I've patched the rule so it isn't possible for a person to do something that they themselves (or someone will comparable privileges) couldn't undo. The patch is something of a hack. It isn't exploitable the way the previous code was, but it might create a rare false positive. Before trying to clean this up further I'm going to discuss the matter with the editors at the affected articles because it may require making some choices about preferred behavior. I don't expect to work on this further tonight however. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 04:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I've patched the rule so it isn't possible for a person to do something that they themselves (or someone will comparable privileges) couldn't undo. The patch is something of a hack. It isn't exploitable the way the previous code was, but it might create a rare false positive. Before trying to clean this up further I'm going to discuss the matter with the editors at the affected articles because it may require making some choices about preferred behavior. I don't expect to work on this further tonight however. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 04:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
:Noo that you've patched it shouldn't the filter be public now? [[User:Prom3th3an|Prom3th3an]] ([[User talk:Prom3th3an|talk]]) 04:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Ferreira (Portuguese singer)]] ==
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Ferreira (Portuguese singer)]] ==
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)
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]
Hello, this is Math Champion. I will not do this in the future again. Sorry for all the trouble I have caused. P.S.: I'm not very good at editing, and so I need someone to adopt me. Maybe download should, so we can settle our differences. The way i learned how to edit was from editing myself, and i'll admit, i got carried away that day. Again, sorry for the trouble i've caused.Math Champion (talk) 22:13, 22 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)
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]
Oppose and Comment He has only one sock. This is Cool piplup2, so I don't understand why you say "socks". In addition, he has not used Cool piplup2 since he created the account Math Champion. I oppose until he vandalizes again. -download | sign!21:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 [1] to offer an explanation for my actions. He replied with [2] 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 [3]. This was reverted again with this comment [4] 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: [5].
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 [6] and [7] 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]
Mentoring?
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:
[10] 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.
[11] 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".
[12] I reply more sternly that, no, we really don't talk about people this way, and doing so will earn a block.
[13] 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?
[14] 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]
List of liqueurs? Really? This discussion is from over almost a year ago and demonstrates the exact same inability to work with others that is documented in Badagnani's RfC/U. He continues the same exact behavior once again in List of liqueurs when I confront him for the very same problems identified in the Redlinks discussion. He continues the same exact behavior in List of gamelan ensembles in the United States. This is not "acting completely appropriately." This is tendentious editing with disregard for most Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) June 2008 is not "over a year ago". 10 months admittedly, but exaggerating doesn't help. 2) You and GraYoshi2x erase all links and demand someone else check them for you, whereas we request that you collaborate on checking and verifying links. I think he has been quite polite given your dictatorial/angry-cop attitude. Each time he requests that you collaborate, you ignore him or point out the RfC: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. But again, I'm only familiar with these 2 situations. I'll try to look through some other page histories when I have time tonight. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(<-- Outdenting) Ok, Quiddity, here's the most generous reading I think I can give you. (What I'm about to say is not necessarily what I believe.)
Badagnani is an eventualist, with cultural differences and a generation gap working against him; fine. He has been unfairly harangued, harassed, stalked and mocked, by a group of bad-faith editors who won't let him be; fine. He's become so frustrated with this campaign of torment that he's closed off to trusting or accepting help from anyone else around here; clearly. So.... what do we do? We need a practical solution that we can actually implement.
One option is to tell Badagnani that he's right, warn and block his opponents, and give him a barnstar and a cookie. Another option is to put Badagnani on some kind of behavior parole, get Clark Kent or Job or someone to mentor him (if he'll accept it), and then block him if he can't respect our community norms.
The problem with the first option is that I don't think it can last. If we bump off Ronz, and Caspianblue, and Wikidemon (and who else?), unless we can also effect a profound change in the way Badagnani interacts, then more Wikipedians will just fill the shoes of these unreasonable tormentors. We could go 12 rounds like this, and eventually, we might realize that if 40 people are unreasonable and 1 person is reasonable... then it's actually the other way around. -GTBacchus(talk)19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget harried! There's a lot of hyperbole there, which I'm happy to read between the lines of, and mostly agree with. If Badagnani has stopped adding things like flickr as sources, then it's mostly a personality conflict, and we cannot change people' character, but we should be making more of an effort to be adaptive and diplomatic and patient with foreigners and academics and oldsters. He's started ~1300 articles in the 4 years he's been editing, and from random clicking through the list on his userpage, most of them are damned good stubs, or better.
Yeah... I agree that we should be more diplomatic and patient when dealing with foreigners and academics and oldsters. In this particular case, I don't know what that would look like. Maybe it's just a matter of stopping the... "harriers"? While we have clear documentation of Badagnani's problematic behavior, I haven't seen nearly as much about these "ruffians," "rakes," and/or "rude-boys".
I have advised Ronz, since before this current round of business began, that his leaving warnings on Badagnani's talk page is foolhardy. He disagrees. He says (ignoring a fairly stong consensus) that DTTR is wrong, and that we should deal with problem behavior consistently and officially, by using warnings to document problems. He's wrong about this, and his warnings do lead directly and predictably to escalation, and help undermine attempts at dispute resolution. He should stop templating the regulars, unless his goal is to create unnecessary heat; problems document themselves, without warnings that tend to aggravate things.
That's the worst I've seen though, which isn't much compared with the worst I've seen from Mr. B. I have previously asked another editor who defended Badagnani to post positive comments at the RfC, but he has so far declined to do so. If those who support Badagnani really want to help, the best thing you can do is to document situations where non-spammy, not-illegal contributions of Badagnani's are being lost through the actions of others. This would be good for the community to see. Show us. -GTBacchus(talk)21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of examples from the last few days: [21] (gratuitous rudeness), [22] (the superscript photo-links are bad, but the wiktionary links are useful), and the senseless antagonism over an embedded-list of mostly blue links at Rice noodles.
Badagnani has some occasionally odd sourcing habits (although a few of these get into the gray area of "whether an imperfect source is better than no source, or not"), and he seems to like adding hidden comments for future reference (which irk some people but are mostly harmless). He strongly reminds me of a few of our older, prolific editors (eg fabartus), who are offended by the people who "make a waste of their time spent editing" by simply deleting or reverting edits.
I'd have to dig back months to find a time before he was being harassed. He certainly is vilified though, eh! Most of the disputes I've run across so far have been fairly normal Wikipedia activity, eg. the page history of Gurney Norman - each participant has a point of view on what should be included and how, and eventually they work out a compromise.
He might be doing far worse things that I haven't seen yet. What is the worst he has been doing, aside from inarticulately pointing out that someone might have a patriotic-bias in regards to dog meat? -- Quiddity (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's ignoring copyright law, in that particular case. The suggestion that a necessity for permission might outweigh the need to have the link in the article was, I think, quite reasonably presented. He rejected it out of hand, and refused to consider that he might be wrong. He ridiculed the idea that we should care about copyright, and emphasized the absolute necessity of using that particular link, citing our responsibility to our readers to provide the best information, regardless of legality. That's worse than inarticulateness. It's not an "odd sourcing habit"; it's a crime.
That's also the general pattern: there's an utter refusal to acknowledge that there might possibly be a reading of policy other than his. I tried to ask him in so many ways, "how can we tell whether X or Y is more important?," and he utterly refused to engage in any discussion, other than to tell me that I'm mistaken, and then to personally attack me for failing to block the other guys. That's worse than inarticulateness.
If you can show me a situation where Badagnani has accepted any kind of criticism as anything other than a personal attack, I'll give you $10. Where do you draw the line between "cantankerous" and "intractable"? Refusing to accept than one can possibly be wrong is worse than "inarticulateness". In a collaborative environment, it's utterly unacceptable. Do you disagree? How do we work with this?
Oh, another thing. If you're willing to write in his defense here, why aren't you willing to go to his RfC and leave a positive comment? You're not the only person who supports him here and there, by complaining that others should somehow improve, but that you're "too busy". Each of these people has failed to support him there. Why? It wouldn't cost you anything, and it would probably mean a lot to him. Maybe those things would look less like witch-hunts if people would go ahead and bring some positivity to the table. -GTBacchus(talk)01:22, 23 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: [23]. 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"[24]
Soxwon, you said it best when Phoenix of9 reported Collect to ANI, "Ok this suggests overkill and vendetta."[25]
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: [26] 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.
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]
As I said - there are multiple parties on each side of this pushing buttons. As an admin trying to stay neutralish in the middle, I believe we need to treat people equally on all sides. We've allowed several accounts more rope than normal, because of an ongoing BLP issue with Darko Trifunovic (the article, and the user who its about). I am all for working actively to improve civility, respond to personal attacks, etc. ... I've done more work to warn and work with civility abusers than any other admin I know of over the last couple of months... but there are larger issues at play here.
The rate of abuse by either side is low, and both sides are responding to warnings. Enforcing civility evenly right now will delay resolution of the BLP stuff, which is very actively in progress right now. If either side are still being abusive in another week or two then we can revisit, but I think that stomping on anyone right now would be ultimately counterproductive to the encyclopedia.
I won't unblock anyone if an uninvolved admin looks at either or both sides and decides to take action, but I'd like to ask that anyone considering that look at Talk:Darko Trifunovic first and think about the wider consequences. The civility issues and aspects are not being ignored. There are a large number of admins paying attention to the accounts involved on both sides at the moment. Once the content issues are resolved we'll reinforce civility and NPA and make sure that all parties know that we're serious about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:04, 22 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 ( [32][33][34][35][36]). 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.[40]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]
You are welcome to propose such a policy, though I will oppose it. There is no such policy now. I think the current wording in our blocking policy that refers to content disputes is far saner. Chillum23:28, 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: [41][42]
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]
Wow. Like clockwork - I come to AN/I, I get attacked again. CoM has already voiced these accusations before ArbCom, which is competent to deal with them. I wish CoM would not harass me with them here again because this report is about an unrelated matter and seems to be resolved. If CoM does not agree with the way Bigtimepeace or other administrators[43] have resolved matters with Grundle2600, and instead wants to encourage Grundle2600,[44] perhaps CoM should address those administrative decisions directly rather than using me as a collateral target. Because I am yet again accused, I feel I should answer if only to say that the claims are false and utterly misrepresent my edit history.Wikidemon (talk) 18:12, 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]
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]
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 [45]. 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]
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]
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]
Bullet remarks (I do not intend to further implicate myself in this case):
Your proposal is just a proposal; no consensus is reached. For instance, I believe that "local Slavic" is the best solution.
"MOSMAC2" is a user's essay. Not an ongoing attempt to resolve the "Macedonia issue", accepted by the involved parties. As far as I am concerned, I do not intend to legitimize it as such.
I also do not think that ARBCOM will get into such detail. This does not mean of course that it cannot expand its scope of competence in order to examine the issue, especially if one of the involved parties raises it.
I don't see how bringing the issue here in ANI could provide any results.
Think all of you seriously Hiberniantears's advice.
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]
You say you have no idea what this has to do with wikipedia? Have you tried reading the section title? The owner of the IP is Harassing and Stalking me off site, and promises to continue. He has said that being blocked here for a year is a minor setback.
JGIR, in my mind, you appear very rude, you assume bad faith of me, despite the fact that I have been here for a very long time. This IP, the master account, was in conflict with myself and others on an RFC on the user Collect. He has since begun stalking me and harassing me, and has made it blatantly clear that he does not plan to stop. Gwen, you say the comment has been removed. That is because I removed it myself, because I am not going to let crap like that stay on my videos. JGIR, you say I'm creepy? How so? I'm telling another youtube user my age as he thought I was a 12-year-old. There's nothing creepy about it.
To clairify again, there is no internet war, this IP started stalking me after I crossed him in the previously mentioned RFC on collect, and he as promised to not stop, but continue after his block is over, hence, because of this harassment and stalking, and off-wiki harassment and stalking, I'm requesting that you block his range indefinitely.— DædαlusContribs21:14, 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]
In case I haven't clairiyed above, I'm going to repeat myself here - The user has promised to continue harassing me on wikipedia, telling me in a message that I can provide a screen shot of, that a year block on his range is only a minor setback. He plans to continue harassing me, on, and off wikipedia. Last time I checked, off-wiki harassment and stalking is a big deal.— DædαlusContribs21:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given everything stated in this thread, I think it's high time we took this to AN for a ban discussion of this user. Daedelus, if he harasses you off-wiki or in RL, contact the RCN Corporation (as that's where the three IPs above locate to, according to the Whois, traceroute, and geolocation) and give them all the info they need to shut this guy down. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker)21:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
– User has apologized for incivil remarks, been unblocked and is editing under a new account. And everybody should be reminded to try to deescalate conflict whenever possible. *phew* henrik•talk20:11, 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]
Well, perhaps new and infrequent contributors, then. Wikipedia:WikiProject Editing trends shows that we've stopped growing (edits per day remaining constant) and that the number of active admins actually peaked in 2007. The barriers of entry to start editing wikipedia get higher all the time, which is probably one of the reasons for this. I'm interested in finding out ways to become more friendly and approchable to non-hardcore users. henrik•talk17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the part I am not understanding is this is the third account and the user "trolled" with an ip why is he still here? The original block as for incivility and edit-warring which should still be in place. Maybe I am wrong, no? 16x9 (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Blocking someone who's constructively engaged in a discussion on how to improve Wikipedia seems counterproductive, don't you think? henrik•talk18:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[ec]The original "punitive" block should still be in place. evading and then acting to be in care of wikipedia seems conterproductive. this new account should be blocked and any unblock request using unblock. 16x9 (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that this is the policy. But how does applying it in this case improve the encyclopedia or the project? (that's intended as a genuine question, btw) henrik•talk18:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that is true. I'm hoping that this user will apologize for his incivil remarks and chose one account and stay with it. Would that be enough to lift the block and go on our merry ways to other problematic users and articles that need editing? henrik•talk18:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(wow, this is getting indented further and further). Yes, I am. Especially now that the user has apologized for his initial uncivil remarks [48]. henrik•talk18:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I never expected to take up everyone's valuable time in what was originally a lack of communication. A list of my socks include black, white, brown, blue... (kidding here...we're all human, right?) In my lifetime, I have used three accounts: User:3xxdad was set up originally; I asked that this be moved to User:Mrmerlot. As I seemed to have raised a stink with that account, I created User:Waykup to continue a productive discourse on the wiki (and bury hatchets). My sincere (and repeated) appreciation to henrik who has been the sole moderator and voice of reason throughout this frequently heated interchange. Waykup (talk) 19:10, 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]
Oppose - I don't think banning TomCat4680 from a single article is going to be helpful. The issue at Fuel TV is a very inconsequential one that is already working itself out. Seeing how editing disputes are resolved will probably be more helpful than excluding the editor from that process. Incidentally, I'm the editor referred to as a "disrupive deletionist". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that learning-to-collaborate-by-example is a good idea, I'm concerned with breaking Tomcat's single-minded focus on this topic. He was already under an informal topic ban, which extended only to the article, not to the talkpage. This led to a somewhat naive canvassing campaign to support the inclusion of every bit of information that could be found on the topic, as part of his black/white deletionist/inclusionist them vs. us focus. I view this as part of an editor salvage program, which may or may not work. Acroterion(talk)22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the article and its associated shenanigans but, given the block below, I don't think it's appropriate to also issue a topic ban. "Editor salvage" would indeed be a better option. pablohablo.22:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked TomCat4680 for 34 hours, that is the unexpired portion of the previous block plus 24 hours for the recent personal attacks. I have left TomCat a long message explaining my actions. I would note that I am both familiar with TomCat's communication difficulties and am prepared to help him more appropriately interact with the community but I would strongly suggest that he is dealt with as any other editor - I will explain, as far as I am able, to him why things are done as they are but ultimately he is either going to have to change his ways or he and the project have no long term future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. FWIW I'm unsure if a page or topic ban would help as the problem may migrate to similar articles. To me this sniffs of a young(?) user mistaking this very friendly encyclopedia for other interactive websites. I suggest a mentor situation as they do seem to want to contribute but knee-jerk a bit when plodding through a policy page would have helped them more - and there are so many to choose from! We were all new once and the learning curve of wikiways can be a bumbpy ride. -- Banjeboi02:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I propose a topic ban, broadly encompassing all Judaism and Holocaust articles, for Statesboropow (talk·contribs). He is a Holocaust denier who has made few useful contributions to Wikipedia, and none in the area I'm suggesting banning him from (he only has 20 mainspace edits among his 150 or so edits.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆19:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My rather swift review indicates that a topic ban, broadly construed, would in effect be a ban from editing Wikipedia. I am not adverse to that, but I think it a misnomer to call it "topic" when they are the only apparent areas of interest to this editor. Support, either way. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has a few edits outside of Holocaust and Judaism related articles. Very few, but they're present. I fully support a topic ban or a community ban. We don't need this kind of contributor here. AniMatetalk20:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd be wary of topic-banning an editor who hasn't been blocked yet. However, given that most of his edits have been ridiculous trolling on talk page articles, I support this proposal. Blueboy9621:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is quite the noise-to-signal ratio coming from this editor. I was tempted to block for general abuse of editing privileges, but I will happily settle for a consensus here that (a) it's disruptive (b) a topic ban is appropriate. I support any of the sanctions proposed above, needless to say. ETA the more I see of the contribs, the less I like. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK21:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support a brief topic ban (1-3 months?) if it's accompanied with mentorship, if not, indef topic ban with option to review behavior at 6 months. This statement pretty much sums up what the problem here is. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i asked a few simple questions and i get nailed to the cross for it? why did women get a haircut before being gassed? no haircuts for the men? why did "especially pregnant women" who were not yet dead from the gas start to revive after being exposed to fresh air? the women who were not pregnant died quicker? there is no such thing as "denial" when you are talking about history some people have different views about everything in the world. from the existance of God to Big Foot. but you cant ask simple questions about the Holocaust? i am not a denier, you people are just closed-minded bigots. Statesboropow (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)This is not the place to argue those issues; let the historians do that elsewhere; meanwhile, you do seem to be promoting a view contrary to the vast majority of that community, and per this and this, support for and our coverage of, these alternative viewpoints here would have to be both intellectually valid and given appropriate weight. Thus far, nobody appears to have achieved amendments to our existing coverage of the relevant topics. I doubt calling us "closet-minded bigots" is likely to help your case, but I'd be happy to block you indefinitely for persistent POV-pushing, edit-warring and disruption if your attitude doesn't mollify. Rodhullandemu00:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was alerted to Persia2(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) by a report made on AIV. While investigating the complaint, I discovered he's been warned several times about the images he's uploaded. Just on a whim, I took a peek at his upload log. Most of his pictures are claimed as public domain, but all but a few of them have no metadata, and none of them look like they could have been taken with a regular digital camera. At least two of the images were obvious copyvios--they both had a watermark indicating this--so I blocked him for 72 hours with a warning that he might be indef'd if there are more bad uploads.
However, I'm of the mind that if any of his other images are copyvios, he should be indefblocked. I could use some other pairs of eyes to investigate his other uploads. Blueboy9620:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This way, people can easily check to see why the GA was passed (if it was a drive-by review, or if it was legitimate). Also, the bot operator should not have done this without the consensus of the Wikipedia community at BRFA. --Rschen7754 (TC) 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree, once the review is done and over with I don't see what the advantage of transcluding it as well is. The review is still easily reachable. henrik•talk20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think many GA reviewers remove the transclusion once the review is over. I know that I do anyway; it's in the article history for anyone who's interested. The motivation behind transclusion is to involve as many editors as possible in the review, without depending on them becoming aware of a separate page. Once the review is over there's no point. --MalleusFatuorum20:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm not understanding Rschen7754's request. The link to the review is in the bottom center of the ArticleHistory template at the very top of the talk page - isn't that usually how it's done once the actual review is over? I've only been through few, a couple Norton reviews, and a Tim Richmond BLP review, but that's the way it was once everything was said and done. — Ched : ? 21:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that job in any of the bot's requests for approval. I would also object to removing the transcluded reviews automatically, but I can see how someone could easily reach the conclusion that removing those reviews was uncontroversial. Hopefully the bot operator will stop the bot from doing that particular task until it gets approved. Give him/her some time to respond to your request and to this thread. Protonk (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with bots to be perfectly honest, but I did want to mention something that came to mind here. I remember a conversation about WP:SIG somewhere - in that conversation it was mentioned that transclusion does play a factor in server performance. I realize that 1 GA transclusion on a talk page does not equate to 50 or 100 sigs that do that, but I did want to mention it. I don't know if that has any bearing on this conversation, but I thought it may be something to consider. — Ched : ? 22:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with above that once the GA Review is over there is no need to keep the transclusion - it is linked in {{ArticleHistory}} prominently at the very top of the talk page and can be easily found there. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I might be too parsimonious, but I read that and didn't come away with the impression that removing transclusions was authorized in that request. TBH I didn't look at the first contributions to see what the authorization may have been based on. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Issued a level 3 warning for NPOV violations, which seems the most appropriate. If he does it again, issue a level 4, and then if again, take it to WP:AIV. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd expect it's a(n unhappy) student...
org-name: Crooked Oak Schools
street-address: 1901 SE 15th Street
city: Oklahoma City
state: OK
postal-code: 73129
The faith and constructiveness of an editors edit's in one subject area: Jokestress re homosexual transsexual etc.
I have worked with as best I can user:Jokestress. I have done so inspite of her attacking me off wiki. Though sore over it I have mostly let it slide. I feel that Jokestress may have, in the case of the article Homosexual transsexual crossed some sort of threshold. She made this edit [55]. I then taking her at her word and acting in good faith made this edit to the talk page [56] and this edit to the article [57]. Then I made this edit to the talk page where I'll admit to calling Jokestress out on her repeated incivilities to me over this sort of thing.[58] Another user who did a bit of digging user:WhatamIdoing found this more complete quote of the source [59], which shows jokestress left out an important piece of information. Specifically the term homosexual transsexual, wich from the website I linked where she attacks me you can tell she really does not like, was at least for a time in the DSM-III-R. What does this look like to you all.
What can be done about someone who admits to having WP:COI and thus does not edit the article voluntarily, yet tries to pressure and influence those who don't have a COI into writing what they want? Stooping even to a blantant slective quoting, and omission of important matterial? There has to be some recourse. Right?--Hfarmer (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My outside view: Apparently Jokestress called Hfarmer a "fake" transsexual on a non-Wikipedia site, and Hfarmer doesn't like that. I have no idea at all if this is true or not, and I don't care. Jokestress's claims about Hfarmer did not reference Wikipedia, and so far as I can see they have nothing to do with this site at all.
It's clear that Hfarmer holds a grudge against Jokestress, but he seems to have attempted to be (barely) civil nonetheless. Again, this shouldn't have anything to do with Wikipedia.
It looks to me like Jokestress gave a lengthy quote about the term "Homosexual transsexual" on the article's talk page, and Hfarmer used that information to update the article. Another user found a different quote from the same source which Hfarmer believes lessens the impact of the original quote (although that's debatable). I don't see any manipulative or dishonest "selective quoting" by Jokestress. Nor do I see her pressuring anyone to write anything specific.
In short, I don't see any reason Jokestress should be reprimanded for off-Wiki comments that don't refer to Wikipedia, or for quoting from a source on a talkpage. I'd simply advise all editors to stay cool and try not to take things personally. All the best, – Quadell(talk)00:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a different quote from the same article. Look closer. She actually omitted from the source a bit of information that did not suit her. As for calling me a fake, you can look at my youtube cite and see how not fake I am if you care. [60] Look at the citation from WhatmaIdoing and look at what Jokestress did, then go to that talk page and look at the link whatamIdoing gave... What jokestress did was like... Suppose I quoted you Quadell like so
My outside view: Apparently Jokestress called Hfarmer a "fake" transsexual.It looks to me like Jokestress gave a lengthy quote about the term "Homosexual transsexual" on the article's talk page, and Hfarmer used that information to update the article. Another user found a different quote from the same source which Hfarmer believes lessens the impact of the original quote (although that's debatable). I see any manipulative or dishonest "selective quoting" by Jokestress. Nor do I see her pressuring anyone to write anything specific.In short, Jokestress should be reprimanded for off-Wiki comments that don't refer to Wikipedia, or for quoting from a source on a talkpage. I'd simply advise all editors to stay cool and try not to take things personally. All the best, – Quadell(talk) 00:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
You also say that the website she links does not mention my wikipedia editing. Take a look at this ############# (I don't even want that to be a on a main page long enough for google to crawl it please check the edit history for the link. It basically makes it sound like any article I edith that has to do with transsxual/transgender issues is biased, and says much worse things than that.) Look at the list of articles they claim comprise that POV. Consider that according to these people pressure and blackmail are warranted to get their way. Screw having wikipedia be a neutral and reliable source, just so long as they get their way. Dosen't wikipedia have some sort of standard for the integrity of the people editing it. Can people with blatant COI's to the poin that they can't think straight do things like this, lie, game the system, lie, pressure people IRL, lie, and just keep on keeping on like that indefinitely?--Hfarmer (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know of those, they deal with content issues, this is essentially a user conduct issue. I take it you looked at the websites I mentioned. What is it. I know 1st ammendment and all but what real life person can be expected to ignore such things. Take a look at that website and understand why I am now just barely civil to that person. How many would even manage that? I am looking for a way to go with this other than the arb com.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Users are given fairly wide latitude when it comes to off-Wiki behavior and posting. Would I be insulted by the site were I you? Yes. What does that mean on-Wiki? Not a whole lot. If you can present some sort of evidence that Jokestress has violated our standards of user conduct, I will look into willingly. As it stands, you've just presented off-wiki behavior and two different interpretations of a source. Again, there is nothing actionable. AniMatetalk02:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What she just did on wiki is not a matter of interpretation it's like this, when you look at the totality of the case. She found a source with said "Stuff jokestress does not like was at least at one point considered valid psychological/psychiatric dogma and generally accepted. Stuff jokestress does not like is not considered valid psychological dogma in general which conforms to jokestresses view of the world." Then told me aboutthe source, which I did not know was on google books and had no access too as far as I know "Stuff jokestress does not like is not considered valid psychological dogma in general which conforms to jokestresses view of the world." leaving out the first part. That's like writing about anatomy and ignoreing everything from the waist down because you think it's vulgar, and presenting what you wrote as the whole story. It is a violation of the communities trust. A to our faces, bold face lie of omission and not in the interest of wikipedia.Instead in the interest of Jokestress's off wiki agenda.
I can see no way to deal with this matter onwiki in the open without giving her attack websites more currency and a better google rating. It cannot be acceptable to attack someone off wiki for what they do on wiki. Doing it in a way that "has a return address" is really something else. I am going to send email to functionaries-en and get the arb com etc's opinion on this. I hate to bother them but there really is no other way to handel this.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have indefinitely blocked User:RedRose333 for continued disruption. As noted in the parts above, (not really in part 1) while a good amount of the user's edit have been productive, a number of have been reverted with warnings being issued constantly going back months. Also, while not enough for a block, a lack of edit summaries for major edits like [61], [62], [63] just looking recently. Has been blocked for shorter periods months ago and the problems remain. I just want an acknowledgment of the concerns before they should be released. If others feel that's too much to ask (or might want to see if mentorship makes more sense or something), feel free to do it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As filling party of the first three acts in this drama I back the above actions. The editor is able to talk in fluent English as they showed in very recent edits ([64]). If they are not willing to talk, they shall be blocked. This went on far too long with far too many other editors affected. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord201:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When responding to an OTRS ticket (Ticket:2009041510058851 for those with access) regarding the article titled WSLK I noticed that Neutralhomer is again, blatantly misusing the rollback feature, and citing a new users edits as vandalism, when they are clearly not. For example, see [65][66][67][68], etc. I'm not here to discuss the content issue, as that is completely a different story and one that does not need further attention. I'd suggest removing this users rollback and twinkle privileges again. He is continuing to use it inappropriately, biting new users, and citing "vandalism" in a content dispute. It doesn't matter if the information he was reverting was correct or not, he should not have been using rollback nor citing the users edits as vandalism, as they clearly were not, and in fact, the information he was reverting was actually accurate, according to the information provided in the OTRS ticket (but again, this thread shouldn't be about the content issue - but about Neutralhomer's abuse of rollback).
It is also worth noting that when his twinkle/rollback use was restored back in December, I supported it on the condition (which he agreed to) that he would "not use Twinkle to revert anything except for blatant vandalism, as outlined here" - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to comment on NeutralHomer's general use of Twinkle or rollback, and no, I don't have access to OTRS, but I don't think it's a terrible breach of rollback standards to use it to revert edits by a probable sock of someone who's been banned for making legal threats. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the user, whose first account User:Joann5829 was blocked for this legal threat. I contacted the user by the phone number left on my talk page (via that first post) and I was told that the way that the user knew that his station could be heard in the area he claimed was from listening to it in his car. That is, as I stated in many posts, original research and not allowed. There was no talk with that user of an OTRS ticket and I would dispute any information in it as OR if it comes from listening to the station in his car.
After seeing this, this, and this all using the "car radio" excuse, I marked those as vandalism as I had already explained to the user about OR and any addition after, I felt and still do, would be vandalism...hence my templates.
I stated to User:Rjd0060 that if the only information that the users can give is that they can hear it on their car radio, that is original research and not allowed. I appear to be overruled in that as the version by the owned of WSLK remains at this moment. I did not misuse my rollback or TWINKLE, I used it as I seen necessary. If they had cited their information or told me of the OTRS ticket, I would not have cited them for vandalism an — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutralhomer (talk • contribs)
OR != blatant vandalism. It appears NeutralHomer breached his word from several months ago and I'll de-rollbacker in an hour or so pending more discussion here. MBisanztalk01:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think NH has failed to see the point, in that he agreed a few months ago to use twinkle only for "blatant vandalism as defined here". Original research or not, this is not vandalism, let alone blatant vandalism. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me make sure I understand. Removing it once and saying it is OR is OK, but removing it again and citing vandalism isn't? I don't want TWINKLE, I will remove the damned thing myself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 01:10
No, it isn't okay. You misused the tools that you said you weren't going to misuse. It is that simple — it was not vandalism (nor "blatant vandalism" and you used rollback/twinkle to remove it, several times). This is becoming a regular thing with you and it is highly inappropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is so clear and NH has already removed Twinkle, I've removed rollback. OR! ≠ vandalism is a distinction that matters because good faith contributors react differently to having their edits described as vandalism. Better to explain the OR policy to them a few times.--chaser - t01:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to have an article completely composed of Original Research, allow users who have been blocked for legal threats to come back and continue editing as socks and punish the people who revert their edits as vandalism, then you can have my damned TWINKLE (which I already deleted). The rest of my monobook can't be used to revert, rollback or anything else. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 01:17
There is nothing good faith about adding OR over and over and over and over after being told on the phone and online that it is not allowed. That is my opinion, but I don't think that matters much around here anymore either. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 01:20
OR doesn't magically become vandalism because it is repeatedly re-added. In any case, you can still remove OR and do all the other good work you do without rollback.--chaser - t01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except I can't do "good work" when I have to wonder "does this page have a secret unreadable OTRS ticket on it too" and I worry about another station owner being pissed at me because I write something that is cited and not OR. How can I work with that? My work on this page has been slammed and replaced with OR....what is stopping that from happening next time and the next and the next. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 01:49
I would also point out that the user was blocked not banned (as Someguy1221 claims). A block for a legal threat does not give people a license to revert all their edits. This is a confused new user and we're treating him like a hardened sock-puppeting troll. Also, WP:DOLT; substitute "BLP subject" with "small company owner" and that essay describes pretty much exactly what happened here. Mr.Z-man01:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaser: AFAICT, the closest thing they every got to an explanation of the OR policy was thisWP:BITE-y comment (though that was probably the only communication they got that wasn't a template warning for vandalism). Mr.Z-man01:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were also told via phone what it meant too. I can't cite that (maybe cause it is OR), but they were told via phone about OR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 01:28
Question for everyone....what does one do about this article in its current version that the owner has said is from listening to the station in his own car? Do I revert? Do I correct? Do I update? What do I do, since I can't claim OR anymore? - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 02:45
You can make any edits you like, provided that you leave an informative edit summary. Please understand that it is inappropriate to use rollback do revert anything other than blatant vandalism. The fact that rollback can't be used to edit out or revert OR doesn't somehow mean that OR is a preferred state. I will attempt to AGF that you are just confused on that issue. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A fellow editor, JBsupreme, continually leaves completely inappropriate and rude edit summaries. For example, edit summaries from March 2009: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. 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: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]. 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]
I moved this thread down to get it more eyes before it disappears into archives. Behind the cut is a general issue about inappropriate edit summaries which we discussed. It culminated in this message to the editor. Since then Karppinen found three more edit summaries, including "death to all spammers", which he called a death threat. Our policy is, rightly, to treat all death threats seriously and they often earn indefinite blocks. I think "death to all spammers" is too vague and general to be considered an actual death threat, but I bring this thread to the bottom of the page for more attention.--chaser - t00:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JBsupreme did not reply to the message you left him on his user talk at 05:03 on 22 April. But in his first edit summary after getting your note it sounds like he could be taking the warning to heart. There have been no more four-letter words or possible threats in his edit summaries since that moment. I think your concern is justified, but I'd wait a day or two before considering a more explicit warning. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please,please would someone with CU privileges look into this latest MascotGuy sock and possibly his last few creations over on WP:LTA/MG? As I've been screaming, it's time for some very broad rangeblocks and the investigation of legal action if it applies. This is gotten beyond the realm of an occasional kiddie-wiki vandal or some little boob with an axe to grind at ED. This is serious business from a very disturbed and obsessed individual, IMO. It needs to stop and it needs to stop now. Even on my break I find myself still patrolling the new user's log and I would love to stop having to worry about this clown once and for all. I'm sick and tired of it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RPP filed and I've reverted as vandalism. He isn't "removing personal info" he's completely refactoring other people's comments (like removing people saying "I think its a hoax too"). Nothing in there is "personal" info, an eBay link and ID is not "private" as he claimed in one of his edits (easily Googled, which is how it was found in the first place), nor are people's actions on Wiki private or personal. And admin may want to consider deleting his just created Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 02:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what that means. I'm not an admin, and neither is Collectonian. If you aren't talking about us, who are you talking about?—Kww(talk) 02:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like a second opinion on this. Prom3th3an (talk·contribs) is providing specific instructions on how to exploit one of the abuse filter rules to create greater vandalism.
That the rule can be exploited is a fair point, and possible cause for revision (though no one ever has exploited it), but I don't feel it is appropriate to be publicly telling people how to do it. I removed his WP:BEANS comment twice. I won't do so again, though I continue to think such explanations are inappropriate (he could have raised the issue privately or alluded to the vulnerability without explaining it in detail). Dragons flight (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou so very much for notifying me of this thread (not), your setting a great example for an admin so far. My post, of which you altered was written to gain action, nothing more. It was not inteded to be malicious, but if you want to toy around with filter that infringe of peoples ability to edit a page you need to do it right and think it out before your implement it (did you ever learn the system development lifecycle?). I find it ammusing you would rathor censor my post and make a thread on ANI than fix your own filter or disable it untill you do. Prom3th3an (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) For the record, I've made the filter in question private while I consider what might be done to address his concern. (Though I don't think making it private does anything to mitigate the risk he created.) Dragons flight (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If i wanted to be a jerk about this I would have posted it on Wikipedia Review for all the vandals to see, but that wasnt my intention. If you were on IRC i would have told you that way. Also it doesnt take 4 minutes to say "Ive made a thread that may interest you here" ~~~~ Prom3th3an (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the specific issue, but I also care about the principle here. I'd like some general support for the point of view that publicly declaring exploitable vulnerabilities is not the right way to go about it. Dragons flight (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I wish to note another flaw in DF's actions, whilst he may have made the filter private the request (of which consensus was somewhat unclear at best to disallow) is still easily viewed and contains the pages and images concerned thus negating making it private in the first place. Are you going to censor that too or fix or disable your filter? Looking at the page, so far this year only 1 user has removed the picutres concerned and was consequently blocked and never did it again. I dont think the issue is severe enough to warrent a disallow filter thus this filter should not even exist. I for one contest it on the pretence that it infinges on wikipedia's wiki nature. Prom3th3an (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having a list of protected images is not at all the same is knowing that the specific implementation of the filter is vulnerable to the exploit you mentioned. Dragons flight (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I count 8 bouts of image deletion in the last about six weeks at Muhammad, so I'm not sure what you are looking at. Though I will happily disable it if the editors at the involved pages would prefer not to have it. Dragons flight (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Quite apart from the specific filter being discussed here, but people writing filters absolutely need to understand that many abuse filters can themselves be abused to cause problems (DOS attacks, unrevertable edits, other stuff). The evidence I've seen says that many people with filter privileges don't understand this at all. In my opinion, pointing out that a particular filter breaks something is fair game, if the intent is to get particular breakage fixed or to stop people from creating thoughtless filters. I don't think Prom3th3an was looking to enable vandalism here, any more than someone posting an exploitable bug to bugzilla is looking to enable vandalism - he was trying to point out that the filter as (seems to be) written had a giant ugly thoughtless evil hole in it that shouldn't have been there. I hope it's not there now, because if it is, being private doesn't make it less broken. If you're writing filters, please remember that they can have bad effects regardless of whether they have good ones. Added after edit conflict: it would be nice to have a procedure to report such problems without causing a zero-day exploit. We don't seem to have such a procedure now, so I don't see how he could have avoided it. — Gavia immer (talk)04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The developers will yell at you if you put major exploits openly into bugzilla. They also expect such things to be handled via private communication, as this could have been. Dragons flight (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point of WP:BEANS is to prevent disrution. And the point of refactoring the comments would seem to be an attempt to prevent disruption. While in general I think editing others' comments is definitely something to be avoided, I think in this case, DF was attempting to reduce potential disruption. (Per WP:TALK.)
(edit conflict)From my own personal experiance, you tend to have to sing things to people to make sure things get done. I note that WP:BEANS is one or more editors opinions, it is not policy nor guideline. I also note that WP:TALK mentions notihng about editing users comments to minimise ones own bruised ego. Which I could sincerely extrapulate is the pretence of this thread. Finally, once DF fixes the issue there will be no concern about what could or permanent damage done and we can move on, though to fix the issue would involve something like counting the occurances of the images which would increase the running time of that script drastically Prom3th3an (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given further thought. If DF was to use the acutal image names and set the actions to trigger on add and remove then that would be an ideal fix (since theres already one copy on the page). Prom3th3an (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've patched the rule so it isn't possible for a person to do something that they themselves (or someone will comparable privileges) couldn't undo. The patch is something of a hack. It isn't exploitable the way the previous code was, but it might create a rare false positive. Before trying to clean this up further I'm going to discuss the matter with the editors at the affected articles because it may require making some choices about preferred behavior. I don't expect to work on this further tonight however. Dragons flight (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan12345 (talk·contribs) has been extremely uncivil and consistently making ad hominem arguments in a number of discussions. His behavior in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James G. Lindsay has made the AfD almost impossible to follow. Consistently questioning the motives of those who disagree with him and posting long soliloquies as to why those opposed to his position should be reprimanded for disruption (if you expand the collapsed sections in the AfD you can see. Also, see if you can keep count of how many times he write my username or a variation of it instead of actually responding to the issues). He has also engaged in the same behavior at the BLP noticeboard and at Talk:James G. Lindsay#Source concern. Another instance is Talk:Judaization_of_Jerusalem#content_forking.3F where makes vague insinuations that antisemitic editors are the cause of a piece of 'referenced propaganda'. Having had this user accuse me personally of being an antisemite multiple times (see here), I am asking that somebody tell Wikifan12345 to stop questioning the motives of everyone he runs into. And if possible to stop disrupting the AfD. Nableezy (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Nableezy has been threatening me for awhile now. While I don't plan on spending a long time defending myself, this whole issue stemmed from a feud at Charities accused of terrorism talk and article. He posted a dubious warning threatening a block if I continued edit warring. You see, Nab has a lengthy history of non-AGF editing, reverting material "to the line" and then reporting the competing editor to 3rr. I've been blocked 2 or 3 times. He's been blocked once but I didn't report him. Following our feud, he decided to throw my article I created up for AFD: Good faith? Sure. A user suggested I consider filing a report for harassment. I considered it, but decided no because those things rarely turn out well and plus it would probably exacerbate our feud even more. I certainly regret that.. In terms of my "behavior," I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. We were "fighting", I didn't get blocked as what usually happens, and 20 mins later he posts an AFD. I call him on it, and he writes that off. I spent a couple hours explaining the context of the article and why it should remain the best I could. I also pointed out the continous use of logical fallacies by the administrator involved. Is that disruption?
For Nableezy to cite prior action is kind of funny. Maybe we should link all of Nableezy's reports? I'm sure there are some on the servers. If you check the history, I questioned Nableezy's motives on my first reply at AFD. I can't say I'm sorry but perhaps I wasn't clear enough: Nableezy, you moved a typical I/P feud into unprecedented territory. It was vindictive, malicious, and creepy. I am truly tired of your hounding, stalking, spamming my userpage, whatever you call it, so next time I will file a report. Also, If I'm going to be blocked can we wait for the AFD to finish? I don't think it would be fair if I couldn't respond. Cheers :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Done [37]. Cirt (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
