:I will take a look at this - I need to read the talk page and probably some comments on user talk pages - and then talk to the editor in question (not sure what I'll say yet, but I'll let you know). --[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 19:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
:I will take a look at this - I need to read the talk page and probably some comments on user talk pages - and then talk to the editor in question (not sure what I'll say yet, but I'll let you know). --[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 19:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
::I spent some time reviewing this and agree that there are some real problems with Grundle2600's editing on the talk page in question. I left a detailed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grundle2600&diff=prev&oldid=285312478 note] with a warning and a bit of advice for the editor. I'd like to leave it at that for now and hope that we see a shift in behavior in the near future, but if these problems continue a block or temporary article ban would be warranted, so don't hesitate to report future problems here or to contact me about them about on my talk page. --[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 21:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
::I spent some time reviewing this and agree that there are some real problems with Grundle2600's editing on the talk page in question. I left a detailed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grundle2600&diff=prev&oldid=285312478 note] with a warning and a bit of advice for the editor. I'd like to leave it at that for now and hope that we see a shift in behavior in the near future, but if these problems continue a block or temporary article ban would be warranted, so don't hesitate to report future problems here or to contact me about them about on my talk page. --[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 21:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikidemon has no business asking an editor he disagrees with on content to take a break from working on an article. Wikidemon is NOT authorized to "be very firm here in the role of an article patroller". Wikidemon is a party to the Obama arbcom proceeding and one of the main offenders. Reminding an editor to focus on article content rather than other editors (as I've done) is fine, but Wikidemon's aggressive behavior including accusing that editor of making personal attacks when there weren't any in the diffs he provided is totally inappropriate and added fuel to the fire. Wikidemon continues to post warnings and to act in an uncivil way instead of engaging the editor in a collegial manner and working with him. While Wikidemon works almost exclusively on political content where he advances a very clear partisan point of view, the other editor has been writing lots of great articles and trying to add well cited content. A topic ban is needed, but not for the editor Wikidemon is harassing. If Bigtimepeace wants to reign in the personal attacks and inappropriate behavior I suggest he review the [[Barack Obama]] talk page and the [[List of topics related to Barack Obama]] AfD that has been hijacked by personal attacks and incivility. Thanks. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 16:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
== Editor/IP spamming links with which they appear to be affiliated ==
== Editor/IP spamming links with which they appear to be affiliated ==
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)
Due to the split, this appears to no longer be getting much attention so giving a poke. Continued issues with Dream Focus increasing his incivility and personal attacks in both AfDs and the AN/I thread. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 19:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus continues making bad faith accusations and personal attacks
(edit conflict) No progress has been made since the topic was split. In fact, the only things that the split has done was to take the issue off the radars of other admins and embolden Dream Focus in making more personal attacks and bad faith accusation in the WP:ANI split. Dream Focus is now calling editors engaged in article cleanup he disagrees with "bullies"[1], throwing around the term "deletionist" as a pejorative,[2][3] and alluding that other editors are engaged in a deletionist cabal.[4][5] (For the record, I've never called myself a "deltionist" and find the term insulting.) No action was ever taken on his previous personal attacks and bad faith accusations, as previously documented, dispirit a proposal.
What nonsense is this? Copy over the entire argument then, don't just start it over again because it wasn't going your way, and you weren't getting the response you wanted. And Collectonian and Sephiroth both called themselves delitionist on their user pages, it not meant as an insult. DreamFocus19:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone please click on the edit histories he has, and tell me if you don't find this laughable. Do the edit histories he links to back up his statements? DreamFocus20:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I don't think a block is going to be effective in this case, and I think any other admin action would be even less appropriate. Hence, this isn't the right venue. Probably a user conduct RfC is the way to go. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... This either shows a pattern of behaviour, or a pattern of community misunderstanding. Blocks and bans won't do. I concur that RfC is now likely the only way to explore the issue, and hopefully find a peaceful resolution that benefits the project as a whole. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you keep a record of how many times TheFarix has brought accusations of something up here or similar places, and what the results were for them? That would show his pattern of behavior. He seems to do this quite often. DreamFocus23:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always figured that when a discussion trails off it wasn't a sign that we should flare it back up again. I suggest that we archive this and move on. It is no longer a matter for AN/I, whatever path is chosen for future DR. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mhazard9 (talk·contribs)
This user has recently made a number of edits to two articles I watch, Franz Boas and Cultural Relativism. The edit summary always indicates that the intention is to "clean up" language but all I see are edits that make the language more obscure or confusing, unclear or imprecise. I checked the user history and saw that s/he had done the same thing at the article on code switching. Then I read the user's talk page and saw that a couple of other editors have expressed concern regarding other pages. All of this leads me to suspect that this is a classic disruptive editor, hard to tell at first because a pattern emerges over a range of articles. But I admit this is a subjective judgment and while I believe strongly in eliminating disruptive editors, I also know many are quite rightly cautious about applying this label to editors. Honestly, maybe this person is acting in good faith. But it seems to me to be a puddle of poor prose slowly spreading across varous articles. I'd appreciate it if other editors checked this user out, comparing his/her edits across a range of articles, and tell me whether my concerns are ill-or well-founded - and keep an eye on him/her for a while, or suggest a course of action ... Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk23:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chaser's response relates to the fact that Mhazard altered Sirubenstein's message. Since we can't be having that sort of thing, I have taken the more active approach of reverting back to the original form -- adding this message to alleviate confusion. Looie496 (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see some of this, but adding some diffs to your statement above would be helpful so that whoever is looking at this (me now, I guess) doesn't have to re-do the same detective work. I saw nothing actionable after a glance at contribs.--chaser - t05:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chaser, I direct you to the edit diff you produced - namely, the way Mhazard9 edited my comment. Folks, I think you are all misinterpreting Mhazard9's act. You seem to think it is a naive newbiew mistakenly editing another person's comment - the mistake being that we edit one another's work all the time, except when it is on someone else's user-page, or someone else's talk, and this is a common newbie error. I do not think Mhazard9 made that error. I think Mhazard9 was mocking me and the report of disruptive editing with a precise example of the disruptive editing to which I am calling attention. Mhazard9 added a few words to my comment. I am bolding what sh/e added:
I'd appreciate it if other editors checked out this user, comparing his/her edits across the range of articles s/he edits, and tell me whether or not my concerns are ill-or well-founded
My point: the changes do not change my meaning at all and thus appear innoccuous. But they do add unnecessary words. This is what Mhazard9 is doing in every edit i have looked at (and there is no point in my providing edit differences, just go to the user contributions; every edit I have seen does not fundamentally change the meaning, but does add unnecessary verbiage, or makes the phrasing more awkward. One edit would not be a big deal..But it adds up. It adds up at one article, and it adds up over many different articles. Slrubenstein | Talk14:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at a few of his edits, & can't find anything actionable at this time: as long as their edits are still intelligible, we don't ban people just for being lousy writers. My guess is that Mhazard9 has just finished reading Strunk & White or Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", & has decided to rewrite articles according to the insights he had after reading -- which obviously have some problems. Although there's nothing that an Admin can do at this moment -- beyond helping Mhazard9 with his writing skills -- Mhazard9 may be worth watching in case his skills don't notably improve, especially in consideration that he hasn't responding to this thread beyond vandalizing Slrubenstein's post. -- llywrch (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically what I was thinking but failing to articulate. Don't hesitate to bring something more actionable to my talk page, Slrubenstein. I take a dim view of his edit to your initial comment in this thread, so I'll give future malfeasance particular attention.--chaser - t00:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be worth looking at 64.105.84.97's edits too. The edit summaries are worded exactly the same, and they frequently revert anyone who removes whatever overly-wordy crap mhazard added, or just plain re-add it.Terrifictriffid (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user Math Champion, and his quacking sockpuppet, Cool pipup2, appear on the surface to be semi-constructive editors, but in reality, MC appears, from studying the contributions, to be a vandal-only account. This account, as well as the sockpuppet, have vandalized several user pages, and, at one point, attempted to out PakoPenguin a user that he or she has been harassing. At least that is what it appears on the surface to be. Pako could be a sock of MC, based on the edit history of the userpage, or even a meatpuppet. Either way, the vandalizing needs to stop, and the blatant sock needs to be blocked, as it appears he was using it to vandalize other user pages when his other account was told to stop. Opinions?— DædαlusContribs23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! My take on Math Champion is that he is using Wikipedia solely as a playground. I do not know if this is squarely vandalism, but if we do not have a policy for such hyper-trivial use of Wikipedia we should. I am for banning, on the face of it, but look forward to other views. Slrubenstein | Talk23:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Math Champion has four edits to article space since October (three today) with a host of nonsensical userspace deleted edits. Cool piplup2 has three edits to article space since June when he last edited. User talk:Math Champion looks like enough to me. I agree with a ban and moving on. I honestly don't care if they are friends, not friends, don't know each other off-wiki. That's irrelevant and should remain so. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that he should be banned if he vandalizes another page; however, I oppose his banning immediately. Perhaps he will be a good contributor to Wikipedia in the future. -download | sign!22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Math Champion isn't making constructive edits. For making the majority of his edits to the userspace, that only escalates it. Also, if you haven't noticed, he doesn't vandalize articles. He probably thinks the userspace is a "free" area, which is a lack of knowlege of policy, not vandalism. P.S.: Thanks for the explanation, but I know what difference between blocking and banning is. ;) -download | sign!01:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he were actually doing something here, I'd be more accepting, but it seems as though he's just using the place as a sort of toy. HalfShadow01:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are an encyclopedia, not some game that people can use to play with. This user has already shown that he is not a constructive comtributor, as he has done virtually nothing outside the userspace, and is in fact treating wikipedia as something it is not, a game.— DædαlusContribs05:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block him until he shows he will work on this project and per the WP:OUTING nonsense. I don't care if he's personally friends or not, you don't harass people in real life here. Banning is excessive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that ANI is not a venue for ban or sanction "polls", which are very different to ban or sanction "discussions". Changed to discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Block Block him, he obviously cannot handle the responsibility that being an editor brings. And has anyone checked if he is a sock of MC10? They have very similar names, and it is strange that he would oppose the ban of another Fahrenheit 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Indef block
For transparency reasons, I'm putting this here. I don't want to ban these editors, but I do want him and his socks indeffed until they can learn to not use wikipedia as a playground.— DædαlusContribs06:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I need an outside view before I indefinitely block this guy, generally for being a pain to deal with. Basically, a few weeks ago, User:Theserialcomma reported him again to ANI for trying to archive Talk:Darren M. Jackson (there had been no discussion on those sections for months). I started a discussion there, where Theserialcomma settled on being ok archiving the discussion, so I did. Instead of leaving it alone, Diamonddannyboy decided to get into personal arguments here, for which I warned him. Back and forth with insults by him at my talk page and finally this nonsense. He was last blocked for disruption in February at that page and I think it's time again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit tricky to distinguish between IP socking and forgetting to log in, and in general in this case I think it is the latter - noting that the diff is a tad odd, as it is hard to argue that you're barred from editing while editing. :) Perhaps he was confused? - Bilby (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an outside view, but my impression from watching this is that neither editor has behaved completely appropriately (as seems to be the case with most edit wars). That aside, in the past Diamonddannyboy has been helpful, although he's been frustrated at what he saw as large scale changes to the article he started. I'd see an indef as overkill for what has been fairly minor disruption, that could have been solved with a compromise some time ago. - Bilby (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My experience of Diamonddannyboy is that he does listen, so while yes, he did sock in the past, that was 12 months ago, so I'm still happy to AGF. As mentioned, I've tended to see this habit of his as failing to log in - he generally doesn't seem to hide when doing this, (even stating in edit summaries who he was), and his IP didn't edit when his account was blocked. But it is a difficult distinction to make, and in general I'm happy to defer to people with more experience on socking issues. - Bilby (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit: link fixed) according to the block log of his ip, he's supposed to be blocked for 3 months. i'd assume if you block someone for 3 months, them logging into an account and resuming editing a few days later would constitute a block evasion Theserialcomma (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. I was going by the block of his account - he didn't edit from the IP while his account was blocked in February, but I now realise that it says nothing as the IP was blocked as well. This, of course, is why I defer to others on socking issues. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm an expert on socking by any means, but as far as I know, there's nothing wrong with logging in to edit on a blocked IP if the IP's block was not directed at you? Afterall, that's what soft blocks/accounts are partly for right? Does anyone know if the IP block was specifically targetting him? C.U.T.K.DT | C09:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right ok, so technically that is block evasion, as the original block of the IP was designed to target his behaviour (I'm not sure I would have agreed with 3 months though). That said, there is a clear difference here between someone who forgets to login, and someone who switches accounts to deliberately evade a block - I'm pretty certain the latter does not apply here. Any block evasion in my opinion has been fairly inadvertant. Bearing this in mind, and judging by the edits (which could be far more serious imo), I don't believe indef is necessary here, given the user does have a history involving some constructive editing. I think a short block (days/weeks perhaps) would suffice, else a stern warning at least. But I'm not admin, and like I said earlier, no expert at these things - just an opinion. C.U.T.K.DT | C10:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see pretty obvious block evasion here. I would normally advocate for a longer or indef block here. I'll let the group decide. Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really am not happy about indefinitely blocking a long term user. This is what we have the arbcom for. As for sock evasion, I don't know. Since he has made it pretty clear that the IP was him, and since his user account was not also blocked, it kinda feels like putting a cake in front of a two year old, telling them not to eat it, then stepping outside the room. Theresa Knott | token threats15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I tend to agree with Theresa - something like this requires a broader discussion. I recommend taking this to arbcom. Toddst1 (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend waiting for a bit. Bilby states above Diamonddannyboy does listen so I'd like to see how he responds to my advice on his talk page. Actually, come to think of it, we are required by the AC to do it before they will take the case. Theresa Knott | token threats19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends a bit on who approaches him, or how he's approached (as with most of us, I would guess) - hopefully things can be settled again. - Bilby (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The February ANI was over his WP:OWN at Darren M. Jackson, and his revert-warring with other editors about his plan for archiving the talk page, which seemed bizarre since there was very little on the talk page. I see that Diamonddannyboy is not currently blocked, but Theresa Knott is having a serious discussion with him on his user talk. Passing the issue to Arbcom will slow them down even more, so why not see if Theresa can get him to agree to concessions. How about a negotiated topic ban of this editor from Darren M. Jackson and its Talk page? If the negotiation goes nowhere, I suggest a normal pattern of block escalation. One month seems like the next obvious step, given this is a long-term behavior problem and there is no diplomacy coming from his direction. He has used socks to evade blocks in the past. Perhaps Theresa can get him to agree to use a single account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harassment
Politis (talk·contribs), a long-time user, has recently gone on a spree of classical harassment/wikistalking against me, following me around with comments like the following that unfortunately contain some rather ugly real-life overtones:
[8],
[9],
[10], [11],
[12],
[13],
[14]
(He's also been following me around to articles to revert me, like here: [15], [16],
[17], [18]).
Ugh. Some of those are troubling, though I think that a few of the first batch may be your being on the lookout rather than any real malice on his part. Of the bunch, this is the only one that sticks out. Protonk (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's the whole pattern over the last few days, where he has been almost completely concentrating on following me around. I found today's comments on Yannismarou's talk page the most ugly, together with the sarcastic ones afterwards. Add to this that I'll have this person against me in an Arbcom case soon. At this point, I seriously want him to shut up. Fut.Perf.☼13:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess I should have been more clear that I didn't dig too deeply, just looked at the diffs you presented. I also didn't mean to suggest that you couldn't make a more complete case that he was harassing you (or whatever we call it now). Protonk (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This diff alone, which Protonk pointed out, is entirely unacceptable from any perspective, and I applaud your calm presentation of it, Fut.Perf.; if I had been on the receiving end, I would have felt legally and socially threatened at the least. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's on the edge of NLT. I'm not keen to block folks for marginal legal threats given the kerfluffle over the last marginal NLT block. But maybe he can be convinced to retract it. Protonk (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above diffs are unacceptable. We have certain social rules, and nobody should cross it. I think Politis should be blocked for sometime. Thoughts? AdjustShift (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I analyzed the edits of Politis, and he has some positive edits.[19] He should be blocked only if there is a clear consensus to block him. More input is needed from other editors. AdjustShift (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking from experience, harassment concerns tend to go over positive contributions. Seven featured articles and twice as many good articles didn't really mitigate stuff for me... Sceptre(talk)14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Politis made concrete allegations against Fut. However, he failed to back them. There is thus indeed room to block him. On the other side, I would like him to be given a chance to defend himself. We should listen to him before blocking, in order to give him a chanve to prove what he said. He made serious accusations against Fut (which I do not repeat in case they are false, but you can check the differences), which either are serious breaches of policy by Fut either despicable lies. I also confirm that he has done positive edits, and that he is usually one of the politest users I've ever met. But, of course, if he is indeed making accusations without any eveidence to back them, he should be blocked.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about evidence or no evidence. It's the fact that he has been spreading smears about my off-wiki personal and professional life, and that's something he simply has no business talking about in any shape or form, backed up or not backed up. Fut.Perf.☼14:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning his comment in my talk page, Politis said that it has nothing to do with your off-wiki life, and that it was not personal. This is maybe not the truth, but I'd really like to listen to him, because he is accusing you of doing the same thing against him. Honestly, when I read his comment, I couldn't realize it had anything to do with your off-wiki life. If it did, of course it is very serious.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: AdjustShift- it doesn't surprise me that Politis has a decent editorial track record. If he didn't, I'm very sure he would have been indeffed as a result of that particular diff. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it is really what Fut says, yes I'd agree with you. As I said, when I read the comment, and I was asked by Fut to block him, I hadn't realized there was anything off-wiki personal in the comment. I regarded it as an ironic comment of general character. When I visited my talk page again, the thread was deleted by Fut, and I had to check the differences to find the continuation of the discussion, and see that initially Politis refused it was an ad hominem off-wiki outing comment, and that then there was an exchange of serious accusations by both editors for outing. It is exactly the seriousness of all these accusations that make me say: block him, but try to listen to him first (in case he has to say anything in defense of himself).--Yannismarou (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be of your interest or not, but I thought it was my duty to mention that Politis has announced his commenting today on the ArbCom case Fut mentioned above (and where I am the filing and an involved party as well).--Yannismarou (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. He had better be very careful then, because, independently of off-wiki stuff, if I see him making unfounded allegations of on-wiki misbehaviour against me one more time, like the claim that I deleted some evidence or something, made below, then I will seek to get him sanctioned just for that alone. Fut.Perf.☼16:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my user page regarding my philisophy on wikipedia and how I view my contributions. How does a non-experienced Wiki user (such as myself who is hopeless with the wiki technology) defend him/herself. I have repeatedly (since 2006?) begged, argued and reasoned with Future Perfect NOT to include racial characterisations of users, especially of myself. I did this on wiki and by emailing him. He has repeatedly ignored those pleas. Yet, he is the one who told me about the risks of 'outing', then he went straight ahead to parade my (presumed) ethnicity!
He cannot help himself identifying users with their ethnicity or making ethnic comments that I interpret as racially motivated. He cannot stop using the ‘f’ word and other offensive words. For this, I believe he should loose his administrator status, he should be banned from editing some articles and allow him to edit where his good self can shine (we all have positives)
I have also argued that he should stop intimidating people, abusing them verbally, etc. Arguments do not work with him. Could it be because it offends his bully nature? I really do not know and could be wrong. But if someone IMO bullies, the editor/user who is bullied needs some support. I try to offer that support, even if I disagree with that editor’s edit.
I am not too sure what ‘following around' means. Probably what FP is doing with other users, including with myself, following all their edits and intervening where he believes it to be necessary? In wiki there are people who keep meeting across some articles. We have joked about this. I respect him for 'following', he obviously does not with me.
Apologies for not being wiki expert with the technology. But again, how does one defend oneself agains an administrator who understand the art of writing, defending, deleting track of debate, compiling links (no disrepect intended for such skills)?
Politis, please provide diffs for what you say (each claim you make against User:Fut.Perf., so as to substantiate them), and answer in particular to the outing accusation made against you.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are these racist comments you allege Fut Perf. keeps making? If this is more drama about being called "greek" (!!!), you're cruising for a bruising. yandman16:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For an assessment of Politis' sense of reality, see, this [20], which came immediately before the notorious [21], and was in response to mine here: [22]. Basically, I was calling a notorious former Wikipedia vandal (who had been harassing both myself and Politis, ironically) a "weirdo", and he jumps at it and accuses me of racism against minorities. Other than that, yes, all his complaint is that I called him a Greek. Fut.Perf.☼16:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yandman, please read again my comments. I would not say 'racist' (at least I hope not...) He identified, for instance, a whold group of voters as Greek and under derogatory terms. He eventally deleted the evidence (s I said if being technically incompetent with wiki weakens one's argument, what is going on?).
I am not aware of trying to out anyone. Users who also communicate by email may allow some things to slip in their exchanges in wiki. My user box clearly states in the opening: "
This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know.
If that is what I did, then apologies but please point it out where the attempted outing took place. But I insist, FP keeps identifying people racially and that, I am afraid, is unacceptable. In fact it actually forced me to make enquires how to initiate Wikipedia policy specifically to make it a ‘bannable’ offence. Politis (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. For the first comment, "Such behaviour in Europe would have an 'academic' expelled from his institution but in Wiki it can have currency." Reasoning behind the comment. Wikipedia aspires to a large extent to be of academic relevance. Students use it,academics use it, the media uses it. Its criteria for users and editors are, to a large extent, of academic standards. Therefor, all us users/editors exert 'academic' skills - we are, in effect, playing an academic role. But the behaviour of some users/administrators on wikipedia, would have them reprimanded if they were real academics in the real world and esepcially in Europe. Who is an academic amonst us? I really, really do not know, not even their user page is 'proof'. Wikipedia is an anonymous site. All I know is that we are held up to maintain academic standards.
The second comment was, "if I become convinced that there is racism by any known or unknown persons on wikipedia I will try to express those concerns decently, legally, publicly and outside wikipedia." Reasoning behind the comment: As I said, it is important to be decent and legal. If there is suspicion of racism in wikipedia, it should be investigated. No people are mentione because it is not specific to any one person, it seems to be systemic in wikipedia that we feel we can get away with some things. I would like us to put an end to this. But then one user, FPatS takes it personally and 'declares war' on it. Why? To silence me? To prevent me from stopping people making ethnic generalisations? I do not know, but I had no one in mind. Politis (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I correctly understand you (because my comprehension skills are questioned above), you deny that you attempted any kind of outing (or that you threatened outing) by the above comments.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Yannis, that was a cheap shot: you're correct that you need to hone your writing skills -- there's a definite Greek syntax to your English (and I'm not saying that because I know you're Greek, but because I know Greek and can "read" the syntax).
I suggest that we introduce a wikipedia clause whereby no user can make ethnic references when asked to, that no user can bunch groups of users under an ethnic tag. That Future Perfect refrains within reason from identifying users ethnically. That users should be banned for using the 'f' word and other such words. And any other solution that presses the pause button on this debate. Politis (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't put user boxes on your page identifying your nationality" might be a bit of valid advice. If one self-identifies in a public forum, one can't tuern around when someone else points out that self-identification. •Jim62sch•dissera!16:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat this one last time: Saying you're greek is not a bannable offense. It's not even any kind of offense. It's common sense. You've got a bloody logo on your user page saying greek is your mother tongue, and you edit pages related to Greece. If you complain about "racial persecution"/"identifying users ethnically"/"ethnic references" once more, [...] yandman16:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference I see that Politis "is a native speaker of English" (that could place him anywhere between Hawai to New Zeeland via Gibraltar, Nigeria and Hong Kong, and that he speakes French and Greek at near native level.Politis (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Politis, the issue here is not to introduce any clauses. If your accusations against User:Fut.Perf. concern anything else besides the fact that he called you a Greek, please tell it. If you have anything to say on your comments I pointed out to you before (are they misinterpreted?), please do so. If the answer again is "no", then we have a problem.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, some text has been deleted by FPatS. It has nothing to do with being called a Greek (as such, it could mean I belong to a US college Greek fraternity), but the context and the background to that context, both on wiki and by email. How do you access it? And how does a non wiki expert line up the technology to match the comment/concern? I will do my best but promise nothing. Politis (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "US college Greek fraternity"? Politis, you obviously haven't attended a US college/university, where the phrase "Greek fraternity" evokes an an image closer to Animal House than a college society devoted to promoting Greek language & culture. -- llywrch (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yannismarou. I deny I wanted to out anybody. If that person had not made such (a habitual?) fuss then we would all have more time to spend on editing wikipedia. In fact, I fear that I was targeted on the pretext of outing.Politis (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he's referring to this one, while I agree that it may be blockable for incivility and possibly threats of off-wiki stalking, it's not clearly a legal threat... the word "legally" here may refer to the manner of action (i.e., it was legally conducted) rather than the type of action. It's just ambiguous enough. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mendaliv, I was talking about my own identity. I expect to declare one day that I contributed to wikipedia under the user name Politis. Politis (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that to be true, I mean, how else could you take: if I become convinced that there is racism by any known or unknown persons on wikipedia I will try to express those concerns decently, legally, publicly and outside wikipedia.. Legally, publicly, outside of wikipedia. That sounds like a legal threat to me.— DædαlusContribs05:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that reading the referenced comment as a threat to take legal action is a misinterpretation. My take is that he is saying that he will use legal methods, not that he intends to litigate. Big difference. Also, the use of "decent" doesn't connect with a threat to sue someone. Let's WP:AGF unless overt and clearcut threats are made. There is no WP:LEGAL violation here that I can see. Neutral on all the other issues in this thread at this point. — Becksguy (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Real-life "legal methods", if pursued outside Wikipedia and related to a contributor's real-life identity, would still constitute harassment under Wikipedia's standards. These are not "legal threats" in the NLT sense, but they sure are an attempt at intimidation by means of off-wiki action. Note that the posting has to be read together with its edit summary: "Outing will come". Fut.Perf.☼07:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My one and only point above was that the referenced comment, per se, didn't rise to the level required to violate NLT. Thank you for agreeing with me, FP. Outing is a different issue covered under a different policy. And I agree that the edit summary does appear to be a rather unambiguous threat to out an editor. And I find that very troubling, as I find any intimidation and harassment attempts or threats. So I totally agree with that part. — Becksguy (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stated that FPatS had deleted a thread. I think I have now found that thread and withdraw that comment. I blame that particular confusion on the convoluted nature of wikipedia and my own limited skills. Apologies to those affected by that mistake.Politis (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is some serious edit warring going on on this page that needs addressing urgently, while no 3RR rules appear have been broken, everyone certainly needs heads banging together. I have compiled most of the obvious reverts below, while there are other edits which are "kind of" edit warring, but rewording. I know at least one of the users has recently been blocked due to edit warring. Maybe a sensible idea to protect the page for a few days.
It looks to me like this all relates back to the RFC on the Susan Boyle article relating to the issue on whether or not to include the YouTube link. Perhaps someone didn't like the way things were going at talk page here, and decided to just change the WP:EL guideline. Either way, I agree, it should be stopped. — Ched : ? 00:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I propose a revert to the last "good" version before all of this war started, protect the page for 2 days. Get everybody to sit down, have a cup of tea and work out an adequate consensus without edit warring, possibly a couple of short blocks may be a good idea too. Jenuk1985 | Talk00:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For reference for others, while I was trying to figure out the history of the disputed content a couple weeks ago, I put together a record of the relevant changes to the disputed wording which can be found at User:Barek/sandbox/EL. I just updated it today to show the additional changes over the past two weeks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Overpush
I'm hoping that this forum will help with a situation I've encountered today. User:Overpush created an SVG version of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) at File:WSDOT.svg. He uploaded the image on April 4 and replaced the previous PNG version of the logo in the article. The PNG was tagged as an orphaned, fair-use image on April 6. I stumbled upon this change and reverted it. Under WP:Logos and WP:Non-free content, SVGs aren't allowed. Fair-use images should be of the minimum quality necessary. SVGs are raster images and they can be rescaled to any size and retain their quality, meaning they aren't acceptable under WP policy. This is the rationale why I reverted the changes in the article.
Today (April 20) my changes were reverted, meaning that the SVG version of the logo was re-placed on the article, and the PNG version was tagged for deletion. I've reverted and redone the tagging, only to have it reverted again. I commented at the user's talk page [52] to offer an explanation for my actions. He replied with [53] and reverted the article and image tagging again a second time for the day. I reverted a second time with a more in-depth explanation at [54]. This was reverted again with this comment [55] on my talk page, which was removed by User:Rschen7754, who also reverted the article and image tagging in favor of the PNG. Rschen has also warned the user here: [56].
In scanning through Overpush's contributions, I've found many, many other logos for state DOTs and other agencies created in the SVG format, tagged as fair-use with rationales. I don't know from my cursory glance if this has resulted in any correctly-formatted fair-use images being deleted as orphaned images by the bots. Please help me deal with this situation. Even though I consider Overpush's reversions in violation of policy to be vandalism, I don't want to risk the appearance of 3RR. Any advice and suggestions is appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overpush seems to be aware of and to disregard this discussion. He blanked your courtesy notice on his talk page pointing to this thread and immediately made the same edits to WSDOT again, with an edit summary consisting solely of "m". Time to follow through on Rschen7754's warning with a short block? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I don't think you could have explained yourself any better to Overpush. Obviously, they don't get it and aren't going to follow our guidelines. Perhaps a short block is in order to give the user a chance to read over WP:NFC and WP:LOGOS. -- Darth Mike (talk)01:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His last set of edits is 4RR on the two images and the article. 1) early today, 2) in response to my first reversion, 3) in response to my last reversion and 4) now in response to Rschen's rollback. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone notified him of 3RR? You can't just block without warnings. List the SVG image for deletion. Where does it say that SVGs aren't allowed anyways? Point out the specific section. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFC, Policy 3b: "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace." SVGs by default are resolution-independent by their nature. WP:USRD only creates PNG-formatted road sign graphics for fair-use images, but SVGs are created for all others, as an example. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A low-resolution rendering of a relatively high-fidelity map of the world Better recheck your own quote, resolution isn't the whole story. As you mention, "resolution" is irrelevant to a vector graphic, which leaves fidelity and bit rate. A low fidelity SVG is one that doesn't contain detail beyond that required to render at a low resolution. For example, File:BlankMap-World6.svg contains a huge amount of detail, most of which is not even visible in the thumbnail to the right; a version redone to include only the details visible in that 200x101 thumbnail would be low fidelity, even though the curves would not be jagged were it rendered at 2000000x1010000. BTW, WP:USRD's shield design guidelines state that all shields should be in SVG format. Anomie⚔04:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the brightest bulb on images, however, I don't see that SVG is a dis-allowed format, even in the portion of the policy you quote. I understand what you're saying, but neither policy prohibits this format from being used. IMHO - this appears to be disagreement with images.
Yeah, since when were SVG fair use images specifically disallowed? There's certainly an ongoing dispute pertaining to this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't an SVG of a logo that we created be a derivative work? Can we really make our own version of something then call it fair use? Or does the lack of creative input make this not an issue? Chillum01:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Derivative works discusses the issue in detail. As far as I can tell, the summary is that the lack of creative input may well make it a non-issue; and if not, the SVG is affected by two copyrights: the copyright on the logo itself, and the copyright on any original contribution added by the creator of the SVG. Note that this goes for user-created png versions of logos too, and the "render the SVG as a PNG" "solution" occasionally applied by anti-SVG editors. Anomie⚔03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring, if anyone cares
Hi. It's been brought to my attention that User:Badagnani and User:GraYoshi2x are reverting each other on multiple articles and leaving (and reverting) unpleasant messages on talk pages. User:Ronz can tell you more. I've dealt with Badagnani in the past, and I'd recommend blocking him; he's intractable and doesn't care about consensus. I don't know much about the other guy.
I'm posting here because I won't get involved. Badagnani wouldn't listen to anything I say anyway. I tried to help him once, and he rudely threw it back in my face, so... yeah. -GTBacchus(talk)02:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:GraYoshi2x has subjected me to the worst WP:STALK I have ever experienced during my time at WP, over the past 4 or so weeks following me to nearly every article I have edited, on all subjects, always to revert or remove my contributions. The discussion page postings and edit summaries were similarly over-the-top--the most threatening I have ever encountered. As WP:STALK is against WP policy, I had asked an admin (in fact, the admin just above) to please ask that the WP:STALK editor please stop doing this, and he informed me that he would not, and that in fact he does not take either WP policies or guidelines into account when carrying out his admin duties. If no admin will ask that WP:STALK be stopped, our fundamentally positive, collaborative, and collegial project can easily be undermined in a manner very damaging to the above ideals. The admin just above did state, twice, privately to other editors, that he hoped I would eventually be blocked, and it seems that the above comment is an effort to get that to happen. As one of the most sincere and productive contributors here--one who loves and cares about this project and its collaborative ethos--the above request that I no longer be permitted to contribute here comes as a huge blow. Badagnani (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what else to add. The edit-warring over Rice noodles vs List of rice noodles should stop given that lack of dispute resolution attempts on the matter. The issue over Wiktionary linking should be discussed and resolved before trying to apply it to multiple articles. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Badagnani and GraYoshi2x: please stop edit warring. Badagnani, you've started 1288 articles. Please do something constructive. You may get blocked if you continue edit warring. I won't be happy to see a productive editor like you getting blocked. AdjustShift (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly read the above; this is not primarily about any particular article per se; it is about an editor who has elected to follow me to nearly every page I have edited, on whatever subject, always in an effort to undo or blank my contributions--the worst WP:STALK I have ever experienced during my tenure at WP. I don't know why this is and have asked an admin to please ask that this stop (in fact, the very admin who initiated this discussion, and who earlier commented to three other editors that he had hoped I would be eventually removed from Wikipedia), but nothing has been done. WP:STALK is a policy, not a guideline, and am I to infer that the above admin also chooses not to uphold this policy? Further, I do not understand why I was specifically addressed in the above comment, while the WP:STALK editor actively removing content again and again on any and every page I edit was not? Badagnani (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complex issue. I've not been involved with this issue. So, admins who are familiar with this issue should resolve this issue. My advice for both parties: don't edit war, please solve the issue by taking with each other. And please keep your head cool. AdjustShift (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an admin who has been involved with one of these editors, I'm way too burned from my interactions with Badagnani to be any use resolving the issue. That's why I posted here. I don't know if anyone else is really waiting in the wings... What do you do with an editor who insists that he's entitled to never an edits reverted without his prior consent, and that anyone who finds his behavior at all problematic is a bullying stalker, who's forbidden on his talk page? -GTBacchus(talk)15:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to repeatedly talk with Badagnani and try to engage in some peaceful discussion; however, he simply removes my comments from his talk page and threatens me to "not post here again", and sometimes even attacks me. Although I do realize that I got myself into an edit war and I apologize for any trouble that it may have caused. Perhaps my frustration got the better of me. GraYoshi2x►talk03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments; the discussion page postings from User:GraYoshi2x, from the very first I received, have been the most extreme, threatening, and aggressive postings I have ever received from any editor, ever, during my four years contributing at WP. Examples include [57] and [58] This was followed by a straight month (nearly 30 straight days) of any and every article I edited, on any subject, of the above editor choosing to follow me as per WP:STALK (which is against WP policy), always in an effort to undo or remove content I contributed. This creates difficulty in discussing in a thoughtful and collegial manner, when it was thoughtful, collegial, and considered discussion I requested from the outset, and all along. Badagnani (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first example was a bit rude and I did apologize for that. However, I made a valid point on the second as you chose not to cooperate with me; in the end I decided to assume a bit more good faith and never reported you at all. Also please stop with the stalking accusations. It isn't really helping this incident in any way, and it's clear that I'm trying to fix up the articles and not purposely disrupt it (which you did do to me several times). GraYoshi2x►talk03:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You see what I mean? Intractable. I thought I posted the most extreme, threatening and aggressive postings he'd ever received, when I was trying (thanklessly) to help him. I kinda feel bad being upstaged. This guy likes superlative adjectives way too much. -GTBacchus(talk)05:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Badagnani's block log. Representative interactions. Badagnani's RfC. I have no idea whether GraYoshi2x is "stalking" Badagnani. I do know that anyone who insists as Badagnani does on escalating and personalizing every editing dispute, no matter how minor, will inevitably leave a trail of frustrated editors. I see that Badagnani is on best noticeboard behavior: all he ever wanted was civil, collaborative editing and discussion. But that doesn't jibe with his record. I mean, this is someone who's exhausted the patience of GTBacchus, which may be a first. This is someone who has never seen an issue too minor to edit-war over. GraYoshi2x should disengage and leave Badagnani alone. Badagnani should stop being a chronic headache for everyone who crosses his path on Wikipedia. Sound fair? MastCellTalk18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do agree that Badagnani seems to be being stalked by a few users from WP:EL who leave pointers to the RfC everywhere, and who prefer to revert his edits - rather than offer advice and assistance and encouragement. I agree that Badagnani's style of replying to talkpage threads is not the usual anglo-western one. I would guess that perhaps he is a foreign (possibly Hungarian) and/or older individual, who is simply perplexed by the youngsters involved above who are badgering him and mocking/dissecting his language. If that were the case with me, I might use "superlative adjectives way too much" too. He needs a mentor, not a block. (If I had time I would volunteer). Some of the people badgering him could really use civility and friendliness lessons. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mentoring an editor with long-term problems is a major commitment of time and effort, and results have been extremely disappointing in the long run. You're volunteering someone else to take on this thankless role. Let's assume we all value our time as highly as you do, and don't wish to spend it mentoring Badagnani. How do you propose we proceed? You also suggest that Badagnani's difficulties are reactive and caused by "youngsters" badgering him. I don't see that; it seems that he's quite often the aggressor, or at least an aggressor, in many of the disputes in which he's involved. MastCellTalk21:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec w/ MastCell) Quiddity, thanks for this. I like the angle you're taking here. Anyone attempting this might want to learn from my errors. I tried to mentor Badagnani, and it failed rather spectacularly. I tried to convince him to let me edit with him, and by working through content disputes, get to the bottom of the troublesome behavior. He basically shouted at me how to do my job. There was nothing acceptable to him short of having his "assailants" punished and his edits protected, and the fact that I wouldn't jump at his command meant I didn't care about our policies.
I accept that I must have bungled our interaction from the start, but he really is among the most combative and difficult editors I've ever worked with here, and I tend to work with combative and difficult editors. If anyone can get through to this editor, I'll be delighted, and I'll study how they did it, but... I couldn't get past the refusal to allow any contribution of his to be changed without his prior approval. We can't work like that here. What are we supposed to do, change everything because he's coming from a different cultural perspective?
My very first direct interaction with Badagnani preceded all of this by a month or so, and related to cultural differences. He was edit warring at Dog meat, over a probable copyvio YouTube link. He was attacking other editors as biased "Korean nationalists". Here:
[61] I leave what I think is a reasonably worded message, including an offer to help work out the policy question, and giving a somewhat stern warning that we don't talk about each others' ethnicities.
[62] He replies by thanking me for the message, telling me I'm simply wrong to question the permissibility of a YouTube link that's a pretty clear copyvio, and reaffirming that we need to stop the "Korean nationalists".
[63] I reply more sternly that, no, we really don't talk about people this way, and doing so will earn a block.
[64] He removes my post as "highly threatening", and asks me in the edit summary if I'm new, don't I know that we make racist generalizations all the time?
[65] I tell him I'm not new; I've been an admin for three years, and personal attacks are not on.
Then he gets really quiet, and that's the end of the interaction. In what culture is that cool? Never mind that; what could I have done better? Do I tolerate racism, edit warring and disregard for copyright, because he might be old and Hungarian? How do you mentor this guy? It's very easy for you to say that "someone should" do it, that you would "if you had time". Anyone willing and able to take this guy on as a project, you have my highest esteem. -GTBacchus(talk)21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Badagnani needs to learn when to stop replying to certain talkpage threads, and to just edit articles, and he needs to reread a few core guidelines and use less adjectives (less emotional language) and to write politically-correctly when in public. But when he's being pursued by nigh relentless and adversarial editors, it's hard to step in and give advice without seeming similarly dictatorial. I haven't formally mentored anyone before, and wouldn't claim to be a good mediator - I wouldn't know where to begin. In the end it's a partly just difference of wikiphilosophy, with a few problematic habits thrown in. It's a dispute between 4 or 5 immediatists who know how to wikilawyer, and a lone (I'd say curmudgeonly (some of my best friends in RL are curmudgeons)) eventualist. Eventualism got Wikipedia to where it is today, so I'm inclined to try to assist him, and at least attempt to see things from (what I imagine is) his point of view. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems that your suggestion is that some unidentified person, with inexhaustible patience and cultural sensitivity, should help this guy out. In my experience, these editors who are "relentless and adversarial" are people I've found to be at least somewhat receptive to communication. Badagnani is by far the most unapproachable person involved.
Unless you can say where this amazing mentor is going to come from, I don't see that you're suggesting anything practical. Do you expect someone to punish those who have been, in good faith, cleaning up after Badagnani, when he inserts sources that are obviously spammy, if not downright illegal? Or do you expect someone to come in with such clear vision that they see him as innocent, and his tormentors as guilty, and are able to defend this view? Where is this mediator, and why is it only clear to two or three people that Badagnani is the victim? How could I, for example, have given him more of a chance?
Speaking as someone who regularly puts his money where his mouth is, I'm extremely unimpressed with your suggestions. Back it up, or... why should we listen? What of value are you contributing? I don't mean to sound insulting, but... what are you realistically suggesting?
If you're his friend, convince him to change his style. Otherwise, I don't believe that this hero who will do so really exists. Nobody is as lost as he who will not accept directions. -GTBacchus(talk)02:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Quiddity... how can you call someone an eventualist when they officiously insist that their edits must be left in the article as a precondition to even discussing them? Do you know what "eventualism" is? What's "eventualist" about insisting that a copyvio link stay in an article now, for fear that our readers might not know today how barbaric the Koreans are, for example? Who are you even talking about? Badagnani is the opposite of an eventualist if I've ever seen one. -GTBacchus(talk)03:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm possibly being a devil's advocate for the wrong horse. I've glanced through a few of the disputes and archives and the RfC and he has made some definite blunders. I wouldnt want to defend his actions one by one. You, GTBacchus, definitely made a good attempt to mentor/guide him, and I'm sorry it didn't work.
I'm not his friend, and he might be irredeemable. I'm just tired of seeing small handfuls of people bring massive amounts of coordinated grief onto a variety of editors (usually academics or foreigners) who don't know how to handle their immediatist attitudes, or their stubborn bad faith regarding almost any external links. I've seen links to university archives removed, just because "the wrong person" added them!
Regarding Eventualism: "In stark contrast to an exclusionist, an eventualist has no objection to large chunks of unwikified text and trusts that, eventually, someone will fix this, where an immediatist or exclusionist would be concerned that they will reduce the perceived professionalism of Wikipedia." -- Quiddity (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have grave doubts as for the motives behind filing this RfC and whether they truly seek a cooperative solution or rather to punish Collect. I guess my best summation for why I think this can be found here: [66]. To clarify further, the Drudge Report and Fascism were used as evidence w/o anyone from either page being contacted until after it was posted (check the times). (Note: I was told to bring this up here after first filing it at WP:WQASoxwon (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section title Soxwon is refering to is aptly named, "I can't let it go". Soxwon disingeniously doesn't mention that I completely removed the comments he is complaining about here, taking his word for what he said, writing: "My sincerest apologies, i will take you at your word"[67]
Soxwon, you said it best when Phoenix of9 reported Collect to ANI, "Ok this suggests overkill and vendetta."[68]
RE: "I have grave doubts as for the motives behind filing this RfC" Soxwon has attempted to close this RfC from the very beginning.
This is a tried and true tactic on wikipedia of any disciplanary page: cause so much drama and such a big circus that people close the page down in disgust. With the most edits on the RfC (69) Soxwon may, by sheer number of edits trying to change the course of the RfC, and since that failed, here we are...Ikip (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adressing your statements in order, if you'd asked anyone involved, gone to AN/I, talked to Collect, read about the situation on talk, or even read the edit being addressed all would have shown that your charges of Tagteam and Meatpuppet were baseless and it shows an incredible level of carelessness or apathy toward factchecking. The fact that you found it on Collect's talk searching for evidence against him (or worse me colluding) shows a lack of how an RfC works. The fact that so many users endorsed your view when it was shown to have so many fact issues shows apathy for the truth or poor checking and again neither is good. Finally, in the original posting the same thing was done again with DR and Fascism. I think that Collect probably should get an RfC but not one that seems driven by ppl bent on vengeance or at least not concerned with evidence.
As for the vendetta and accusations of disruptions, funny I brought a large number of editors to the table to begin with and really most of the actual content does not belong to me.
As for the numer, considering how many times I posted when posting names of involved parties contacted and the few mistakes I made, well it's no wonder. Soxwon (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I apologize for that section again, I was wrong. I took you at your word, and removed the entire section, and apologized.
RE:
"shows an incredible level of carelessness or apathy toward factchecking."
"apathy for the truth or poor checking."
"driven by ppl bent on vengeance or at least not concerned with evidence"
As you have repeatedly reminded other editors: NPA, AGF. I would appreciate you removing those personal attacks at the least, and maybe apologizing. thanks! Ikip (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick check on number, 20 of those edits can be knocked off on just getting users to the table and one minor edit. Considering I had many more minor edits, your statement again rings false. Soxwon (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that closing it would be harsh, but given the methods being used and other things going on, it might be good to start over. A lot of the evidence appears to be quotes snipped from random talk page discussions, articles, and talk pages. The problem is quite a bit had nothing to do with the people filing the evidence, and you have credibility issues when they makes assumptions like the one that led to an accusation of myself and Collect tag-teaming and/or one or the other being a meat puppet. Soxwon (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also should probably bring up this attempt to close through consensus that was voted down handily, but also showed some to be focused on things other than helping Collect: [69] If there are any other issues (such as my behavior which I will admit was not sterling) plz let me know. Soxwon (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beg pardon? I originally undid this b/c I felt it was causing problems such as the nasty bit with the Anon, but after watching some of the edits, realized that he was just going back and forth. Soxwon (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I didn't get to add that I wouldn't be opposed to an actual RfC with Collect to address some of the concerns being listed (I reread my edits and realized this impression might be left). Soxwon (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If any admin can close out this case, I'd appreciate it. The original article was rejected as copyright vio, so I created a new page, which should pass muster, at the Morgan Ogg/Temp page.
This guy is going around damaging every film infobox he can find. He's been warned numerous times on his talk page, but to no avail. This doesn't really belong at AIV, so I'm bugging you folks with it. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is becoming increasingly clear that User:Bosniak is not here to contribute to the construction of a neutral encyclopedia but to push his own nationalistic point of view by whatever means necessary, including falsifying information, harassment, abuse, and intimidation. As his previous, relatively short blocks (up to two months) have failed to remedy his behaviour, I suggest he be blocked for a longer period (say, up to a year). —Psychonaut (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend not taking further action in this case. There are multiple parties on each side pushing buttons. If we block Bosniak for a long period we have equal misbehavior from Dr Trifunovic and another user which would require long blocks, and there's a BLP issues discussion on the article about him right now that he really should be allowed to participate in. After the last by Bosniak I left him a strong warning and he stopped further escalation at that point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to look at the bigger picture here. This isn't just about the two most recent incidents, but about a pattern of persistent abusive behaviour stretching back to 2006. The user has had eight WP:ANI reports, fifteen blocks or block extensions, and more warnings than I can count. To claim that User:Bosniak "stopped further escalation" because of your warning is asserting a cause–effect relationship that simply doesn't exist. The user seems to be well nigh incorrigible, and the only respite we are going to get is from a long-term block or community ban. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest no. Any RfC on nationalist/pov issues dissolves into a mess as each side brings out their friends and meatpuppets. Then again, so do most RfCs. Ironholds (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Issue with Tarc
Tarc (talk) has repeatedly deleted information presented from reliable sources. I'm referring to this edit, here: (1). Can I please get an administrator to look into his personal issue with the reliable source that I am using? Please remind this user that his opinion is not acceptable as a reason for deleting source. He might dislike the source but the information presented in it is reliable. Unless Fox News is no longer considered a reliable source, I am undoing his deletion and re-adding the information which directly correlates to the Tax Day Tea Party. Tycoon24 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if you pulled two separate things (call for cuts and Tea Party protests) and conflated them to make it look as if one was a consequence of another. The source doesn't support that. In fact, the source reports at great length about how Obama sees this as just the beginning of the cost-cutting measures. Frankly, I cannot see how this has anything to do with the Tea Party protests. I note that the Fox News source mentions them, but that is not surprising since they effectively sponsored the event. The second part of your addition is just Glenn Beck's opinion on this matter - and that doesn't have anything to do with the Tea Party protests either. It seems like Tarc's edit was legitimate. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. AN/I is one of the last stops for editing disputes, not the first. I have edited and explained the edit on the talk page, so if you have objections, then continue to try air them there. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Involved" block for review
Resolved
– Block endorsed.
I just blocked Sadbuttrue92 (talk·contribs) for trolling, userspace harassment and personal attacks against myself, after a series of harassing posts to my talk page, after which I had repeatedly told him off from my page ( [75][76][77][78][79]). He was in fact collecting the diffs of being reverted from my page as trophies on his own user page, under the picture of a troll (I've also removed that as a personal attack.) I've had enough of this kind of nationalist harassment over the last few days.
What a pity. I was under the impression it meant "go to hell". Now I'm disappointed; "fuck off" isn't strong enough. (Note to self: must acquire better choice of Greek curses.) Fut.Perf.☼17:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think informing someone of your personal opinions regarding their ultimate fate qualifies as a violation of WP:NPA, so I guess we have to allow that one to stand. But, unless one is an expert as to what does and does not qualify one for such a fate, which I am not, unfortunately, it might be seen as being a less than constructive comment. Perhaps next time something like "Keep this up, and you will go to hell" might be preferable. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) x 2 Endorse block Maybe you should not have done it, and maybe you said some wrong things, but the block, in general, was warranted, in my opinion. The user was harassing and personally attacking you. hmwithτ16:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) x a lot The fact that the editor is blocked is appropriate; harassment of that sort is entirely unacceptable. I don't think it was a good idea for you to do the block, but it's already done. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also endorse block, although I regret that the admin involved himself did it. After he was told by you to cease posting on your page, and not only continued to do so but insulted you directly and indirectly as well, he deserved it. And, just for general principles, I really hate it when people write something in the English wikipedia in foreign languages which don't work on the automatic translators. I tried to translate the comment above myself on a few and got no results. I can understand why you didn't want a lot of people to be able to read it, and don't necessarily fault you for saying it, but wish the people who knew foreign languages didn't use them as often as they do, because it makes the conversation harder to follow on reviews like this. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. Dealing with clear harassment should not be constrained by "personal involvement", and Fut. Perf. did exactly the right thing by bringing the matter here for review afterwards. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the comment was a clear violation of civility. I am far from being Future Perfect's best friend right now, but I can acknowledge that he is at present involved in a discussion where there is a lot more heat than light being cast around. I cannot and do not condone the comment myself, and I would not condone it to someone not in a situation similar to the one he is in, but I think it is reasonable to allow the occasional slip of tongue, particularly if it is in a foreign language that we can't even be 100% sure the recipient understands and the editor who made it is involved in a rather stressful argument. I don't think it in and of itself necessarily requires a reprimand to Future Perfect, but I do think it would probably be best not to use such language in any script in the future. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec with John) We apparently have different notions about civility then. I don't mind being called an asshole from time to time. But there are situations where "fuck off" is simply the only truthful, and hence, the only appropriate response. Telling this person to "please" read the "civility policy" ("dear") would, in this case, have been highly insincere on my part, and thus a lot less polite than a good, straight, honest, heart-felt insult. Fut.Perf.☼20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rules are rules, my dear! You should've posted something here, and another uninvolved admin would have blocked Sadbuttrue92. Cool Hand Luke also agrees with me.[83]AdjustShift (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reported another, even more serious case of harassment here yesterday, multiple people stood around nodding gravely, "bad, bad", and nothing happened: the person is still trolling around. Fut.Perf.☼20:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was more concerned about the decorum of cursing an editor, blocking him, and then declaring that the profanity isn't strong enough. No admin should do that, period. The block itself seemed clear-cut enough. Cool HandLuke04:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. I must've missed the serious case. I was going to ask why not ask another colleague for an obvious block but that's been answered; as a caveat, pay attention to what CHL said FPS. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but... Well-deserved block. I agree with FP coming here for validation, as blocking when you're involved in the situation is usually a no-no (reminds me of the days when I was a Community Standards Administrator on IRC). I do understand the explanation of the use of profanity towards the other editor, but that never excuses it. Hold out your wrist FP, there some wrist-slapping a-comin' (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Punching me in the face is usually a more successful strategy than trying to slap my wrists. At least take some larger fish. Fut.Perf.☼21:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy into the nonsense that the same decision can somehow be correct when one person makes it not correct when another person makes it. Blocking someone because you have strong personal feelings is wrong, but in this case it is simply an object application of policy. The block is equally valid if made for the same reasons by an uninvolved admin or an involved admin. Our policies say not to block when involved in a content dispute, I see no rule that says an admin must recuse themselves when insulted. Chillum04:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you input, Ncmvocalist. Chillum, please read those two links. When an involved admin issues a block in response to personal attacks directed at him, the guy at the receiving end may feel that the admin is trying to bully him. The purpose of a block is not to punish people; its purpose is to stop disruption. When someone feels that an admin is trying to bully him, he may become more disruptive. That's why an uninvolved admin should issue the block. AdjustShift (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those links are based off the consensus of the community. Such decisions have been made by those allowed to be arbitrary, but that does not mean that it has been accepted by the community. I would like to reassure everyone that I was familiar with both of those cases when I made my original comment. Here is an interesting point of view from one of those cases that I have had on my talk page for some time now. Chillum15:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In some extreme cases, such as this, the admin may block the user. But, in non-emergency situations, admins should not issue blocks in response to personal attacks or incivility directed at them. AdjustShift (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This edit appears to be an IP admitting to socking. I had already tagged the IP as a sock of User:Kuntan based on this edit. Is this quacky enough for a block?
Forgive me if this is a little awkward: I haven't managed proper night's sleep in weeks. I'm taking steps to fix this (needed to get a new bedframe) but...
Robertredfern (talk·contribs) is (evidently) Robert Redfern, author of a book called "The Miracle Enzyme", advocating that people take a nutrtional supplement.
He is edit warring rather badly to replace the article Serratiopeptidase with an extract of his (presuming this is Robert Redfern, otherwise this is strict copyvio) book, as credited at the bottom.
His book, it would appear, is a lengthy advertisement for the product. It lacks an encyclopedic tone, and ignores the studies showing it doesn't work.
At one point, Robertredfern, disliking studies that went against Serratopeptidase, went in and instituted a smear campaign at the article on the journal: [84][85]
He could be blocked indefinitely as a promotional account. WP:BLOCK#Disruption-only notes that some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely and includes in its list accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam.. Just sayin'. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK18:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in contact with the subject via e-mail after placing the block, and I indicated to him the correct ways to deal with situations like he is currently in. It is my hope that he takes the suggestions to heart and abides by them. We'll all find out soon enough, I guess. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of a notice than a report, but given the issues on the Obama pages I thought I should proceed carefully. Grundle2600(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), after countless warnings, continues to fill Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama with accusations of censorship, refusing to acknowledge the "truth" about Obama, etc. The editor is ignoring and sometimes mocking demands to stop. As a least intrusive option I have been collapsing various discussions where it is clear that his proposals have not gained and will not gain consensus, after those discussions start to degrade. I have also asked the editor to take a break from working on the article, which the editor has not done. There are not very many options, but thinking this through, if neutral admins cannot help I think I have to be very firm here in the role of an article patroller. The editor is not a party to the Obama ArbCom case, and this is an instant problem, not something where we can wait weeks for a ruling. The other option, ignoring the matter, would mean abandoning the article and letting things degrade. Any help or guidance appreciated; otherwise I'm proceeding as I think best. Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look at this - I need to read the talk page and probably some comments on user talk pages - and then talk to the editor in question (not sure what I'll say yet, but I'll let you know). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs19:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I spent some time reviewing this and agree that there are some real problems with Grundle2600's editing on the talk page in question. I left a detailed note with a warning and a bit of advice for the editor. I'd like to leave it at that for now and hope that we see a shift in behavior in the near future, but if these problems continue a block or temporary article ban would be warranted, so don't hesitate to report future problems here or to contact me about them about on my talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs21:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidemon has no business asking an editor he disagrees with on content to take a break from working on an article. Wikidemon is NOT authorized to "be very firm here in the role of an article patroller". Wikidemon is a party to the Obama arbcom proceeding and one of the main offenders. Reminding an editor to focus on article content rather than other editors (as I've done) is fine, but Wikidemon's aggressive behavior including accusing that editor of making personal attacks when there weren't any in the diffs he provided is totally inappropriate and added fuel to the fire. Wikidemon continues to post warnings and to act in an uncivil way instead of engaging the editor in a collegial manner and working with him. While Wikidemon works almost exclusively on political content where he advances a very clear partisan point of view, the other editor has been writing lots of great articles and trying to add well cited content. A topic ban is needed, but not for the editor Wikidemon is harassing. If Bigtimepeace wants to reign in the personal attacks and inappropriate behavior I suggest he review the Barack Obama talk page and the List of topics related to Barack Obama AfD that has been hijacked by personal attacks and incivility. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editor/IP spamming links with which they appear to be affiliated
Thank you for looking into it. The IP locates to a public library, so a short block there (few hours) would probably stop the problem. MastCellTalk20:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A fellow editor, JBsupreme, continually leaves completely inappropriate and rude edit summaries. For example, edit summaries from March 2009: [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]. I proceeded to leave a reminder to the user to avoid using such edit summaries as they are disruptive. He then went on to remove my comment. His edit summaries have continued to be uncivil, as shown in recent edits: [92], [93], [94], [95], [96]. Despite another warning from another editor, JBsupreme continues to leave rude and offensive edit summaries and shows no sign of stopping. When multiple warnings are ignored, I say enough is enough. — Σxplicit20:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'll second this, JBsupreme's edit summaries are over the line and uncivil. Scrolling through their contribs is enough to show this. But what action are you looking for? - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a block here. That sort of language is completely inappropriate, and he's been around for long enough that he should know that. Ironholds (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me this looks like a good faith contributor who occasionally uses profanity in edit summaries, as a way of expressing frustration at ongoing vandalism and BLP violations. No one seems to be getting attacked as far as I can see. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK21:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure a block is appropriate here only because he's no longer attacking people personally in edit summaries (possible exception). Proposed alternative: I warn him that if they continue as is, I will personally block him until he agrees to improve them on his own. The other messages he's been getting on his talk page are about not having edit summaries, but I'd say that is preferable to this.--chaser - t21:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And both can be deleted or even oversighted if there's a real need to do so. Honestly, the profanity isn't the problem, it's incivility in edit summaries, which could become a problem for the project overall if they garner negative remark in outside media. I don't think sanctions are the answer, however. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:AureliusBP has twice now attempted to call me on the telephone (my request that he not do so and his response are on his talk page) and he has now threatened legal action against me on my talk page. This is all over an article about a game he produces which I've nominated for deletion. Am I in the wrong here? Any suggestions? Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help, everyone (and especially FisherQueen). I'm assuming he googled me or something. At first I had no idea who it was who had called me, and then I noticed that he signed his real name on the article talk page. I've never seen someone that upset about my editing! Anyways, thanks again! Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Racial & Ethnic Slur of an Article
The article "Angry White Male" should be deleted unless similar articles prepended by a negative, judgmental adjective are allowed for blacks, women, homosexuals, asians and so forth. It is offensive on its face, whether the term was used by a journalist or not. A simple google search will find derogatory labels for the aforementioned groups. Where are their articles??
--Zerasmus (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) We have an article on that phrase because it is widely used (and not just as an insult). If there are similar phrases about other genders and ethnicities that are widely used, they too should have article. --Tango (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, but doggone it, I'm posting it anyway) To his credit, the article's sourcing is a little weak, the article isn't terribly well developed, and it's been nominated for deletion before. Should I point out that we also have articles on otherderogatoryterms, or would that be unhelpful? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)22:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for a follow up on an administrator's action for IP block please
Resolved
– No action required as IP is not presently engaged in vandalism. Per WP:BLANKING users, including IPs are permitted to blank their talk pages (with only a few exceptions) and should not be reverted if they do so. –xenotalk23:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user was given several warnings by other users, including last warning for vandalism. Then this user removed the warnings from his/her page, which I thought was not allowed unless the messages were personal attack (now I know one can remove it, but this is not why I am asking for a follow up). So, I politely asked the user not to do it unless it is a personal attack, but I did not report the user, because it was not a vandalism! Then I noticed that this user, actually did vandalize his own talk page, which was for the fifth time (excluding my friendly warning to him/her for removing messages) and then I reported this user to be blocked after giving another warning (the fifth warning). But it is imazing that administrator Edgar181, has compeletely disregarded the following vandalism 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 by this user, including the last warning and has simply gave this reason for denying the block (decline - removing warnings is acceptable) which has nothing to do with my request!
Removing of messages is fine, but this user had final warning, and even vandalized after the final warning and yet the administrator failed to even comment on such vandalism! Not that, this administrator, simply removed all the warnings including the most recent warnings! Why? The vandalism of this IP user includes vandalism of a living person. Ignoring a block report is simply unprofessional. Again, my point is not about warning removal, but a follow up please and also, reverting the warnings back. Kind regards. --Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removing warning messages from one's talk page is acknowledgment of them. Doing so is not vandalism. We typically don't block anyone unless they've had a "Final warning". If the final warning was bogus, then we typically don't block.
(e/c)Whoops - you're right - the final warning just wasn't considered recent enough. No final warning was given within the last 24 hours. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is my point. I think there should have been a clear comment by that administrator about a decline not just something that has nothing to do with my report. I have nothing against him, he probably had a bad day. But I have a request, please revert those warnings so that other users can see the most recent warnings given to this IP user. Many of this user's edits constitutes vandalism, those warnings should be there in his talk page. Kind regards--Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read! This policy does not prohibit users from removing messages or warning messages from their own talk page. It does not say that someone else is allowed to removed the warnings from another use's talk page with out any reason! does it? Even this administrator's reason was a repeat of this rule.--Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The warnings from the 19th were blanked by the user and the warnings from the 21st were inappropriate because they were warning him for removing the warnings. Please move on. –xenotalk23:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but one can simply delete those two warnings and leave the rest. This is against the policy that you just mentioned. What do you mean move on? Come on! This administrator removed all the messages that are supposed to be removed only by that IP user. Even if those warnings were given by mistake, I don't think one can remove it. I think that page should be reverted. Either give me a reason or do not ignore me please. Thanks --Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, inappropriate warnings should be removed by anyone. Again, please move on. If the user vandalizes again, there is no need for a warning, simply report to AIV and note that they have already received a final warning. They have not vandalized today, and while they did call you a name they were probably frustrated because of being reverted on their own talk page. Belabouring this point to keep warnings on the IP's page will only lead to further disruption by the anon. I have added a note to the talk page confirmimg that further disruption will result in a block. –xenotalk23:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but you perhaps think I am bringing this issue here because this IP user has called me a name. No. It is because an administrator with so much experience has failed to comment correctly about a report. Please do not divert from the subject. If you want to support another administrator just say it but based on WP:BLANKING no one, except the user can remove the warnings. Now you say that there are two warnings that were inappropriately given, fine, remove those and revert it back and let the user do what ever he/she wants to do. The action of this administarator not only is not professional, but based on WP:BLANKING unlawful, for blanking someone else's talk page. Perhaps it is lawful and I have not been told so. Kind regards--Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline doesn't say what you think it does - it does not prohibit the removal of inappropriate warnings by other users, it simply permits the removal of warnings by the warned user. As far as I can tell, a blank page is what the IP wants, though I've left them a {{welcome-vandal}} template. The administrator's denial of the report was spot-on: you were trying to have the user blocked for making edits allowable per WP:BLANKING. There is no need to become frustrated about this situation. Now that you know about the blanking rules, you will be better equipped to continue your good efforts in combatting vandalism. –xenotalk23:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone would take a look at the history of this article and judge whether it needs to be put out of its misery, I'd appreciate it. Someone's playing silly buggers. Skomorokh01:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm here, by any change does anyone know the template I'm thinking about, which adds the page number at the end of a reference that is used very often. Kind of like this.[1]:54-3. Best regards. --CyclePat (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{rp}}? PG really should be a redirect to a page template of some kind. If anyone wants to AWB all the political graveyard pages...--chaser - t05:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Requested moves is in a pretty good backlog. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 22, 2009 @ 02:11
Voting on the copyright project
I am unable to participate in the vote to select the future copyright terms for the Wikimedia projects. I click on the box to be redirected to the voting site, but instead I get a scripting error, as follows:
Internal error
From Wikimedia Elections
Jump to: navigation, search
Set $wgShowExceptionDetails = true; at the bottom of LocalSettings.php to show detailed debugging information.
I've tried both netscape and IE, home and work, the error is still there. Is it due to a browser error, or is the server having problems?--Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citation bot misbehaviour
I am not very familiar with bots, but is it normal for them to do this much damage? To my untrained eye, it appears to me that User:Citation bot does not fully meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Bot policy. It is not harmless, and performs tasks for which there is no consensus. I am in discussion with the owner over one particular bug, but it's the sheer number of bugs that I would like to flag to the administrators' attention.--Yannick (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That 'bot performs a useful task, but a very complex one, and it does do weird things at times. See [99]. I'd suggest that complex bots like this one should have the code under version control, with publicly visible code, bug tickets, edits identified by version, and some way to undo in bulk edits done by a specific version. This isn't just some macro; this thing is a serious part of the Wikipedia system and needs to be managed as such. --John Nagle (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IP to watch
I'm on vacation, actually getting ready to graduate. Could someone with less pressure and more time watch this IP for a day or so to see if they return? They edited a template which caused a little more damage than usual, and it would be nice to stop them from doing more if they continue, but I won't be around to monitor. Vandal only account, but may not be sufficient warning, yet, or may be. Anyone could do this, not just admin. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slavic names in Greece; 2nd Round
This is the second reference of this topic to the administrators noticeboard. The first discussion was unsucessful, nothing was achieved and everyone lost interest and it was deleted. My actual concern is the persistent reverting of User:Laveol and User:TodorBozhinov only to present their personal/national POV's. This being the Bulgarian POV upon the Macedonian language; all of which is presented here.
The actual issue and repeated incidents have been happening across a range of articles where an identical name is listed just in the Bulgarian Cyrillic script; See here and here. Not only has this process occured on Wiki-wide POV Sprees, See contribs. for both of the users here and here. This process has done nothing but push a questionable agenda negating the existence of a seperate Macedonian language from the Bulgarian one (strangely enough this is the predominant Bulgarian POV). The term "Macedonian Slavic", was developed as a disambiguation term and also as a term to correctly highlight the usage of the term in the English speaking community and by the community itself.
The issue has been brought to administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, who has been a supporter of "Macedonian Slavic" as an appropriate term for the highlighting of place names in Northern Greece. The below proposal was agreed upon by a range of users, the only objections being from the above users:
for all place names in West Macedonia and Central Macedonia (except Serres prefecture) we use the term [[Macedonian Slavic]]
for all place names in East Macedonia and Serres prefecture we use a combination of [[Macedonian language|Macedonian]]/[[Bulgarian]]
for all place names in Thrace we use the term [[Bulgarian]]
for all people from Greek Macedonia whose (Slavic) ethnicity is disputed we use [[Macedonian language|Macedonian]]/[[Bulgarian]]
for all people from Greek Macedonia but who are ethnically Macedonian we use [[Macedonian Slavic]]
This arrangement not only complements the linguistic situation but also the common English language terminology. The most recent round of discussions occured here, where any attempts for attaining WP:CONSENSUS were derailed. This issue has also featured in the newest attempt for resolution on Macedonian related issues in WP:MOSMAC2; "Macedonian Slavic can also be used when rendering Slavic versions of Greek placenames.". This other issue is currently open for arbitration, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2.
Hi and thanks for attempting to take action against me, I appreciate it. Unfortunately, I don't think this is the right place to resolve the dispute we're having, so I'd kindly ask you to follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and file for mediation. Always remember that although you might firmly believe you are right in a given dispute, so does the other side. Above, you're making the mistake of presenting your own point of view as The Truth. Clearly, we have a dispute that requires assistance to be resolved, but asking administrators to take action against the other side in a dispute is not the right move in my opinion.
I'm only asking you to quit pretending that unacceptable draft manuals of style are actually in force, that you don't know what "consensus" means and that your "proposal" has been agreed on. Also, Fut.Perf.'s involvement as a side in this dispute renders his position as an administrator irrelevant to all this. Todor→Bozhinov11:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I find User:PMK's comments rather bizarre. The agreement that he's talking about has never taken place. He proposed this and not a single user said: "Ok, that's what we're gonna do". There was some talk about "bananas" and a "battle", but nothing more. And when you say there were no objections, you somehow miss the fact that only four users were in the discussion. I also find it strange when the main edit-warrior files a case and it is an ANI! My impression is that he's doing his uttermost to avoid any discussion on the subject. Further, I think [[Future Perfect at Sunrise would not be against our action, meaning he never raised any concern about this particular issue and didn't revert the addition of the Bulgarian names of the places. Mind you, my edits had nothing to do with the removal of info - I simply added the Bulgarian names and didn't remove any. I, also, have never said/wrote or by any other mean expressed the view that there was no distinct Macedonian language. Quite the opposite: I actually add the Bulgarian name so that we get Macedonian/Bulgarian which clearly implies there is an actual difference. Really, really strange ANI. --LaveolT12:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Todor, this issue clearly needs the intervention of an uninvolved administrator to sort this mess out. A decision was reached a while back, that was before you went balistic, declaring the "de facto" consensus void, because apparently you were not specifically invited. You made your intention to file for mediation clear, but you did not follow up with your apparent intentions.
Laveol, there has been extensive discussion about the topic which was effectively bombarded and declared void by a fellow wikipedian. I am sure that the frequent reverting and "offensive" (your guys comments) edit summaries were not a sign of anything.
Hopefully another administrator will help solve this, but as Hiberniantears suggests it is possible for this issue to go on the back burner until the outcome of ARBMAC2. In the event should this clause ("Macedonian Slavic can also be used when rendering Slavic versions of Greek placenames."), be accepted by the comitee, then this dispute will effectively be over. PMK1 (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either you show diffs of the alleged "offensive comments" or remove the text. You've been throwing arguments a wild for more than a week now, but if you're gonna get personal, give prooves for your allegations. --LaveolT13:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The committee will certainly not go into deciding these kinds of content questions, they never do that. I think the best idea would be if you took up Todor's suggestion and go to formal mediation. Wasn't he going to initiate that anyway? That can go in parallel with the Arbcom case, because it's really a different issue. Fut.Perf.☼13:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user above, the first noted user, was originally blocked for harassment and stalking of myself. He recently came back as the second IP listed, a blatant sock, only to be blocked again, and have a range block issued on the IP address range for a month. Now he is stalking and harassing me on my youtube account, as seen below by the image, and the quote:
File:Stalking.pngOh No! Did an anon IP user from Wikipedia track you down?
Why are your teeth so yellow? Is it to match your spine?
Please change the block settings on the range and IP address to more than a year, as, as he told me in a message, he only thinks of it as minor inconvenience. Honestly, I wish to you to block the IP indef, this off-wiki harassment is unacceptable.— DædαlusContribs08:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, well, as said before, this user, as per a message which I can provide in a screen shot, only thinks of a year long block as a minor inconvenience, so please, block indef for continued stalking and harassment.— DædαlusContribs08:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, what I need to know is what type of IP is it? How large a range do we need to block? What sort of collateral damage is there that we will need to fix with WP:IPBE? That requires a checkuser to figure out. MBisanztalk08:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways from your link to find out what video you are posting and I don't know if this is germane to this Wikipedia discusssion, but you appear ... how do I say it nicely ... extremely creepy. Where this could be germane to Wikipedia is I wonder if there is a broader Internet war that is going on that you and your "adversaries" are bringing unto Wikipedia. JustGettingItRight (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It took me about 20 seconds to find that video, from other info readable in the screenshot. Video can be very unflattering (this is one reason why photogenic folks who can act can easily make a living and sometimes make tonnes of money) so I'll skip the production values but Daedalus, I think you still have a way to go towards learning not to stir things up more than they already are. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, and I apologize to Daedalus as this sort of issue would be upsetting to anybody, but how does trolling on Youtube qualify as a Wikipedia problem? The comment has already been taken down, and furthermore I haven't seen diffs to suggest that it's this anon socker and not someone else(stricken as I realized there's some non-public off-wiki communication involved). Finally, that image needs to be deleted as it's a fairuse image not being used in any article- please use something like imageshack next time. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, I was involved with an editing dispute with an admin who unilaterally decided to block me based on "personal attacks." In truth, I did not attack User:Toddst1 but attempted to engage with him in clarifying the banner he had placed on an article I created. Admittedly, my temper flared and, in a space as transparent as Wikipedia, this was evidenced in my edit comments. As you can see from a discussion on the help desk page, there are mixed ideas about how I should proceed. While I have started a new account, I would prefer to edit under the User:Mrmerlot username and account. Therefore, I humbly request that you reinstate my account. As you can read in the above discourse, I have rethought my involvement with Wikipedia entirely and will unlikely be making any substantial (and therefore controversial) edits from here on forward. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.125.4.210 (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it is your intent to make no signficant contributions in the future, why do you need multiple accounts to do it? Honestly — take your clean slate and run with it. Given the obnoxious behaviour attached to your last account you don't want this account back. (You used it to create an article promoting your company; you edit warred over the article; you called other editors Nazis, jackasses, and buttmunches; you told us we suck, that our advice should be shoved up our asses, and that we should all just fuck off; and you did all this in the span of less than seven days and thirty edits.)
I believe that his talk page is currently protected. Not that I would be inclined to recommend an unblock here, based both on his previous conduct and his whitewashing of same in these unblock requests. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the other guys here I would be inclined to give this user a second chance (But I'm a well-known sucker and on a crusade to make us more friendly too). I see frustration and resentment at being thrown into immediately in the deep end of our numerous policies, not anything that amounts to the long term abuse that should result in the permanent expulsion from our community. Whatever happened to WP:BITE? New users aren't expected to know everything from the start or do everything correctly. Mistakes are allowed.
Frustration shouldn't be a reason to be shown the door permanently. I'll offer to mentor and counsel this user, if we can agree to give a second chance. henrik•talk13:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@henrik thank you for your kind words. As you can see (an undoubtedly have experienced previously), the admin group leans towards harsh and unforgiving behavior. Rehashing (i.e., linking to) what has already been admitted to on my part is just a symptom of a larger problem. I do appreciate your offer to mentor/counsel, though I have many years' experience using and managing wikis and other social media in an enterprise 2.0 environment. As such, I am familiar with the appropriate and civil behavior required to contribute meaningfully. My biggest concern is that the accusations against me were being hypocritically flaunted by those with "power" in this space - the admins. I can tell from the above comments that wielding this power continues to be a millstone around the neck of many in this space (yourself excluded). Regardless of the final decision, I wanted to extend to you my personal appreciation (lest it continue to be presumed that nothing "personal" should be addressed in this space, only informational, that argument is fundamentally flawed as all social media is inherently social).
Oh, and for the inane comments that I am employed by concrete5, you are seriously in error. I won't name call (well, again), but I doubt the analytic prowess of those who continue to claim that I am somehow involved with concrete5. I actually just stumbled across the CMS the other day, have played with it a bit, and feel like it deserves a page in Wikipedia along the likes of Joomla and WordPress. Unless someone can give me a reason why 'not', I assume it's a personal vendetta against the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.125.4.210 (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec me too) Please understand that Wikipedia is the target of large quantities of spam, trolling, self-promotion and other forms of disruptive behavior. In the large majority of cases, ejecting those who engage in it as quickly as possible is entirely correct. Unfortunately, sometimes mistakes are made and users run afoul of the "immune system" of Wikipedia without really deserving it. C'est la vie, regrettably. We have to strike some compromise between helping new users get to know the site and preventing those who wish to disrupt the encyclopedia. I personally think we've gotten too hard recently, but I'm not faulting those who help keep disruptive users off this site. henrik•talk14:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Henrik, if you read the Help Desk discussion he linked you'll find that he's claiming not to be a new user. 'Don't call other users Nazis as your opening bid for discussion' isn't exactly the deep end of our policies, either. You're welcome to believe he should have a second chance, but be sure that you're familiar with the history first. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For supposed "editors," you don't read much, do you? (ooh, is this another personal attack? no, it's a presumption of fact.) I clearly stated that I held a previous account, that I petitioned to change my user name (for personal reasons), and that my former edit history did not transfer to my new account. That previous account went back to 2006 and was used to contribute to several articles. I was merely attempting to bolster the fact that I wasn't a n00b in the space. User:Mrmerlot—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.125.4.210 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent SPA spouting voluminous amounts of quasi-racist diatribe and original research. Having already rendered a rather blunt opinion and reverted, I am for all intents and purposes a participant in what would undoubtedly be called a content dispute by the opposing party. I'm not sure whether to back away slowly, or just block. The talk page to Talk:Person_of_color#List_of_peoples_of_color proves that reasoning alone doesn't stand a chance. ˉˉanetode╦╩13:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this and possibly this constitute a legal threat from User:Nattypazmino12 who I've now blocked. This is the first legal threat I've handled as an admin so if another admin wants to run an eye over it feel free to do so, and if appropriate amend my action. ϢereSpielChequers14:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The legal threat is just the "you will hear from my lawyer" in the first diff, the second diff being pure invective. Overall, well worth a block - sometimes I wish our interface made it easier to specify multiple block reasons, which I think would have been more correct in this case). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK14:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse topic ban. Also suggest that editor be advised how much of his conduct is itself in violation of policy and guidelines, particularly his forum shopping and soliciting for meatpuppets and his apparent inability to avoid shouting. Wouldn't rule out the possibility of a short block for such as well. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll endorse a topic ban as well and point out he said he wouldn't touch the Fuel Tv article after he got unblocked. So he was blocked for a short time (I think it was 48 hours or so, but that's just a guess) but after showing remorse and apologizing he got an early unblock. User:MrRadioGuyWhat's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box16:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved
--NE2 07:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
Done [80]. Cirt (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
