE discussing it on the talk page. his post on the talk page was the following day after I had reverted his unexplained removal of info as vandalism. he should be warned not to associate and encourage and communicate with banned editors like Nangparbat. I have been reverting him wherever he vandalizes.Wikireader41 (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
One clear fact here is that both editors (but especially WikiReader) systematically misuse the word "vandalism". The edit that bothers WikiReader was a removal by UnknownForEver (aka Always Ahead) of a passage that says that British Pakistanis suffer large numbers of genetic defects because they usually marry their first cousins. That removal may have been incorrect but it wasn't vandalism. Looie496 (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
First of, when did I accuse him of vandalism? Second, this dicussion isn't about my views or his. Its about having his the use of twinkle for him blocked. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I use twinkle to revert the banned user Nangparbats unconstructive edits. these edits are what I calll vandalism. maybe there is another term for persistent unlawful edits by indefinitely banned editors who have been blocked repeatedly by multiple administrators. The reason the above mentioned editor wants me to not use twinkle has more to to do with my reverting nangparbat than my leaving a warning against personal attacks against me. UnknownForEver needs to be investigated for his association and encouragement of banned user Nangparbat by a neutral administrator. I suspect Nangparbat is encouragiong his actions against me because of my efforts against nangparbat and his countless socks.Wikireader41 (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
and here is one of Nangparbats posts which among many others before leads me to believe that he and UnknownForEver are buddies with one 'protecting' the other [162]. Wikireader41 (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Here are some diffs which should give you some insight into wikireader41s motivation and bias towards certain nationalities hes a indian pov pusher who has made it his life mission to deface all pakistani articles and cannot take any criticism of india and deletes it from indian pages please block him he has been warned several times for pov pushing he has not learnt his lesson [163][164][165][166][167][168][169]
Additonal information several users have warned wikivandal41 from editing articles related to pakistan because of hin inability to write a NPOV article his indian heritage predisposes him to systematically pov push on pakistani articles he has made several rubbish filled articles which all have been deleted as editors realised his true intention he does not desire contributing to wikipedia hes just a nuisance editor creating problems heres another diff [171] Yellowmonkey seems to be protected this pov pusher and has become a fan of his anti pakistani rants this diff shows him removing a valid point made about his obvious aggression towards pakistan [172] he quickly removed it and starting vandalzing always aheads talk page a month later he cannot take criticism of himself but is happy to dish it out onto others i have nothing to do with alwaysahead or nangparbat or whatever his name is im reverting wikireader41s hypocracy he needs to be blocked now lets hope yellowmonkey doesnt get here before a neutral admin does because he will side with his fellow indian pov pusher 86.158.238.62 (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
My ip is dynamic do you want me to explain what it means everytime i restart my computer it hops anyways why are you ignoring his pov pushing and changing the topic at hand which is his pov pushing vandalism please dont tell me you agree with his islamophobic rants 86.156.214.242 (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
And yes im removing all his trashy edits and warnings everytime he uses them he has no right what so ever to warn anyone he has been warned a million times but does not stop pov pushing admins please stop ignoring this if he was pov pushing on some holocaust related article a thousand admins would come down on him/her like a ton of bricks is this systematic bias? 86.156.214.242 (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
nice excuse about dynamic IP Nangparbat. you know that is an option for many wikipedians. whats stopping you from making an account and undergo normal peer review like rest of us ?? it is very clear that your intention is not to play within WP rules and you literally have been blocked "a million times' and refuse to learn your lesson. anything critical of pakistan or islam and you shout "Islamophobia". get a life and stay off wikipedia as you have been banned indefinitely and are not welcome here ( long before I made my first edit on WP if I may add). and take your buddies with you. Wikireader41 (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hkelkar or wikivandal you have been in this administrators notice board several times now unusual for a editor who thinks he holds the truth isn’t it or will you blame it on a conspiracy by Pakistani editors its a pattern which is obvious you will be blocked eventually I assure you that. Anything critical of India, Indians and Indian culture e.g. female infanticide and sati and illegal aliens in America of Indian origin is not vandalism nor is it pov pushing it’s a current issue and you seem to deathly scared of introducing these things to any Indian article you cannot suppress facts and truth isn’t that the motto for Hindustan? Truth prevails your buddys will leave you quickly when they find out you have been blocked then we shall see how loyal they are ever since you have entered WP you have been a thorn in the back as you cannot obviously write a NPOV article as per say silkyfolkboy. 86.156.214.242 (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
– Editor advised to post sockpuppet claims at WP:SPI, but that actual evidence is required before a report can be considered. Euryalus (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
If you think im GRAWP, dont you think that I would start harrassing users and try DDoSing this site? im not Grawp, just please do a CU on that user. i have a feeling that he is. 71.167.78.40 (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets should be reported at WP:SPI rather than here. If you do post a report there you will need to provide some evidence, requirements for which are detailed on that page. Euryalus (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Just thought I'd clear this up: I am not the same user as Grawp. I'd rather I wasn't "checkusered" as I don't want users knowing my details etc, but if people believe I might be Grawp then by all means do so. JollyΩJanner15:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The article Karen Seal was put up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Seal shortly after its creation, and seems headed for a possible keep. After the AFD began, the article's creator, Reidthaler (talk·contribs) began repeatedly blanking the article in an explicit request that it be blanked as a courtesy to respect her privacy (Reid would seem to be the subject of the article). Reid received a number of warnings against blanking and is now up at AIV (possibly not anymore at the time of this posting). But since Reid is the only substantial contributor to the article, it seems like it might be right to honor G7. There was a string of edits by Guy0307 (talk·contribs) here, but it doesn't seem substantial enough (just a reshuffling of content with some minor rewording) to prohibit a G7 deletion. And since there is an AFD running with several people suggesting keep, I wasn't sure if G7 would be out of process, considering that there is no requirement that all G7 candidates be deleted. I'd appreciate some more input on this. Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe your instinct that speedy deletion wasn't the best choice was probably correct. Since there's an AfD discussion in process, it would probably be better to simply bring this up as the reason for your !vote, remembering that while the community may choose to honor an author's request for deletion, authors don't WP:OWN articles and therefore don't have the final say in whether the article is kept. --PhilosopherLet us reason together.00:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Its a tough call. There's two competing issues here. On the first hand, we generally honor the requests of marginally notable people to delete articles about them, especially where they are borderline cases. Thus, Dick Cheney would be a no, but this person would likely be a yes. One then has to decide how marginal is marginal. Does this person qualify? I would err on the side of "do no harm" and honor the request, but I could easily understand the case made for keeping the article. Tough call indeed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs01:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Reid here. I'm not the vandal, I'm the author and there have been no other contributors. If you read the passage of the article on Karen Seal, her earlier work was on reducing accidental overdosing by injection drug users. That work follows the under the rurbric of "harm reduction" which is what I'm doing by requesting that the article be deleted. As the author, I believe I do own it. Dr. Seal requested that the article be removed as it may create an impediment with her work treating disabled veterans. Thus, leaving the article posted, at this point, is in violation of the subject's request as well as may create harm. --Reidthaler—Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC).
While you still own the copyright to the text you wrote, you irrevocably agreed to release your contributions under the GFDL. That means that the rest of the editors here can pretty much do as they please with them, as long as what they do complies with the GFDL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 05:44, 5 May 2009
So, let's sum up. The subject's notability is marginal, the author requests deletion, and according to the author, the subject requests deletion. Why aren't we deleting this article, other than process wonkery? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK13:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Because it looks like she may be more than marginally notable, with the pioneering work she's done with veterans, and with substance abuse.--SarekOfVulcanExtra (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree about it being utterly inappropiate because the outcome is obvious. It may be against the Speedy Keep rules, but I think that was a time for IAR. Iowateen (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This is an example of a misunderstanding of WP:SK (or operating on memory from a very old revision). Nevertheless it is an entirely reasonable SNOW close. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that one might have waited for more than a single user's response to the nomination before snow closing the AfD. (Nevertheless, I hadn't even looked at the article before initiating this thread, as my objection to the close was purely procedural. That the closer was an account created only a week ago entered into it as well.) Deor (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I most likely would have closed it as speedy keep without any !votes. Number 1: she was the president's secretary and Number 2: There are a whole lot of reliable sources with significant coverage. Iowateen (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I hate to be a pedant, but the phrase "speedy keep" refers to a very specific set of conditions under which the closing of a deletion discussion can be considered effectively automatic. A SNOW close, on the other hand, can be made of any community discussion whose outcome is almost certain from the outset. A speedy keep close of a deletion discussion is by definition non-controversial. A SNOW close may attract some controversy because even though the outcome of the discussion is a forgone conclusion at least one person is interested in continuing the discussion. As such, closes like that are risky. If you do them too often or mess them up you can expect some blowback. In the future, please only close things as "speedy keep" where it meets one of the 5 SK criteria. Protonk (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Objecting to a single action (not a pattern) purely based on a procedural issue is generally a bad idea. After all, the whole point of WP:IAR is that results are more important than procedure. If you disagree with the result, that's a different story. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Iowateen, that's fine as your view on the AfD itself but there are specific criteria for Speedy Keeps, which are outlined here. This close doesn't meet those criteria. "IAR" states that where a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. The posting of an AfD with an apparent good-faith rationale does not prevent anyone from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, and doesn't therefore warrant ignoring all rules in order to remove it. Also, while WP:SNOW can be used for early closures the outcome is not so clear-cut when only 2 people haave had a say. I notice you didn't apply SNOW, possibly for this reason.
Lastly, the existence of plenty of sources doesn't automatically mean an article is not subject to BLP1E (see for example here or here). BLP1E might apply here, and the community deserves the opportunity to reach consensus on that issue. Early closures should only be done where there can be no doubt of the outcome, and that's not (yet) the case with this one.
Having regard for all this, I've reopened the AfD. I think Iowateen, JBSupreme and Nate are all acting in good faith, and if I was !voting I'd argue to keep the article. But community consensus on a good-faith AfD can't be obtained in 20 minutes, and the existence of the AfD is not an undue disruption to Wikipedia or the Bettie Currie article. Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I notice there's a few more keep !votes in the last few minutes. Before anyone accuses me of process wonkery, please note the point I'm making about SNOW closures is not that this AfD cannot subsequently be a snow closure or must run the full 7 days, simply that a "snow" cannot be judged purely on two editor's opinions over a 20-minute AfD. As the summary at WP:SNOW makes clear - "When in doubt, allow discussions to take place." Euryalus (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I was expecting the AfD to run the usual five days but not for the speedy close, so I was surprised by the quickness of the closing. My vote was based on Currie's notability and that I felt it could be improved by being bold and fixing the problem areas rather than a deletion. Iowateen was a bit too quick on the trigger and I do agree this was right to reopen. Nate•(chatter)06:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It is no where as a critical a mistake as the previous one and doesn't necessarily warrant a ANI post, but it is making a mistake. It added a slew of interwiki links to the {{User en-1}} template itself, but they were already present on the template's document subage. The links belong on the doc subpage and don't need to be repeated on the template page. However, that could have been handled via a comment to the bot operator with a request to fix it. Which I will do... -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
However, that edit doesn't violate the updated bot policy. The edits are in a noinclude as the policy states. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The bot is still doing it despite being notified. As such, I've blocked it so that the owner will see the notification and fix it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Please, unblock my bot. It was adding interwiki links to templates, but current version (build 6820) of pywikipedia bot doesn't recognize when interwiki is in documentation subtemplate. So I'll stop doing interwiki in template namespace for now until this is fixed. My bot was blocked without warning, because un my en:talkpage is big header, that I am not watching this talkpage regularry and for urgent messages please write to cs:. Thanks. JAn Dudík (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It is also trivially easy to write your bot to detect the new message bar and alert you that you have a message. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
ChrisP2K5 has become increasingly uncivil and has begun personally attacking me and another user, TenPoundHammer. Examples of recent incivility can be found in these edits:
Additionally, the user claims that others are "stalking him" and their good faith cleanup edits made after his are "nitpicking" in order to justify potentially violating the three-revert rule, as in the following examples:
I have to say that I think admin intervention is unlikely. Looking at the diffs I see some fairly trivial incivility and some very trivial content disputes. I think this would be better handled by posting at WP:WQA and by following our dispute resolution guidelines. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK14:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, when one seems to make most of his edits immediately following edits that I make, it's very hard not to assume that said one is either a) stalking or b) trolling. And I also find it a little hard to stomach someone making so-called "cleanup edits" when there really is no need for said edits. I also believe that Sottolacqua is being a little bit oversensitive in this case and is using his personal feelings for me to cloud his judgement and that isn't fair. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
In no article I have been anywhere close to edit warring. After editor Likeminas (talk·contribs), now blocked for disruptive editing, deleted huge amount citations or restored unreferenced content, I have kindly reminded him that verifiability is a key policy and mass deletions of citations should be at least explained. I have not had dispute over referenced content, only basic policies. And I have always turned to administrators if warnings have not been enough, and they have always agreed that the editor's behavior has been disruptive.Luis Napoles (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
In your recent deletions from Honduras and History of Honduras you deleted text which had no associated fact tag, and text which had only had a fact tag added moments before, by yourself. I think those qualify as disruptive editing. Just one user's opinion. Rsheptak (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a template which indicates it was left in 2007 and I added specific citation needed tags a month ago hoping that someone would add references. That is hardly "moments ago" and I remind that, as Jimbo Wales puts it, "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.".Luis Napoles (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
No you didn't. There was one fact tag in the paragraph that dated from 2007. Many of the others dated from April 2009; and there was no random speculation involved. Everything you deleted could be supported, so you're just overly agressive in what you think should be deleted. Again, this is my opinion. Rsheptak (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)!
I blocked the other party for vandalism, specifically the removal of cited content without or against consensus. Reverting vandalism is not included under the criteria of violations of WP:3RR. If there are other articles, or examples, of edit warring then there is an administrators board to air those concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism? You're edit with the block template specifically says "Another block for violation of WP:Edit war" and you never once said anything about this "vandalism". Grsz1101:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Their edit warring, in this matter, was the removal of cited content - which is thus vandalism. Removing cited information once, having it reverted and then discussing it is not edit warring/vandalism. Nuances, perhaps - but it is fairer on the blockee to place the good faith interpretation in the summary box. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Wait a second, who did you block? (Strange, I can't find either a block log entry nor a block notice; when was that?) In general, I'd like to strongly protest against the perpetuation of that deplorable myth that removal of cited content is automatically vandalism. There may be any number of perfectly legitimate reasons why an editor would want to remove cited content (lack of relevance, undue weight, redundancy, triviality, POV, ...) I can't check if any of this might apply here, not having found your block yet. Fut.Perf.☼12:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the log. I would comment that it is not simply the removal of cited content, but edit warring to remove it against or with no consensus - WP:BRD was apparently being ignored - with the sanction length reflecting that this was not the first occurence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I've never before seen an editor's talk page before with so many complaints of WP:POV, WP:3RR and breaches verging on sheer vandalism on it, yet that hasn't attracted numerous blocks. Perhaps it's his habit of keeping things tidy by deleting adverse comment as soon as it appears?
I recently encountered his editing style on Operation Charly, where this sequence of edits took a sourced article from 16kb to a stub of a few hundred bytes with some undiscussed overnight editing work. When challenged on this he promptly took it to AfD, where it gathered no support at all for deletion, and indeed some further criticism of his past editing style.
This isn't going anywhere. I have no desire to watch this devolve into reprisals and litmus tests. Protonk (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could someone keep an eye on Ikip (talk·contribs)'s latest forum-shopping/canvassing shenanigans? He posted here about BlueSquadronRaven (talk·contribs), implying a connection between him and the Wuzz* sockmaster above, based on some shared editing scope, with a comment pointing to that discussion at AFD talk. That's fine and dandy, but after getting rebuffed fairly sternly at both talk pages, he's now tryingtopush it at an unrelated but sympathetic wikiproject (which has had its own share of canvassing headaches of late).
Could someone please get him to knock off implying that editors in good standing are Wuzzion without evidence, and get him to quit shopping this line all over the place? I'd appreciate it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
wuzz and BlueSquadronRaven This is completely false:
"He posted here about BlueSquadronRaven (talk·contribs), implying a connection between him and the Wuzz* sockmaster above, based on some shared editing scope, with a comment pointing to that discussion at AFD talk.
"Could someone please get him to knock off implying that editors in good standing are Wuzzion without evidence
I never implied any connection between wuzz and BlueSquadronRaven. They simply posted multiple times on AfDs. I am not claiming that wuzz or BlueSquadronRaven are even remotely the same.
RE: "but after getting rebuffed fairly sternly at both talk pages" 3 editors have thus far responded: (1) BlueSquadronRaven, who posted the same two messages on over 100 pages. (2) Another editor whose comments where laced with personal and incivil attacks, and who has posted deragatory comments about ARS, and (3) another editor who has voted delete on hundreds of these articles. Not exactly consensus.
On WP:ARS there is a converation about these type of articles, involving several editors. I mentioned a contiuation of this conversation, as explained on WP:CANVAS posting to talk pages is not canvassing.
Two questions:
User:A Man In Black why did you block me a couple of days ago? You were roundly condemned for this block, even by your traditional editor friends. It was quickly reversed as a bad block. Despite several editors asking you why you blocked me, you never responded. User:A Man In Black why did you block me a couple of days ago?
User:A Man In Black you stated in the ANI a couple of days ago that you have never edited with me, and you were an uninvolved editor. You said this repeatedly. Is it true that you have had discussions with me on several pages before?
Not only does User:A Man In Black have the most blocks of most editors, he has a rich history of bad blocks with involved editors.
AMIB, you are at 3RR. With your edit history, you will be blocked a very, very long time. Ikip (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The answer to your first question is 'for canvassing', as it says on your block log and his notification. You DID read that, right? Or was your asking that question not a genuine request for information? Asked and answered, I suppose. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Ikip aside for a moment, I think you need to let other users handle the Ikip problems as they arise. You were just here a couple weeks ago with another Ikip related matter. Let someone else handle Ikip. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 15:18
What I am saying and User:Skomorokh said it best below, is to "disengage from Ikip and cease following their contributions". That would be best. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 15:31
This landed in my lap; the entirety of the following the contributions was to click the links posted. I'm not sure if there's anything else to this; again, that's why I was calling it to someone else's attention. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Whether it fell in your lap or conked you in the head, you should have asked another admin via talk, IRC or email to look into it. Making another ANI post just looks bad. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 15:41
Asking here is PRECISELY 'letting someone else handle this'--or do you have some different notion to mine of what a noticeboard is for? Criticising someone for doing something you are in the process of admonishing someone to do is rather strange, isn't it? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it isn't. AMIB could have filled in anyone of the 1600+ admins on what was going on and let THAT admin bring this to ANI. This is just par for the course on AMIB disengage. But both editors (AMIB and Ikip) need to disengage from each other and knock it off. I am not admonishing just AMIB, Ikip needs to chill too and that was posted below. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 15:49
Yes, it is. Admins are expected to bring issues like this for some comment if they don't feel comfortable acting on their own. Also, if we assume that there is a problem with what Ikip is doing, it does not reflect well on us to pretend that the proper resolution is for Ikip and AMiB to ignore each other. Protonk (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It can't hurt. After telling Ikip to chill and disengage...he has. He has also said he will leave AMIB be. Whether he keeps these promises in the future (longer than today) remains to be seen....but I am just making sure (as an editor) no one gets blocked over something minor. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 17:20
Do we have another noticeboard for requesting admin insight into a potentially problematic situation? *sigh* I understand that WP:ANI is toxic at times, but to my mind it's the best of a pile of bad alternatives. E-mail (never mind that I detest it) has an appearance of not being aboveboard with my actions. IRC has that problem squared. Individual admin pages are inappropriate, as I face Ikip turning around my own accusations of shopping his causes to favorable ears, giving rise to accusations of hypocrisy and allowing him to further characterize my practical feelings about what I see as disruptive conduct as some sort of personal vendetta.
(ec)While some of Ikip's behaviour is concerning, and I agree that WT:ARS ought not be used to examine sockpuppeting issues, I firmly suggest that given your history you ought to disengage from Ikip and cease following their contributions. Skomorokh15:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
My history with Ikip is trying to contain his tendency to shop every dispute he has to anyone who might be sympathetic to him. This particular issue landed in my lap. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
AMIB, everytime you post these vendettas, your the one that comes out of it looking worse.
AMIB, our history spans several pages. You have continually harrassed and hounded me for months. This is patently false:
My history with Ikip is trying to contain his tendency to shop every dispute he has to anyone who might be sympathetic to him. This particular issue landed in my lap.
Ikip, while I think AMIB should answer some of these questions, it ain't gonna happen. I think BOTH of you should disengage from each other...both of you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 15:41
OK, fine, A Man in Black may or may not have been a good choice to report this, but that doesn't change the fact that Ikip's actions here are reprehensible. He's complaining that someone copied and pasted the same AFD vote rationale to a series of AFDs that are all about the same concern: As the reasons are the same and they are all going on at once you'd have to be an idiot to write up different rationales for each one (they really should have been combined into one AFD anyway). And he's suggesting the person be blocked for vote disruption, somehow, and posting such complaints across multiple pages hoping to find someone anywhere who will buy into this calculated wikilawyering nonsense and then launching into over the top personal attacks to try to support himself and harass anyone who gets in his way. Regardless of A Man in Black's history, someone ought to make Ikip understand that he cannot pull these kinds of stunts. DreamGuy (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not saying Ikip's actions aren't reprehensible, they are disruptive...BUT he makes a point. Another editor was blocked for posting the same response on AfDs (see here)...so there is precedent. That doesn't mean shopping his point of view around is right...it isn't. You just can't go around and forumshop. Which is why I told Ikip above that he needs to chill. I think Ikip needs to read up on some of the rules around here. But slamming the person for posting something, pretty close to what was brought up here on ANI, isn't right either. There are no winners or losers here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 15:56
DreamGuy, please strike this statment:
And he's suggesting the person be blocked for vote disruption, somehow, and posting such complaints across multiple pages hoping to find someone anywhere who will buy into this calculated wikilawyering nonsense and then launching into over the top personal attacks to try to support himself and harass anyone who gets in his way.
I actually wrote, quote:
"Although I am not suggesting this in this case, an editor was blocked today for posting multiple times on AfDs Wikipedia:Ani#AfD_disruption?."
Just a clarification Neutralhomer, another editor posted on WP:ARS about the huge numbers of bilateral articles being deleted. I responded, and got involved in this AFDs, working on the wikiproject a lot, mentioning what I found recently in these AfDs on WP:ARS. When I found and posted the massive copy and pasting, I mentioned this too on WP:ARS. Other than the editor involved, in sending a courteousy message about the discussion on WP:AFD, I don't recall contacting anyone else about this mass copy and pasting episode. Ikip (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I wasn't really looking for anyone to intervene in the BSR/Ikip thing, since it seems to be resolving itself, I just wanted someone to make sure it didn't get shopped anywhere else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Going meta if i may. Leaving aside this particular dispute and its details, it is clearly the case that the ARS is being used as a vote canvassing vehicle for AFDs, DRVs and for changes to relevant policies and guidelines. That is the point of the organization and that is what most of its members spend their time doing. The simple act of putting something on the ARS talk page is a form of canvassing (after all, people intersted in AFD's can patrol the new AFD pages; people interested in "saving" articles have the categories for unsourced articles etc..). Yet, the community has decided (if not expressly said) as a matter of practice this type of canvassing is to be tolerated. So this is really a policy problem at the moment -- either the canvassing guidelines need to be rewritten for clarity and enforced uniformly or they should be done away with entirely.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Without getting involved in the specific claims here, this invites dozens of kilobytes of arguing about what degree of coordination of effort is appropriate when it will inevitably involve a certain amount of notifying like-minded editors about contentious discussions. The specific canvassing at ARS is reverted and resolved; if you feel it's part of a problematic pattern, I think a separate discussion may be more appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh i agree. I guess my point is: The community has de facto, if no de jure, raised the white flag to canvassing and associated nonesense in this area. I don't like it, but don't see what can be done about. I guess my advice to you is -- just ignore this stuff, since you're going to get precious little backup.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Ikip and his other names have been a long-term problem involving hundreds of AN/I pages and the like. His former page at User:Ikip/guests was clear evidence of the problem, and his continued attacks on anyone in his way are notorious now. It included clear instructions on having a group of "friends" and "undetectable sockpuppets" for the sole purpose of forcing people away from WP entirely. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect for an example of his methods at work. Collect (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
As a participant in this RFC (yes I followed Collect here out of curiosity), I would say the Collect RFC/U is hardly an example of forum shopping. Contrary to Collect's unsupported claims of collusion and sockputtery, iKip did a very good job keeping the Collect RFC more focused, above board and structured than it otherwise would have been. Much more so than my contribution which I'll admit was brought closer to Collect's level in my interaction with him. iKip is definitely a very active editor and I can see has ruffled some feathers. I have no opinion about his activity on AfD, but when it comes to Collect's claims above, he has been accusing many editors of bad faith, collusion, sockputtetry, canvassing, not AGF. iKip is just one of many who Collect has set his sights on lately.Mattnad (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Since part of this discussion revolves around me, I would simply like to bring up a couple points. First, I am very concerned with User:Ikip's spreading word of the discussion he initiated at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations#Article_copy_and_pasting as it contains a not very subtle suggestion that I be blocked. Second, I am now of the opinion that WP:ARS is simply a cover for canvassing, and as such I am asking for advice as to who to go to (ArbCom, Bureaucrats, Jimbo?) to make arguments for its disbanding on those grounds. Thank you. --BlueSquadronRaven16:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
If you wish to disband the ARS, you are free to nominate it again at WP:MFD – though note that the previous three attempts were soundly rejected. Personally I find your accusation completely underdetermined by the facts. Skomorokh16:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You'd have to answer Kelly Martin's two questions in the first MFD. Specifically what harm has been done, and how will removing the project solve that harm? I'd also pose a third; can you show that the harm outweighs the project's good work?
If you had an argument so outstanding that it put those questions to rest, that damage was shown instead of alleged and the consequences of removing the project were honestly assessed, then you might have a chance of forming a consensus. Until then, you'd have a great deal of noisy opposition, including me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest the harm is that there are a huge number of wasted hours from all sides that could otherwise be directed at improving articles. The very articles that ARS are trying to save in the first place, no less. David D.(Talk)21:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't help but think how much time and effort is wasted or rather misdirected in AfDs for fixable articles than on article improvement. One of the most frustrating aspects of AfDs is simultaneously working to improve the article and arguing to keep in when as we all know some in the discussions truthfully don't care if the articles are improved and certainly will not help in that effort. Best, --A NobodyMy talk21:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I've never seen a {{rescue}} tagged-page actually be improved. If you want to save an article from deletion, sofixit, don't place a big stonking notice on every AfD'd article. Sceptre(talk)16:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Quite. The "hall of fame" reads like a rogues gallery of unsourced drivel, and as far as i'm concerned bolsters the argument that the ARS exists to hostily contest AFD's, throw up walls of frequently irrelevant cites, all in a quest to lower inclusion standards. If it weren't, there would be no need for an ARS and these folks could all direct their attentions to the thousands of articles that need sources, which are helpfully listed here:[175]. Check out Cooper Huckabee for an unsourced BLP they "saved." Check out E-frame for an in-universe article on a fictional technology that was part of a cartoon series in the early 1990s. Nordine Zouareg is a blp/promotional piece for a would-be fitness guru that still has only primary sources... and these are part of their Hall of Fame.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't really looking for anyone to intervene in the BSR/Ikip thing, since it seems to be resolving itself, I just wanted someone to make sure it didn't get shopped anywhere else.
If AMIB closes this ANI, I promise not to post this anywhere else, I had no intention of posting the 100 mass copy/pastes anywhere else than the 2 projects anyway (AFD/ARS).
That still doesn't address why you shopped around the suggestion that I be blocked in the first place. You also did not inform me of one of the places you shopped it to, I had to go and find it myself. --BlueSquadronRaven16:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't really accept this apology, even though I know it makes me look callous or out for blood. What I want is an assurance that you won't be forum shopping for favorable responses from favorable audiences next time. I don't know what form that assurance could practically take.
I don't want to see you blocked and I don't want to see you stop passionately arguing for article inclusion. As stupid and idealistic as it sounds, I want the Machiavellian political games around article inclusion in general to end, and I see you aggravating clearly enough to overcome my own natural tendency to second-guess myself and check myself from action. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree Ikip is using ARS as a thinly-disguised venue for canvassing, bringing in "keep" voters who have no actual intention of improving articles that are often beyond improvement, just for the sake of keeping. And may I also point to a few diffs from the last day or so? [176], [177], [178], [179], [180]. I cast a vote (with explanations given) and he disagreed with that. That's fine up to that point. What's unacceptable is his pursuing me across several other AfDs and other venues in a concerted attempt to discredit my opinions - note also the element of baiting. It seems clear Ikip is a net negative for the project, and is uninterested in editing productively and constructively, instead raising tension by essentially canvassing a determined coterie of followers. - BiruitorulTalk17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if it has to do with ARS, but I have a funny feeling about the large number of procedural or "all 20,000 bilateral relations are inherently notable" keeps by people who don't seem to bother even looking at the article in question. As Wikipedia is getting more and more complete in some areas this kind of thing is going to become more and more of a problem. I notice that while we have WP:BLP/N, WP:OR/N, WP:RS/N, WP:COI/N, WP:FRINGE/N and a few other similar noticeboards, WP:N/N is still a redlink. I think this could be a great place to go for difficult or far-reaching notability disputes. I would expect such a noticeboard to be populated by both "deletionists" and "inclusionists". In the best case a professional spirit of cooperation between the two parties might develop there; in the worst case it would still be a place to go for neutralising the canvassing effect of WP:ARS posts. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Boy this argument seems to come up a lot. Why not just "topic ban" ikip from AfD. With all the spare time he can do real article improvement. Article improvement is always the best way to improve the encyclopedia and stop the dud articles ending up in AfD. I'd add, it might be time to MfD the WP:ARS project. This is just a bad idea all around, of course it is going to create friction, especially given the not so improved nature of their hall of fame. David D.(Talk)19:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that would go along way toward defusing tensions - perhaps a topic ban from AfD and all areas not in the mainspace or article talk pages, just so the canvassing at ARS stops. - BiruitorulTalk19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a ban from all "procedural pages" (WP: space) to deter him from this behaviour with a strong caution against the vaguest appearance of canvassing? Collect (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Ridiculous and one sided. By that same logic we should topic ban those who mass nominating all the bilateral relations article for deletion for indiscriminate nominations, flooding and overwhelming AfD, if not "point". This is nothing more than an effort to stifle a divergent viewpoint. Those critiquing Ikip would do well to devote time to article improvement as well. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk19:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a minute, let's not deflect attention from the user causing all the turmoil. No one here is making "indiscriminate" nominations - do correct me with facts if I'm wrong. Ikip, on the other hand, as clearly demonstrated, is involved in forum-shopping, thinly-disguised canvassing and other activities that are a net negative to the project, and should be excluded from procedural pages until and unless he can demonstrate this conduct will change. - BiruitorulTalk19:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Ikip is clearly being railroaded by those of a different opinion of inclusion criteria. Trying to get additional insights to garner a more clear consensus is hardly canvassing and there have been times where people have asked for my opinion and argued opposite of their position. Thus, there's no guarantee than anyone who's opinion he asks for is necessarily in alignment with him. All I see above is trumped up allegations and distortions of Ikip's attention, i.e. an effort to silence someone and create an impression of questionable behavior by his opponents. All we have here is nothing more than yet another waste of time that does not actually help us to improve any articles. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk19:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting claim -- my record at XfD is about 80% for "keep" which hardly makes me a deletionist by a long shot. The issue as I see is is precisely and exactly "canvassing" thus the suggestion that he be warned against the vaguest appearance of canvassing. Collect (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not saying you are his opponent in the sense of being a deletionist, but in the sense of being the subject of an RfC for which Ikip has presented evidence against you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk20:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Merridew's Law: As a discussion about an inclusionist or a deletionist grows longer, the probability of a claim of harassment by adherents of the opposite philosophy approaches 1. Sceptre(talk)19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Read the discussion from the start. This was about canvassing from the get-go, and got sidetracked into the inclusionist/deletionist debate. --BlueSquadronRaven20:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not about railroading, it's about moving in a more productive direction. How many more of these ANI threads are we going to see? Surely ikip would rather been editing mainspace and improving articles rather than wasting time on wikipedia talk (current ratio of about 1:4)? David D.(Talk)20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, why not just topic ban Ikip from AFD? Posit that I'm completely right, that Ikip is canvassing completely inappropriately. Banning him from AFD discussions doesn't prevent him from canvassing, on talk pages or Wikipedia pages, nor does it prevent him from shopping disputes with users to favorable forums until he gets the desired result. Instead, it just keeps him from arguing for inclusion in the designated forum for doing so.
I was just thinking he might want to remember why he started editing wikipedia. Presumably to make articles better, obviously the ARS and AFD activity is consuming him. Since May wikipedia space edits (+talk) vs main space edits (+talk) are at a ratio of about 10:1. David D.(Talk)20:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Ikip's talk page tactics keep coming up. I think we need to make it clear that Ikip is allowed to hold and express his point of view, but that forum shopping for sympathetic audiences is inappropriate. He should not be allowed to post links to AFD discussions at all, at least for a while. This wouldn't be interfering with any of his good faith efforts to rescue and improve articles, or participate in discussions as one person. Again, we don't want to silence Ikip's viewpoint, but we don't want him to assemble a mob that supports his viewpoint either.
I'd ask for AMiB to take a step back from this one, as well as Ikip's usual supporters. Or if they can't do that, then I hope an independent administrator can ignore the usual WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics and focus on the actual problematic behavior -- no more, no less. Randomran (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You forgot to ask AMiB's supporters to disengage.
For topic bans of veteran editors, discussion and a consensus decision are the norm.
I have stayed out of this in the hope that this would calm down, and at the request of NeutralHomer, whereas AMIB, as typical, has refused to disingage. These issues keep being posted on ANI because of the WP:Hounding and WP:Harrassment of three editors, who have starkly different views of wikipedia then me, AMIB is particular. I have followed all of the rules, to the letter. Buried in this is are these facts:
What started this ANI? BlueSquadronRaven spammed over 100 AfD pages with the same two comments. Six of the Afd comments were in one minute. He posted to fifteen AfDs in 3 minutes.
Two weeks ago, because of his block of me, there were calls for AMIB being desysopped for continued abuse of his administrative powers. (he never gave any edit diffs for my "canvas" block two weeks ago, and he still refused too, despite being asked several times in the ANI, and the overwelming majority of editors opposed the block, he is as a very involved editor, despite his repeated lies to the contrary) this desysopping was discussed at length in the AfD. AMIB what is the reason for the block? AMIB edit warred today, and has more blocks than any other administrator. He has also blocked editors in the past he was edit warring with.
WP:ARS is a wikiproject, every day hundreds of editors place {{Delsort}} on AfDs, and then notify those wikiprojects of existing AfDs. There was an existing conversation on WP:ARS about these deletions, started by someone else, I simply posted the BlueSquadronRaven's spamming.
AMIB, BlueSquadronRaven, DreamGuy have stated that I wrote there was a "imply[ed] connection" between BlueSquadronRaven and the sock and that I "suggest[ed] BlueSquadronRaven be blocked" this is a lie. Despite repeated requests to strike these comments, AMIB and DreamGuy have refused.
The two other editors who reported me to ANI, there was no action taken whatsoever. The community decided that there was no action to be taken. These editors then proceeded to plot against me on AMIB's user page. [full edit diffs later] Ikip (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, AMiB's usualy supporters should disengage too. But are you going to stop WP:FORUMSHOPping for places to link to AFDs? There are plenty of other editors who are using {{Delsort}} properly to attract attention to these discussions. Nobody is trying to stop you from expressing your own point of view, but it's becoming a problematic pattern if you're frequently trying to attract people who will reinforce your point of view. Randomran (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think what Ikip did wrong is post the complaint to a large number of different forums (well 3 I think). I'd be in favor of restricting him from doing that--One forum started by him per topic. It's what is generally accepted anyways. I'd also label "cut and paste" !votes at AfD as disruptive. I've seen it on both sides (delete and keep) and I've seen ARS lists used by both sides to cut-and-paste !votes that clearly showed they hadn't read the actual AfDs or articles. I'll fully admit I sometimes don't read carefully before I comment on an AfD, but it is getting silly recently. (This is relevant because it's what Ikip was complaining about). Hobit (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think cut and paste !votes are a separate issue but worth having a discussion about at a separate forum. We need to focus on one editor at a time, or AN/I will just become a battle ground. Ikip needs to acknowledge that he can still improve articles and advocate for his position without posting links to AFDs, or an administrator needs to make that clear to him. Focus on the problem, rather than trying to punish or silence the otherwise good editor. Randomran (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
What I'd love to see is all of you have at least a comparable number of edits in main space as wikipedia space. Maybe then those who are independent might think you all cared about improving articles. Too often people get drawn into these arguments at the loss of their own productivity, not to mention the disruption also causes others to lose their productivity. What a waste of time for everyone. David D.(Talk)21:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
If that was an all-around proposal, i.e. it applies also to those who focus overwhelmingly on nominating and voting to delete as well, then sure; however, one main area of difficulty will always be that as a volunteer site, we cannot really require volunteers to contribute on any given aspect of the project, no? Best, --A NobodyMy talk22:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For AfD spamming. BlueSquadronRaven spammed over 100 AfD pages with the same two comments. Six of the Afd comments were in one minute. He posted to fifteen AfDs in 3 minutes.
Proposed. Ikip (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like he explained himself on that page you link to, what's the problem? What I'd love to see is all of you have at least a comparable number of edits in main space as wikipedia space. Maybe then those who are independent might think you all cared about improving articles. Too often people get drawn into these arguments at the loss of their own productivity, not to mention the disruption also causes others to lose their productivity. What a waste of time for everyone. David D.(Talk)21:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as beyond over the top and ridiculous. Given the above proposal by Ikip, this seems retaliatory and should be archived ASAP. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"Iblis" is arabic (and a bunch of arabic-influenced languages) for devil or satan. What a clever little fellow he must think he is.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Current 211.28.47.151 Ip’s contributions limited to reverts of various editors [181][182][183] and deletion of academic info without any justification [184][185]. Following this IPs and its all reincarnations is tiresome especially then IP refuses to engaged in discussions [186][187] etc.
Basically, IP's (203.56.87.254) all current "contributions" limited for eliminating Lithuanian names [188] (identical practice which was done by previous two IPs)
Well, I try to revert in reasonable numbers, however IP comes back and reverts again, like with the newest case [189],[190][191]. Perhaps semi protect would be good idea on the those articles, there IP "visits" are most common like Gudowicz, Baranowski. Addition watchlisting would be good idea too. M.K. (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Since the range of both articles and IP addresses is rather broad, any protection or blocking would be questionable. Therefore I suggest to pass a resolution that any deletions of this kind without well-grounded edit summary must be reverted on first sight without much talk, with simple edit summary "rv unexplained deletion", since the editor(s) do not show the willingness to talk. - Altenmann >t15:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Problem with this is that certain editors can use it as an excuse to remove Polish names from articles that those names actually belong in and that other, non anon IP editors, have placed there. I'm a little concerned that this is MK's back door way of trying to circumvent going through the proper channels on naming conventions on Lithuania/Poland related articles and/or trying to get a consensus on the relevant talk pages.radek (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. This is far from aggressive enough to warrant draconian measures. Try an SPI case, maybe there's a few subblocks we can consider, but at least get things on record so that checkusers can find it later. On the other hand, I'd suggest perhaps a user subpage just keeping track of which articles are getting hit the most. The more eyes the better and semi-protection if needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to request a blocking of User:Reiem. This user is a friend of mine who clearly has malicious intentions towards the Wikipedia, and has repeatedly vandalized userpages (including mine), and used crude and/or improper humor in various pages. If you look at this user's discussion page, you'll notice that they have already been warned several times, but continue to cause disruption. I have tried to talk to him personally, but there is no sign that he is willing to change or contribute to the Wikipedia positively. I would greatly appreciate it if the administrators could look into this issue and take the appropriate action.
Destin (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Reiem (talk·contribs) didn't edit since March 31. No reason to block now. Blocks are not for punishment. They are to prevent disruption of wikipedia. I have posted a warning to Reiem's talk page. - Altenmann >t17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
In future, Destin, you should report current vandalism at WP:AIV rather than here. As Altenmann says, vandalism occurring over a month ago doesn't warrant a block now. TonywaltonTalk21:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Um, why not block a clearly unproductive account with 7 prior warnings, including two previous final warnings? (The up and down progression of warnings on that talk page doesn't make much sense.) I doubt, after ignoring two final warnings, that Reiem is going to see the third one and think "uh-oh, they really mean it this time". A block at this point would be preventative. It would prevent the pretty-much guaranteed disruption in a couple of weeks, and at least autoblock him for a day when he tries it. At the very least, if we aren't going to block, let's stop putting up impotent "final warnings" that really aren't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it would more productive for the people actually dealing with his vandalism to report him like they should. Unless someone has verified all his editing, warnings alone aren't sufficient to determine culpability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't make a lot of "wrong version" complaints, but I will in this case. Shoemaker's Holiday successfully edit-warred the removal of WP:NOT#PLOT today, removing despite being reverted twice, with discussion taking place both on WT:NOT#Moved PLOT to WP:WAF and at User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday. As of result of his continued removal, the article was protected, with WP:NOT#PLOT removed.
Policy pages are not like ordinary pages. They need to stay stable until disputes are resolved. Having chunk of years-old policy removed for a period of days does not enhance stability of policy.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Consensus issues aside, it was very bad form for SH to remove it during an ongoing RfC when he has already spoke out in opposition to it. Sceptre(talk)16:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand this complaint. People who use the talk page to discuss changes aren't "involved parties" who can no longer edit the page. That's ridiculous. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
What's so hard to understand. SH was involved in advocating a certain position in that RfC. S/he decided to close the RfC in favor of that position. We aren't saying that people who use the talk page can't edit the article. We are saying that people on one side or another of a contentious community discussion shouldn't be determining how that discussion ends. Protonk (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
An RfC isn't an XfD. It's no different than any other discussion on a talk page, except that it (hopefully) has a broader scope of participation. They aren't closed in the way you would close an XfD. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
There was, is, and has never been a consensus to remove WP:NOT#PLOT from the page, except by a hard-core of editors, many of whom have been brought to this board many times as disruptive. I have supported SH in the past, but if he thinks this fiasco is helping Wikipedia he's badly mistaken, and verging on disruptive. Black Kite17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The longstanding consensus version of this policy page MUST be restored instead of being locked in the version that had a whole part of it removed against consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Uh, no, the point is that you have a small group of editors agitating for it to be removed. That isn't consensus. Every time this has been discussed there has not been a consensus for it to be removed. This is verging on disruption. Black Kite17:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That's the argument being made, but that argument is false. It's been there for years, and some of the people these people are counting in the claim that it should be removed only want some wording changes. They present it as an all or nothing to try to get it totally removed, which is not supported at all. DreamGuy (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I agree that this should not have been removed during an ongoing RfC over the text and this appears to be a classic case of edit warring to get results (in this case, the text removed). As I voted at the RFC, though, I shouldn't put it back. Karanacs (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
(EC) RfCs generally close after 2 weeks yes? In any case, could an uninvolved admin please close the RfC? Hobit (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
(EC)Also, in response to Black Kite, the pretty clear result of the RfC is that there is neither consensus to have it nor to remove it. So now the debate is, do we determine policy by inertia (hysteresis might be a better term) or do we think that policy without consensus should be removed? There is also a bit potential middle ground there. The move to WAF is one of those middle grounds... Hobit (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
No it isn't, and you know that. Moving it to WAF downgrades it to a guideline from a policy. Cue swathes of "oh well, let's keep this unsourced article which consists only of a plot summary, after all WAF is only a guideline" at AfD. Black Kite17:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Worse, it downgrades it to a MOS entry, which is usually regarded as even less enforceable than a guideline (name one article that was sent to AfD over a MOS conflict). I don't agree with WP:NOT#PLOT but this is poop (I would almost claim GTS but I'm not privy to the details). Someones gotta put it back. Padillah (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, this is true. The best reply is, "well, you wouldn't think of ignoring RS, would you?". Sadly, I've had people say they would because it's "just a guideline". Sceptre(talk)17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a bit of a straw man argument, since the main problem with such an article would be that it was unsourced, not that it was dominated by plot summary. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Poor wording by me - it's actually quite easy to find sources for plot summaries (i.e. tv.com), but that doesn't stop them being plot summary. Black Kite17:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Not in practice it isn't. The Venn diagram describing articles which are unsourced and articles which are dominated by plot summary has a lot of overlap. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your point. Just because they commonly occur together doesn't make them inherently linked. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you not understand it or are you contending that I'm committing a fallacy in arguing that coincidence implies some causal link? Protonk (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
(in reply to black kite). Yes, moving to WAF is a middle ground compared to just removing it from WP:NOT. Yes, it moves from policy to a guideline. But that's significantly different than moving from a policy to no where. Hobit (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Policy has this to say regarding protection in case of edit wars: When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes unrelated to the dispute or to make changes for which there is clear consensus. Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute.
Apologies if my attempt to neutrally apply policy (i.e. in opposition to my personal view of which version is wrong) has ruffled some feathers (who knew that ruffling feathers was a way of catching trout?). Since I think it very unlikely that either of the participants in the edit war will revert again, I'm going to unprotect the page now, even though this will undoubtedly further my own position in the content dispute. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK17:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I just see this as a case where PROTECT and POLICY conflict a little. I still contend that the decision to revert to a consensus version or protect the wrong revision remains w/ the protecting admin. Protonk (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the status quo version. We can argue about what constitutes consensus until the cows come home, but 54 against 55 will never be a consensus. (It would've been 55 each if I'd commented...) Black Kite17:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Relying on the "status quo" instead of consensus is misguided, in my opinion. Policy should be policy because it reflects consensus, not because it's been that way for a while. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and by the same token policy should be changed by consensus, not because someone "got there first". There is just as little impetus to change it as there is to keep it, thus status quo wins. If we can't get a consensus to chage it it shouldn't change. Padillah (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You honestly believe that it's appropriate to have a policy that doesn't refelct consensus? I just don't understand this idea. It's completely divorced from what a policy should be. Our own policy page on policy (WP:POLICY) indicates that "If there is no consensus for a given text, old or new, it should not be asserted as though it were consensus; possibilities include silence on the issue and acknowledgement that editors disagree on the point." There's no special value given to the status quo. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The current policy does reflect consensus: the consensus that was formed at the time it was put in place. If we were implementing a new policy you'd have a very valid point, but we're not. So what the true point should be is do we have significant support to change the policy? And there's not significant support to change the policy, so it doesn't change. It's no longer the case of implementing a policy with or without consensus. It's about changing policy now, and we don't have that consensus. Padillah (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
What? No. Policy must reflect CURRENT consensus. Not consensus from the past. Please read the section I quoted again. "If there is no consensus for a given text, old or new, it should not be asserted as though it were consensus." (emphasis mine). -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The reason for inertia in policy-making is much like the arguments for supermajorities in constitutional revision: the problems inherent in having policies change radically on 51/49 positions outweigh the problem in enforcing an existing policy that is currently in a questionable position. The problem in this case is that people are treating this as a binary issue. There probably is a version of WP:NOT#PLOT that would have consensus, but the straw-poll casts the whole issue as a case of keep/not-keep, instead of "what revision should be made to reflect current consensus"?—Kww(talk) 18:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You wouldn't take a 55-54 !vote as consensus for adding a new section to a policy, so therefore nor should we take it as consensus for removing one. One could therefore argue that keeping it doesn't reflect consensus, and nor does removing it. In such a case, I can't really see any other option than retaining the status quo. Black Kite18:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I deny your assertion that adhering to current consensus would create any inherent instability in our policy pages. Policies should enjoy broad consensus. If they do not, they they are not policy. It's that simple. The truth is that consensus changes slowly, if at all, so adhering to it shouldn't create constant dramatic shifting, as you imply. I agree with you that the RFC was particularly well done and may not accurately represent true community consensus. But I'm still very bothered by all of this support for the status quo over policies based on actual consensus. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
From the discussion here, it sounds like there's no consensus for the policy about consensus affecting policy. Does that mean that the policy policy has no consensus, and should be downgraded or annotated? I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky that the consensus policy still has consensus. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK18:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, I agree that a certain amount of intertia is necessary in policy, even if only to prevent against policies changing every week as a new tide of editors sweeps in and out. I'm sure that, if they knew, where to post, a supermajority of editors would show up and change policy to read "Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information" simply so that they could then include whatever Pokemon / wrestling / fanfic article they wanted to. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK18:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
STOP. We don't need to rehash the "side opposing PLOT says consensus required and side supporting plot says status quo important" debate, as enlightening as it normally is. Take it to the NOT talk page. Protonk (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Regushee, instead of using the move function, copy and pasted the text from Datsun 720, creating Datsun Truck. Because Regushee has made additional changes since, I cannot revert. Getting to the point, could someone please merge the two together so that the latest version by Regushee (Datsun Truck) is displayed. Thnaks in advance. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
God help me I am not making this one up. Yesterday, the user page of User:Rachiddebbagh was deleted and turned into a redirect to help hide some of the claims of that editor to have killed various people earlier, and several other, shall we say, unusual statements. Which is all fine and dandy. He was also blocked at the time and his user page was turned into a redirect to his talk page. Today, the IP address which he seems to use regularly when he's forgotten to log on makes what looks like to me a fairly obvious threat to the British queen, whom he seems to think has some sort of authority here?, here. And the editor in question also has an active account in the French wikipedia, here, where his edit contributions here indicate his work has involved much the same sort of thing he had worked on here, including this page, the English version of which was deleted yesterday as per here. The fun never ends, does it? John Carter (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't! In this case though, it seems that it can be summarised as "crazy person is crazy". It's clearly not a credible threat; and this user remains blocked - I don't think much more needs doing. ~ mazcat|c19:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)You'll have a hard job finding them in a 'phone book! The best you could probably do would be to ring the Anti-Terrorist Hotline on 0800 789 321. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢19:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Theresa knott has blocked the IP for a year... It appears dynamic so I would probably suggest lowering it to 30 days or so. –xenotalk20:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked User:Rachid157 as well. The french wikipedia has recently blocked their incarnation of Rachiddebbagh as a sockpuppeteer with a sock account there of the same name, and Rachid 157 actually, believe it or not, created an article on Rachid Debbagh which was deleted. Also, User:Debbagh, who had worked on the deleted article about Rachid, has been blocked indefinitely as a sock. By the way, did you know he killed Gerald Ford, Boris Yeltsin, King Farad, King Hassan II, Mhuammadu Macido, Francois Mitterand, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Botha, and any number of other people, as per his first edit creating his article? I am posting this here to inform all interested parties, and to invite review of this action. Also, do you think we should salt the Rachid Debbagh article, in the event he ever somehow comes back again? Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes. He also claimed to have cut off the penis of King Gyanendra of Nepal, prior to his abdication. The Rachid157 username looks like him - he's used that in an email address (bizarrely in the midst of his boasts of how many people he's dismembered he also invites email bids for some property for sale). Good blocks, all. TonywaltonTalk22:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I see that he's becoming a real nuisance! If he comes back sockpuppeting with death threats and other issues please let me know since I am based in Morocco and can easily contact the authorities here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed for what it's worth. He is on a dynamic range, but I didn't see any sleeper (beside him editing anonymously) -- Luktalk (lucasbfr) 13:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Now, if this is not soapboxing for purely provocative purposes only, i don't know what is. Markacohen (talk·contribs) has been doing nothing else for the last weeks, but now he is getting way too far. And writing as he does that "the only people doing examinations of these alleged gas chambers has been up to this point only Holocaust Revisionists and Holocaust Deniers" (note the use of the word "alleged") is a shameless lie (see Jean-Claude Pressac). --RCS (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
PS: Note also the tasteful use of "shekels" and "mainstream" as in "we should raise some shekels to get some mainstream scientists who support the mainstream version of the Holocaust" --RCS (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The account's behaviour certainly looks very trollish, as if the editor behind it is playing with pushing the boundaries right up to the edge of blockable behavior in order to see what happens. -- The Anome (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Very unusual pattern of PV-pushing especially since the arguments made are supposedly anti-holocaust deniers. The editor has been blocked once already for edit-warring and appears recalcitrant regarding using consensus, despite the niceities espoused in talk page comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC).
I noted that you used the word "their" – is there a question of "socks" employed or simply an editor forgetting to log in? I agree that the aforementioned individual seems to be seeking some notoriety or attention, especially in relation to debating skills/tactics. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC).
I have tried my best with this editor to AGF and to advise him that his behaviour makes him look like anything but what he claims he is. The edit that RCS points to has made me lose any GF I may have had. "the world famous Hollywood Glamorized historical event known as the Holocaust"? I'm supposed to believe his claim he lost relatives in the Holocaust? And see his four edits at Talk:Robert Faurisson. I've left him an ANI notice. Dougweller (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The poor dear, he is now asking for a less emotional approach to Holocaust denial. Also note how he calls the Jews ["we" in his meta-language] "a people genetically predisposed to racism and nation destroying" --RCS (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the issue here is not whether or now User:Markacohen is or isn't who they claim to be, or what position they really take on the Holocaust -- both of which are almost impossible to ascertain -- it's whether or not their edits are disruptive. -- The Anome (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Whatever one thinks of his opinions, his edits show that he is essentially, one could say exclusively, a soapboxer, and all the AGF in the world has done nothing to change this. Soapboxing on a scale such as Markacohen's would be a valuable reason for an indefinite block, wouldn't it? --RCS (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I think "Agent Provocateur" sums it up nicely. Impersonate a group you wish to discredit, and then use that position to espouse straw man arguments and generally stir up shit. This is a very old trick. Being clever instead of attempting legitimate debate. AGF does not apply when it is not reasonable to do so. Chillum13:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
In case I was not clear, I support an indef block. I would do it right now myself, but I would like others to weight in for sanity check reasons. Chillum13:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I am really trying to embrace the All in Good Faith and Assume Good faith, but it is really hard after all the personal attacks, innuendos, counched insults, accusations of sock puppetry and the hanging on of every word I write in order to slander me in some conspiratorial tone. It's also very hard when many articles on wikipedia are so obviously poorly written, lacking in neutrality and totally biased in areas concerning Holocaust Denial. Why can't we just write articles that are Neutral? You think an average intelligent person can't see through poorly written and biased articles? Do you really think it helps the 6 to 8 million Jews who died during WWII when we produce poorly written articles which cause people to doubt the substance of the Articles because the language is so obviously biased? You think youre doing justice to the truth? You think youre doing justice to honoring the goal of making wikipedia a reliable source of neutral unbiased knowledge and information? Seriously, I ask these questions with genuine honesty. I'm not trying to start a fight here.
First I wish to start with the fact I have had several relatives die in the Holocaust and because of this it is a subject in my family we aren't even allowed to talk about or bring up. This is my first problem with the Holocaust, it being a taboo and controversial subject. I believe there should be no taboo subjects and no controversial subjects for mature open minded adults to discuss. I find it very sad some / many of my relatives, friends and associates do not wish to talk about the Holocaust or the pain it has caused them or family.
Secondly I wish to talk about the idea that the Holocaust is some kind of Religious Dogma. In a truly free world which is open minded, liberal and embraces freedom of speech there are no historical events which gain religious dogma status. What I find truly disgusting is rather than take these Holocaust deniers and Holocaust Revisionists on, most people would rather ignore them and ignore their pseudo scientific forensic work. I'm not saying this is always the case, but it seems to be the case the super majority of the time. Rather than take these people on, head on, we ignore them, we try to pretend they don't exist, and on Wikipedia we waste most of the time concerning articles about holocaust deniers we try to discredit them rather than discredit their pseudoscience. In some cases we have resorted to very low and disgusting tactics like violently attacking these people, just like the nazis did to us. What I would like to see in Wikipedia is for us to put our own emotions and politics aside and write articles about Holocaust deniers in a neutral and unbiased format, not spend the whole article attacking them.
Hollywood Glamorized: I personally think it is sick the Holocaust has a sort of cult status hollywood glamorized show business stink to it, especially since only a tiny fraction of the restitution for the Holocaust ever made it to the victims. There is a real conspiracy out there by many of these powerful Jewish groups out there who have hollywood glamorized the Holocaust and then only given a tiny fraction of the money to survivors. To me this is a terrible fact in reality. Just go to Russia, many eastern European countries, Brooklyn and areas with high Jewish concentration, you would be sicked to see how many Jewish survivors of the Holocaust do not get proper health care or food. Yet, how many billions have been made with Holocaust videos and how many billions have been rightfully extracted from the offending countries like Germany? Yet how much has actually gotten to the survivors who live in abject poverty without medical benefits today. Yes, Hollywood Glamorized to the Bone and the true ugly face of capitalism at the expense of Millions of Holocaust survivors. I guess I'm a nazi for speaking out about these disgusting practices.
World Famous Hollywood Glamorization: I also think its terrible, that we believe the trajedy of the Holocaust is the worst genocide in history. Like we have some kind of monopoly on suffering. How many Africans died in Darfur? How many Cambodians during Khmer Rouge? How many Ukranians and Russians under Stalin? How many Chinese under Mao Tse Dung? I do not believe our suffering is unique and I am disgusted by the notion that some of my very close fellow associates have suggested no other genocide deserves to be honored and remembered to the same level as ours.
Another Beef of mine: Why are Holocaust Deniers and Holocaust Revisionists the only people currently doing forensic chemistry in these Concentration camps? I think its totally insulting no one has done follow up forensic work to Fred Leuchter. If I am wrong please educate me.
There are no Taboos or Dogmas. There is no Holocaust Dogma and no Holocaust Taboo, people are allowed to question it, deny it, lie about it, defame it and insult it. It is up to us to fight against these behaviors in the open battle field of the free mind and Internet and to defeat them with truth and facts, not hate crime laws, not religious dogma laws that imprison people. The truth doesnt prevail when we physically beat up Holocaust deniers.
Endorse indefinite block for disruptive editing and soapboxing, as illustrated by the comment from User:Markacohen above. The disruption caused by this user outweighs the useful edits, in my opinion. That he is rather transparently not what he claims to be is probable, but less relevant than his actual behavior. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)13:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Endorse indefinite block No doubt about it now. Disruptive editing, soapboxing, yanking our chain. Enough is enough. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
That is enough for me. I have blocked this user. If consensus here changes this can be reversed or adjusted in duration by any admin, but I think there is a general agreement that this user is not a net gain for the project. The comment "It is up to us to fight against these behaviors in the open battle field of the free mind and Internet and to defeat them with truth and facts" makes be think this user views Wikipedia as a battleground on which you can fight for and with "the truth"TM. We all know how well that kind of attitude works out here. Chillum14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Endorse I've been following this saga for a while and it is almost impossible to AGF on this editor. A topic ban has been offered but not accepted and I don't see much room for doubt here. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Endorse I don't know if this user is editing in good faith and I don't care. There's been too much disruption and too many posts containing personal attacks. Maintain the block until/unless they acknowledge the problem and undertake to solve it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK15:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Endorse. This is a course of action I recommended nearly a week ago. Mark claims to be Jewish and staunchly opposed to Holocaust denial, yet this is his response when Holocaust denial material is linked to from Wikipedia articles. Obvious troll is obvious. WilliamH (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Endorse I am all for honest, polite, frank discussions of alternative viewpoints, however Wikipedia is not a place for WP:SOAP. I was remaining nicely out of the way on this entire situation over the last week or so, but the above diatribe truly seems to show that this person is unfotunately not Wikipedia material at the moment. (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Who was that recent Holocaust denier ("why were the supposed victims given haircuts if they were to be executed?" sort of questions) that was recently indef blocked? Is there any chance these are related, since the one I'm thinking about was also prepared to discuss their "reasonings"? I ask because if they are related then we can expect further Holocaust Revisionists turning up with much the same in the near future. Oh, and Endorse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the accounts are related; this guy reads more 'adult' then the other one did, and the creation times don't seem to suggest it. Of course, you can see things I can't, so... HalfShadow20:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Only that they are more "discussive" than the usual brand of Holocaust deniers, and having two in such a small time frame just tingled my sock sense a bit. I suppose if a third such type turns up in 10 days time there may be grounds to investigate further. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Endorse. Despite the platitudes, a troll and possibly a sock at work, trying to gloss over atrocities and polishing up holocaust-deniers. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC).
Endorse - Per everyone above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 12:22
Oppose Why should this guy get blocked when everyone else gets a free pass or at least a license to insult/make personal attacks? That's a double standard. This guy he doesn't make personal attacks or insult other editors here on wikipedia he is only interested in that whole holocaust denial thing that's not a reason to block anyone, are users next gonna start getting permanently blocked for taking an interest in the NBA or Egypt?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Personally, unless there was discussion I'm not aware of, which is possible, I believe that both deletions were out of line, especially the latter one. Speedy deleting something that other admins are clearly in favor of keeping is as "implausible" doesn't seem right. This is what WP:RfD is for. I'd love to recreate the redirect but I'd rather not stir up more drama so I'll see what other people think. Oren0 (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
A redirect or disambig page seems entirely prudent, there, if we're going to keep the Notability in Wikipedia article -- the idea with both, after all, is to get readers where they want to go as quickly and easily as possible. If there's some reason not to, let's hear it. – Luna Santin (talk)07:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
"Implausible disambiguation" is not a speedy criteria as far as I'm aware. If the article exists, it seems like an entirely appropriate disambiguation page, or redirect. The former was a compromise as Dlohcierekim seemed to take issue with the latter.–xenotalk11:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are not created for a) articles with no identical titles; and b) only one article. Notability was a self-reference created for the purpose of advertising an article. It is either a bogus disambiguation page that any uninterested party changes to a redirect, or a repeatedly re-created redirect to the least common meaning of the title "Notability". —Centrx→talk • 17:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Does restoring it as a redirect and filing at RFD seem like an appropriate way forward? –xenotalk17:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC) and though it doesn't matter that much, Notability wasn't "created to advertise an article", it was automatically created when the article was moved
It's not a speedy criteria, but I think that DAB guidelines suggest against dabbing only two articles. In this case, we are dabbing one to wiktionary. Wouldn't it be better off as a redirect w/ a wikt box on notability in wikipedia? That article may get merged, moved, whatever, but the redirect can't be that controversial, can it? Protonk (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I always use the preloaded deletion criteria or delete with the tag in place, so it was in the list or on the page. May have clicked the wrong one. I have no position on this. I apologize if I erred, but it looks like it was tagged for deletion as something that made sense and I did not check far enough to make sure it was the thing to do. Looking at the page as it stood, I think I thought I was making way for a page move or something else non controversial. I'd no idea that I was getting into some sort of wheel war.
In looking at Special:Undelete/Notability, this was deleted in January, February, March 2007. Centrx protected in February 2007 with this in the edit summary/log-- ((diff) 2007-02-22T15:38:46 . . Centrx (talk | contribs | block) (Protected Notability: Protected deleted page against re-creation [edit=sysop:move=sysop]))
The next thing I see is that Radiant Chains moved it to Notability in Wikipedia with the edit summary ("Notablity" is a general concept that is not specific to Wikipedia, and indeed differs from that used within Wikipedia.), so I guess that's where I got the idea it made sense to delete the REDIR. Xeno then created a disambig page. This was then deleted by Centrx.
In order to settle this once and for all, may I suggest we undelete the latest version of the page and send it to AfD to gauge the community consensus (Redirect? Disb? Soft redirect to wikt?) -- Luktalk (lucasbfr) 14:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
That might be the thing to do. I actually saw nothing wrong with Xeno's version created after my deletion. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Not to overly downplay deleting the thing, but I was merely responding in good faith to a deletion tag. Should have looked closer. 14:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This morning via the BLP board, I became of Yalincak hedge fund scam which is/was an article with many BLP problems. The actual "event" occured over four years ago, so I find it odd that a whole raft of new SPA have started editing the article over the last week or so - which suggests sockpuppet/meatpuppet activities. Some Admin eyes would be helpful. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
5 SPAs + IPs? Yup there's definitely something going on. If you can discern who's who, I suggest you fill a WP:SPI case. -- Luktalk (lucasbfr) 12:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
We have an ip editor that has been constantly removing content the user finds objectionable in the Great power and Middle power. The user will not communicate and has caused the pages to be constantly ip protected.
The range in question isn't one we can easily block; looks like we're stuck with semiprot or WP:RBI until they tire of these antics. I'll try to keep a loose eye on those pages, and recommend some others should as well, as in general I've found that fast admin response can be very helpful in these sorts of cases. – Luna Santin (talk)19:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Figured as much but can each ip address be permanently blocked since they have been reused occasionally? -- Phoenix (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Well if you think that would be best, I just haven't dealt with this before and hope that someone else has and knows how to resolve this. -- Phoenix (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Can someone help with this page? What happens if I break 3RR in this case. I believe its vandalism and I know that 3RR does not count for Vandalism... Am I correct? -- Phoenix (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The last two IPs have both breached WP:3RR and should be blocked. If it were up to me, all the above IPs would be blocked indefinitely as they are clearly vandalism only IPs being used by a single IP hopping vandal or his meatpuppets. Any new IPs that are created to continue these antics should be blocked on sight. But if admin are unwilling to do this, then the only other option is long term semi-protection. Viewfinder (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
But the IP's havent been blocked, after all the last 5 edits are from the same IP. What if we Break 3RR, I assume that is ok in this case. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Repeated removal of content, especially sourced content, without explanation is generally considered vandalism, especially if a clear consensus has been built via the talk page. We don't permanently block IPs especially when they appear to be non-static. Luna Satin has shortblocked 90.211.80.220 (talk·contribs), and I've protected Great Power, and Middle Power is already protected. --GedUK09:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice to know. I can't believe it took 15RR's to get the page actually protected from this IP! I guess 3RR isn't what it once was. Hopefully this will allow editors to focus on constructive edits now :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, having looked at that diff, you didn't format the report properly. The bot that tidies the page couldn't tell the difference between your report and the one above. When the user above was blocked, the bot removed the whole lot, unfortunately. --GedUK11:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping that the 4 weeks of protection will be long enough for the IP to get bored and go away. However, looking at the past history, the IP simply started vandalizing again the moment the protection, specifically, the protection icon was removed. Deavenger (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
Done See here. Ronnotel (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
unblocked. –xeno talk 14:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed for what it's worth. He is on a dynamic range, but I didn't see any sleeper (beside him editing anonymously) -- Luk talk (lucasbfr) 13:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)