→Mentor: I'll just go through her articles and find all of the copyvios. Look, one minute to find the first one. They're so obvious they scream at you. The vandalism is more subtle.
No problem, someone has to clean up after vandals. I'll keep a page with a running total. Or maybe a few pages when these get over the easy load limit.
No problem, someone has to clean up after vandals. I'll keep a page with a running total. Or maybe a few pages when these get over the easy load limit.
PS I'll also mark where she uses personal blogs as her "reliable sources."
--[[User:Blechnic|Blechnic]] ([[User talk:Blechnic|talk]]) 05:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
--[[User:Blechnic|Blechnic]] ([[User talk:Blechnic|talk]]) 05:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
...and if you had no relations with Dr. Christensen then why without his knowledge might you be editing the Wikipedia article about him? Besides, why would anyone have reason to personally attack Jiuguang? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.18 (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also received e-mails from Julie Dancer. Be advised that they have many sock puppets and are likely to continue harassment using these; I advise blocking all of them for a similar period. Dcoetzee17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked this account for a week for block evasion. I'm going to block for longer if any more socks appear. Kevin (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of this blocking activity is clearly for the purpose of fulfilling the agenda of Communist dictatorship by the masses through the act of denying users the opportunity and benefit of reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.224 (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, but if this diff is what is being referred to as "antisemitic", I'm not sure that is accurate. In a discussion that compared the Patriot Act to Nazi Germany, this user referred to another as a "lieutenant in the SS". While obviously inappropriate (and somewhat confusing), it was contextual to the conversation (i.e. a Nazi Germany comparison), and not necessarily a reflection of an antisemitic attitude. I am in now way defending the comment, but I also don't think an editor should be labeled "antisemitic" inappropriately, as this may severely influence actions taken against them. If I misread the situation, or if the accusation is based on other, more relevant comments, then feel free to ignore me. ~ JohnnyMrNinja06:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I concur that the November 2007 comment was borderline anti-semetic at best, I don't think it has a bearing on this block. It's reasonably clear that this editor is working in tandem with Julie Dancer, to the point of echoing similar accusations (utilizing similar phrasing to do so), and is easily considered a meatpuppet. It's quite possible that they're socks, which checkuser would reveal. As for the one week block of Julie, I conceded that it might be a little light for the threats indicated. My thinking was that it was a little heavy for a first block, but that anything less than a full week had limited value. It was also unclear at the time whether it was someone whose article was deleted flipping out about it, or someone with genuine malice of intent (with threats and contacting an editor's college off-wiki, for example). No objection from me if other editors think a longer (or indefinite) block is warranted. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the first place it is Jiuguang who is attacking Julie Dancer on the grounds of his difference with the article she wrote in the Wikia which uses logic to define, support and defend the existence of God. I agree that some Jews may be offended by her personal conclusion that Jesus Christ is God but she is only claiming that as the personal basis of her religion and not implying that anyone else does not have the right to believe whatever they choose. In the case of Jiuguang he is not Jewish and was born in Beijing, raised as an atheist, indoctrinated as a Communist, trained from a very early age on computers and sent to Atlanta at age 12, where he eventually entered Georgia Tech where he is now a robotics student. His statement that he disagrees with Julie Dancer's article in the Wikia makes his subsequent nomination for deletion of her Optimal classification article in the Wikipedia a personal attack and his subsequent deletions of her links between her article in the Wikibooks and references in the Wikipedia an act of stalking and harassment against her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.18 (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my patience has been exhausted. I'm reseting the block to indefinite because of these ridiculous block evading personal attacks. Kevin (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was ready to do this but Kevin beat me to it. For the record, this sort of obvious sockpuppeting doesn't require an WP:RFCU: it passes the sniff test, and it's perfectly fine to treat obvious sockpuppets as such without the imprimatur of a checkuser. Nandesuka (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, these are all perfectly obvious. In this case I thought that there may have been more socks held in reserve, hence the checkuser. Kevin (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way I've found is to create the new cat, change the article links via AWB, and then delete the old cat. True, you can't actually move a cat. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a page in the MediaWiki namespace that puts a "speedy rename" tab at the top of Category: space articles. That would reduce a lot of confusion for newbies and editors not familiar with category renaming, wouldn't it? —Mizu onna sango15Hello!02:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure where I would have looked for moving help besides an admin board. If the page had the "move" tab enabled but then took me to a special "how to move categories" page that may have helped. Banjeboi07:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's an edit-war between User:LOGANA and User:Troy 07. Troy reverted four times, while Logana reverted five times.
Also, one of Logana's edit summaries is classic: "CRAZY PEOPLE SHOULD NOT WRITE ARTICLES". That should be an official policy! ☯Zenwhat (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I just noticed. Troy is an admin and indef-blocked Logana for being a "vandalism-only" account. An unblock is clearly in order and Troy should not have violated the 3RR. The person edit-war'd and the all-caps is annoying, but that isn't blatant vandalism. I agree with their revision and ScienceApologist's. I'd revert the article to Troy's version too, but then I don't want to be indef-blocked for dubious charges of vandalism either. ☯Zenwhat (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're not paying attention. Troy didn't indefblock, it was User:Rodhullandemu. And I do object to the block reason, but not to the block, itself. Troy should probably be blocked for 3RR if there's any likelyhood that others will restore SA version. I'm forced to agree that LOGANA's comments on the talk page certainly looked like vandalism, but he could just be mad (i.e., angry, not crazy). — Arthur Rubin(talk)17:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am endorsing the block, but not for the reason as well. LOGANA(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) is a single purpose account created 23:25 31 July 2008 only hours after SA had completed the page moves without consensus or discussion. This is not implying that one is a sock for the other. All talk page comments are peppered with personal attacks and gross incivility, not to mention the crap in the edit summaries. He also edit warred on the talk page. A better block rationale would have been, "Gross incivility, personal attacks, edit warring" although given that this was a SPA, "vandalism" edges close.
Disclosure: Twenty years ago, when in a position to do so, I voted against supporting fluoridation of water in York, however, that was the last thing on my mind when this matter arose, and that connection has only just occurred to me. I was watching New Users, as I normally do at 3:00 a.m. or so, and I flipped my cursor over User:LOGANA's contribs and saw a number to this article. As is my normal practice, I took a closer look and found this farrago in progress. I saw wholesale removal of sourced content, and good-faith reversions and warnings from User:Troy07, and that's without those from ClueBot. In the normal course of events, the removal warnings would have escalated to a 4im; but there wasn't time for that. I take the view that any rational editor, having been notified that his edits were questioned, would have taken the time to find out why and participate in a debate. But I didn't perceive we had a rational editor, we had a shouting WP:SPA. Hence my block to minimise further damage to the article. Maybe wrong reason, but the right thing to do. Having just checked the article history, I note that immediately before User:LOGANA appeared, an IP was making the same edits and being reverted by ClueBot. Go figure. Taking into account personal attacks, I do not apologise for the block. --Rodhullandemu17:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not an Admin also but I think it was a "vandalism-only" account and support the block and reason. They removed a large amount of content that was sourced not once but five times and didn't use the talk page and was uncivil. Bidgee (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note here; the water fluoridation controversy/opposition/conspiracy article has been used for years to advance a fringe agenda and for much of that time has been on the margins of POV-forking. More eyes would be good. This is yet another article where it's a burned-out ScienceApologist versus a tenacious group of POV-pushers who I think scent victory thanks to the fact that SA has had so little backup for so long. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, you make a good point. Have you seen what I organized at Robert F. Kennedy assassination? That article was overrun by fringe theorists. The strategy was to bring in a highly competent and civil editor, in this case User:Fritzpoll who came to me for admin coaching. Fritzpoll rewrote the article top to bottom. The article qualified as a good article and is now listed at featured article review. The fringy POV pushing has stopped; it had to stop, because the article is in such good shape, there is no room for BS, and there are now lots of editors watching it.
I suggest a plan:
Let's make a list of important articles that have been overrun by fringe views and POV pushing.
Recruit admin hopefuls (as Fritzpoll was), or other experienced editors, to fix the bad articles one by one.
Bring them up to WP:GA or WP:FA status. Establishing a quality standard and bringing in more eyes to review helps prevent regression.
I absolutely endorse this approach. Get the good editors involved, let the admins go back to enforcing good editing practice and end the madness of POV-pushers claiming that an admin is "involved" as soon as they start reverting nonsensical additions to the article. You need to find the right editor first, though. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may try to organize a project. Meanwhile, keep eyes open for experienced editors who are not yet administrators. Such folks are ideal for overhauling "bad articles". Those who succeed can be nominated at WP:RFA. This strategy has two benefits: 1/ the improvement of poor articles, and 2/ the recruitment of new administrators with troll-management skills. JehochmanTalk11:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I very much like the idea of a Bad Articles Wikiproject. I've made something of a speciality of rewriting articles from scratch to fix them, when I've been able to, but there have been plenty of occasions when I've come across a terrible article and been unable to do much about it because it's outside my area of expertise. Having somewhere to nominate articles for remedial work would be an excellent idea. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other day, I responded to a helpme template issued by User:Turner&associates. Right off the bat, there's an obviously username issue there, and I mentioned that in my reply. What was refreshing to me was that this particular user had written an article in their userspace (restored for ease of reference), but was politely asking if it was worthy of inclusion before putting it into the mainspace. I also mentioned the COI issue that was quite obviously present and told them I wasn't sure if this individual met our notability guidelines for people. In the meantime, the user was blocked (appropriately, but I would've liked more time to discuss the issue since they weren't being disruptive) for their username. The blocking admin was kind enough not to template the user, as I had clearly already mentioned the username issue to them. This user quite politely accepted my determination that the article was likely not worthy, and made a further query about citations, to which I responded thusly, asking for some more reliable sources.
Now, this act of users templating other users while admins are in discussion with them is perhaps my greatest annoyance. If an admin is in full control of the situation, there is no need for another user to be throwing templates around. This needs to be written into the guidelines. That being said, the major problem which brings me here today is Calton's attitude towards admins. He seems to feel that he knows best - whereas admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit refusing to accept any one's judgment of the situation but his own. This user in particular did not deserve templating because they had the common courtesy to actually ASK if their article was worthwhile of inclusion. Whether or not it is - is completely peripheral to the matter. I felt it necessary to show the user the same level of respect that they had shown us.
Ironically, while I was writing to him tonight to tell him not to template users while admins are discussing issues with them, he was simultaneously involved in edit warring to reverse another administrator's actions at WP:UAA. I also see that there was another similar issue some months ago with respect to him adding a now deleted template to userpages as he tagged them that several administrators attempted to address him about. He seems to be unwilling or unable to accept the judgment of administrators.
This is a typical type of behaviour shown by Calton, he's extremely quick to tag/warn users with promotional usernames, regardless of what their intent is here. He isn't willing to discuss issues with users, he simply tags and reports, and when concerns arise, he gives flippant replies and carries on regardless. I personally think that his COI and promotional username work is detremental to the project, and I'd certainly support a topic ban the prohibits him from working in these areas. There's a serious case of WP:BITE here, and this has been brought up on AN/I before. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter00:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to let this drop (I usually don't let myself get too worked up about things) but since the AN/I is already here I'll come comment. As a fairly regular patroller of UAA, I can only agree that Calton has had something of a history of making borderline reports, and often in large quantities. This isn't too troublesome in and of itself, but going back and repeating declined reports is pretty unhelpful. As an "involved" administrator I will refrain from belaboring this topic further and leave it to 3rd parties to observe and decide what to do. Shereth01:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "borderline" judgment, to go by the talk page of WP:UAA, appears to be yours alone. Given that your judgment's been questioned -- by at least one other admin -- it's clear that a third opinion is needed. --Calton | Talk01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I've been privy to his behavior at WP:UAA where Calton shotgun reports usernames that match a person, band or company that has created an article, whether blatantly advertising or not. Regardless, it's the not the mass reporting that bothers me (although it does peeve abit), but it's the sheer unwillingness to listen when approached. I have major concerns with users who breach WP:BITE, and we all know that UAA is one of those hot zone areas that need special sensitivity. The above behavior described, coupled with the activity at UAA, lead, me to believe that he is being more detrimental to the project than anything else. Wisdom89(T / C)01:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. I tag blatant advertising -- but even if you disagree about the "blatant", perhaps a read of this would be helpful, or perhaps you should take up your concern with the multiple admins who do the actual deleting and the actual blocking. --Calton | Talk01:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd to the point of ridiculous. The most succinct replies I can give to Xenocidic's long-winded explanation are 1) to point out he seems to forget what admins actually are: they're editors with a few extra buttons. They're not gods, they're not supervisors or managers, and their edits and work have no more authority or judgment than any other user; in fact, given their extra buttons, they need to be more careful about their work. Yours was careless and had not the slightest grounding in policy, practice, or guideline -- or at least none you would reveal, since all you did -- and are doing now -- is throwing your weight around. 2) to point out that you put up not a single rebuttal to the numerous rules, guidelines, policies, and standard practices I pointed you to, relying instead on vague handwaving. 3) that your resorting to thinly veiled personal attacks ("If you had bothered to read", "use common sense") while complaining about civility is more than a touch hypocritical. 4) mistaken about WP:UAA, which a simple reading of the talk page would have shown, and would show that User:Shereth's judgment had already by been questioned, directly by, hey, an another admin 5) that employing obvious hyperbole such as "He seems to be unwilling or unable to accept the judgment of administrators" is not only damaging and false, but assumes facts not in evidence? Certainly the various Barnstars I've received point out how ridiculously inclusive that claim is. And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong.
Speaking of absurd, could Ryan Postlethwaite explain exactly how removing blatantly obvious spam and COI --- 'exactly as is done at WP:UAA every single day by multiple users and -- mirabile dictu -- admins? "detremental [sic] to the project", and how, exactly, he divines the intent of said spammers outside of their actions ("regardless of what their intent is here", to quote you)? The rest of your comments, I'll simply say because I'm tired of typing, are outright false (deliberately or not, I don't care) and I'll leave it at that. --Calton | Talk01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point I was trying to make is sometimes you need to forget about rules, guidelines, policies, and standard practices, and just talk to people like they are human beings. –xeno (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You really can't help yourself with the thinly veiled insults, can you? I guess I'll just have to ask you when you stopped beating your wife, then? --Calton | Talk01:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of absurd, could Ryan Postlethwaite explain exactly how removing blatantly obvious spam and COI --- 'exactly as is done at WP:UAA every single day by multiple users and -- mirabile dictu -- admins? "detremental [sic] to the project", and how, exactly, he divines the intent of said spammers outside of their actions ("regardless of what their intent is here", to quote you)? The rest of your comments, I'll simply say because I'm tired of typing, are outright false (deliberately or not, I don't care) and I'll leave it at that. --Calton | Talk01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's cut through the noise: all I do is tag the spam pages and report said spammers. Multiple admins -- might as well do the appeal to authority bit, too -- are the ones who do the actual deleting and actual blocking, not me. If you have a problem, take it up with them, or work to get actual policies, guidelines, rules, and project goals changed to match whatever it is you have a problem with. --Calton | Talk01:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After removing some non-blockworthy listings from the odd "relisted" section, I poked around in the WP:UAA history to see what was up with that section, which led me here. Calton, knock it off. Your reports push the borderline. Multiple admins tell you this, and you ignore them. It's one thing if you continue to list new borderline cases, I would never have a big problem with that. But this relisting thing, which is a serious ongoing problem with you, has to stop. Although Calton is a great asset to the project, this admin shopping he does is really really inappropriate and I advocate blocking if it happens again. Enough is enough, I've been seeing this behavior from Calton for over a year. Mangojuicetalk01:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell ARE you talking about? What "ongoing problem"? What "admin shopping" What "multiple admins"? Your comments don't make the slightest bit of sense and don't seem to have the slightest relationship to what's going on. Did you read the talk page? --Calton | Talk02:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And let me repeat: "And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing and their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong." --Calton | Talk02:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, I understand you're indignant and maybe a little frustrated here, but your tone is starting to become incivil and even hostile. Just cool off a bit and discuss the situation. Wisdom89(T / C)02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're damned right I'm upset: the charges of Xenocidic & Ryan Postlethwaite -- especially the latter -- boil down to nothing but indignant and fact-free cries of "Respect Mah Authoritah!" and the subsequent pile-on, from Mangojuice on down is similarly fact-free.
One more point - I can't speak for anybody else, but I assure you that I am not implying or asserting that administrators are above any other user. Goodness knows that's not true. However, this brings me to another one of your comments: Just because administrators block your username reports does not absolve the continued action that obviously multiple users have a problem with. Wisdom89(T / C)02:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Catron is doing the work of God, keeping the spamming scum off WP user pages. This is Catron's "current project", secretly given unto to him by Jimbo himself in the sacred Temple of Wikia. How dare you question? FishNewbieWikiNoob (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good Lord. Calton doesn't seem to understand the concept of discussion at all. This kind of behavior in response to reasonable requests from multiple concerned editors is like a cliche that people who hate wikipedia bring up in online discussions. Dayewalker (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't seem to understand what I wrote, so I'll repeat once again: "And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing and their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong." I'm still waiting for an actual explanation of what it is I'm doing that's violating any rules or guidelines or is somehow detrimental to Wikipedia -- especially from Ryan Postlethwaite, who had NEVER done anything close. --Calton | Talk09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This admin shopping behavior is far from new for Calton; he's been doing it for years. My first (and maybe only) interaction with Calton was back in July '07 when he tagged User:Losplad as spam. He tagged it with {{spam}} once, and OwenX (talk·contribs) decline the request. He tagged it a second time, and VirtualSteve (talk·contribs) decline it. Calton tagged it a third time, and I declined it. After OwenX, VirtualSteve and I all explained the issue to him (and why were declining the request), the issue seemed resolved. Then, two weeks later, Calton tagged the page a fourth time and came up lucky; Kylu (talk·contribs) deleted it. His behavior is nothing new, and it's just as unacceptable now as it was then. - auburnpilottalk04:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember that in detail, but I certainly don't remember any detailed explanations: I remember two admins mindlessly backing another -- and the fact that it was eventually deleted should have been a tiny clue that maybe, just maybe, you were, you know, wrong. --Calton | Talk09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see lots of users sitting around complaining about Calton, but not doing anything about it. Maybe it is time for some kind of topic ban? Tiptoetytalk05:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a new pattern of behavior for Calton. He is incessesantly abusive towards all users who disagree with him and has been for years. No one has ever done anything about it, aside from the occasional RFC: [4] Calton has shown a consitant and unchanging pattern of behavior that includes refusing to work with others or compromise his position on anything, admit fault in any situation, and is unyieldingly rude and dismissive of all other editors. Some established set of sanctions, such as civility parole, needs to be enforced with escalating blocks for this long pattern of behavior. It is only because he always gets away with it that he continues. --Jayron32.talk.contribs05:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While civility seems to be a concern, it's not the major one. WP:BITE whether intentional or not is the major problem. User should be temporarily banned from UAA and CSD spam. Wisdom89(T / C)05:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked with Calton before and he can be quite abrupt. Perhaps working with new users that may be influenced to become productive contributors, mindful of role account, SPA, and COI issues, if dealt with politely, but may also be influenced to give up, badmouth Wikipedia, sock, vandalise, etc if dealt with abruptly... perhaps this area may not be the best use of Calton's talents. So yes, perhaps Calton should be encouraged to contribute in other ways for a while. And if he is not willing to take that polite guidance from his peers, perhaps a topic ban would be the next thing to try. Because I think Calton misses the point... the point here is that situations like Xeno described in the opening of this section, if they are valid descriptions of actual events, ought not to happen, and input about that ought to be accepted. Coming in guns blazing with templates slapped down when another volunteer is already in polite and constructive discussion with a new user is almost certainly not the best approach. ++Lar: t/c05:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not willing to take that polite guidance from his peers - except, of course, no one has actually offered any. When that starts -- either the adjective or noun, separately or together -- you might have a point. And your mischaracterization as "guns blazing", while colorful, has the slight problem of not actually being true. --Calton | Talk09:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone did offer some. Actually a lot of someones did. You just don't choose to acknowledge it, which a big part of the issue. To be crystal clear, I'll reiterate it for you... If another user is working with the newcomer, and a productive dialog is underway, don't slap templates down that interfere with that dialog, and especially, don't revert war to keep them in place... instead take the time to look at what is going on and if it's being handled, let it be.... clear enough guidance for you? I see multiple places in this very thread where you have been told not to do that. Politely. ++Lar: t/c15:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I must agree and after dealing with Calton myself in a previous case I see the likely hood of him taking on the advice given here relatively low. I support a topic ban from UAA along with spam related situations (CSD, userpages...ect). Tiptoetytalk05:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone were actually offering actual advice instead of vague unsupported claims and abuse, you might have a point. As no one, including you, as actually done so, makes it hard to take the comment seriously. --Calton | Talk09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Agree, I would like to add to my previous suggestion above, COI concerns and CSD tagging in userspace, not just spam articles and UAA. Wisdom89(T / C)05:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support a la Tiptoety. Civility towards established editors aside, this guy seems like a horrible welcoming committee for wikipedia. This topic ban would keep him as an editor, and also protect the newbies. Dayewalker (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as it's very important to welcome as many spammers and site abusers as possible to Wikipedia, as it gives the page patrolers something to keep them busy. --Calton | Talk09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I wish this wasn't necessary, because frankly Calton does a lot of good work, especially finding these spam pages and reporting them for CSD. But yes, this is a problem. I was going to suggest the ban be just for WP:UAA, but it's not the only area. But it's Calton's extreme frequency of incivility combined with his complete disrespect of anyone who disagrees with him or criticizes him, that makes him just really not the person we want dealing with new users. Mangojuicetalk05:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deal with new users, I deal with spammers and other abusers of Wikipedia. This is not difficult distinction, no matter how you muddy it. --Calton | Talk09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban from UAA, CSD, and spam/COI-related with other users or with articles in general. I've had no prior interaction with Calton, but his tone in the discussion above confirms the concerns raised by Xenocidic and others. Sandstein 07:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My "tone" is the product of my complete disgust of the fact-free railroading, the hyperbolic claims, the thoughtless pile-ons, and the overall cumulative insults to my intelligence. --Calton | Talk09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd. Let Calton take a couple of weeks off, but a topic ban? Please. Everyone who deals with abuses of the project on a long-term basis gets a bit jaded over time and can become inclined to see abuse where none exists, and it is absolutely true that bands, companies and other entities arrive at Wikipedia in large numbers to promote themselves. Oh, and the "Turner&associates" page is a biography of the founder of Turner & Associates, a firm of no obvious notability. See WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dealt with Calton around the beginning of his editing career, and I can testify that his attitude has always been terrible and completely uncivil. To present it as though he gradually became jaded after dealing with problems for a long time is completely inaccurate. Everyking (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...his complete disrespect of anyone who disagrees with him or criticizes him - perhaps if those anyones would include a few actual facts, actual references, or actual charges I can actually answer, they might get some "respect". --Calton | Talk09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too broad (particularly, 'spam-related discussions') and somewhat premature to be that broad. On the other hand, I wouldn't oppose the topic ban on UAA and CSD, and a ban on him inserting, modifying or removing block-templates (or block-tags) in his edits, particularly on user talk pages. I think Calton just needs a break, and stepping back would be helpful as a first step to address other concerns. A proposal similar to mentorship would be the second option - ideally, it wouldn't go beyond that. (If it did, the wide topic-ban suggested would be the third, and finally...well everyone knows what that would be....) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A topic ban isn't the answer to this; perhaps a wikibreak may be what the doctor has ordered. I'm with JzG on this one, and I have seen some particularly good reports in my dealings with him (all of which have been civil if memory serves). Rudget11:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For several reasons. (1) It seems excessive to pull out a host of past grievances in an ANI report and use that to take broad action against a user. At best, Calton should be told to cease and desist in this specific case. If anyone feels that the case should be broadened, an Rfc that seeks community consensus would be more appropriate; (2) According to Xeno: If an admin is in full control of the situation, there is no need for another user to be throwing templates around. This needs to be written into the guidelines. That being said, the major problem which brings me here today is Calton's attitude towards admins. Consensus on actions are determined by the community, not by a cabal of admins. The complainant seems more upset with disrespect shown to admins rather than with the actions of Calton, which, with apologies, is not a constructive attitude since, technically, there is nothing special about an admin except for a few extra buttons. I don't disagree with the 'trust' and 'experience' part but expecting other editors to butt out when a couple of admins are involved is excessive. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 12:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it excessive, is this not what ANI is for? A user with a long history BITEy behavior and incivility should not be dealt with appropriately and past events should be excluded from the discussion? I mean how do you propose we deal with users with a long history of disruptive behavior? Sweeping it under the rug and telling him to take a break has proven not to work. Tiptoetytalk13:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What we have here is an editor who believes that he/she is acting for the betterment of the encyclopedia by identifying COI and advertising accounts. This is not vandalism and the editor should be treated with appropriate respect (civility works both ways). If several editors believe he/she has a civility issue, then it is far better to address that issue directly in an RFC where he/she can respond to all the charges/issues at one time rather than having to deal with serial complaints. (I'm not saying don't address an issue if you think it important, but rather that this is not the right way.) --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 15:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Calton has this phrase on this talkpage - "Adherence to common sense and rational argument trumps ruleslawyering, as far as I'm concerned." - how about he actually adheres to his own advice? Exxolon (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about you show where I haven't? Let me make this simple for you: Spam is bad for Wikipedia. I find spam. I tag spam. Spam gets deleted. Spammers get blocked. Easy enough?
Ok - you asked for it. The COMMON SENSE thing to do here would be to admit that certain editors have a problem with the way you're editing and to work with them and the rest of the community to resolve the situation amicably. Instead you seem to be under the impression that working to prevent spam gives you carte blanche to ignore other editors concerns, talk down to them and generally behave in an unpleasant and condescending manner. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, not a battleground - if you can't work constructively with other editors then there's no place for you here. Exxolon (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what the best course of action here is. I don't think anyone should be templating a user while an administrator (or anyone, for that matter) is discussing the situation with them. Plain and simple, it's rude - to both parties. @JzG, as I said, it isn't about whether the T&A account or their proposed article was worthy of inclusion - it was about showing them the same respect that they showed us. This is what I was trying to convey to Calton, and instead he edit warred, dismissed my concerns, and made an appeal to the letter, but not the spirit of our rules. And in this entire thread, the behaviour is repeated - a downright refusal to admit any possibility that perhaps he has made a mistake. Users like this necessarily have problems working in a collaborative environment. I'll admit, my initial approach to him lacked tact, and I tried to de-escalate the situation and extend an olive branch - one that was refused. My request is simple and flows from not any rule, policy, or guideline, but from common sense: don't template a user while the situation is under discussion. –xeno (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm troubled by this one. I think Calton does a great job finding the hidden spam. Most of the userpages I've found tagged by Calton, I've felt were straightforward, reasonable matters for deletion. I don't know that preventing Calton from doing what (a) Calton is very good at doing and (b) other people don't seem to be so keen on doing is all that good for the project. (Note that I don't mean by this to defend disruption in the doing.) OTOH, speedy deletions are meant to be uncontroversial. With the exception of copyright & attack pages, there should be no reason to repeatedly list an article or userpage for speedy deletion. Any editor who disagrees may remove the tag, following which other processes (like MFD) should be followed. With respect to CSD tagging, I wonder if it would suffice if Calton agreed to tag an article or userpage only once? --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, bringing up a history of misconduct is not pulling out a host of past grievances. New users are the lifeblood of Wikipedia and his ongoing newcomer biting needs to cease. These issues have been coming for literally years. Support topic ban (even if temporary). If that doesn't stick, a block is a perfectly reasonable way to prevent his biting new users and ongoing bad judgment in a sensitive part of Wikipedia. Preventing spam is not more important than treating new users with respect. RxS (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose topic ban. I've clicked on xeno's links, and feel somewhat uncomfortable with Calton's salty edit summaries, but very uncomfortable with xeno's responses to them. Xeno being the admin, more is expected of him—that's an important principle here. I will offer a little advice to admins in their interchanges with experienced users. Don't try to squeeze deference out of people like Calton; it's inappropriate, and it's simply doomed. Look to your own demeanour, ignore his. YMMV, but, for example, I'd never go "NPA!" when somebody says "Don't be daft"[5]; xeno, such a response is just going to make you look starchy and fussy, you know. (Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever invoked NPA because of something said to me.) It's much better to respond to the point being made. You're an admin, yes; but the only relevance of your adminship to this issue is that, being an admin, you'd do well to develop a thicker skin. For instance, I can't agree that Calton's responses are "approaching disruption", as you write in this edit summary. Not anywhere close. In the guideline dealing with disruption, that term is defined as "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree." [6]. The word "disruption" is woefully overused, by no means by xeno alone, whenever admins can't think of any more specific accusation. It should never be used to mean that an admin isn't getting as much deference as they'd like. It's an absurdity here. Is Calton approaching "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies"..? Is he within shouting distance of such violations, in anything linked to above? Certainly not. Xeno, please try to get over your sense that "admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit" [sic]. You've been entrusted with a mop and bucket and a little extra responsibility, that's all'; you haven't become Wikipedia nobility.
(Full disclosure: Calton's no friend of mine. He's been startlingly rude to me, details on request. But we're not all cut with a cookie-cutter. I advise him to make a habit of assuming more good faith from newbies; but in the individual case, I can rarely fault his judgment on this or other issues.) Bishonen | talk14:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Edit warring is not disruption? As far as the comment about nobility - I'm not sure what that's all about. Yes, I have the tools. So, I was fully prepared to delete the page once my discussion with the user had come to a satisfactory close. Blanking it with "indefblocked" was unnecessary - it wasn't harming anyone. It's tough to discuss a page with someone when it's been covered by a template. And the user had already been blocked - had they attempted to edit outside their talk space, they would've been presented with the {{usernameblock}} notice. No need to pile it onto their talk page. In other words: it was under control. –xeno (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's right; edit warring's not disruption. Not unless it's "gross, obvious and repeated". And, uh, was Calton edit warring with himself, or with whom..? With you, am I right? And before you tell me he had the effrontery to edit war with an admin; no, that's not worse than edit warring with somebody else. Not in a month of Sundays. As for your not being sure what the "nobility" crack was about, I'll have to work on expressing myself more clearly. I thought my quoting your assumptions about the powers and privileges of admins would do it. Here they are again: "admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit" [sic]. No, they're not, you know. I really wish you'd take this to heart, because you're wrong. Admins are merely the ones entrusted with a few extra buttons, which they're absolutely not supposed to use "as they see fit". As Jimbo is fond of pointing out, we were all admins at one time:
In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. Generally, the maintenance and administration of Wikipedia can be conducted by anyone, without the specific technical functions granted to administrators.
That's policy: Wikipedia:Administrators. Admins should never develop into a class of nobles. Calton is dead bang in policy when he conducts " the maintenance and administration of Wikipedia", and your quest for a guideline that says he's not supposed to is doomed to failure. Bishonen | talk15:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
That's not really what I was trying to get at, so given this unfortunate interpretation, struck and annotated. It's the fact that he seems to believe he is always right - no matter what - no matter who (admin or otherwise) disagrees with him. –xeno (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not convinced in regards to this particular case. The block was placed at the discretion of the blocking admin, as was the choice not to template - according to the initial complaint at the top, there was none due to issues raised by xeno, who was in discussion with the blocked user too. For Calton to then blank the userpage and insist on placing the block tag (3 times without discussing it with either the blocking admin, or the user reverting him) seems to be gross, repeated and obvious. Thoughts anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not the spirit of our rules - Encouraging spam and spammers is "not the spirit of our rules". Editwarring to restore spam is "not the spirit of our rules". Editwarring yourself is "not the spirit of our rules". Throwing your weight around as an admin without justifying it is "not the spirit of our rules" -- and certainly bears no relation to your gas about "working in a collaborative environment". More to the point, other than vague handwaving, you haven't said word one about what actual damage this {{indefblocked}} is supposed to be doing, given that a) the editor was indefblocked, b) the editor is still indefblocked, c) whatever the result of your talks, that name will always be indefblocked, since it's a role account. --Calton | Talk14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, the account may be temporarily unblocked so the user can request a change at WP:CHU. The intent of my talks were to show the user the same common courtesy and respect that they showed us by asking (politely, might I add) if their "spam" (so-called) could be included in the encyclopedia. –xeno (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose topic ban Calton is one of those guys where you occasionally want to ask for his badge number and file a report! Still, topic bans and administrative action are far too likely to drive a user away from the project permanently and bitterly. We shouldn't "criminalize" Calton's actions in the way we're saying he has done to others. I'm aware that his BITEy actions are themselves a threat to drive users from the project, but this has to be dealt with some other way. Mr. IP《Defender of Open Editing》16:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions - Xeno, you could have just left everything Calton did in place, apologized to the user for the 'drive by', and continued your conversation. A history link could be provided to the blanked proto-article and things gone on with only minor disruption. Had Calton blanked or requested protection of the talk page that would have been a different matter, but short of something which actually prevents progress on more diplomatic lines it's almost always going to be more trouble than it is worth. Likewise with the statements above about reposting of items to UAA... I'd suggest just adding a note saying that they were previously rejected and possibly a link to such to inform the next admin who reviews them. Yes, it would be nice if people always considered all sides of an issue and preceded with due care... but they don't. Just accept it and be the better person.
Oppose per Bishonen's well reasoned argument, an admins opinion should carry no more weight than any other editors. RMHED (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Calton has been abusing people (myself included) for years, and it's high time something was done to limit his behavior. Everyking (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support until he realises why people are getting sick of it. Then we can lift the ban and see how it goes. —Giggy05:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He's doing routine spam fighting. It's much better than the admins that actually do the tagging AND the blocking. At least there is a review. Give him a barnstar and recruit more regular editors to do that kind of work. This isn't 'MyWikiBiz'. --DHeyward (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, given that Calton's attitude throughout this entire discussion is that he can do no wrong, and refuses to "hear" the kind advice being given him. His past record of being blocked should be a strong indication that (once again) a "time out" is needed. P.S. What is "MyWikiBiz"? -- Shuckers Long Neck (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Calton is not just the guy whose badge number you want to see. He's the abusive cop you want fired from the force because his behavior is so frequently incivil and lacking any good faith, that he gives the department (Wikipedia) a bad name with the public. Just imagine this guy with a taser. How fast do you think he'd end up on the news? The very nature of HISUser & Talk pages are disturbing. By the third line he is already making open insults and even a personal attack on a person. "(The above obviously includes the various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, and crackpots -- and their enablers -- who hang out at ED and WR. I also seem to have attracted the unwanted attention of a crackpot spamming "psychologist" calling himself "Wyatt Ehrenfels". If you're one of the those various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, crackpots, and/or their enablers, welcome! Now get lost.) Is THIS really what Wikipedia considers being CIVIL or showing GOOD FAITH? Welcome, now get lost??? Calton is the ill-natured cop who joined the force because he was DYING to taser and billy club punk kids, but never had ANY intention of adding anything constructive like helping old ladies cross the street or getting a cat out of a tree. (or creating and editing articles) Bad attitude. Bad intentions. No matter how many smammers he blocks (skaters he tases), he is bad for Wikipedia. For a very clear example of how blatantly insulting and abusive he behaves have a glance at my User talk:BillyTFried#Your e-mail. BillyTFried (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a short break is not a way to resolve this issue, but instead just push it under the rug until another incident occurs seeing as this issue has been going on for quite some time now, there needs to be a resolution and everyones concerns need to stop being ignored. Also, no one said the ban would be permanent. Tiptoetytalk23:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns over specific conduct issues need to be expressed in order for the break to have any chance of being effective of course (RFC on user conduct is a good way of doing so). That, accompanied with a break from the area, is something that can resolve the issue. I think people here would be more willing to support a ban proposal if there's still no change after taking those steps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I do
Given the vague and entirely fact-free claims above -- especially by Ryan ("I am the law") Postlethwaite, who's never lowered himself to give the slightest explanation of whatever the hell I'm supposed to be doing wrong -- and the obvious kneejerk "support the admins" responses that followed, let me explain EXACTLY what I do. Feel free to tell me where the horrible crimes are.
2) When (not if) I find obvious candidates, like this...
05:46, August 2, 2008 User:Uniproma (hist) [2,262 bytes] Uniproma (talk | contribs) (← Created page with 'Uniproma is a value-creating bridge between China and the rest of the world. Since its founding, Uniproma has been striving to add value to a global supply chain, ...')
a) User name is a company, organization, band, or product: check.
b) Text of created page is advert for said company, organization, band, or product: check.
3) I right-click it to open the page onto a new tab in Edit mode.
4) I continue until I have several tabs at once. This, sadly, almost always takes just a few minutes.
6) I go to each talk page. Some fraction of the time (10 or 15 percent) there's already CSD warnings regarding spam addede in article space. I add the {{Spam-warn-userpage}} template, which I wrote myself and which reads:
A tag has been placed on on your user page, Uniproma, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages: user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for businesses.
If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page in question and leave a note on this page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
7) I go to WP:UAA with the names I've gathered and list them there, where 99% of the time -- at least until User:Shereth's recent peculiar and essentially unilateral rewrite of actual policy and practice -- actual (and multiple) admins delete the pages and indef-block those I list.
Now, begging your pardon and in the interest of eliminating the vague handwaving, kneejerk agreements, and general chest-puffing -- will somebody tell me where the fracking hell in that process are my monstrous crimes against policy, practice, common sense, decorum, and/or Ryan Postlethwaite's delicate sensibilities? --Calton | Talk14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, as I mentioned earlier, you have unfathomably excellent skills at rooting out the spam userpages, promotional usernames/edits/accounts etc., and any other accounts that are relevant and fall under the username policy and thus able to be reported to the UAA noticeboard. I've worked with you on occasions before (at least I think I have) and found your efforts to sift through the newuser log highly admirable, and I've consequently become more involved through the process due to the straight-forwardness of the reports absent few. However, commenting on Xenocidic or Ryan Postlethwaite in a less-than-constructive manner (whether they are right or wrong) is not conducive to finding a resolve to this. Rudget14:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You just don't get it do you? The issue is not WHAT you are doing but HOW you do it. Enforcing our policies on spam is good. Behaving in an arrogant and condescending manner while doing it is NOT. Exxolon (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, thanks for the link to the spam search list. I think that rather than arguing the toss here we might all be more productively employed clicking some of those links. "Our services" include nuking spam. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to dismiss Calton's contributions to spam-fighting, and in the vast majority of cases, I'm sure a tag, block, tag combo is just what the doctor ordered for some spammers. This particular case was different (because the user was kind enough to ask, I felt I could take the time to explain it to him without templates), and all I really want to hear from him is, "OK, maybe I don't need to template a user while another user is discussing that same situation. I won't do it again." or something along those lines. No topic ban. No RFC. Just a simple head nod and a "I'll take this into consideration for the future". –xeno (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Calton, I don't think anybody here objects to your commendable efforts to fight spam and other disruption; quite on the contrary. What we object to is the way in which you go about it and the way you interact with other editors. This is, after all, a collaborative project; tact and civility are not optional for any of us. I've not examined your contributions in this matter thoroughly, but the uncollegial and heated statements that you have made in this discussion lead me to believe that Xenocidic was justified to bring the matter up here. Whether the appropriate outcome of this discussion is a topic ban, a different sanction or no sanction at all is certainly open to discussion, but that outcome depends on you above all. Sandstein 15:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My fundamental concern is the same as User:Wisdom89. While it can be a little frustrating at times, there isn't really any issue with Calton's occasional reporting of large blocs of users. I also really don't care that he wants to butt heads with administrators, and he is absolutely correct when he says that admins are editors and should not be treated as being special. I do have some problem with what appears to be habitual opinion-shopping by re-adding reports until he gets the desired result. Calton needs to understand that his interpretation of what is and is not a blockable offense is just that - his interpretation. (This is where I expect him to call in to question my eccentric reading of WP:U, but I still challenge anyone to show me where the policy states that a user with a company name as a user name must be blocked on sight.) In any event, it's the WP:BITE issues that I have the biggest concern with. I am not really keen on the notion of imposing a topic ban on Calton, but it needs to be understood that blocking is an extremely sensitive issue and prone to evoking strong emotion and opinion. Making the reports to UAA is one thing, but continuing to push his cases until they get blocked isn't the solution. He accuses myself (and by extension other editors) of making unilateral decisions when removing a case sans discussion, but isn't that how 95% of the blocks proceed - unilaterally and without discussion? If a problem persists then I see no harm in re-adding a report, but doing it just so that a block can be issued comes across as malevolent. All I would really like is for Calton to see that his crusade against spam is not the most important thing possible, be willing to accept that his judgment of what should be blocked is not the end-all, and that sometimes blocking a potentially spammy username is not the most expedient solution to an issue. Shereth16:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Above Calton asked "will somebody tell me where the fracking hell in [the 7-step process outlined] are my monstrous crimes against policy, practice, common sense, decorum, and/or Ryan Postlethwaite's delicate sensibilities?". The answer is that they're not there - the 7-step process is beneficial work which (a) no-one else seems to engage in with anything remotely approaching to the dedication that he does, and (b) keeps this encyclopaedia clear of spam that shouldn't be here.
The problem is in step 8 - it's not included on the list above, but just as formulaic and predictable a part of his actions as the preceding seven steps. Step 8 is what happens as soon as anyone dares disagree with his actions, or question his judgment (or, as he terms it, "insults his intelligence") - whether that be in flagging the page for speedy, listing the name at WP:UAA or whatever - they open themselves up to his, erm, interesting and somewhat relentless style of discussion.
The DRV linked to above is a prime example - the declining admins get a dose of step 8 (here, here and here), and it doesn't take a lot of looking through his talk page and its archives to dig out similar episodes almost beyond number - I've been on the receiving end of it myself a couple of times, in both cases because I've declined or removed a speedy tag. Maybe it's not a "monstrous crime", but it's clear that his way of dealing with all other users, and not just spammers that he deals with, that is against policy, practice, common sense and very definitely against decorum. I can't speak for Ryan's sensibilities, delicate or otherwise.
I would oppose a ban from WP:CSD or WP:UAA - doing so would be to cut off our noses to spite our faces, because I do think that the work that he does is exceedingly valuable, and he rarely gets enough credit for it.
I would support some sort of check on his behaviour, however - even though it's fun to see how long he can resist before wheeling out one of his staple phrases (accusing the other person of "projecting", of making "vague, handwaving assertions" (which he's used three times in this thread alone), "reality check", "period / full stop", "Guy" and "Buckwheat" invariable make an appearance somewhere along the line), no matter how much he may feel his intelligence is being insulted there's not excuse for the manner in which he responds to it.
I'd also support a restriction on resubmitting the same pages repeatedly to CSD or the same username to UAA.
Numerous reports to WP:ANI, blocks and an RFC in the past haven't actually lead to any modification of his behaviour, though, so I wonder how much benefit all the above discussion will actually result in, if any. GbT/c21:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a deletion review for the page User:Losplad, mentioned as an example a few subsections above, as its deletion seem to have been at least somewhat controversial. I hope this somewhat nonstandard DRV nomination may help determine the actual consensus on whether pages like that one should be speedily deleted or not. Everyone involved in this discussion here is welcome to comment. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
kind of a moot point being a year later (though the precedent may be worthwhile), but it does demonstrate his tendency to edit-war/admin shop on these types of things. –xeno (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{Resolved}} Obviously disruptive user. User given single/final warning.[7] Further disruption in the absence of any indication that (s)he intends to work productively on Wikipedia should be met with an indefinite block. Vassyana (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have disabled (and moved down) the "resolved" tag above because of continued disruptive conduct, coupled with the addition of external links that fail WP:EL and/or WP:COI: [8], [9]. I have previously removed these links and could be considered involved; could another administrator please take appropriate action against both accounts of Robert Steele? Sandstein 15:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both accounts should really be blocked indefinitely unless the user indicates in some fashion that they will cease the incivility and disruption and work productively on-wiki. Vassyana (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Selective and partisan policy enforcement by Will Beback
Will Beback (talk·contribs·logs) has a history of turning a blind eye to policy violations by editors who share his POV, while being quick to take action against editors who don't. I have seen this in connection with the LaRouche articles, where Will seems to have a strong personal interest. Recently he chided User:Polly Hedra([10]) for this edit which he called a personal attack and deleted[11], while finding nothing untoward about this edit and this one by User:Cberlet, Polly's antagonist. Another admin stepped in and gave Cberlet a 24 hour block for incivility, which was the subject of a discussion on this board. Will lobbied for a similar block against Polly Hedra, but found little support.[12] In fact, one other editor specifically commented at ANI on the partisan nature of Will's interventions.[13]
Two days ago I removed a link that User:Dking posted to his personal, selfpublished website.[14] Dking has a history of violations of WP:LINKSPAM (cleanup by COI noteboard team member ... Dking coming around again to re-add the spam:[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22].) Dking responded by accusing me of "censorship" and branded me a "Follower of LaRouche." I replied by saying "I am no more a 'follower of LaRouche' than I am a 'follower of Robert Mugabe,' even though I have worked hard to keep POV-pushers from using both biographical articles as a soapbox against those subjects. Secondly, if I were a 'follower of LaRouche,' it would still be a violation of WP:NPA to use that as a debating tactic: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." I am emphasizing this here, because I anticipate a similar argument from Will in his response to his notice. I also posted the examples above of Dking's Linkspam violations. In response, Dking deleted the examples and reiterated his personal attack.[23] When I re-added the examples,[24], I received a warning on my talk page from Will, threatening me with sanctions for "taunting." [25] I looked at Dking's talk page for similar warnings and found none. Will then "prematurely archived" the talk page, supposedly to "foster peace," but more likely to protect Dking's conduct from scrutiny, as was the case with Will's out-of-process closing of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three things: first, can you tell us what the CoI noticeboard's consensus was on Dking's website? And second, could you back up the statement that Will has a "strong personal interest", or withdraw it? Third, where did Will use admin tools in this dispute? Thanks. --Relata refero (disp.)07:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put it this way, I have never seen a LaRouche-related dispute where Will did not weigh in in support of Cberlet and Dking, going back to the LaRouche II ArbCom case where he was a party.
In this instance, Will threatened me with sanctions, while making no equivalent threat to Dking, who actually did make a personal attack, twice. I have seen Will ban editors in the past whom he deemed to be "LaRouche editors," on what I considered to be extremely flimsy evidence. While he has not formally designated me a "LaRouche editor," I take the threat of sanctions seriously; it's not a use of the tools per se, but it does represent an abuse of the office if it is used to intimidate, particularly to gain ground in a content dispute. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The posting from Marvin Diode which I think was out of line was this, in which he said, referring to the prohibition on spam, "In some cases, it may be just to boost a faded reputation for egotistical purposes."[29] That was a clear dig at Dennis King/Dking. I complained about it on the talk page but didn't get a satisfactory response. I warned Marvin Diode on his talk page that taunting is a form a personal attack and will not be tolerated.[30] Meanwhile Dking and Marvin Diode were bickering and refactoring each others comments on the talk page. I decided the best thing would be to "prematurely" archive the discussion in order to end what apppeard to me to be a pointless and contentious debate.[31] I didn't sanction anyone (though I warned that sanctions may happen if behavior doesn't change) nor did I use any admin tools. ·:· Will Beback·:·08:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You warned me, you didn't seem to think Dking required a warning. This is what I mean by "selective enforcement." If it weren't such a consistent pattern, I wouldn't bring it up. Note also that Dking made the claim that since he doesn't directly harvest income from his website, it couldn't possibly be a violation of WP:LINKSPAM to post links to it all over the project. This is a misreading of the LINKSPAM policy, which was the point of my comment. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generic rouge admin abuse complaint, the complainant moves one step closer to a topic ban per the multiple arbitrations on LaRouche and the tendentious editors clustered around that topic. A bit more investigation shows a long-term pattern of activism against Dennis King by Marvin Diode, who has been trying for a long time to get all links to King's websites off the project. While agreeing that they are, on the surface, not reliable sources, he has shown considerable evidence of a deeply vested external agenda against King, and his determination to remove "unreliable" sources appears to apply only to those sources which are critical of LaRouche. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one Dennis King website at issue here, and it is a personal website/blog. Removing links to it should be non-controversial, particularly when the owner of the personal site has very aggressively added and re-added it in defiance of policy. You make a dazzling leap of logic by insinuating that, by calling attention to the excesses of an unusually tendentious editor, I am pursuing a secret agenda of shielding LaRouche from criticism. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one Marvin Diode at issue here, and it appears to be a participant on one side in a long-standing dispute, bringing said dispute to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and only his side ought to be sanctioned for it, while participants on the other side of the dispute are fine and dandy? "Sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander" really needs to be applied; I guess I ought to write an essay at WP:SAUCE if none exists already. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uneven sanctions are not by themselves evidence of bias. It is neither "selective" nor "partisan" for an administrator to sanction a single side in a dispute. Assuming the administrator is acting in good faith, it is a simple exercise of discretion. The administrator may simply have found that one person's behavior rises to the level where it needs administrative intervention while the other's does not. Moreover, even if both side's behavior is sanctionable there is no administrative abuse in sanctioning only one side - not unless the administrator truly does have a conflict of interest or is using sanctions to further a position on content. It could be a simple oversight. It could even be appropriate. It takes two to fight, usually, so removing one may well have the desired effect of ending the fight. Moreover, as controversial as LaRouche is, it's hard to equate the frustration of people trying to promote him on the encyclopedia with the frustration of people trying to avoid promoting his views. Reviewing the diffs, even though both sides became uncivil out of frustration, Poly Hedra's accusations were direct and personal, whereas Cberlet was expressing generalized disapproval of a group of editors for pushing content bias. It's not obvious who deserved sanctions and who didn't but that's a moot issue at this point, and there's certainly nothing that shows any abuse here. In short, Guy's right.Wikidemo (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But Marvin Diode is not a Larouchian, but has been unfairly labeled as one, which is a dirty tactic used by some in this fight, which is not simply a case of "Larouchians vs. Mainstream" as it's sometimes portrayed. Anybody who objects to the actions of some of the "anti-Larouche" people seems to get automatically fastened with a political label that might not have any resemblance to their actual position. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dtobias, have you reviewed Marvin Diode's contribution history? While we can't say if he is a "LaRouchian" or not, all of his edits are either to LaRouche-related articles or, if to other topics, they promote the LaRouche POV. His attacks against Cberlet and Dking are consistent with the decades-long conflict between them and the LaRouche movement. While Marvin Diode may claim to not be a follower of LaRouche, and may choose to be offended if called that, the reality is that he gives the appearance of being a LaRouche follower by his actions and words on Wikipedia. People can follow any religion or philosophy they like, but when they push a POV or use Wikipedia as a battleground then it's a problem. Wikipedia's problem with accounts that push the LaRouche POV goes back at least four years and includes three ArbCom cases and numerous sock puppets. ·:· Will Beback·:·20:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard tactic I've seen Will employ time and again. "Have you reviewed Joe Editor's contribution history? He edits articles on topics of interest to LaRouche." The trick here, as anyone with a slight familiarity with LaRouche knows, is that LaRouche has expressed an opinion on virtually every topic covered on Wikipedia, with the possible exception of the Pokemon characters. If you were to review Will Beback's contribution history, you will find -- shocking as it may seem -- that he edits articles on topics of interest to LaRouche. As far as my edits "promoting LaRouche POV," that's a con job. This goes back to the argument that I anticipated in my initial statement: since LaRouche is a uniquely evil person, anyone who interferes with the use of Wikipedia to denounce him may be treated in flagrant disregard for Wikipedia policy. Which I guess is what Dan T. already said. In response to Wikidemo, yes, I am alleging that Will is using sanctions to further a position on content. I disagree in the strongest terms with Wikidemo's characterization of these disputes as "people trying to promote him on the encyclopedia vs. people trying to avoid promoting his views." I got involved in the first place because I saw a small group of individuals trying to use the encyclopedia as an attack platform against LaRouche, in violation of WP:BLP, WP:SOAP and Lord knows how many other policies. And if someone steps in and says "but what about Wikipedia policy," they are immediately charged with "promoting LaRouche." Again, compare my edits at Robert Mugabe. Would you care to argue that I am "giving the appearance of being a Mugabe follower"? --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed your contribution history, and it is dominated by LaRouche articles, and your contributions to those articles and surrounding debates are dominated by an LaRouche apologetic stance. If you are genuinely trying to be neutral on this subject then you are doing a very poor job of it. You are giving a very strong appearance of a vendetta against King, in fact. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An impartial review of my contribution history will reveal that I have never taken a position either pro or con on LaRouche; my role has been simply to insist on the strict application of BLP and other policies, in any article where I have seen a problem. Your comments give a very strong appearance that as far as you are concerned, policy is nothing, POV is everything. You and Will seem to wish to grant a 007 "license to defame" to Dking and Cberlet. If Wikipedia policies such as BLP are not applied evenly across the board, even to the most controversial characters, the project loses credibility. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@DanT: I did not say that, I said that partisans coming here to bitch because they are not getting their way in a long-term and largely external dispute is not helpful to the encyclopaedia. It's not clear to me why you decided to butt in in the first place, actually, since your input was 100% unhelpful and unproductive. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure which sanctions I've applied that Marvin Diode is complaining about. I've never blocked him. All I did was issue some warnings not to post personal attacks. As for Mugabe, Lyndon LaRouche is a strong supporter. LaRouche is anti-British, anti-colonialism, and anti-George Soros, all of which are involved.[32][33][34][35] Marvin Diode has been editing to provide the pro-Mugabe POV favored by LaRouche. However that doesn't mean he's a follower of Mugabe. All that matters to Wikipedia is that POVs, whatever they are, aren't pushed behind their proper weight, and that editors are civil towards each other. I think that this editor has problems with both, as have a string of similar accounts going back some years. ·:· Will Beback·:·22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. So, let's suppose hypothetically that author Kitty Kelley were to start a Wikipedia account called Kkelley and post links all over Wikipedia to a site promoting her book, The Family, which is said to be "filled with lurid allegations."[36] If one or more editors were to object, do you suppose that they would be labeled "followers of George W. Bush" and that the conversation would immediately turn to speculation about these supposed "George Bush supporters," ignoring the obvious inappropriate behavior by the hypothetical Ms. Kelley? --Terrawatt (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are some valid concerns here. It appears that Will has a long-standing habit of favoring one side in these disputes, and if he is going to take any kind of administrative role in the matter he needs to avoid that. I think it would be best if Will didn't involve himself in this any further, although of course it should still be monitored by someone who is accepted as impartial. Everyking (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for being partial to one side, I endorsed the recent block of Cberlet for incivility. Can you point to any action that I've taken which is incorrect? ·:· Will Beback·:·17:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone edit this to add 'withdrawn' as a possible AFD result? The template is protected for some reason so I can't do it myself. Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For over a month now, I've been dealing with this persistent vandal who keeps adding bogus info into certain film/TV related articles. He/she seems to use two IP ranges, 66.82.9.x and 69.19.14.x, which are both registered to HughesNet. See my last 100 contributions for evidence, which shows a bunch of reverts to this guy's edits.
This person seems to strike once a day, usually between 12pm - 5pm UK time. We have blocked some of the single IPs, but only when he was currently active, as it stopped him from editing that day, and he switches to a new IP the next day. Warnings don't seem to be effective on him either.
Anyway, as I've said above, I've been chasing this guy for more than a month now, and I'm getting tired of it. This has been going on for too long now, and we're also starting to miss a few edits of his. I would like to request action been taking against this guy, preferably a 1 week - 1 month+ range block on 66.82.9.x and 69.19.14.x, with both anonymous users only and account creation enabled, seeing he hasn't created any accounts, and it won't hurt the legitimate users that much. We could also send an abuse report about him to HughesNet, but I don't think that would be as effective as a range block. --AAA! (AAAA) 15:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is MascotGuy, especially since the edits don't seem related (unless you can show me a diff from a confirmed MG sock and compare it to one of the IPs' edits), and the IP vandal usually targets the same articles (such as Jake T. AustinWinx Club, and List of Power Rangers villains, to name a few). No recent MG socks I've seen targeted those articles, and the IP vandal hasn't targeted any articles that any of the recent MG socks have targeted. I always thought of him to be related to this old vandal. However, I could be wrong about this. --AAA! (AAAA) 16:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AAA^ has joined #wikipedia-en on the freenode IRC network, and me and him chatted a bit about this. I'm afraid to block the affected ranges due to not knowing if I will cause collateral damage. No short term block (under 24 hours) will work as the vandalism appears to be once or twice a day. I suggested to him to put forth a checkuser request, and have a checkuser deal with if the ranges should or should not be blocked. —— nixeagle20:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sennen goroshi (talk·contribs) and 203.165.124.61 (talk·contribs) resumes stalking me as one of his long-time disruptive habits. The user has a long history of harassment and stalking of me. At this time, Sennen goroshi is gaming the system with his ISP as if his account and ISP are unrelated. Besides, the user also deceives people as blanking properly cited information from academic sources as leaving nasty edit summaries like "uncited BS removal". "crappy unreliable POV sources removed. use a credible source next time" to Nanking Massacre and "rvv" to Category:Comfort women. Although these lies were discovered quickly, the user did not retract this behavior and continues today. I gave him formal warnings without not knowing the identity because his edits on Nanking Massacre looked like a typical vandalism, so reported to WP:AIV, and the user gave a contradictory lecture at my talk page. I recognized him per his usual pattern of gaming the WP:Civility policy and indeed the anon is Sennen goroshi.[37] On the other hand, admin User:Tanner-Christopher spot his reverting campaign, so gave him a formal warning for his disruptive behaviors and blind reverts. However, he rather visited him as ridiculing 3RR policy like this[38][39][40]
The user also wikistaling me today and reverts whatever I edit today which look like he wants to drag me into edit warring and block for 3RR. That scheme was successful once, so I would not deceive it any more. I have enough of this user's disruptive wiki-stalking, harassment, and incivility and so forth. I think this time he should get more that warning because whenever the user is summoned to here for his disruption, he pledges vain promises not to do such things in a disguised politeness in front of admins.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking? I think not, we both have an interest in articles relating to Japan and Korea (although perhaps different viewpoints on the two nations) - I can edit any article relating to Japan in WW2, war-crimes, Takeshima, or Japanese/Korean food, and I will be more than likely to find you editing the same article. You might not agree with my edits, but they are certainly not intentionally disruptive - they are a mere content dispute. When I was accused of breaking the 3RR, I was rather amused that an admin would count my self reverts towards 3RR and my comments reflected that. Please stop dragging all your content disputes into ANI. By the way, don't make assumptions about my IP, this is my one and only IP. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a content dispute, but your disruptive long-time wikistaling, harassment and so forth. Your wikistaling not only me but also several individual, so you have been summoned for that. This needs to be stopped by administrator's intervention.-Caspian blue (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am shocked !!! according to yahoo finance LMAMF means something totally different http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=LMAMF.X - but then again who would use yahoo finance as a source when you have the ultra reliable urban dictionary at hand?
By the way, why did you get the IDs of people from my talk page, that I have had disputes with and ask them to input on this issue? That is clearly canvassing. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian blue we really need to see some actual evidence of wrongdoing. Evidence of stalking would be him editing a page after you edit, preferably several pages. Evidence of revert warring would be diffs showing us the reverts. He states that some of them were self reverts and he is right in that if he reverts himself then obviously this isn't warring. Theresa Knott | The otter sank17:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I would provide enough evidence of his wikistalking and harassement. This report was made in hurry. I previously filed reports on him for his behaviros and death threat, but mine were too lengthy for admins to look into them. You also seem to miss his tendency of lying and such disruptive comment. That slurs are, I think, enough for an immediate block per Wiki policy--Caspian blue (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see anything that warrants an immediate block. He has a tendency to troll, rise above that. It's not easy for an outsider to spot lying unless you give us evidence that contradicts what he is saying. Theresa Knott | The otter sank18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, one last message before I go to sleep. I did not make a death threat, I did not call anyone "lonely mice" (that is beyond absurd) and all of this stems from our different perspectives on shared interests and content disputes that we both seem to have. However I am sure that a part of the blame can lay at my feet, I am sure that I could be a little warmer in my attitude and that using a little more tact in my interactions with fellow editors would be welcomed. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the first one. He removed "Pregnant women were often the target of murder, as they would often be bayoneted in the belly, sometimes after rape." (emphasis mine). The source gives one example of this happening. So assuming good faith, I wouldn't call that one exactly a lie. Theresa Knott | The otter sank18:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look if our article states it happened often but the source states it happened at least once then the claim that it happened often is uncited. I don't agree with the wholesale removal of the section and would have edited it rather than remove it but that doesn't mean he was lying when he stated it was uncited. Now do you have any evidence of stalking or revert warring? Theresa Knott | The otter sank18:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These two past reports on him would be good answers for his long-time wikistaking and harassment to me. this insulting comment would be a definitive definiton telling his past conduct to me.
See the trouble is I clicked on the last one on that list first. And what do i see? An edit war between the two of you in which you appeared to follow him to the article see the page history Did you really think I wouldn't check that? Theresa Knott | The otter sank19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you did not carefully check on the history of kimchi. You defend his lying and then falsely accuse me that I followed him? Nope. I'm very disappoint at your condoning his disruptive behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right I didn't go back far enough. I apologise for that. In future if you need to show someone is following you then show your edit followed by their first edit. Not the last one after a long edit war. Theresa Knott | The otter sank19:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I usually represent all details and evidence, but doing such takes a lot of time and admins say like "Oh, it past 3 days, or weeks, so it is stale. We assume WP:AGF that he would not do that". Or they say like my writing is too lengthy to read, so I try to be as succinct as possible at this time.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian Blue, you need to nail in the evidence as clearly as possible. Administrators are not willing to help, it is hard for me to follow too. I think sennen goroshi is wikistalking too, but you need to make it clear. If the administrator decide that he is not wikistalking, ask another administrator to warn him because it is obvious that he is not here to contribute in the best intentions. Good friend100 (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm On closer inspection I see that it was Caspian blue who removed it.[56] Although I agree that indefblocked users should not be allowed to edit it would have been much better had someone else done the removing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank13:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can only echo what everyone is saying about Sennon, leaving abusive messages on your talk page and generally trying to stir up trouble. (~~#~)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadiga09 (talk • contribs) 2008-08-03T17:05:44 (UTC)
How very very ironic - the above comment was made by user Fadiga 09 commenting on abusive messages - Fadiga 09 is the user who left the following message on my talk page "Haha, your such a laugh, you fucking tosspot, neither us or Arsenal have won it, so that's fine with me, us two are the two biggest clubs to not have won it, so that's fine with me you fucking imbecile, and on the Canizares thing, LISTEN CAREFULLY, HIS CONTRACT ENDED IN JUNE AND IT WAS NOT RENEWED. (Fadiga09 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC))" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sennen_goroshi&diff=prev&oldid=225628614 - so excuse me if I don't take your comments about abusive messages too seriously. Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sennen goroshi, you might be very proud of yourself as evading the attention on your wrongdoings here by attacking other user?
In this edit, Sennen goroshi just blindly revert as wikistalking me.[59] He does not regard the naming convention or alphabet order in Japan-Korea related articles as he always proclaims to be kept. If he wants to follow the admins' advice, he should not edit articles that we disputed before. However, the user broke the promise and ignites again with his inconsistent editing.[60][61] I have seen his "fake promise" more than enough. I want a justice.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no breach of 3RR, I have never tried to hide my IP address, and there were no instances of more than 3 reverts with a 24 hour period, even when you take into account edits made in and out of account. This is all getting rather tedious, this report has been marked as resolved twice. You are flogging a dead horse. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The person does not think that you did not breach of 3RR. I see your all the same weird agenda on the articles as done to Korean related articles. Two admins already gave you warnings and you pretends to listen to but breaks the suggestion by yourself first. You owe me an apology at least your dirty languages at me two days ago. Well, is the dead horse YOU? As long as your disruption is active, the dead horse appears to gain a revolving life again.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still problems with wiki-lawyering and a possible COI on Jetsunma
The language in the article is defamatory and violates WP:HARM
The claims in the article are not susbtantiated and violate WP:SUBSTANTIATE
The article is false and misleading information about a living person, violating WP:BLP
Published material (in defense and apologetic) of Jetsunma from an association she maintains control over is allowed in the article, because of WP:QS, WP:SPS, WP:SELFPUB and because it avoids WP:PEACOCK
Even though Jetsunma is a public figure or at least there's no serious question about it (I emailed Mike Godwin to be sure and he said she obviously is), we should still be cautious and apply WP:NPF to the article, in order to avoid a libel case. Let me state that again: Even though Jetsunma is a public figure, we should still apply WP:NPF to the article.
Also (this one is especially good!), Mike Godwin's opinion that Jetsunma is a public figure shouldn't apply, because he has a WP:COI!
Jetsunma isn't found in the NNDB and therefore, Mike is wrong.
Twice now, she copied and pasted large sections of text from policy pages into the talkpage. The second time she did it, I removed it all and told her not to do it again, that it was disruptive and simply mentioning the dozens of policies she invokes is enough.
Now, do I really have to deal with this? This user has been working at this article for like over six months now, in every case scrambling for an argument to justify adding misleading content or removing information. Now, in the past there was a sockpuppet named User:Curious Blue who we should be weary of and Longchenpa is biased to be sure (and so am I, I suppose), but this kind of behavior seems pretty ridiculous, really way far beyond the scope of mere "unreasonable". When a user is actually suggesting that Mike Godwin has a COI in his legal opinion about something, are we expected to actually debate with such a person?! ☯Zenwhat (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far we've had a third opinion here by Athaenara, requested by Zulu Papa 5. We've had two editors Zenwhat and Ricky81682 join the fray. I am biased but I have journalism experience and know how to write a balanced piece. I started at the center on this article back in December. Since then I've found I've have to fight just to keep mainstream articles from Random House, Elle, and Mirabella magazines in the piece. Longchenpa (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User Mosedschurte seems to be edit warring about People's Temple content on Harvey Milk
Mosedschurte (talk·contribs) has been continuously adding and reverting to re-add an entire section on the Jim Jones cult People's Temple and now has expanded to simply revert[63] this material as well as the controversy section on "The outing of Sipple" (Oliver Sipple). An RfC was started to try to end the edit warring and consensus has been that the previous content about the People's Temple was appropriate whereas the entire section was undue. I also expressed that it was bordering on WP:FRINGE. The other issue that came up was that another section, "The outing of Sipple", although well-referenced, is also undue. Complicating things is the proliferation of SPAs. I moved both problematic sections to the talk page and now Mosedschurte is calling me a vandal and reverting. Am I misreading things here? There seems little evidence that the People's Temple incidents were anything more than Milk doing his political duties of getting elected and staying in office. Mosedschurte has also ensured this content is placed in other articles already so I see no reason to inflate in this one. Would appreciate fresh perspective on this. Banjeboi22:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Benji, you might want to say that this is happening in Harvey Milk. A major problem here is that Milk's article is not at all comprehensive, unfortunately. I hope to fix part of this by expanding the article soon to give weight to the rest of Milk's political career. However, as the article stands now, information about the People's Temple is grossly WP:Undue in the overall political influence Milk had. Had all the time in the world to write all the information possible, it might clear up a lot of these issues... That's what I get for living in a linear dimension. --Moni3 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! added link to section title, sorry! Yes if this were expanded exponentially these sections, in a trimmed form, could serve to add to the article. Likely not as stand-alone sections though. And WP:UNDUE pretty much goes by what the article currently is although even and expanded article wouldn't include much more about the People's Temple which seems to be this user's specialty. It's already in other articles and i don't object to that. Banjeboi22:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There area a number of inaccuracies and omissions here, as anyone can see by viewing the editing history of the article Harvey Milk:
(1) Months ago, a tiny section was added to the Harvey Milk article that was entirely sourced and stated in NPOV terms. It merely shortly described Milk's well known support for Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple which was not mentioned in the article. More importantly, it very briefly described Milk's opposition to those calling for a federal investigation of Jonestown through a letter from Milk to President Carter calling those attempting to extricate their relatives "liars," which had received considerable media scrutiny.
(2) Milk's campaign is not only now well-known and public, but in the days after the tragedy killing nearly 1,000 mostly Bay Area citizens, it had already come under considerable press scrutiny just before his death.
(3) In response to concerns from Benjiboi, the section was pared down even further.
(4) The assertion by Benjiboi that "Milk doing [nothing more than] his political duties of getting elected and staying in office" is entirely unsourced, somewhat odd, likely factually incorrect (not that that particularly matters) and irrelevant to the issue of presenting encyclopedic NPOV content.
(5) Benjiboi then started a Request for Comment on the section.
(6) In response to Benjiboi's Rfc, not surprisingly, no consensus developed to delete it. In fact, if anything, most weighed in to keep it. Which makes sense given the extreme gravity of the events and the tiny size of the section.
(7) Today, Bejiboi then began deleting every word of the entire Peoples Temple section in the Harvey Milk article.
(8) Note that the section as it stands mentioned only one of Milk's many letters supporting Jones against investigation and only briefly states that Milk made many supporting statements about the Temple and Jones without even elaborating, lest that be viewed as giving it "undue weight."
No, I have not been contributing to that section and feel the material presented further up in the article is sufficient. SPA votes, as far as I'm aware, don't count. The section still violates WP:UNDUE, and IMHO, borders on WP:FRINGE. We haven't yet started discussing the sources but they too are borderline acceptable per reliable sourcing policies. Of course, the People's Temple people think his endorsement is notable, but did anyone else. And Milk was a city supervisor while the City's mayor George Moscone and more prominent politicians at the time did the very same things or more, so again, nothing too notable that isn't already covered in the article. Banjeboi22:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding: "Of course, the People's Temple people think his endorsement is notable, but did anyone else. "
The San Francisco Chronicle, New York Times and San Francisco Examiner are three that come to mind.
Not only that, the section doesn't just describe Milk's endorsement. In the middle of the controvery, after Jones fled to Guyana with 1,000 followers, Milk actually opposed the investigation of Jones, writing none other than President Jimmy Carter that those wishing their relatives would be extricated were spouting "bold-faced lies."
Frankly, in order to address your concerns of "undue weight" -- odd considering the section about the 900+ deaths at Jonesotown literally follows text in the Milk article about a pooper scooper law -- I didn't even include the press accounts of Milk's letters to the government of Guyana directly on the issue, or gushing statements Milk made personally about Jim Jones. Mosedschurte (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have again removed this section and the Sipple one as well as the RfC has not supported their inclusion. You mention "The San Francisco Chronicle, New York Times and San Francisco Examiner" but I notice none of those are used as citations. Perhaps those citations could be presented for other editors to also verify what they say about this and what weight they put on this in the context of Milk's life. Of all the biographies and overviews of Milk's life this information is rarely mentioned, if at all, and has usually been presented as San Francisco was still reeling from the Jonestown massacre when the Moscone/Milk assassinations occurred. Banjeboi05:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are now 1 revert away from violating the 3 Revert Rule by exceeding the 3 reverts on the Milk article in 24 hours.
This violation is particularly egregious here, where you specifically requested an Rfc for deletion or modification of a sourced NPOV section, no consensus was reached to delete the section and, rather, most appeared specifically NOT to want to delete the section.
That you are now oddly claiming this failure to reach consensus to delete (and, in fact, most said not to) as somehow justifying unilaterally deleting whole sections of the article is not only incorrect and contrary to Wikipedia editing rules, but frankly bizarre. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An even further edited down section that before has now been placed in the article.
The fact remains that complaints about "undue weight" in this context have not only been addressed repeatedly, but at this point appear to be non-good faith justifications to repeatedly delete a sourced NPOV section of the article an editor does not like. City Supervisor Milk actively supported one of the most notorious figures in United States history, including making gushing statements about him. He then actually opposed investigations of Jonestown, writing none other than United States President Jimmy Carter that those attempting to extrictate their relatives were spouting "bold-faced lies."
No one is saying that this should dominate the article on City Supervisor Milk, though I'm sure some Jonestown victims relatives would disagree. Rather, it is a tiny section stashed away in the middle of the article.
Thus, there is really not even a good faith argument to be made that this tiny section carries "undue weight" in the article (rather, if anything, the argument might be that it does not elaborate enough). Much less a convincing argument in that regard.
This is why you received no consensus on your Rfc to delete the article.
Please stop unilaterally deleting this small sourced NPOV section in its entirety. At this point, especially after the Rfc, these edits are clearly not made in good faith and are contrary to the principles of Wikipedia article editing. Mosedschurte (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look and may weigh in but it sounds like a content dispute, i.e. nothing requiring administrative help. Is there edit warring or any kind of behavior issue? Failure to honor an RfC or consensus is still a content issue unless it gets to the point of active edit warring or incivility. Wikidemo (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. It does seem like an edit war and has been going on since early June. I started the RfC to stop the warring in the first place. There is also the matter of the SPAs voting, all seem suspect but I'm not sure if checkuser worthy or possibly canvassed offline. Most have made only edits to the RfC. I feel this user won't relent until they get this content inserted so this looks like it will continue until some fresh voices can help sort this out. Is this a good candidate for the WP:FRINGE board instead? Banjeboi07:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been an "edit war", but it has mostly taken the form of Benjiboi repeatedly deleting the entire section after every edit has been made to acommodate his concerns. Please examine the Edit Page of Harvey Milk for repeated examples.
Moreover, after his Rfc to delete the section, Benjiboi received several responses from those not wishing to delete this tiny section:
"I've reviewed the Milk page, the Moscone page, and have worked on the various Jones pages. I disagree that this is being given undue weight. His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant." Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
"I agree with this writer. Please do not delete. It is true there is no consensus to delete the section emerged." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caramia3403 (talk • contribs)
Given the context and timing, the Peoples Temple section is far too important in this article to delete or merge. Especially the letter cited in the article attacking people calling for an investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.197.82 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
"The Jones section has to stay in a page like this. It's way too big if its true. I don't know why it would be cut. The part about Harvey being scared of him should be added to it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.117.116 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"Finally, the entire Peoples Temple involvement, even with Jonestown literally dominating the Bay Area and Milk's key support, is only a tiny (6%) portion of the article, thus there is no undue weight issue. As well, included is only a tiny portion of Milk's involvement with the Temple." - obviously me. Mosedschurte (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, tired of continued edit war wholesale deletions of every sourced NPOV contritubtion made, I have now slashed the section down to 3 short sentences.
If anyone else wishes to add interesting encyclopedic content to the article, I encourage your do so. Do not let the particular obstinancy here discourage such additions. I agree with others that the article leaves the reader wanting to know more about Milk, a thoroughly interesting figure, on a variety of policy issues that are largely glossed over as is. Mosedschurte (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some mention of the incident should remain in the article, as well as some phrasing indicating that Milk was not a "co-conspirator" in the death of 1000 people, which is a bit how it reads at the moment. Haiduc (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the funny or tragic part, really, after this idea was inserted I did look into reliable sources as after years about reading of Milk's life I've never even heard of it. In fact, Milk didn't seem to get any special treatment that all political folks got from Jones but I did research and added some NPOV' and reliably sourced information about this connection. But apparently this user demands an entire section, despite policies of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Banjeboi21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help please. This user keeps inserting this information despite concerns and with no consensus to do so,[64] and despite it already being covered - neutrally and with RS's - in the article already. I've been doing slow reverts lately but would like this behavior to stop until they can find consensus. The material is already covered and the addition of this section, I think we're up to a dozen times over the past two months, is disruptive, IMHO. I've pretty much stopped doing any other work on the bio until this stops as it's quite distracting. Banjeboi02:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if someone could help me try to get through to this editor. He or she is adding American Film Institute ranking information to film articles, but is sometimes doing so in ways that are detrimental to the articles. At first they were inserting the information as a main-level section, but I seem to have gotten them to put it in as a sub-section in an appropriate place. Now they're wikilinking "American Film Institute" in the section header, which I'm told is not a good idea because it fouls up screen readers. Worse, in several instances (the most recent of which I've listed on their talk page) in removing previous AFI information that was cited, they are not moving the citation into their new format. I've tried to talk to this editor, and others have also left messages about other problems with their editing, but they have not responded to any message that has been left.
I'd hate to have an editor blocked who appears to be capable and interested in adding good information, but I'm following this person around cleaning up their messes, and I'm starting to feel a bit like the guy at the circus who follows the elephants. (What? And give up show business?) If they would talk, at least I would know that they're getting the message, but so far, no luck. Maybe someone else would achieve better results. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)00:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a collaborative environment; if someone won't talk, they shouldn't edit. I'm strongly tempted to block them to get their attention; with an unblock as soon as they start talking. Any reason not to? That talk page shows a lot of patience on your part; I can't think of another solution, and others have tried. --barneca (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of talk about civility here, but ignoring someone's questions, refusing to answer, is every bit is uncivil, and maybe worse because you have no idea what's going on in their heads. There's another old story about taking a very smart mule and whacking it over the head with a 2-by-4 because you have to get its attention first. Block it for an appropriate interval, and maybe then you'll get a response. If he simply waits out the block and does it again, double the block time. Keep doubling it until that 2-by-4 finally sinks in. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?03:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for a month (I don't want to start small, and have them decide to wait out the block), but I'll unblock as soon as they begin talking. IP address looks pretty static, but it could be that they can change IP address if necessary. If a new IP address starts up where this one left off, point an admin to this thread and I suppose we'll keep blocking until they decide to talk. Hope this is the nudge they need. Good luck. --barneca (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid of that; when someone ignores that many polite requests, it's because they really don't want to talk. I suggest whack-a-mole for a short while, to see if they're easily bored (although they strike me as someone who won't get easily bored), followed by an IP check at WP:RFCU if they don't stop. The good news is, they're easy to recognize, so socks should be blocked relatively quickly. --barneca (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally posted this on Peter Symonds [[65]] talk page (the original admin who removed McJeff's rollback), but he is probably too busy to deal with this messiness and hasn't responded, so I've decided to post this here and make note on his page. On July 28, McJeff's rollback was removed for misuse in examples such as [66][67][68][69] and [70]. McJeff had the tool reinstated a day later after he expressed that he understood how rollback should be used only in blatant cases of vandalism. Then, McJeff started misusing rollback again. I don't believe that he grasps how it should be properly used only in cases of blatant vandalism, based on these diffs and his curious interpretation of 'blatant vandalism': [[71]]
[[72]]. Furthermore, he continues to warn users for vandalism when it is not actually vandalism such as [[73]] and [[74]], which are in reference to editors trying to add the 'controversy' section back to the Tucker Max article, which is currently in RfC in regards to whether the section should be there. since the controversy section is in RfC, i don't think it's appropriate to warn users of 'vandalism' for adding the section, as it's properly sourced and NPOV. An editor who's using rollback should know what vandalism actually is. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a glance alone is needed to see him abusing Rollback in content disputes. removal of tool should be substantial, maybe 6 months? ThuranX (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to both McJeff and Theserialcomma for not responding sooner - I was aware of the thread, but it was mid-discussion when I last checked it. Rollback has been removed from McJeff's account once again. Despite agreeing not to use it content disputes on Tucker Max, he has done, and rolled back the same edits I'd asked him not to use rollback for. I will post a full explanation of my actions on his talk page later on. For reference, here is the thread on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeterSymonds#recurring_rollback_misuse. PeterSymonds(talk)02:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? This is - pardon the language - fucking pathetic. Once again, the tenditious and obnoxious (theserialcomma) are manipulating the rules at the expense of those that are honestly trying to improve Wikipedia (me). I explained very clearly on PeterSymond's page why my use of rollback was completely justified, and the fact that Theserialcomma has been engaged in long term harassment against me. I submit that my rollback rights be reinstated immediately and Theserialcomma be punished for the personal annoyance he is putting me through. McJeff (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what offenses the other party/s may committed, your use of rollback is inappropriate. It's for blatant vandalism, not wishy washy content disputes or edit wars. Wisdom89(T / C)02:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was one inappropriate use. ONE. And I apologized for that one and agreed not to use it in that fashion ever again. Adding a section to an article that is in blatant violation of WP:BLP and against consensus is definitely blatant vandalism. Do not listen to what Theserialcomma says about there is "no consensus" - the consensus is unanimously against him, and he continues to file RfC's every time he doesn't get his way. McJeff (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith additions/removals or even breaching of NPOV are not vandalism any way you slice it. A rollbacker should be able to identify the subtleties of what constitutes vandalism and what does not. Difs 128-131 suggest you do not have that insight yet. Wisdom89(T / C)02:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bill.matthews is not a good faith account - he is a revert account with a few AfD-related contributions, as you can see from his contribution history. I can tell the difference between good faith addition/removal, and diff 128 was not good faith. Diff 129 was an editor who has been repeatedly warned and had several short-term blocks for his without-consensus changing of professional wrestling movesets. Yes, those were both appropriate uses of Rollback. McJeff (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the topic on PeterSymonds' talk page. Please note the fact that I debunked every single one of Theserialcomma's accusations against me and proved he was disrupting wikipedia to push his points of view. Again, the fact that I'm being disciplined and he is not is completely disgusting. McJeff (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(And again) That's not vandalism. That's a content dispute. I can't be more clear than that, and others have reiterated the same statement. Your rollback privileges were removed for this; you fail to see the difference between vandalism and content disputes. For instance, this is not vandalism, yet it was rollbacked as such. There are many more instances of this, if you want me to dig them up. seicer | talk | contribs03:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an essay somewhere along the lines of "When six people are telling you you did something wrong, and zero people are agreeing with you, there's a really, really, really good chance that you've actually done something wrong"? --barneca (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The essay would be wrong. I'm still not seeing where the rollback page says "User may not use rollback to rollback known tenditious editors inserting blatant policy violations into the encyclopedia". McJeff (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback doesn't get removed for one mistake. You've been shown to have misused it since getting it back, multiple editors agree on that point. You need to accept there are other ways to hand a content dispute. Further, it IS a content dispute; TSC is NOT the only person who feels the Tucker Max article should have a criticism/controversy section. I suggest you take a few days off that entire article as well. ThuranX (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple editors think I misused it, multiple editors are wrong. Once again, Wikipedia promotes the interests of the tenditious and obnoxious (theserialcomma) at the expense of the good editors trying to improve the encyclopedia (me). McJeff (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One, this thread is over. Two, you're heading well into personal attack territory. Multiple editors looked and saw you use rollback on a content dispute after recovering the privilege and agreeing to use it responsibly. That's the facts. We all realize you want to protect Tucker Max's article from things you don't think belong, but you aren't going about it the right way. Please stop arguing tendentiously and disruptively, find some new pages to work on, nad get back to building the project. ThuranX (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors should be refactored to multiple administrators. While you have a vested interest in Tucker Max, you need to realize that this discussion is in regards to a content dispute, not vandalism. If you have an issue with how rollback rights are removed, I suggest you take it up elsewhere, because your rollback rights will not be re-instated.. seicer | talk | contribs05:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove from Gigante from "Greenwich Village", sub-section "present day"
First, it category is "Greenwich Village", sub-section "present day"
Gigante went to prison in 1997 and died there.
Second, Gigante did not live in Greenwich Village.
His lawyers claimed he lived there and that he was insane.
Gigante later admitted in court that the whole thing was a scam.
Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
Thanks for your comments. Before changing the article again, wait for other comments that might reflect a differing point of view. For what it's worth IMHO I don't agree with you. However please let others voice their views...Modernist (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The notorious mobster Vincent Gigante grew up on the same streets in Greenwich Village where he would spend most of his adult life. Vincent Gigante, Mafia Leader Who Feigned Insanity, Dies at 77 He was born and raised there. Whether in later life he actually lived there or not, is not the point. He spent most of his days in Greenwich Village and was a characteristic figure wandering the streets in his bathrobe and slippers, mumbling incoherently to himself. That this was an elaborate act is also not the point: he acted it out in Greenwich Village. All in all, I think it deserves to be mentioned in an article on Greenwih Village. If you think it does not belong under 'Present day', put it under 'History' or – maybe – in 'In fiction and drama'. - Mafia Expert (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the user a note. I've deleted Spinner145's userpage, so that's now admin only. I don't think a block is merited at this time, as while it was a bit WP:POINTy, I think Alex was trying to communicate, however not in the most polite manner. Hersfold(t/a/c)05:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYK topic banned User:Wilhelmina Will asked if she can have someone else nominate an article for her.[77]. She was told, "Yes, you can,
" by User:Abd who is also, apparently, advising her to do it via e-mail so she doesn't get caught. "Be careful."[78] He is also, apparently, advising her that she can "create" sources for her articles.[79] See User:Abd's talk page and talk page history and User:Wilhelmina Will's contribution history for the exchange.
A community topic ban was a small step, it seemed appropriate for the situation. However, the user is clear that she will not respect the ban, and is actively seeking and being advised on how to get around it.
The articles she has written, that she submitted to DYK with the full knowledge she did not understand the material she was using to write the articles, but simply hoped someone would correct the crap vandalism, still need corrected.[80] There are some 30 of these articles, so she says, 3-4 of which have been partially corrected, all of which probably contain unusable crap vandalism.
Essentially, from the link above, this was her plan with the 30 articles:
"I am not afraid or humiliated to admit that I don't really understand the terms used in paleontological journals, which are the only sources I can find over the internet, most of the time, but I thought that the article could at least be left the way it was until it became a DYK article, and then the corrections could be made. I would even have helped, the best I could, to fix it up."
She used sources she admits she did not understand--it was clear she did not understand the sources or what she was writing from the articles she wrote and how she used the sources, as every line from a paleontological journal that she included, except for one, was wrong, when I checked a couple of her articles. This was about 20-30 lines of misinformation deliberately given to Wikipedia's readers. And another 30 articles at least sitting on Wikipedia just waiting for someone to correct them because Wilhelmina Will won't because she can't.
At this point, it is clear that this user, Wilhelmina Will, has no respect for Wikipedia policy or Wikipedia articles. She is here to submit content that will get her "Wikipedia awards," under any circumstances. I ask that she no longer be rewarded for crap vandalising Wikipedia. Also, if she cannot be trusted to even understand the conditions of her topic ban, there's no point in allowing her to continue to edit as badly as she has edited.
Barnstars are given by users for any reason at all. She can even give herself barnstars. The problem is all the burden for this ban is on everyone but Wilhelmina Will, including if you add no brownie points for DYK. She is abusing the time of other editors. Her articles have to be cleaned up, she can't and won't do it. Her ban has to be monitored, she can't and won't understand and honor it. She's busy finding ways to get around it to create more crap vandalism. --Blechnic (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support an indef block of this user. There is no tangible benefit to allowing this editor to continue editing wikipedia, no matter how far you stretch your imagination. I would also recommend a lot of eyes on DYK for awhile as given the behaviour socking would probably be inevitable.--Crossmr (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had suggested an alternative punishment, that she would have to have five successful nominations before she can self-nom, but if she doesn't understand a subject, she has no business making DYK articles period. I don't write articles on auto repair or trigonometry; she shouldn't do these. I'm afraid she needs to avoid DYK for a while.--King Bedford ISeek his grace07:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If she is having someone else review her request, then it is not a blind-proxy. This really shouldn't be an issue, since at that point the reviewing editor would make the call to nominate or not based on her recommendation. However, she should only be asking editors who are willing to help her, rather than bug people at random. -- Ned Scott07:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what happened. I had originally become involved when I wrote a message consoling User:Ottava Rima who took a great deal of flack for attempting to protect User:Wilhelmina Will from incivility. User:S. Dean Jameson promptly attacked User:Ottava Rima on my talk page, and warned me against getting involved. So, naturally, this huge fuss unfolding before my eyes, I started looking into it, and found what seemed to be to be excessive roughness, so to speak, dealing with User:Wilhelmina Will. So I wrote a consoling note on her Talk, suggesting that there might still be ways she could contribute. She came back to my Talk and asked about it. She didn't solicit anyone. She did nothing even remotely improper. So then Blechnic, who is obviously following her contributions, pops onto my Talk to threaten her that if someone posts a nomination on her behalf, he would have her blocked. It seems I suggested something that an ignorant editor, who apparently imagines himself to be a wikilawyer able to better understand guidelines and policies better than those with years of experience, called "proxying." But, as Ned, above, correctly notes, if the reviewing editor takes responsibility, and doesn't just automatically put it up, as a true proxy would do, it's not meat puppetry. It is, in fact, closer to mentoring, or simply to what happens when ArbComm topic-bans someone: they can still make suggestions. Now, the whole thing is pretty crazy. She's not blocked, she is not a "banned editor," and the topic ban, itself, is pretty shaky. For example, how long does it last? There was no consensus. She hadn't done anything that was a blockable offense, beyond the very vague "disruption," and from my point of view, she is by far not the most disruptive editor involved. She is being harassed, beyond all necessity, in a quite ugly way. Look at the following from Blechnic, which assumes that a motive to get DYK credits is a bad one, and that if someone else assisted her, this would be proxying. I'm beginning to suspect that DYK attracts some people with strange ideas about Wikipedia, DYK seems to have developed this whole complex set of rules, quite anomalous for the project. Trying to match rule requirements was one thing that tripped Wilhelmina Will up, she improperly reverted a change that would have lowered a word count to a level that didn't meet some rule by a few words. This kind of thing is seriously contrary to project policy, and it's possible the whole mess should be ripped out. (But compared to everyday, ordinary POV-pushing, this was trivial to address and fix.) --Abd (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the ban policy says is, "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." No one has an "independent reason" for earning DYK credits for Wilhelmina Will. This is her clearly stated purpose for creating the bad articles in the first place and for nominating them. If another editor nominated an article she created without her requesting they do so, your argument that this is not a blind-proxy might apply. At least I would consider it did. However, as the sole reason for the nomination would be to get Wilhelmina Will her DYK credits, if she were to ask someone, this is proxy editing. --Blechnic (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, she and User:Abd are still working out the details of how to do it on his talk page, and probably via e-mail. This probably means we get to move into a whole new level of behavior that will generate discussions and actions and not take care of correcting the bad articles she has already produced because she figured that after she got the DYK credit for it being on the main page, someone could get around to removing the gibberish. --Blechnic (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I get the feeling that none of these articles would get deleted in an AfD discussion? I've spot checked a few, and they pass our basic inclusion guidelines. I would rather have someone start these articles in less-than-perfect form than not have them at all. -- Ned Scott07:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any examples of this? The ones I spot checked didn't seem to be fundamentally incorrect, but maybe I'm not looking at the right ones. -- Ned Scott08:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's just a quick link to one of her most basic mistakes that doesn't require any background in biology to understand. Read the reference, and read her interpretation.[81] There are more attached to this article, where she included an edit that had been corrected for substance because that edit would have reduced the word count below what she needed for it to be a DYK. She admits this in the edit summary. Check out this articles history. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. --Blechnic (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the information she put in might get deleted, but the article would stay. In fact, the articles of hers that have not been checked probably should be deleted. If they're wrong, they're of no value. --Blechnic (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose a ban. I don't care what their motivation is, I'm seeing a ton of valid articles being started by this user. Unless this actually does turn into a situation of blind-proxing, there's not much else to discuss here. We can try to predict the future all we want, but this user hasn't actually done anything to violate their restrictions yet. -- Ned Scott07:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Ton of valid articles?" Is that after you remove all the ones where she just wrote anything so they'd get on DYK in the hopes of someone else correcting them, or is that including them? There's nothing valid about the articles she is writing. Even she admits she doesn't understand the sources she uses and is simply putting anything in the article to get a DYK credit. If she doesn't consider her articles valid, I don't see why you do, or why anyone would. --Blechnic (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then the issue here really isn't the DYK ban. Consider myself to be neutral on this until we can get some links from past discussion in here to help sort some of this out. -- Ned Scott08:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly this editor also has a habit of including a lot of copyvios in her articles. If these articles do contain extensive copyvios, they should be deleted, and the user should be deterred from continuing to edit Wikipedia if she persists with such plagiarism.--Father Goose (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is really getting ridiculous. Talk of indef banning an enthusiastic 16-year-old kid who writes very well for her age is just way over the top.
I think I should add that I'm pretty pissed off myself to read that this rather ill-considered ban has caused a good faith user to "cry for two hours". Surely this is not the sort of experience we want to be giving to our contributors? Blechnic is trying to impose professional standards, and while that may be a commendable goal in general, this is at the end of the day a strictly amateur project - the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" - and it simply isn't appropriate to be stomping all over people who make a few mistakes as if they were derelict employees.
Furthermore, as I understand it many people only supported a conditional ban, which could be lifted if she was willing to acknowledge her mistakes and work constructively with others to overcome her editing deficiencies. As long as she does that, I personally can't see why she could not be permitted to keep submitting articles to DYK, so long as she stays away from technical topics which by her own admission she is struggling to understand. Gatoclass (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of young editors on Wikipedia who write excellent and correct articles. Some are even administrators, so I understand. Are you saying that because she's young she can include wrong information in Wikipedia articles?
She's made more than a few mistakes in just that one paragraph of one article. Multiply that by the number of articles she's submitted while she was editing under the assumption of just including any information pasted from journals she found on the web, even when she admits she doesn't understand in, in the hopes that it will make it to the main page and give her credit for it then someone else can repair it, and we may be talking about hundreds of mistakes, not a few.
Do you understand this, Gatoclass? She admitted she used paleontological information to create some 30 articles for DYK, information she didn't understand, because she sould get credit, then someone else might correct it after it got on the front page?
She not only hasn't admitted anything other than the completely lousy nature of her articles, when she could no longer hem and haw about it, but she's working on ways to skirt the ban.
It is really hard to understand this support of a creator of wrong and bad articles. It's insulting to the young editors of Wikipedia who are capable of following rules and creating good articles, reading technical information and adding it correctly without plagiarizing, to say that being 16 is an excuse for writing crap vandalism.
What is it about Wikipedia that draws so many people who say, this isn't a real encyclopedia, just a playground, let the kids play.
Sorry, 16 isn't an excuse. She refused to respond to initial accusations, she refused to change her editing style, she refused to correct the crap vandalism she's already contributed and is just creating more, and now she's getting around the ban. Sixteen doesn't mean you're stupid. --Blechnic (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are merely speculating when you say she may have made "hundreds of mistakes". But I dare say if you looked at half the work of our more prolific editors, you would probably find a considerable number of errors in their work too. In fact, my bookshelf is stacked with reference works that are themselves riddled with errors. Mistakes are a commonplace, even at the professional level. And everyone knows that Wikipedia is not a reliable source - even Jimbo acknowledges as much.
I am simply saying it is not appropriate to go making a song and dance over every editor one comes across who makes a few mistakes. The idea here is that when you find a mistake, you correct it. If someone is absolutely incompetent, then obviously one may need to take steps to protect the encyclopedia. But Wilhelmina does not strike me that way. It seems in this case all that has been established thus far is that this editor has in some cases been biting off more than she can chew. Fine - let's ban her from submitting technical articles to DYK, and see how she does for a while on more mundane subjects. Gatoclass (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor who has been creating articles for the sole purpose of personal credit on a subject she knows nothing about and after the community finally bans her from doing it, tries to find a way to game the system and work around the ban isn't just making a little mistake. She's burned all good faith at that point.--Crossmr (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, as I'm neutral on this - she didn't try to find a way to game the system, but instead Abdstated that others could nominate her articles. She slightly misinterpreted this to mean that people can nominate for her, which Abd then clarifies (quite rightly) to say that the nominator has to take responsibility for the nomination. In short, she was given honest advice, misinterpreted, and was corrected. - Bilby (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He just told her people would have to take responsibility for it, he didn't dissuade her from asking others to nominate her articles. He was just trying to impress upon her the investment that is required for someone to nominate an article. While he did recommend it, I'd be curious as to why Abd did so, and it seems like she took an interest in it. My call to make sure DYK is heavily watched for the next little while, stands. The conversation doesn't leave me feeling like she is going to edit articles for the sole reason of editing articles. It still looks to me like she's going to be driven to create content to try and get on DYK, even if she doesn't nominate it herself.--Crossmr (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully Abd will clarify what he meant, but I gathered his first suggestion was simply that other people could nominate her articles, not that they could nominate for her. When she interpreted as nominating for her (rightly or wrongly) the point he made was true: she can reasonably ask other people to look at an article and nominate it if they find it deserving, in which case they have to take responsibility for doing so. But t can be interpreted differently, as you say. - Bilby (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Blechnic. I'm all for second chances. However That comes with strings. The user has to appreciate what they've done and work towards changing their behaviour. In this case she isn't. Age is immaterial. She can come back when she is more mature if her age is a mitigating factor. Editors should be spending their time creating and expanding articles with solid content. Not chasing after users trying to game the system for some personal credit. She's been told, she isn't interested in stopping. Not only isn't she interested in stopping, she's interested in getting around the sanctions imposed. She doesn't want to work with the community, the community cuts her off. The endless coddling of problem users on wikipedia doesn't really help anyone. It expends a lot of time and resources, and contributes to editor burn out to hand-hold these editors for an extended period of time on a hope and a prayer that they'll finally get it.--Crossmr (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, wait a minute, where is the evidence that she tried to "game the system and work around the ban"? As far as I could see from reading the exchange Blechnic posted, it was Abd who was proposing ways she might get around the ban, not Wilhelmina. Again she is being blamed for something she didn't actually do. Gatoclass (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a problem, and it does need fixing. I start very few articles, because there are very few subjects for whihc I have robust sources and which don't already exist. WW is creating articles which are, in many cases, complete nonsense, because she does not understand the sources. She is doing this to get personal credit and kudos, but we are not here to generate personal credit and kudos, we are here to generate accurate content. WW has shown that getting credit is more important to her than creating accurate content, and yes I do think that is a problem. It can be fixed by one of several methods, including mentoring, but she really needs to lose her focus on personal recognition before any meaningful progress can be made. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WW has shown that getting credit is more important to her than creating accurate content
Well in fact I haven't seen much evidence of that. And I still have my doubts that the accuracy of her articles is substantially worse than that of many other contributors. It also seems to me that provided she sticks to online references that can be thoroughly checked, there is little harm in allowing her to continue submitting articles to DYK - indeed, it may be a useful way of monitoring her contributions. But a mentor would certainly not go astray at this point.
My primary concern here is that people are already starting to talk about an outright site ban when not much evidence has been presented that this person represents a threat to the project, and when we have yet to determine whether she is capable of reform. Gatoclass (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is every reason to believe that she is a good faith user who is trying and improving. Please help her to improve and don't discourage her. It isn't some outrageous offense to get some facts wrong—she just needs to be more careful and edit things she clearly understands. There are other avenues for the kind of rewards-based work she enjoys; I'm sure someone can direct her to a WikiProject that dispenses a lot of barnstars or something. This talk of "proxying" through DYK nominations is overblown; she probably doesn't (or didn't) realize that this was frowned upon, and a friendly note cautioning her about it would probably suffice. I completely oppose a ban. Everyking (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Everyking. I've run across WW a few times and have always found her to be overenthusiastic, but perfectly willing to listen to advice when you explain what she's doing wrong and why. Hammering someone who's trying to ratchet up a high score in the WP MMORPG by contributing content but doesn't understand all our policies, whilst turning a blind eye to the huggle-racers and barnstar-cabals who make virtually no significant mainspace edits seems totally unfair. – iridescent10:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and this includes youngsters whose reach exceeds their grasp. If there's a problem here, it seems to be that DYK accepts articles that have not been thoroughly vetted. If the DYK process does not discriminate then it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If these articles are on notable topics as it seems they are, then it's good that they're being created. However, people are right that Will should concentrate on articles whose content she knows something about. Some of her ideas for articles seem sound based on the discussion above- but what a strange idea to land on. She could suggest stubs for these articles to someone on wiki who knows about palentology etc or create them as very basic stubs, as much of the articles about similar subjects such as plant species or whatever are. Where is she getting this info? She simply needs a mentor, I'd volunteer but I have about 7 adoptees. Maybe Abd? StickyParkin10:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can help her, if that's what she wants. But I think she simply needs some friends, some experienced editors whose advice she'd be inclined to hear. She's made mistakes, both in articles and in how she dealt with the situation. But I don't see anything in what I've seen so far that is worthy of a topic ban at DYK, much less a block or ban from editing Wikipedia. The project was built by people working to create large numbers of articles based on little more than a few trips to the library, as well as by countless others with varying levels of expertise, and the idea that articles should be fully "correct" from the beginning, lotus-born, is a very anti-Wikipedian one. I find the behavior of Blechnic to be utterly appalling, there was no excuse for this AN/I thread. If anyone did anything wrong, it was me, not WW. But what I suggested was simply pointing out that there would still be ways for her to do what was legitimate of what she wanted to do -- and there is nothing illegitimate about her goals, but only a few of the means she chose, not likely to repeat. I was telling her that a topic ban was probably temporary, very temporary, and that in the meantime, if she had nominations, someone, like myself, could review what she had done and make the nominations, so as to not disrespect the AN/I decision, as defective as it was. And apparently that enraged Blechnic, who saw this as her intending to evade a ban. But bans only exist to protect the project, and what was proposed covered the protection part, and this whole thing has taken on a punitive color, she must be punished, it would seem, for her ... what? Bad attitude? Wanting a medal?
Along these lines, since this discussion began I've had a look at two of the articles she created: Jamie Howarth and David Nichtern (they're the two most recent creations). Both are the sort of BLP article that almost anyone can write, and both are ok - there were small problems, which I've noted to take care of, but they are the usual problems with slightly misreading references ("is going to be released" used to support "was released", and so on), a reliance on questionable sources (the personal pages of the subjects), and insufficient references, but nothing factually wrong and no blatant evidence of copyvio. Perhaps if she was mentored while staying on these, instead of the more technical articles, things would be smoother? Certainly these two are perfectly reasonable additions. - Bilby (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What strikes me as remarkable about this conversation is the fact that although a number of editors have commented that WW is a sweet, well-intentioned child who has made a few mistakes and just needs to learn how to do things, WW herself has not seen fit to grace us with any explanation of, or apology for her actions. Since so many of the comments here seem uninformed by the original reason for the editing restriction, I'll lay it out again.
WW was creating articles, by her own omission, to realize her "dream of 10,000 DYK articles". (perhaps not an accurate quote. I didn't look it up again.)
She was plagiarizing online journals to create them.
She, by her own admission, didn't understand what she was editing when she created the articles.
Because she didn't understand them she was putting inaccurate information in the articles.
She was adding and edit-warring pointless verbiage into the articles, which, by her own admission, she wanted in just for the sake of increasing the word count to bring it up to DYK standards.
She was creating highly uncivil, crudely insulting edit summaries and talk page comments in response to requests that she stop what she was doing and explain herself. For someone who spent two hours crying about recent events, she doesn't seem to have much regard for the feelings of others.
Her only response to the inquiry into her actions was complete, unqualified recalcitrance and insistence that she was perfectly right and her critics wrong.
These are the reasons the community decided upon an editing restriction. An editing restriction is, in my view, an extremely mild sanction. It doesn't take money out of anyone's pocket. It doesn't take away their time. It doesn't deprive them of income, friends or personal liberty. It just says "stop what you're doing until you understand how to do it properly". I was among many editors at the original discussion who said that the restriction could be lifted after WW communicates to the community that she understands where she went wrong and won't do it any more.
Unfortunately, the problem with editing restrictions is that they're only effective to the extent that they're respected by the restricted editor. WW has, to this day, not accepted responsibility or made an open undertaking to improve her editing. Instead she's fishing around for a way to circumvent the restriction. An indefblock would, if nothing else, force her to engage with the community on the subject of her edits. Remember, a block is not a death sentence. Not editing Wikipedia is hardly a terrible burden to impose on someone. My mother doesn't edit Wikipedia every day and it hasn't done her any harm at all. Again, the block can, and should, be lifted just as soon as WW shows some sign of "getting it".
I've seen a lot of kids get their feelings hurt over being told that they're not doing things the right way when they edit here. I feel the same way about it that WW's supporters do. But Wikipedia is not therapy, and it's not daycare either. We're not here to make teenage editors feel good about themselves. We're here to provide a complete and reliable encyclopedia to our readers.
However, at this point I don't think a block on her account is necessary. I think a better alternative would be if one of her many defenders could (1) persuade her to forget about DYK for the time being, and (2) come here, to this ANI thread and explain to us that she understands what the problem was and doesn't intend to repeat it. I say this because her apparent efforts to circumvent the restriction are still only being discussed, not acted upon.
I realize I haven't provided diffs to support my account. For those who are interested, they're all available at the original AN/I thread in the archive.
I remember well the previous AN/I discussion, and this seems like a good summary. I don't dispute any of your points other than the claim that she's fishing around to circumvent the restriction - while I too am concerned that she doesn't really seem to understand why she was restricted, the conversation referenced doesn't seem to me to support arguing that she was looking for a way to step around the rules. That aside, this discussion was started with a request to increase the restriction to a block, based not on her breaking of the restriction, but on a discussion in which it was suggested that she might ask other people to nominate articles (which seems to be what you're saying). Looking over her edits since the restriction, there doesn't seem to be anything apparent that is particularly problematic. I'm just inclined to give the restriction time, and to otherwise do as you suggest - make sure that she understands what it was that led to the restriction, why she is being restricted, and possibly have a mentor to help her to learn about referencing and make sure she works in areas where she can help. - Bilby (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it's a "good summary", I'd be more inclined to call it the worst possible construction of her behaviour.
WW was creating articles, by her own omission, to realize her "dream of 10,000 DYK articles". (perhaps not an accurate quote. I didn't look it up again.)
So? That's precisely what the DYK awards exist for - to encourage the creation of new content.
She was plagiarizing online journals to create them.
I looked into the only article I have seen where she has been accused of plagiarism and what I saw was a genuine attempt to put limited information into her own words. I've seen far worse, in fact in only the last couple of days I've seen much more blatant examples of plagiarism submitted to DYK. However, my response was not to start half a dozen AN/I threads attacking the author, I just made it clear to the users in question that such submissions would not be accepted.
She, by her own admission, didn't understand what she was editing when she created the articles. Because she didn't understand them she was putting inaccurate information in the articles.
True, but then as I said before, lots of people make errors when they write articles. She just needs to stick to subjects she can understand.
She was adding and edit-warring pointless verbiage into the articles, which, by her own admission, she wanted in just for the sake of increasing the word count to bring it up to DYK standards.
She was trying to bloviate a bit to get the character count up to 1500 - something that plenty of other editors are wont to do when they are a few characters short. The problem is that she didn't really have a grasp of the subject matter, so it was a silly thing to do but people will sometimes do silly things in the heat of the moment.
She was creating highly uncivil, crudely insulting edit summaries and talk page comments in response to requests that she stop what she was doing and explain herself.
Well I saw one uncivil comment where she called an editor "revolting" in a crude and easily interpreted code. Given the amount of time that particular editor has spent pursuing her, quite frankly I wasn't suprised that she eventually resorted to a little incivility. However, we don't or shouldn't sanction people for the occasional cranky comment, but for a pattern of incivility to others, and I've seen no such pattern.
Her only response to the inquiry into her actions was complete, unqualified recalcitrance and insistence that she was perfectly right and her critics wrong.
I must have missed that too. I just saw someone who was angry and not ready to respond rationally. Perhaps if she'd been given a little more time she would have been able to say something in her defence, which would have been the rational thing to do in the circumstances. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I see Steven J. Anderson's point, though, as a summary of the arguments made against WW which led to the restriction. But I'm also happy to accept that there is still room to debate whether or not it is a fair and accurate depiction of her behaviour. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why someone might be intimidated by AN/I so not feel comfortable responding here, and I can easily see why someone might be intimidated by all the threats of getting her banned etc. that she's received. StickyParkin14:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pot calling the milk carton black
What was the occasion for this AN/I thread? As far as I can see, nothing but the determination of an editor or two to pursue and harass User:Wilhelmina Will, beyond all reason, beyond all necessity. That editor is young and made some mistakes. She appears to be in the process of recognizing them, and she seems happy to have help in this. This whole affair has been riddled with AGF failure and incivility, and it's about time it stop. I gave a few words of encouragement to User:Ottava Rima, on his Talk, and one editor pursued this to my Talk, attacking OR, suggesting I should investigate. So I did, and found that OR had not as claimed, been making totally baseless charges, that Blechnic had, indeed, been arguably uncivil to Wilhelmina Will. The matter is complex and investigating it all would probably be a waste of time, so I'm not asserting that his comments were unjustified, I'll leave that for an RfC if it must come to that. Then I gave, also, some encouraging words to User:Wilhelmina Will, and began discussing with her what she could do, within policy and guidelines and community practice. And, immediately, there appeared on my Talk page a post from User:Blechnic threatening that if WW suggested any DYKs, "proxied" by someone else -- as Blechnic termed it -- he would ask for WW to be blocked, and would remove the nominations, simply on the basis that she had been involved, with no regard to content or appropriateness. This is harassment, and, I'd suggest, this does create a reason for admin attention here. I'd rather it not be me to formally warn Blechnic, he has already stated, in advance, that he would simply remove them. Which is his right. Preferably, he should be warned by someone who has worked cooperatively with him in the past, he's more likely to hear it. But anyone could do it. --Abd (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that User:Blechnic ignored my request that Blechnic not post to my Talk page (due to the harassment), and the user ignored it, not only to post a notice about this AN/I thread (which is arguably excusable), but also, previously, to continue to harass. Because this does indicate that Blechnic did read my warning there about harassment, it may be no longer necessary to warn Blechnic on the user's Talk before blocking. Blocks should never be punitive, but continuing harassment after warning may necessitate a block. --Abd (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user appears to be fond of accusing others of "harrassment" when none exists. At his talk page, he had the gall to accuse me of "harrassing" Ottava Rima, when it was that user who drug me through WQA simply for defending Blechnic from the ludicrous "personal attacks" accusations that he (Ottava Rima) had leveled at him. The relevant quote from Abd is, "Thus, I must see Jameson's comment here as part of carrying on some kind of harassment of this user [Ottava Rima]..." Thus, I would take Abd's accusations that Blechnic has "harrassed" him/her with a rather large grain of salt. It's apparently difficult for Abd to distinguish between a user defending oneself from baseless accusations, and "harrassing" someone. S.DeanJameson16:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have any such difficulty, in a situation like this. This user extrapolates from his defective understanding of a single comment into a whole pattern of behavior. Jameson is free to take as much salt as he likes, in fact, the whole container is fine with me, take it home. It's harassment when a user follows another user around, interfering with independent conversations. Given what else happened between these users, the single incident on my Talk page, where Ottava Rima was gratuitously attacked, by Jameson, without any provocation,[82] merely on the possibility that I might be starting to see things from OR's point of view, I'll stick with my conclusion that it was harassment. Hence I intend to start preparing an RfC on this user, AN/I isn't the best place to deal with what came down yesterday, it's about what is happening now. And what is hapening now, my conclusion, is that Blechnic is continuing to harass Wilhelmina Will, by raising a totally moot AN/I report, alleging no violation of guidelines or policies, showing no emergency, no reasonable possibility of significant damage to the project. What's going to happen, at worst? I might make some allegedly improper nominations at DYK? Is that a blockable offense? Is that even worth talking about here at this point? Jameson's involvement with Wilhelmina Will is less clear to me; he made some gestures that could be considered conciliatory or helpful. Or which could also be considered as traps. It's a little odd, I'll say, to suggest working together on an article, and then take a lack of response as if it were hostile or a sign of some offense. But not all that abnormal, and, for now, my assumption is that the offer on Dean's part was sincere. Coffee, Jameson. Smell it. Maybe drink some. There is a lot going on here that you don't yet understand, you may be in over your head. Be careful. Isn't that what you advised me? --Abd (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage you to note that accusing others of personal attacks when they haven't made one is a gross breach of WP:CIV, and completely unacceptable. I have at no point during this strange milieu of accusations and innuendo personally attacked or "harassed" anyone. I'll thank you to stop saying that I have. S.DeanJameson21:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the record, starting an RfC on me would be disruptive, as I've done nothing wrong, except dignify Rima's attacks (and now yours) with a response. As such, I'll not be responding to you further in this thread, or at any bogus RfC you choose to open regarding me. S.DeanJameson21:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I consider Blechnic's incessant description- about four times in only one paragraph in one of his comments below- of a good-faith editors contributor's edits as 'crap'{...}'crap'{...}'crap' {...} and so on to be uncivil and not to foster a good environment for collaboration on wiki. StickyParkin23:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I apologize, and I've stricken out my instances of use of the word "crap," and will, for now on, call it what it is usually called on Wikipedia: vandalism. --Blechnic (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would save us a great deal of trouble: Please block User:Blechnic, who shows every sign of continuing to harass and disrupt the project through various means, including the filing of this particular AN/I report. This user, who has been amply warned though previous blocks and various Talk page warnings, was blocked previously for one week, May 4, for harassment and other causes, and I just reviewed the AN/I report that caused his block log to be annotated and, frankly, it looks to me like a case of the community simply becoming exhausted and saying, well, if we give him a Newby Pass, it will shut him up.[83] I.e., no conclusion was made that he hadn't harassed and been uncivil or the source of personal attacks, but that we could say that the blocks were a bit extreme since he was new. Given how energetic he's been at attempting to get User:Wilhelmina Will banned or blocked, given how he has refused to stop, has pursued Wilhelmina Will beyond all reason, given how clear all this is, do I need, at this point, to begin a Wikipedia:Request for comment on him? I think reading this report here, plus the prior report diff'd above, should be enough.
As to User:S. Dean Jameson, it remains possible for me to assume good faith on his part. I came to this topic, though, because he did post a personal attack on User:Ottava Rima, gratuitously, on my Talk page; I came to the conclusion that it was a personal attack and amounted to harassment after following up on his suggestion that I research the matter. He warned me not to take what I found to AN/I, and, one might note, I didn't. Rather it was Blechnic who opened up this can of worms and further disruption. Jameson's behavior is problematic, but does not show the vicious and tenacious pursuit that is displayed by Blechnic, and I hope that Jameson will be able to calm down and clam up.... My suggestion that Blechnic be blocked is the first time, ever, I've suggested such a remedy. (I never requested that User:Fredrick day or User:Allemandtando be blocked, for those with lack of detail in their memory, I simply exposed what had been happening and the community decided to block.)
Mentor
Before we get off on another tangent based upon incivility claims and counter-claims, can I bring up the issue of mentoring WW. It was mentioned as a condition for her getting off her DYK ban in the last AN/I thread and I think this needs to be seriously followed up. Mark t young (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support this, as WW does seem to be a genuinely good-hearted person, who has simply gotten off-track a bit. The recent Abd advice regarding how to get DYKs even when she's been topic-banned from there further reemphasizes the immediate need to find a mentor that can advise her how best to proceed in correcting the flaws that have surfaced in her style to date, and help her in setting some realistic goals for herself on the project. Good suggestion, Mark. S.DeanJameson16:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just left a message on her talkpage regarding helping out with an article that the FACC is trying to work up to featured status. Perhaps this might be a good solution for a user like WW with legitimate writing ability during her DYK topic ban. S.DeanJameson16:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. She just removed mine and Tim Vicker's notes to her as "weird messages." Neither was such. Perhaps there are some deeper issues that need addressed here. S.DeanJameson19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support a mentorship, or something along the lines of it. Possible writing articles and having them proofread by a mentor or two. I also request that when WW makes the slightest of mistake, that Blechnic does not make another huge AN/I thread like this. <3TinkleheimerTALK!!19:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Slightest mistake?" What's a slight mistake, purposefully putting crap in articles because she doesn't understand the sources and thinks they can be corrected after they've been on the main page and she's received glory for them? WW is responsible for this discussion about her. She has chosen time and again to not put any input into these threads and to take no initiative for being mentored. "But Wikipedia is not therapy, and it's not daycare either. We're not here to make teenage editors feel good about themselves. We're here to provide a complete and reliable encyclopedia to our readers." I agree with the poster above. This is an encyclopedia, whatever the DYK award chasers want it to be something else. If DYK spent more time checking articles and less time glorifying themselves with awards this issue would never have arisen after WW's 30th piece of paleontological crap, but would have been stopped with the first. Let WW decide whether there's anything to make an issue of by deleting all the crap she's contributed to Wikipedia and not giving me anything to say. --Blechnic (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support only if Wilhelmina Will takes initiative for mentorship by coming here and assuring she understand all of the terms. If she's too young or too busy or too unwilling or not mature enough or doesn't have the capacity to come here, state her understanding of the terms and agree to them, then follow them, there's no way a third chance should be forced upon her. She ignored the first two AN/Is and continues to ignore them. That's enough. --Blechnic (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean this for User:Gatoclass who suggests we allow her to edit any way she wants or something along those lines because of her youth. There are plenty of excellent, young, and capable editors all over Wikipedia. I have no qualms about holding them all to the same standards I hold older editors to: produce accurate articles that you've written yourself from information you understand. You can find Gatoclass's post excusing her for her age above. Don't worry about me, I don't see her age as an excuse for vandalizing articles by inserting information into them that she knows is wrong but figures someone else can correct after she is rewarded for putting up the vandalism. --Blechnic (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mentorship - there seems to be a mentality brewing that "more editors = more better". This mentality is wrong. Spewing forth garbage articles damages the very notion of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia - to say nothing of the readibility/coherance problems that stem from an article being written by an author who knows very little - or even nothing at all - about the subject. The plagarism (nice-nice version: "dis-understanding of quotations") is merely the icing upon the cake. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a web forum for people who kinda sorta know things to congregate and make buddies. If it were, I'd be more sympathetic. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, however, and encylopedias and their readers both deserve - even require - a notion of quality control - and given that WW's shotgun approach to edits places an unfair burden upon those dedicated to said quality control, it's more than fair to say that both the encyclopedia and WW would be better off with WW focusing her energies elsewhere, for the time being at least. --Badger Drink (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any binding poll on this here AN/I is not designed for user RfC, that's WP:RFC/U. It's been claimed that Wilhelmina Will is under a topic ban at DYK, but the terms of the ban and its term are totally unclear, and that's because AN/I is a lousy place to come up with such sanctions, it's designed for emergencies, quick action, not careful consideration of options. The original DYK topic ban was the apparent outcome of a poll in which opinions expressed varied from "block" to "topic ban until she gets it," not to mention some opposing !votes. If there are questions about her ban and what the term is, or how a mentor would affect it, I'd suggest that the matter would be, pending some other outcome, in the hands of the administrator who effectively closed that discussion and who later took responsibility for communicating it,[84], User:Fritzpoll. And if WW wants to appeal her topic ban, she can do so at any time, either by raising the issue here or by discussing it with Fritzpoll (in addition to other possible paths she could take). None of this should be here at this time, it is pure harassment, demanding that she appear before what she may see as some kind of inquisition. Jameson has complained bitterly about being "dragged before WP:WQA," an informal, nonbinding forum, surely he could understand that a young, fairly inexperienced editor might not find the idea of defending her every action in AN/I, where some are calling for blocks and bans, to be ... fun? As to the comments from User:Badger Drink, the arguments would apply to a disruptive user, and whatever disruption WW has actually caused, it seems to be small compared to (1) what I see from many other users who aren't dragged before AN/I day after day, and (2) the disruption caused by those who seem to be determined to get her banned. The article that supposedly took such work to fix, mentioned prominently in the complaints against her, was probably a better article than the average on Wikipedia, quite a bit better, and not difficult to fix to make it even better. There is something very odd going on here.--Abd (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stongly Support Mentorship - She clearly has writing ability and a desire to expand the encyclopedia. That desire just needs to be channeled more appropriately. I am not inclined to read any malice into her not responding on ANI - she is a teenage girl who is apparently very upset about the recent turn of events right now. She is probably right not to respond until she has had a chance to calm down, and hopefully her discussions with User:Abd will facilitate that. I would add that despite the recent drama around her she started a new article on Jillian Clare to the encyclopedia, presumably without expectation of DYK or other "awards", and while that article had some issues, they were minor issues, nothing like the issues with some of the technical topics she tried to tackle. Rlendog (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they are good or bad articles, if she is creating them for awards she is creating them for the wrong reason. Mentorship or otherwise the topic ban for DYK should stay in place for a very long time to ensure there is no chance she is just trying to bide her time until she can start submitting to that again. As far as her being a teenager goes, I said above and I'll repeat here: If her maturity level is a problem she can come back when she is more mature. There are plenty of editors her age who handle themselves on wikipedia with a lot more maturity. There are also editors older than her who should leave for the same reason.--Crossmr (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strongly support mentorship 100%. I'm concerned with how younger editors get treated on wiki in general, but that's beside the point. This user has potential and has created articles on legitimate topics. Without knowing how she will grow with adoption, we can't judge. It needs to be tried before we can assume any outcome. The only requirement, of course, is that she accepts this, or at least promises to change her ways; in some way shows willingness to change. StickyParkin23:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll encourage it, but I do not believe mentorship should be required. Like I said before, I don't care what the motivation is for an editor. If she wants to create articles for the sole purpose of getting praise, go for it. It's all fine and "noble" if you believe that's the wrong reason, but you can't actually stop it. Furthermore, this is the kind of thing that should self-regulate itself. If she creates bad articles, she'll get criticism. If she creates good articles, she'll get praise that's better than the generic kind she's been getting so far. With the more experience she gets here, with supportive and positive assistance from the community, things will only get better. We are far from seriously considering a community ban. -- Ned Scott02:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As WW has expressed her lack of understanding of palaeo-related literature (a trial for anyone, even some of us in the field), then mentoring could help her gain the confidence to tackle such challenges (e.g. assimilation of facts from technical papers). As other editors have commented, she has lots of potential; her writing style is good, and she has a genuine desire to create for the project. In addition, her palaeo references are valid, so she does have the ability to seek out good references. I believe if someone could mentor her she could become an asset for Wikipedia. I don't believe this is about "good" articles or "bad" articles, but empowering her to make the most accurate possible edits each time. Mark t young (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but only in the sense that it might be useful her, not because it has been shown that it is needed. As far as I can tell she has behaved reasonably since being informed of the restrictions, has moved to editing in her sandbox, and hasn't edited outside of her expertise. The worst accusation is that she was involved in a discussion which she interpreted to mean that others could nominate articles for her, and was (perhaps insufficiently) corrected at the time. Thus I'm not convinced that any further sanctions are required. However, friendly mentoring would help improve her editing, as per Mark's comment above, which can't be a bad thing. - Bilby (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't depend on reports from Blechnic as to what happened. Anyone can nominate a DYK, and there are no rules that say that someone can't nominate one after another user suggests it, say, requesting that it be reviewed before submission. She didn't do anything even remotely improper in the discussion in question, if anyone did something improper it would be me, for suggesting such a thing -- but I don't think it was improper. There was nothing that could justify the filing of this AN/I report, which is why I've concluded it was a continuation of prior harassment by an editor who has been warned and blocked for harassment previously, see [the block log for Blechnic], and, then, above, a continued and defiant incivility.[85]. See, as well, the AN/I report that resulted in a block log annotation giving Blechnic a Newbie Pass for prior harassment and disruption. It's quite enough. --Abd (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in regard to WW - my understanding of the discussion on your talk page was that she had done nothing wrong, and the worst accusation is that she interpreted your perfectly reasonable advice of "someone else can nominate your articles", which seems valid, as you say, to be "are you saying I can ask someone else to nominate an article for me" (emphasis mine), which you then clarified. Why this warrants a discussion of indef blocks is unclear to me. I'm also not convinced that it warrants mentoring, but if she is interested I figure it would be helpful, if only to end this discussion and to help her improve as an editor - she seems good, but could do with some friendly suggestions on how to better use references. This, of course, is a separate issue to the problems raised last time, but I assumed that the restriction meant that the previous issue was resolved unless the restriction failed to work. - Bilby (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for goodness sakes. Is there really a poll being taken, and on ANI of all places, as to whether an experienced contributor is to be permitted to mentor a new one? What is going to happen if the poll fails--we continue biting the newbie? How about if everyone who is tempted to vote here just does some improvement on an article instead, and we resolve this thread. Jonathunder (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question Is Fritzpoll still willing to undertake it? From what I've seen its not a technical question of finding sources, but coming to a more reasonable way of writing articles in general, and its going to take empathy on one side and cooperation on the other. DGG (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I, quite simply, isn't the place to work it out. I think the editor will be responsive to support. This isn't a newbie, by the way, she's been extraordinarily active, but she's been editing since 16 June, 2007 when, I presume, she was 15 years old, and she has 8710 edits when I ran the toolserver. I don't think she needs a mentor, as such, but rather some friends, whom she trusts, who will advise her when things become doubtful. She ran into some editors who were, shall we say, less than supportive, and she made some mistakes. I don't see any sign that she will repeat those, but, if she's human like the rest of us, she'll probably make some more before she's done.
I think we should wait and see if her accuracy improves before assigning her a mentor. As pointed out above, she's been around a while and has a bunch of edits, and there's no reason to think she won't be responsive to people's concerns about accuracy. Everyking (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason to believe she won't be responsive to people's concerns about accuracy, namely she hasn't corrected any of her articles. She's already unresponsive to people's concerns about accuracy. Also, she didn't say anything about being willing to change the first time she was discussed, nor the second time she was discussed. The third time she just has a different excuse: she's too young for accuracy. --Blechnic (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her existing copy vios and vandalisms that need edited
Here's a line from the article: "The large format screen, designed by iWERKS, is composed of a proprietary reflective material and measures 45-by-60 feet, covering a 2,700-square-foot (250 m²) area."
And the line on that web page: "The large format screen, designed by iWERKS, is composed of a proprietary reflective material and measures 45-by-60 feet, covering a 2,700 square-foot area."
How many more copy vios from this one article will I find? How many more from all of her articles?
Is this what she wants, needs, someone to go through and find all of the copy vios she inserted into Wikipedia, all of the vandalisms with misinformation?
No problem, someone has to clean up after vandals. I'll keep a page with a running total. Or maybe a few pages when these get over the easy load limit.
PS I'll also mark where she uses personal blogs as her "reliable sources."
I'm not sure what this editor is trying to contribute but they all look like they should be deleted. Can someone check his contrib history and nuke the whole lot that are not to his userspace? Exxolon (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They were blocked for this once already and advised to read our guidelines for notability. I also emailed them specifically about this, responding to an unblock-en-l request. So, blocked for 1 week and left a note for them about not adding articles about their mates and youth football team. –xeno (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and salted the article names; I don't foresee real articles being written at these titles. I have a sinking feeling they'll just re-appear with different capitalization, but I gave it a shot. --barneca (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the user understands English that well. He appears to have been creating vanity articles about his Bulgarian youth football team. Corvus cornixtalk19:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a copycat of the report I made above. Is there some minor league somewhere or something who's team managers have received instructions to put their teams on Wikipedia? Exxolon (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After re-checking it appears they are creating articles on all the members of a football team in Hong Kong's top football league. I believe that means they meet our notability criteria but all the articles seem to consist of a variation on "Yau Kam Leung (Chinese: 游錦良, born 26 April 1985 in Hong Kong) is a Hong Kong professional football player playing for Hong Kong First Division League team Fourway (football). His position is Left-back." and an infobox. No independent sources are given. Might warrant a blanket redirect to the main team article? I'll leave a note on their talkpage and see what happens. Exxolon (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update - their talk page is full of speedy deletion notices for these articles previously. Probably should've checked that first but I was a bit tired when I was editing earlier!Exxolon (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I speedied (A7) them all originally as they had no more than the basic infobox. After the editor added the single line which claimed enough significance to force me to remove the CSD. They are currently unrefed, but that is probably easy enough to find, so they almost certainly pass all the basic requirements. --triwbe (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user has a history of stalking, harassing and disruptive editing. He has followed me around to several articles, reverting, deleting and leaving messages on my talk page. In particular, I point to the edit histories of Chris Barnes (actor) and the fact that the user then went on to nominate the article for deletion, presumably because I has worked on it extensively, and deleted the actor's name as a notable in the article about his hometown.
He received a warning about his abuse of Twinkle, which he used to revert edits I'd made as "vandalism."
I admit I lost my cool after a while and left an uncomplimentary message on his talk page, for which I was unfairly banned for two weeks. I don't think it's right that someone like this is allowed to prowl around here the way he does without any kind of rebuke from the community and that an administrator would know what was going on and penalize one of his targets instead. Cbsite (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that the user has a strong sense about the use of non-free images - he doesn't think they should be used at all. He harasses just about anyone who tries to go up against him. Here's a sample of his "submit or die" editing from July 15 and 16: [88],[89],[90],[91],[92],[93].[94].
The background is that a user called Alpinist (talk·contribs) was blocked for sockpuppetry. Edits along the same lines then started appearing from the 88.108 range. Assuming as one would that this was more of the same Alpinist, I am now being accused of "defamation" of Alpinist because I attribute the behaviour of the 88.108 socks to Alpinist.
Is the background particularly important for deciding on issues of legal threats? A legal threat is a legal threat, I thought. JFW | T@lk13:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's legal threats, and then there's legal threats. This likely goes against policy, but I'd be inclined to just ignore it in this case; threatening to sue for defamation of someone else's username is just so stupid, it's hard to take seriously. I'll leave a message on her talk page, but won't go further myself. If someone wants to follow policy more stringently and block, I won't lose any sleep, but I think it's probably unnecessary. --barneca (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Theresa. I've already semied my talkpage myself. With this kind of harrasment, I will WP:IAR. Suspect temporary semi of Talk:Simon Wessely may be prudent, but I will await your opinion on that one. JFW | T@lk21:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine. But that talkpage and the related article is the nidus of our disagreement, and if the situation is going to spill over anywhere, it will be there. JFW | T@lk21:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True but the way I see it is this. He comes to you talk page and finds he can't edit, he either gives up and goes away or tries another page possibly Talk:Simon Wessely. Now if that page is also semprotected he can easily post somewhere else. We can't semi everywhere. Much better to keep a close watch and spot him quickly. Theresa Knott | The otter sank21:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A dispute dropped itself on my talk page today, somewhat out of the blue, but it drew my attention to the fact that Template:Weasel has been edited multiple times beginning since July 14th in what looks to be a slow edit war. (Nowhere near 3RR.) I have fully protected the template, but only for four days, and left a note at the template's talk page. This is not my usual arena (I was in the middle of working on a copyright problem when the talk bar lit up), so I'm bringing this here for review & additional action, if necessary. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be protected anyways because it is shown on so many pages it is a target for shock image vandals. People can come to a consensus on the talk page and use {{editprotected}}. Though in the case of an edit war I think admins should also seek consensus on the talk page before editing it. Chillum14:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that some of the edits in question consisted of another editor inserting an admitted "joke" that broke the template and me reverting this vandalism. —David Levy14:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not known for my levity, I'm inclined to think jokes have no place in templates. :) Chillum, are you of the opinion, then, that the template ought to be permanently fully protected? The template is not as widely transcluded as, say, {{fact}}, but it is still pretty significantly represented. It seems to me that full protection is consistent with WP:PROT. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that any template that is used throughout more than a few hundred articles should be fully protected to avoid a single act of vandalism effecting too many pages. This is my opinion and it also seems to be consistent with policy. I am sure other people will have an opinion about it too. Chillum15:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's two of us, anyway. :) 1,100 pages counts more as "very" significant than "pretty," I'd think. I've indefinitely fully protected it and templated it, barring consensus that WP:PROT doesn't apply. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think protection was an extreme measure. There was no disagreement on what the template was intended to mean. The only disagreement was on how emphatic to make it, how to do that without raising technical issues, and what policies it is rooted in. I've never come close to 3RR, because I drop my internet connection to get real work done on my computer. My first reversion was probably on 2008-07-14.
The point of protection is to prevent wording issues being worked out in template space, since every time you alter that template you are also altering all the articles which incorporate it. Consensus should be reached at the talk page, with potentially additional input from responders at an appropriate policy or guideline talk page. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl is absolutely right. Wording issues should be developed in talk space and could always be demonstrated using mocks up made in user-space pages. Also as I understand WP:PROT it should be fully protected permanently since it is so widely transcluded--Caililtalk00:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The real reason the template needs to be protected is that if you vandalize it that vandalism ends up on 1,100 pages. People have taken advantage of that in the past to put up shock images. It is also a good idea for such widely used templates to have changes proposed on the talk page first. There is also the issue that 1,100 page's caches need to be purged for each change of the template, so it is helpful to figure out the final product before making a change. Chillum00:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The reason this discussion is here, is because I asked someone to weigh in on an argument about what was an improvement; IOW suggest a medium between what was becoming diametrically opposed. Now, we hav two people making suppositions about what wasn't done on the talk page or in the edit summary. Let's do this in pieces, like they would in a forum:
Levy Chillum Cailil MoonRiddenGirl BrewJay
Concrete Terms: N U U U Y
Notability N U U U Y
Neutrality Y U U U N
Audio N U U U Y
Suck or Draw U U U U D
Terse N U U U Y
This is not the place for this discussion. :) This discussion was merely related to whether or not protecting the template was appropriate within WP:PROT. If you want to discuss specific changes to the template, please do so at the template talk page. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone delete this page please, It it a page of a retired editor that is not even java script. It also contains an "adopt me" template and i can't remove it so he is stuck in the "Users waiting for adoption category" cheers «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk)15:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user User:Paul Barlow keeps inserting non-biblical content into the Mahound article. Mahound is based on the biblical literature that describes the Christian view and this user keeps inserting another text from another religon. This user was already informed and Paul Barlow keeps inserting non biblical text. --Alley30 (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the version Paul Barlow last reverted to seems far more neutral in tone, and added some useful (and cited) information. I've restored that version for now, though his lack of explanation is somewhat troubling. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not even biblical literature. Go create your own Mahamada article and personal views. The Mahound is based on terms found in the biblical literature. --Alley30 (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alley30 is a single-purpose account which is pushing a (frankly rather odd) POV in relation to the article [[Mahound]. Quite bizarre. DuncanHill (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not even biblical literature. Go create your own Mahamada article and personal views. The Mahound is based on terms found in the biblical literature. --Alley30 (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec with above)Restricting the source of the article to "biblical literature" (OR?) seems to go against policy. The Paul Barlow version seemed to make good additions. Verbalchat17:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is truly strange. While no edit summary from Barlow is problematic, the behavior of Alley30 is far moreso. No article on this project (not even Bible itself) is limited to only being sourced to "the biblical literature." If Alley30 continues to revert everyone who tries to improve the article with sourced information, it will be Alley30 that finds trouble, not Barlow. S.DeanJameson17:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theres already a Mahamada article. That belongs in the Mahamada article, not Mahound that defines a biblical term, further the Mahamada article does not even state that and the source the user provided for the text has no mention of Muhammad. --Alley30 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ref has no information about Muhammad. Already done search on data base. Further the Mahamada article does not even state that, its pure non sense. If it was true it should belong in the Mahamada article. --Alley30 (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theres already a Mahamada article and it cleraly says European Literature. Further the text this user Paul Barlow inserts is not even true. It shold belong in the Mahamada article with more sources for claim. Even the book this user provided does not even state Muhammad in it. --Alley30 (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, there is no article at Mahamada, it's just a redirect to a small portion of another article. Further, you state that the source is false because of a "database search." What database are you searching to determine this? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick review of some of the contribs of those sock accounts, Paul's suspicion appears quite reasonable. However, I need to leave, and can't put more time into it, and am not 100% convinced yet. Just want to kind of bump this thread and encourage other admins to take a look, as it seems likely to me he is correct. --barneca (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Potential sockpuppetry by Alley30
Just wanted to create a section-break, so that the allegations of potential sockpuppetry with regards to Alley30 could be hashed out in one place, as the thread above is getting rather disjointed. S.DeanJameson18:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mafia Expert is undoing all my posts out of spite.
We had an exit war over 1 subject, now he is going to all my contributions and starting to undo all of them for spite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisstanley (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not undo "all your contributions", only the ones that are disruptive. For example: you nominated the article on Sidney Korshak for deletion because - according to you - he is not notable. Someone who had an obituary written about him in the NYT, and a book by a notable investigative journalist, as well as indicated by the FBI as the "most powerful lawyer in the world". You consider that not notable. You must be kidding. I am not the only one who has serious problems with your editing, just read your talk and this. That should tell you something. As far as I am concerned I did not have an edit war with you, and the issue is resolved (see: here). I see you are quite new to WP, but that is no excuse to continuously ignore established WP policies. And, to start with, please have the courtesy to sign your messages with four tildes. - Mafia Expert (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After a period of relative calm, recently Anna May Wong has received a series of vandal attacks, possibly from the same person under various guises. See: Anna May Wong History. FWiW, could there be a period of protection established for this article? Bzuk (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
This one may need it for a while as it was subjected to a succession of anon attacks; the page now has semi-protection until it clears the main page status. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
A debate over the science in the article has raged on and on. The talk page is a mile long, and there are 8 archives more of contentious arguing. It has also spilled over to Talk:Frame of reference. Edit history shows as many as 65 edits a day by just a few editors, quibbling back and forth at each other. I tried to get everyone to chill out and let it go for a minute, but was roundly ignored. I opened an RFC, but the tone and length of the debate seemed to have a "chilling affect" and other editors mostly did not get involved, meanwhile the core group refused to take a break to let other opinions and views into the conversation. I opened a case at the mediation cabal, and the mediator gave up because the participants in the debate wouldn't participate, so I skipped formal mediation as it's unlikely they are interested in that either. I'm turning here because somehow, this debate needs to be brought to a close and the scope of the article clearly defined. I do this without much actual hope it will help (you will know what I mean when you see the page) but I don't know where else to go with this and I am frankly fed up of trying. Good Luck. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Centrifugal force is the new 0.999.... Give it time, and it will resolve itself. The article's pretty OK in terms of physical accuracy: it's just far, far, too detailed at the moment, as part of the process of resolving a earlier, and far more intense, edit war. Most of the current fuss appears to be related to distinguishing frame transformations from coordinate transformations, a big improvement on the previous full-on furious disagreements about Newton's laws and the philosophy of physical law in general. -- The Anome (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest getting User:ScienceApologist involved, since he's not one to put up with the patent nonsense that is plaguing that article. As his work with paranormal would show, he can cut through the B.S. like a hot knife through butter. We seem to be under attack by pushers of fringe views, time to send in the heavy artillery. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you luck. The dynamics of rotating frames is the Monty Hall problem of classical physics, and for the same reason: our natural "common sense" understanding of the problem gives results that are both intuitively obvious and completely wrong. Hence the need for science education... -- The Anome (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre case here. This individual is using his user and talk pages "to practice editing," as he puts it. He has violated WP:CIVIL on several occasions, but worse still, has continued to post userboxes which state him to be an administrator. No edits to the article space or sandbox and IMO it's clear he knows what he's doing. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, in Ryan's own words, just leave him alone until he actually disrupts something that affects the project. Toddst1 already warned the user for civility, and you're just poking him with a stick now. Tanǀ3922:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to cry! Just leave me along. So what If I put an admin userbox up for less than 6 seconds. I am taking them down cause I don't know how to use them yet! Just leave me alone! Stop watching what I'm doing and let me edit my pages and go back to fighting your vandalism! ;-( --Ryan Von (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's cause I have edited on wikipedia before, just with out an account!! Stop leaving me messages on my user page!! I did not come here to get harrased by you about the user boxes I put up!!! Please get this guy away from me!! You keep posting on my USER TALK PAGE AND WONT STOP BOTHERING ME!!! LEAVE ME BE!!
So we should block him because he knows how to edit? I mean, I don't exactly endorse his responses, but I see nothing wrong with his screwing around with user boxes. Why you care so much about this to file at AIV and ANI is strange. Tanǀ3922:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And PMDrive knows exactly what he is doing - deliberately goading an editor in order to drive him off Wikipedia, and not for the first time either. DuncanHill (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, that was uncalled for. You have a problem? E-mail me and let's discuss it like gentlemen. For your information, I've been trying to leave word with this user in an attempt to try and set things straight but all I get are edit conflicts since he's actively editing the page and a locked database notice. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Duncan (which is sort of a minor miracle). Try to be a little - just a little - more friendly to the newbies, especially if what they're doing isn't "POOOPSIIEEE" vandalism. Don't get me wrong; I see you at AIV all the time and I appreciate your vandal-fighting efforts. I'd just let this one go. Resolving issue - Tanǀ3922:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's becuase you wont leave me alone after I said I am trying to learn to use those boxes!! I NEED ADMIN HELP! PLSSS I BEGG OF YOU MAKE HIM GO AWAY!! HE LEAVES ME MESSAGES OVER AND OVER AGAIN I KEEP DELETING THEM PLSS!! Where do i go to block someone??!!!! I am scared he will harm me plss admin personnn!! --Ryan Von (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your very first communication with this editor was very bitey and made no attempt to engage constructively with him. You do have a history of biteing and attacking new editors rather than attempting to guide and support them to contribute constructively. I do not discuss on-wikipedia matters off-wikipedia, so it's here or talk-pages if you want, not email. DuncanHill (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My first contact was based on the fact that it appeared as if he was impersonating an administrator. I do not harm anyone. Under my previous username, I took two of extremely problematic users under my wing. One turned out to be a genuine troll and has since returned to wreak havoc via sockpuppets. I refer to User:Wiki brah. The less fortunate soul was User:Maoririder who claimed to be autistic. I was saddened when the community finally banned him. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enough is enough. I reverted Ryan Von's last contribution to this section and blocked him. He's just trolling. If someone else wants to spend the rest of the night dealing with him, feel free to unblock. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would somebody mind over-viewing this issue for me. I've just blocked User:LisaLiel for 24hrs for a blatant breach of 3RR at Gender of God.[96] But I'm concerned that other users may also be edit-warring and possibly gaming 3RR.
Users Teclontz & Alastair Haines may have gamed 3RR.[97][98][99][100][101][102] I have warned all parties at the page to seek dispute resolution and stop edit-warring. But I am also aware that Alastair has been that subject of a recent user conduct RFC[103] and hs received 2 blocks for edit-warring within the since June 2008.[104] However I'm also concerned that there may be an ongoing issue between Teclontz/Tim and LisaLiel - Teclontz has alleged harassment and I am awaiting diffs to demonstrate this. I would be grateful for more sets of eyes on this issue.
Also considering the possible gaming of 3RR should further preventative action be taken? I was considering protecting the page but I'm hoping the warning will make that unnecessary--Caililtalk22:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Alastair Haines is also edit warring at Why Men Rule. I tagged the article and explained my concerns on the talk page. He repeatedly removed my tags without a valid explanation. I requested a third opinion, which User:Jclemens provided. He suggested using inline tags with a rationale for each at the talk page. I did that and User:Alastair Haines removed my tags without responding to my concerns on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that cuts both ways JC - you've both reverted each other twice on two separate issues on the same page - you both should stop and find consensus. Open an RFC for the page if after a WP:3O you are both still dead locked. Also please note that your warning is not helpful may escalate rather than a resolve this issue[105]. I can see no evidence of Alastair vandalizing the page--Caililtalk22:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His definition of consensus is his and only his opinion or something about "silence is consent". If removing tags without responding to the corresponding comments on an article's talk page or achieving Wikipedia's definition of consensus isn't vandalism, then what is it? JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with JCDenton2052's assessment that Alastair places his own opinion before consensus. There have been three primary content disputes in the past few days:
Alastair reinserts text that was removed (per consensus) sometime before the RfC/U (saying that this is "per talk page" despite there having been no recent discussion of the material). I revert his edit. He reverts my reversion, telling me to "discuss on talk page".
LisaLiel makes a change. Alastair reverts itwithout discussion on talk page. When LisaLiel does exactly what Alastair has done twice, as documented above, and reverts his reversion, Alastair reverts her again, saying "Undo edit warring without use of talk page".
There is a clear double standard here. When someone disagrees with a change Alastair agrees with, they must argue against it on the talk page before the change can be reverted. When Alastair disagrees with a change someone else is making, they must argue for it on the talk page before the change can be made. In effect, the protocol at work seems to be that Alastair's preferred version of the article must remain until he is convinced that it is inferior. His delusion that he owns the article is even clearer in some of his talk page comments, such as this one, where, when facing disagreement over whether a subheader he inserted should be there, he declares "subhead stays until it can be demonstrated that [...]". This is not the language of respectful, collaborative editing.
Additionally, he is incivil and aggressive. He is quick to make threats ([106], [107]) and personal attacks ([108]), even going so far as to do so on pages he has never edited before. These incidents are all since the closing of the RfC/U and are in addition to the evidence presented there. Neither the RfC/U nor the counsel offered to Alastair by User:Wizardman appear to have had an effect, and he still staunchly denies having (ever) done anything wrong ([109]).
I'm not sure how this can be taken forward. Of the two attempts at mediation made so far, one was terminated by the mediator due to what he perceived as hostility against him from Alastair, and the other was rejected by Alastair on the grounds that it focused too much on content and not enough on attacking me. I believe that Alastair has a great deal to contribute to the project, but he will inevitably cause more and more conflict if he does not learn to deal with disputes in a civil and cooperative manner. Ilkali (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing diffs Ilkali but I'm going to ask you to withdraw your remark about double standards. This thread was opened specifically to ask what else should be done in relation to all parties in this issue. I will remind you once that this thread is for dispute resolution not escalation.
Dealing wiht disruptive editing - Ciudad Acuña article
This 189.175.241.138 (talk·contribs) IP address continues to delete useful information about the Ciudad Acuña article. There seems to be an ulterior motive. I left a message on the his/her talkpage mentioning external links are helpful for any individual interested in this particular subject: Ciudad Acuña. How to deal with this situation when we only have an IP address and not an actual registered user? --Gatox (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. 1) If you look at the article, it is clear that the same person is using multiple IPs. 2) Their edit is actually fine. The website doesn't appear to have any redeeming qualities; it is essentially a low-quality commercial website masquerading as something "official". I would tend to agree with the annonymous user that the website doesn't really belong in the article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs00:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. I've removed the link. While I've seen crappier city-sanctioned sites, this one is an anon-reg godaddy site with no apparent 'official' capacity and no real content. Kurutalk01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Legitimate sockpuppets
Resolved
– autoblock (hopefully) removed. looking into some possible civility issues I stumbled across while looking at this, but those might be better dealt with on user talk pages. --barneca (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could I get a pair of admin eyes over to User_talk:Mumblejohnson, please? While preparing a detailed RfC aimed at addressing the poisonous editing atmosphere at Australian political articles in general, and the disruptive actions of User:Matilda in particular, I chose to create an alternate account for the purpose of editing in private, without the usual stalkers looking over my shoulder. Matilda sussed out my sock, so I created another one at User:Secondfellow which would be a little harder to track down. These alternate accounts weren't intended for public view or to make any public edits and I really don't mind if they are deleted immediately. I won't be using them again.
Instead of leaving well enough alone, Matilda blocked my socks indefinitely, which has the effect of tying up one of my IP addresses. Perhaps some kind admin could unblock these accounts and then delete them? --Pete (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why you are running 2 IP addresses to access Wikipedia? If 2 IP addresses are not both intended for future editing of Wikipedia, why would you be concerned if one of your two IP addresses can no longer edit Wikipedia? --Lester00:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have various different ISP accounts, due to my globetrotting lifestyle. BION, Wikipedia isn't the totality of my weblife. I would imagine that access to multiple internet accounts is hardly uncommon in this day and age, where just about every mobile phone comes with a web browser. --Pete (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given you don't intend to use the accounts, unblocking would be pointless (though I don't see actual sockpuppet abuse with either account either). Administrators cannot "delete" accounts. As long as you don't log into those two accounts, any autoblocks should be clear in 24 hours.--chaser - t00:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified Matilda of the thread. Why not just unblock and reblock without autoblock enabled? I believe Matilda has talked with Skyring after she blocked the accounts, so I doubt her intention was to block his IP address. --barneca (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All sorts of questions are floating around in my head, like "why, exactly, did you not want Matilda to see your RFC while you were creating it?", and "wouldn't someone with your history want to be super double extra careful about creating alternate accounts, legitimate or not?" Or "Is it nice to call someone a drama queen?" Or even "why didn't you ask Matilda to undo the autoblock? Why bring it up here first?"
But I suppose those questions are for another day. For now, Matilda has told me that the autoblock was unintentional, so I'll unblock and reblock with autoblock disabled. If that doesn't work, you can either post an unblock request on your IP, or as Chaser says, wait 24 hours. --barneca (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I won't pretend that I know all the answers on Wikipedia's tricksy technical bits, and ANI looked like the best way to get admintervention to sort out a problem. --Pete (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Skyring and I have a difference of opinion as to whether his use of socks is legitimate. I did not wish to inflame the situation by either reporting them (and thus finding an uninvolved admin) or in fact acting on them while he was preparing the RfC. I did however let him know I knew of them - certainly the first and FWIW I knew of the second too. Skyring has a history of sockpuppetry. I have raised the issue of policy and his breach on his talk page but will repeat here:
While you dismiss your actions as being justified with the comment: This account was created for the purpose of preparing an important submission in private, without the usual stalkers hovering over my contribution list diving in for half-baked comments. It also allows me to work within mediawiki rather than Word or something else that would reformat everything. Looking at WP:SOCK, I note that the list of legitimate exceptions is not exhaustive. You are well aware that sockpuppetry is against wikipedia guidelines and your protest that the legitimate use of sockpuppets is not exhaustive is not acceptable to me, but maybe to others. I am surprised at your indulgence in sockpuppets given you have been previously blocked and had your ban extended for sockpuppetry. [111] Disposable socks are all very well but the policy is quite clear There are limited acceptable uses for alternative accounts, and a number of uses which are explicitly forbidden - in particular, using an alternative account to avoid scrutiny - this indicates two things - one the list of legitimate exceptions is seen as limited (contrary to your statement) and avoiding scrutiny which was your purpose is not a proper use. I have tagged the two socks you created thereby adding them to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Skyring . I have also blocked them. I left them in place until you lodged your RfC to give you the benefit of the doubt and not to inflame the situation.
The IP block was unintentional. I am not sure if the inconvenience suffered warrants unblocking and reblocking. I am offended that Skyring is implying I am stalking him - I had a legitimate interest in knowing whether or not he was preparing an RfC - he took his time about it. That I discovered the drafting was accidental in the first instance. --Matildatalk01:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking or warning?
Resolved
– Advice given
I've been an admin for some months, but I don't generally deal with resolving/stopping contentious editing, so I'd like advice. On 31 July, 69.76.161.36 (talk) left a personal attack at Talk:Canton, Kansas (still there as I type this), just four days after being blocked for 24 hours for "...making a threat to another user...", according to the block log. What is in order here: should it be a longer block for incivility, or just a stern warning? Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say a warning mentioning a block. There is not guarantee this is the same person that was blocked before. Chillum00:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If they do it a second time, then block away. There is no harm in issuing a warning. If the warning stops them, then the block is unneccesary... --Jayron32.talk.contribs00:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec T-T) :Four days is too late for blocking an IP for vandalizing directly after release of a 24 hour block. I would give an escalated warning like a vandalism2 or 3. But blocking is not ok after 4 days. Especially when dealing with an IP. As you can not know if it is the same person. RgoodermoteNot an admin00:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lysy (talk·contribs) made manual copy/edit moves in order to revert the move to Kulmerland I had made before (sourced common name in English see talk):
01:39, 4 August 2008 Kulmerland (Manually undoing the frivolous rename. Please use WP:RM as advised before.)
01:39, 4 August 2008 Talk:Kulmerland (Manually undoing the frivolous rename. Please use WP:RM as advised before.)
01:39, 4 August 2008 Talk:Chełmno Land (Manually undoing the frivolous rename. Please use WP:RM as advised before.)
01:39, 4 August 2008 Chełmno Land (Manually undoing the frivolous rename. Please use WP:RM as advised before.)
The languages seem to have changed when they were listed by number of entries per language. But now Spanish has been elevated, German moved down, while Russian and Mandarin have overtaken Italian. Maybe there is some logic to it, if so this can be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.51.75 (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really know; I'm a causal wikipedian and I saw Mandarin on the front page. I realized it was out of sync, but the solution makes sense! I'll go the other route next time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.211.166 (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please review 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, as well as my responses A, and B.
This user has repeatedly visted my talk page and asked things that I do not feel are relevant to the project. That part of the situation does not bother me as much as the willfull, repeated, violation of 3RR - which this user has been cautioned about several times previously - (now twice in three days), as well as what I consider to be harassment and/or Wiki-stalking. --Winger84 (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have given a more formal warning to XxJoshuaxX here. I have told him to stop this kind of behavior, especially as it has no relation to Wikipedia and he had been requested by Winger84 not to post to his page. Hopefully this resolves it, Metros (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest both of you move onto other topics. Winger84 has no obligation to provide you an answer as to why he "hates" you, and you do not have an obligation to press for one, either. seicer | talk | contribs02:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)If he doesn't want to answer you, he doesn't have to. Stop asking questions and edit warring on someone else's talk page. Also, your statement above about the situation not being resolved until you get a response from Winger is not exactly civil, I'd advise you to redact it so it sounds less like a threat. Bottom line, if he doesn't want to answer, leave him alone and go about your own business. Dayewalker (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What?!? Why do I all of a sudden feel like I'm back in junior high school? *sigh* I had come back here to make a note of this, where I have made an attempt to diffuse the situation, but it appears that may be pointless, judging by the above statement.
You're going to leave Wikipedia because someone won't tell you why they "hate" you after you annoyed him by asking him (several times over) what the 84 in his user name means? I just want to make sure I understand this... Metros (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my case. The user appears to be inclined to believe that I am mistreating him, for reasons unknown. I offered an explaination on an Administrator's talk page that should settle the situation. I am closing this now to avoid further confrontation that is very likely highly unnecessary. --Winger84 (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
HTTP 500 Internal Server Errors
Hi Guys, Over the last day or two i've been getting quite a few of the HTTP 500 Internal Server Errors, on different computers, conections and browsers. Im just wondering if its a known issue as of yet? «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk)02:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VPT might be the better place to ask, but please do because the 500s are driving me goddam crazy! I'm on IE 7 which doesn't cache what you tried to submit, i.e. when I hit the back button, everything I had typed is gone! It's happened 10 times in the last couple days including once a few minutes ago. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having problems with a user who refuses to discuss the changes he makes. He has been involved in several edit wars where he robotically makes the same change over and over again. His changes to Teleocichla for example are unverifiable and constitute his opinion (or original research). I've tried engaging this unregistered user in conversion and discussion but without success. This user is currently using User:71.136.15.211 but his IP address varies and he's also been active on Greg Bahnsen -- where he's been banned (numerous times) for much the same behaviour. I'd appreciate any assistance dealing with this user. MidgleyDJ (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completed - Alison ❤ 09:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
unlikely.--chaser - t 18:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Fully protected Due to more wholesale reverts, including that of one administrator, I have protected the page for two weeks. Take it to the talk page and find a compromise. seicer | talk | contribs 22:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Unresolved
Resolved
