If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.
PipepBot
Can I suggest that an eye be kept on this bot? It sometimes seems to delete interlanguage links for no apparent reason, for example recently at Gmina Brzeg Dolny and Brzeg Dolny. I've left a note at the owner's Italian talk page (from where it appears that there have been similar problems in the past, involving blocks being placed).--Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Following brief discussion with the bot owner (he replied at my talk page, I at his), he claims this behaviour is intentional, i.e. the bot is apparetnly deleting interlanguage links which it finds on more than one page. I have serious doubts as to: (a) how a bot is supposed to be capable of deciding which of duplicate links is most correct, and (b) whether there is anything wrong with having such duplicate links anyway (in some cases they would seem to be highly desirable). --Kotniski (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the main problem I see with this is that it is often the desired behavior. There is not going to be a bijection between the topics in one Wikipedia and the topics in another. For instance our biography of Isaac Newton spans many pages, but it seems to me that they should all link to the (lone) Isaac Newton page existing in most other Wikipedias. Christopher Parham(talk)17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make an excellent point. I don't think the bot, or rather, the bot "operating in manual mode" as Piped would have it, should be going around removing interwiki links in situations of the type you describe. - Neparis (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to answer the questions of Kotniski. (a) The bot is operating in manual mode, and I (the bot owner) am deciding, which of duplicate links is most correct, not the bot itself. (b) Accordingly to Help:Interlanguage links, "Interlanguage links are links from any page (most notably articles) in one Wikipedia language to the same subject in another Wikipedia language", and "interlanguage links are only put from an article to an article covering the same subject, not more and not less". --Pipep (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a stupid policy. It seems like it was placed specifically to make it "easy" for interwiki bots to operate. Well, this is an encyclopedia for humans, not for bots. —Random832 (contribs) 13:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. If other languages/projects do not yet have an article about Isaac Newton's later life, do we want to make it appear that they do? Hmm...
Despite the fact that this user appears to be an administrator [1], his act is very unprofessional. He keeps removing justified tags from the articles missing citations [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13], and from the articles needing expansion [14].
He's been following me around for the past few days, harassing me on my talk page, including reverting edits in my user space, issuing unwarranted notices [15][16], calling me a troll [17], and assuming bad faith in general [18].
Someone who has the time should keep an eye on him so he doesn't do the same to any other contributing editor, since someone who is new might get easily discouraged to make further contributions by such tactics as User:Tone employs here. Gooddays (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A commment from my side: while this user's intents seem good at first glance, he is in fact using inappropriate tagging several times. Besides, he is reverting my edits without explanation, as can be seen from the evidences above. Any attempts to begin a constructive debate have failed so far and have been met either by blanking the comments of the talkpage (including in a really innovative way, check the history) or writing answers that I don't consider constructive (but this is in fact my opinion). Regarding stalking, I feel it is my duty as an admin to act in such cases. Since my attempts to have a civilised debate have failed (including asking a neutral user for opinion), it may really be the best way to clear things here. I can't WP:AGF here anymore. Thank you for your attention. --Tone15:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably mention that I am already the third user that Goddays reported here, instead of contacting them on talkpages in the first place. While I have no problems with the templates, this is clear exaggerating. --Tone15:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In Tone’s defense – Tone had asked me to look at several of the articles in question, regarding tagging of the articles for Clean-up – Maintenance – Citations and other tags placed by Gooddays. Where some of the tags justified, yes. However, a good many were asking for inline citations on one-sentence stubs, where the articles were referenced. Others were placed on well-referenced pieces, where the tags were not necessary. I also reviewed Gooddays Talk Page and saw no incivility from Tone comments. On the other hand, I found Gooddays comments boarding on Lawyering. I believe Gooddays is a new – extremely eager editor, that may have just taking the job of tagging a bit overboard. Thanks. ShoesssSTalk15:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that I'd call an attack from Tone, but I do disagree with the removal of most of the tags in the provided diffs. (one line stubs don't need an inline ref) Inline references might not be a "must", but they are certainly preferred, and I don't see any good reason for removing the tags when they're valid. --Onorem♠Dil15:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, footnotes are certainly preferred, when they make sense. In case of diffs mentioned above, the articles are mostly written on one to three sources and since there are no sentences that would need footnotes more than other, the user in question should probably tell where he wants to have them. Maybe an interesting thing to point out, all the users reported and almost all the articles tagged are connected to Slovenia. Just a curious remark. --Tone16:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the above first comment by User:Tone, I would suggest checking the links in my first post first. For example, I have never reverted anyone's edits, while he has done so to me, which is clearly evident from the links above, and other anonymous users several times [19][20][21][22][23], and even threatening them and calling them vandals [24].
As for my talk page, I have never removed a message from any administrator. I have only removed old messages when I have considered the matter closed. However, User:Tone obviously had other plans, first by preventing me to manage my own user space by reverting me yet again, and then starting a dispute after I have requested on MfD for the archive to be deleted. Gooddays (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous user that I warned as a vandal blanked a talkpage of a registered user (what qualifies as vandalism - unless this is the same user, not logged in - in that case he was also reverting my edits what is in direct opposition with the claim above). For every edit I reverted, I provided an edit summary explaining my actions. I don't think I went into any kind of dispute regarding the MFD. For further info, removing comments from the talkpage by means of deleting them is not preferred with exception of vandalism, which comments of User:Andrejj were not. --Tone16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After I reminded him that he should not delete comments by other users, he archieved it and made a request to delete (that was granted here). What was there before were questions about his edits by other users (namely AndrejJ and Kaktus999) - with no answer. --Tone16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add at this point that User:Shoessss and User:Seraphim_Whipp both appear to be biased accomplices of User:Tone[25][26][27]. User:Shoessss removed some of the justified tags from the articles missing reference citations and footnotes as well [28][29][30][31][32][33], and invited another administrator that they're familiar with, User:DGG[34], to support their bias [35][36][37]; whereas User:Seraphim_Whipp even restored my own user space after I have requested it to be deleted [38], accused me of being another anonymous editor and personally threatened me with a block due to my concerns expressed on this notice board [39].
I'm not sure what the policy is on these things, but such attitude from the Wikipedia administrators shouldn't be taken so lightly. I wish you all a good day, especially to the rest of the Wikipedia contributors who have to put up with stuff like this, which seems to be normal around here. Gooddays (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never interacted with Tone before and I explained to you politely on your talk page about the practice regarding talk pages. It should never have been deleted to begin with, however, the deleting admin would not have known not to delete it because the page was moved to a the title "old" and not "archive". Seraphim♥Whipp23:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I mark this resolved? 06:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
So, what is the opinion of the community? After this debate, Gooddays tagged around 50 more articles, several of them improperly. I would like to have this thing sorted out because I don't want to revert every single wrong tagging by this user and pay attention to his actions all the time. By the way, I have just blocked an anonym user (presumably connected to Gooddays) for an obvious personal attack. For one day. I'd appreciate some assistance. Thanks. --Tone21:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the rest of the adminship, the anonymous that User:Tone blocked [40] (and has previously reverted and threatened them as noted in my second message above [41]), was based on the following edit [42], where User:Tone reverted yet another justified tag [43] that I have placed on one of the articles with no reliable sources. [44]
Hang on, I'm slightly confused. Did you just admit that you were the ip that made that edit? You said that Tone reverted the ip's edit but said he reverted "yet another justified tag that I have placed." Seraphim♥Whipp23:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also confused, in the examples Gooddays shows, I see Gooddays in the history removing references and pictures, than tagging the article as unreferenced. What’s up? I’m all for busy work, but that’s a bit over the top. ShoesssSTalk
In response to Gooddays continued baseless accusations, I specifically did not "personally threaten" a block. I told you that your behaviour was blockable. Since you completely ignored the warning I gave you, I now ask that another uninvolved admin assess this situation and do what they feel necessary. Seraphim♥Whipp00:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- OK- Personally, I believe this has gotten out of hand at this point! I believe in civility – good manners – and assume good faith. I will go the extra mile – step –turn the other cheek – or what ever it takes, whenever possible to resolve a problem! However, some times a good swat on the backside handles the problem in a more efficient and effective manner. Moreover, sorry to say, I believe corporal punishment may be deserved in this instance. If it is me, I will take the spanking, but to be honest, I do not think it is me. ShoesssSTalk01:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shoessss,y ou asked me to take a look. Further back and forth here is obviously not going to be constructive, and blocks will just cause resentment. What is needed to is to continue to work with Gooddays until he gets the idea of when tags are constructive. What I see is simply a lack of experienced judgment. The lack of judgment comes from concentrating on tagging instead of improving articles. Many of the articles tagged by him do need references. The way to deal with it is to find references. These articles are after all mostly fairly routine and non-controversial. People who are familiar with sources for the area should simply add a standard print or web reference, tying to give specific ones for key facts that might need one. One could take a good geography book for Slovenia and source these all quickly if one had it available--WorldCat even shows some in English, but we'd accept any language. But there is no reason not accept official web pages for routine geography; there is no need to ask for specific cites to unquestioned routine facts. Sometimes there is a real problem, and I give him credit for finding them: Jure Robič does need a specific reference to justify a claim such as "He has been laboratory tested, with his ability to produce power and transport oxygen found to be no greater than many other similar ultra-endurance athletes." But it's was much more important to try to source something like that than to bother finding a reference for the boundaries of Upper Carniola. When everything is tagged, it decreases emphasis on what really needs work. Sometimes the tagging goes against WP practice: we do not add an expand tag on an article already categorized as a stub, because it's redundant. I cannot help thinking that if had been explained more patiently and repeatedly people might have gotten less exasperated with each other. But Shoesss certainly tried, on the user talk page, and at some point one does wonder what one needs to do to get attention.
so, as an uninvolved editor here, I tell Gooddays here plainly that we must have some positive contributions added to articles before there is any more bulk tagging. This is meant to be a very clear signal. Gooddays, if you're an expert on this area you could help us all a good deal here. finding problems is good, but fixing them is better. In the time we've spent here arguing, most of the articles could have been dealt with. Tagging is easy, and we have too many people who who think that it, by itself, helps the encyclopedia--it only helps when it leads to improvement. Fix what you can, and tag the few that you are going to need help with. DGG (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks ago this editor used the Alfadog account to evade a weeklong block on Justanother. Arguably, he may also have been using the Alfadog account to tread the margins of an arbitration remedy. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS placed all Scientology-related articles on parole. In rejecting his unblock request, a reviewing administrator cited his use of IP addresses as possibly gaming the arbitration ruling.
I have had conflicts with Justanother before and was recently warned to tread lightly. So I ask for an uninvolved administrator to review this situation and determine whether additional remedies are appropriate at this time. It is my desire to adhere strictly to site standards, so please inform me if anything I've done here is questionable. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the result was "Confirmed - Hulk is Alfadog. Justanother hasn't edited at all recently, but if those IPs are known Justanother IP ranges, then yyes. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)"
I recommend banning Justallofthem. Justanother has caused more than their fair share of trouble around this wiki, and I think this socking shows that our good faith has been gamed. JehochmanTalk11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Justanother posted 5 separate unblock requests for the block that he evaded on the Alfadog account.[45][46][47][48][49] In some of those diffs you'll see he's calling administrators idiots. That is in keeping with his general conduct. Here's a condescending post he made during the same block, where he explains the fine points of a crude insult he had posted in January: Durova dear, you are misintepreting (again). I called WikiNews a crack whore, not Cirt. Surely that should be clear from the title of the post "WikiNews is a crack whore". How you twist that around to me comparing Cirt to a crack whore is beyond me.[50] Well, maybe I had been persuaded by another of Justanother's IPs where he made the connection Are you on drugs, Cirt?[51] I consider this conduct to be highly disruptive and wasteful of good volunteers' time. Cirt is one of the site's most productive content contributors; he's one of only two editors who have earned the Alexander the Great edition triple crown (15 DYKs, 15GAs, 15 pieces of featured content). Justanother's positive contributions have been minimal. I hear that he was helpful at a mediation about a year ago. He has contributed no DYKs, no GAs, no featured content, was one of the principal reasons why Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS couldn't be resolved at the community level and had to go to arbitration, and appears to have abandoned his main account in favor of sockpuppets. I tried to help mentor him for a DYK recently and he just didn't follow through with it. His main account user space claims to be on Wikibreak for personal reasons, but clearly that is not true. He's actively using the undisclosed Alfadog account plus IP addresses.[52][53] 9 IPs were listed at the checkuser; it is unknown how many others he may also have used. I'll recuse myself from any opinion about a ban, but suggest at minimum that he be restricted to one account. It's cumbersome to track so many socks, and the checkuser makes it definite that he has not been acting in good faith. DurovaCharge!17:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you would provide the backstory, Durova. Justanother has been bothering Cirt for a long time. We should put a firm stop to this behavior. Now that socks have been used, there is no point in further attempts at mentorship. JehochmanTalk19:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the admin who threw that weeklong block on Justanother (my first major admin act, I think). Looking at that Checkuser, it's time to end this foolishness. Past time, actually. Endorsing Jehochman's proposal. Blueboy9620:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JH
If you and Durova insist on continuing with this community ban silliness
that will only lead to my filing an arb case and everyone wasting more time,
would you at least please have the common courtesy to unblock my Alfadog
account so that I can try to save all of us the bother by addressing this
now at AN.
Barring that, then please post this request at AN in the thread.
Thanks
JA
Clarification regarding Justanother's statement: I have not requested or endorsed a community ban on Justanother; I have recused myself from that aspect of the discussion. All I have asked is that he be restricted to one account. His main account has not been blocked and he offers no rationale for declining to use it, other than the false rationale that he's on break. DurovaCharge!20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response from Justanother
First, I am not evading a block. Justanother is not blocked and I have the right to create an account and to edit. I am going to keep this short. For the TL;DR version please see User talk:Alfadog#Unblock. My User:Alfadog account is a legitimate account in accordance with WP:SOCK. There was no breach of policy (other than a minor issue of (4) innocuous edits three weeks ago that played no part in the checkuser request) and the checkuser should have been declined. Once the connection was made no sanction was warranted other than perhaps a warning about the incident three weeks ago. End of story. If you want more data please look at the talk page thread I link to above. If someone wants to community ban me (without providing one diff or evidence of previous WP:DR, I see) then we can have a more extensive discussion. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This 'user' turned up on Wikinews quite some time ago and was highly disruptive. I am glad I have been pointed at his comment here, describing our project as a 'crack whore', I will know what is appropriate action to take should he resurface on Wikinews again.
His contributions on Wikinews amounted to being disruptive, and the most charitable thing that could be said is "he was as productive as a hamster on a treadmill". He collectively and individually insulted almost every editor on the project - including some who have written hundreds of articles. --Brian McNeil /talk11:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restrictions placed
As an uninvolved administrator in this matter, I have placed Justanother/Justallofthem/whatever, under the following restrictions:
Identify all accounts you have operated or continue to operate
Choose one of those accounts to edit from
All other accounts are to be indefinitely blocked
If other cases of sockpuppetry are found, that account is indefinitely blocked, and the primary account is to be blocked for a finite period of time
Fine for now, I will stick with this one for the little editing I do. I reserve the right to pursue WP:DR based on the fact that there is no evidence of significant wrongdoing presented here that warrants such restriction, simply the statements of a few that have an ax to grind. --Justallofthem (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support this user being tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. In the meantime the above restrictions will do. I have zero faith in his ability to stick to them and stop stalking Cirt. --Brian McNeil /talk11:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I already stopped being concerned about Cirt and his "misson" some time ago and so stated on my user page. Any recent activity between between Cirt and I that might be called "stalking" has been quite the other way round, this case being a prime example. But that is an argument for another place and time. --Justallofthem (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So Justallofthem is the one account you've chosen to keep? Please list the others, pursuant to Ryulong's requirements, or link to where you've provided a list if you've already done so. DurovaCharge!17:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse these solutions provided he provides the required list of all alternate accounts and only edits from one. Also, it should be noted that complying with these requirements would not preclude a block for another reason, such as edit warring or disruption or some such... --Jayron32.talk.contribs18:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my accounts are already known; Justanother, Justahulk, Alfadog, and now Justallofthem. The first two have been disabled for some time and the other is blocked, leaving me only this one. So I will use it for the time being. Again, there is not evidence of misuse of a sock with Alfadog or with any of my accounts for that matter and they are all legit accounts under WP:SOCK and I intend to seek to overturn this. But if this is what the consensus is at this place and time - in disregard of the facts of the case and without the offering or review of evidence then I will not waste more of my time or yours here. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, compare his assertion above Again, there is not evidence of misuse of a sock with Alfadog or with any of my accounts for that matter and they are all legit accounts under WP:SOCK to my explanation to him one day ago of precisely how he violated WP:SOCK, WP:BLOCK and an arbitration decision.[54] I have done my utmost to extend good faith, but this editor's continued refusal to even acknowledge checkuser-confirmed policy violations is disheartening. I hope Justallofthem complies with the current restrictions. In case he does not, I will no longer seek leniency on his behalf. He neither acknowledges nor appreciates the effort. DurovaCharge!19:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"this editor's continued refusal to even acknowledge" - Don't be silly, Durova; I have on multiple occasions acknowledged, and to you specifically, that I was guilty of the, IMO, misdemeanor of making four (4) minor WP:RCP maintenance edits with the Alfadog account - certainly no crime against the project. And that was three weeks ago. "neither acknowledges nor appreciates the effort" - I never asked for your "help" Durova, which as far as I can see, consists mainly of misinterpreting and defaming me on behalf of your "client", Cirt. And I mean going back quite awhile, not just this incident. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-project wikistalking
Justanother/Justahulk/Alfadog/Justallofthem's response to Ryulong's sanction has been to follow Cirt to another Wikiproject. This diff demonstrates Justa(whatever) went over to Wikinews where Cirt is a respected contributor and disrupted an article Cirt was editing. As Brianmc notes above (he's an admin on Wikinews), this has been a problem on Wikinews before. As the revision history shows, Cirt scrupulously avoided further edits to that article where he had been active. This is in direct contradiction to Justallofthem's claim at this thread Meh. I already stopped being concerned about Cirt and his "misson" some time ago and so stated on my user page.[55]DurovaCharge!00:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also (I just saw this), Justallofthem's statement directly above I never asked for your "help" Durova, which as far as I can see, consists mainly of misinterpreting and defaming me on behalf of your "client", Cirt. is highly uncivil. I have never defamed Justallofthem, and Cirt is by no means any "client" of mine. When a siteban was already on the table at this thread, I sought a lighter remedy than Ryulong actually applied. Justallofthem, please retract the insult. DurovaCharge!00:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that an insult? You are pleading his case again and misrepresenting and defaming me again right here. I made good faith edits there with nice edit summaries (though I was a bit sharp on a user talk page with an editor/admin that continually reinserted unsourced and incorrect speculation and has a history of putting POV stuff in articles) - not my problem that they have little interest in corrections that do not come from "approved" (read "critic of Scientology") editors. What are you going to do, Durova? Follow me around and miscast all my edits? Who is doing the stalking now? --Justallofthem (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Justallofthem refuses to acknowledge the derogatory nature of his statements, then I am at a loss for how resolve this without administrative intervention. His Wikinews account has been blocked for 31 hours by Ral315 for Incivility, harassment.[56] Since this is cross-Wiki harassment in the immediate aftermath of a Wikipedia sanction, it is reasonable to mention it here. His own explicit declaration here that the harassment has ended practically demands that contravening evidence be presented, since he generates the evidence on the heels of the avowal. DurovaCharge!02:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Laff. I actually looked at the Scientology article (or a related one) and saw the Wikinews insert there and followed it to see this newest "news flash", n:Church of Scientology's 'Operating Thetan' documents leaked online. I made a few good faith corrections of blatant wrongnesses and misinterpretations in the article in the interest of helping out over there and got blocked for my efforts. There is little interest in the truth on that side as I have mentioned in the past. They are not even true to common sense or their own sources. (ex - saying that Hubbard smuggled OT 8 off the ship in 1991 (see the source, page 523) when he died in 1986: "Despite that, Hubbard himself claims to have smuggled out his own 'OT8' instructions for the "elite" Scientologists." Or insisting that this material is brand new when the very Wikileak source page says it was previously available on bittorrent and I d/l'ed on January 23 (it is actually a Freezone mashup and much older than that). But the sentiment there is apparently "don't confuse us with the obvious truth". More fool me for even caring about whether they get it right or no. And more fool me for rising to bait. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But nobody baited you at Wikinews; you went over there and got yourself blocked all on your own. Cirt completely avoided the article once you showed up and started disrupting it. DurovaCharge!02:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, I went over there all on my own. Not following Cirt. And if you can find the blockable offenses over there other than a minor incivility on a user talk page then I would be happy to see them. I made a few good faith edits, that's about it. The more fool me is my rising to your interminable misrepresentation of my every edit. Do you intend to stop any time soon? --Justallofthem (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Hey, I accepted Ryulong's solution even though I felt it was unjustified. If Durova can climb off her horse for a bit we could all move on. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a wikilink to an article that is named in the singular form, place that word in brackets, and put the suffix after. For example, in this particular case, all that was needed was to change [[cannons]] to [[cannon]]s. Not sure I've explained this all that well; hopefully I made sense. GlassCobra06:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the rights and wrong of the edit war itself, those wanting removal have right on their side: Wikipedia:Non-free content - Policy section, point #9 Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace... As this is a template (not userspace, but not also not an article), I've removed the image. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 10:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The three revert rule does not apply to removing blatant copyright violations, which includes non free images outside the mainspace. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going over three undos, especially with experienced users tends to result in unplesantness, I think it's better to have a neutral figure like REDVEЯS to make the edit from what can be seen on all sides as a place of objectivity Fasach Nua (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote tampering and canvassing
Can somebody take an appropriate action against User:Harjk. He called for a vote to remove the "Background" section on article Religious violence in India and then canvassed other users to influence the voting (see [57][58]).
Once voting started, he modified a comment against the vote into a vote for removal of the Background section (see [59]).
Now he claims that he has a consensus when the fact is that 2 users have opposed the voting process itself and 1 user wants the entire article to be deleted. Please see Talk:Religious_violence_in_India#Voting_commenced_.28Background_section.29. This is a new user who has indulged in such activities continuously.
Additionally User:Harjk has also used fowl language aginst other editors (see [60])
This is User:Harjk. It is all baseless allegations and disrupting. The issue has been already discussed at the talk page of the article. It all started when User:Desione is pushing pov forks and inappropriate stuff to the article with no reason given. Please check the history also (near to 3RR vio), he is acting against consensus and disrupting others. --Tomb of the Unknown Warriortomb10:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see there is anything wrong in this. Harjk did not change the comment of the other editor, he only changed the format which he described in his edit summary "added comment list-wise". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was my comment. It was not a "vote" "for" the straw poll. Calling it a change is format is just plain lying. It was border line vandalism and it was when I decided the user is a troll.
I am busy these days, so I cannot provide all the diffs right now, nor arrange them nicely. I have tried to list the important ones here.
But there is no doubt that vote canvassing and trolling is all that is being done by User:Harjk. Here are some relevant ones:
Here is the discussion that I wanted to have. [61] Please note that I started the discussion and my edit is 13th of March, 22:50 pm - already almost 14th of March. Also note the amount of "discussion" in that section. I think one can say that it is null. Also note that "Background" section was added on 15th of march by User:Desione.
When I return on 17th of march, a straw poll has been started by Harjk.[62] at 6:47 am of 17th of March.
Then Harjk goes on to recruit favorable votes.[63][64][65] But as the guy who started the discussion, no message is given to me. The canvassing is removed later, but the message has been sent.
When I object to voting process, and add a comment against "vote for deletion of text by User:Ubardak because he didn't like the way it was written",[66] and strongly highlighting of that fact that voting is not a way for resolving content dipute per WP:VOTE and WP:PSD, I am reverted with summary "vandalism".[67]
When I give a warning (please note that I use warning templates - just to avoid being harassed over choice of words),[68] I am told that I am a "sneaky vandal",[69] and that voting is still ok and necessary, per (behold!) WP:VOTE and WP:PSD. To me, it looks like a petty attempt to mock me.
Then I am given the reason for poll: violation of 3RR. (I haven't even touched the article until then!) [70]
While "formatting", my comment is "formatted" into a vote for deletion. [71] I didn't notice it until I was notified by User:Desione.(See User_talk:Anupamsr - history was deleted so only administrators can see it).
I have clearly, repeatedly and from the very 1st day stated that I reject this poll because Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that a discussion is the way to resolve conflict.[72] In reply I am warned for disrupting the voting process.[73] Notice how from the guy who started the section for discussion, I am now repeatedly being accused of "causing disruption" and "vandalism". The whole scenario is enough to tell you that neither User:Otolemur_crassicaudatus nor User:Harjk want to discuss anything. They just want to rule over the article for their POV pushing.
After I got to know that my comment was changed into a vote "for", I arrive at the conclusion that the user is just a troll - it has all the classic signs: 1) no attempt to discuss (beside calling it a "POV fork". Please some one tell me what does it mean. What is a "POV fork"?) 2) random "formatting" for misrepresentation/outright lying 3) name calling brainlessasshole 4) trying to entice retroactive name-calling by baseless allegations of vandalism/disruption/accusing "established editors" againbad faith (I don't know how to deal with this) I simply don't have time for this!
At the end, the voting is conveniently closed without discussion, with my vote added as "for deletion", [76] even though I have clearly stated before that "it is a rejection of poll". The only discussion that happened in the whole procedure was 'whether polling should happen or not', and the guy with most comments wins.
You should have told me when I switched to this alternate universe where calling asshole is not a foul language.--talk16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. You hadn't formed the diff properly. Well, that's certainly unacceptable language. User:Harjk, please read WP:CIVIL, and note that we take it really seriously. User:AnumpamSR, perhaps WP:WQA would be a more appropriate venue if the problem recurs. Relata refero (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you are finally able to see that, do you see that you are almost a week late in telling him this? He was abusing on your talk page for god's sake.--talk20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you're quite right. I didn't even notice. I can only suppose that my personal environment is so filled with swearing that it didn't even strike me at the time... Relata refero (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, first of all, I did not personally call anyone asshole. What I meant was there are some assholes edited the article by pushing biased pov fork. I know that there are plenty of assholes editing Wikipedia. I personally try to avoid being an asshole and try to avoid getting into fights with assholes. But if I really think that some crufts to be removed, notwithstanding I will fight with my nail and teeth. What I can do now, if my phrase of asshole was stumbled/distressed someone? --Tomb of the Unknown Warriortomb04:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much ado about nothing, I think. I think it is better to assume good faith that Harjk's formatting change was not with devious intentions and, if User:Anupamsr feels that their vote was improperly counted as Against, they can quite easily change that vote. There may have been some amount of Canvassing but User:Harjk seems to have figured that out anyway [78] (again assume good faith). I'm no admin, but I suggest that the users go back to the talk page of the article and try and figure out what should or should not be included in the article itself. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote change is not the problem! It's the ad-hoc polling, and then ad-hominem attacks for taking opposite position. All with a clear pattern of misrepresentation. This is just not acceptable. When out of the blue someone starts calling you a vandal, accuses you of disruption, and discusses you with all the swear words on talk pages, and then pretends that he is a innocent in assuming I have voted for it - either he is playing politics or playing it very well. Then comes back with wiki-policies for discrediting you. I must have misread but WP:AGF doesn't state to act like a total jackass.
To begin with, I generally don't mind name-calling - it is sign of immaturity and with time people learn not to use it. That's why I didn't start this report. And I am not complaining about that.
The user is not a new-user who needs a how-to. He knows how the system works, how it can be manipulated and how he will get away with clear violation of it in the end. The repeated choice of words ("I am an established editor, you are disrupting an established editor") and tactics (using policies which don't even suggest what he wants to say etc.) to look like a guy making a point without actually making one, will show any experienced user that he is a disruptive troll who just cannot be let loose. E.g., his reply here is provocative and here he has started playing victim of "bad faith". Or, while he is calling me names on Relato's talk page, he goes on to have this "politely correct" reply on article's talk page. This isn't a child's play, and pretensions don't work. Unfortunately, I am just a vandal and disrupting asshole who he is not going to listen to.
And now that he has got an article deleted in which I contributed, all the reasons of revert warring have changed to "fork of deleted article". There is no need to assume any kind of faith here - the fact is in front of you - It is a clear way to demonstrate that you can forget about good-faith, reasoning, or anything related to actually discussing anything... and just play politics and use the magic words "POV fork" to alienate untrained reader to your side.
Or you know what, may be both of them are right. That is the way things are done. I should learn how to be aggressive and start using magic words every now and then. Did you learn that, you POV pusher vandalising disrupting sockpuppet of $*%$#&# :)--talk20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the deleting admin to comment on your understanding. Either you are right or wrong. If you are right, I will back of. But the way I read it, it was because the article's title was POV (something that can be corrected) and the content looked like opinion commentary (something that can be corrected). Let him speak and clear this mess once and for all.--talk07:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged a couple of talkpages as G8 candidates and was surprised to see that such regular maintenance was taking so long to process. Then I discovered that the template was apparently not placing the tagged page into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or any other speedy-delete category, which means that no administrator will ever be alerted.
Mmm, there's some weird syntax going on here... I have removed the delaying code for now, if someone has the time to look into it... -- lucasbfrtalk12:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that the parameter in question is supposed to be filled in by another template with subst... I've never heard of a delay applying to G8 though (I've seen various makeshift solutions around C1 templates). —Random832 (contribs) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was introduced in the CSD-template overhaul; clearly it wasn't tested thoroughly enough. It's supposed to be an optional seven-day time delay - if the current timestamp is passed as the first unnamed parameter, it introduced a seven-day delay. If not, it should categorise immediately. As you say, it clearly wasn't working. Hmn..... Happy‑melon17:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phillipines radio stations - bad names, cut-and-paste, possible COI
User:Pinoybandwagon had created a series of articles on radio stations, using their brand names as article titles rather than the call letters. I moved some of these to the proper titles, explaining why both in the edit summary and in a note on the editor's talk page. Instead of responding to me in any way, PBW's simply blanked the articles under their proper names and done a cut-and-paste to the old names, with no explanation or justification under the edit summary. Example: Campus Radio General Santos alias DXCJ. It is possible that Bandwagon works for the owning company, as all of the stations involved seem to be part of the same network of station ownership. --Orange Mike | Talk12:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some other editors were helping with this, but Pinoybandwagon has not only started doing this again, but left an angry message on my talk page ordering me, "DO NOT move the Radio Station Info from its name to its callsign just like you did to the Radio Stations in General Santos because it is FINAL." --Orange Mike | Talk12:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have previously reported this user here for ongoing incivilty and disruption, particularly regarding anything having to do with Foo Fighters, Dave Grohl or any music article related to this band. IPs used (to my knowledge) are listed again below, and there may be more (the IP at the bottom of the list is the most recent). Something needs to be done here - a range block was placed on these IPs before which put a band-aid on the situation but the belligerent behavior started right back up again when the block expired. Myself and several other editors have been dealing with this person for months now, it would be nice to get a few more fresh pairs of eyes on this situation if possible. Please and thank you in advance.
There are many examples and diffs in my prior incident entry, but below are some of the newest examples of disruption (see both edit summaries and comments on article Talk Pages). - eo (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright.
Our concern was based on the rickross.com's copyright disclaimer:
Some of the material hosted on rickross.com is for sale online by the legitimate owners.
Religion News Blog has been mentioned as a similar case; in particular, this subpagewas proposed on the Prem Rawat talk page as a suitable external link. Here too it seems that copyright owners' permission is not routinely sought:
Here are my thoughts on the matter, for what they are worth.
The evidence connecting Davenbelle/Moby Dick to Jack Merridew is fairly strong and coherent. The chances there being 2 separate editors from Bali whose contributions fit so well together? Not high. Dmcdevit has described this one as being "the likely side of possible". Moby Dick is a banned user: ergo, Davenbelle is banned, ergo, any future sockpuppets should be blocked under policy.
However, Davenbelle though he may be, Jack Merridew seems to have conducted himself in a restrained manner. He has not been blocked during his time here, has acted in good faith and civilly, and his interactions with White Cat have not been unrestrainedly hostile (and White Cat certainly can be infuriating, not to mention outright disruptive). If this is Davenbelle, it is a Davenbelle who has behaved far better than his previous incarnations. There may well be a case for saying "Ok, fine, you're Davenbelle, but if you keep behaving yourself we can handle you. Just to stick to this one account and we'll let bygones be bygones".
Ok jokes aside, from what I understand this will affect all MediaWiki projects, what will happen when a admin tries to create a global account but his user name is already taken in other Wikis? - Caribbean~H.Q.22:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've got that edit through.... hehe... thanks devs, this is awesome! Own up then, who's forgotten passwords on obscure wikis? It took me five minutes to remember mine on http://test.wikipedia.org ("aaa" for future reference... :D) Happy‑melon23:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<sob> No-one is answering my question at the WP:VPT discussion. Everyone is making silly comments here. And I tried to find a (free) picture of hell freezing over and failed. Obscure passwords? Mine were all the same anyway, or I hadn't bothered to register other accounts. Hang on. Is that serious discussion? I meant to say THANK YOU DEVELOPERS! Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost story said: "It will be enabled for all users at a later date, but in order to work out any bugs in the system, and roll the system out slowly, developers decided to limit the number of users who have initial access to it.". Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Important note
Just a note, if you are merging accounts, they all need to have the same username. If you need to have an account renamed, do so before merging your accounts as it is currently not possible for bureaucrats to rename an account to a name reserved by a global account. Mr.Z-man23:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a serious comment. I'm copying it to the place for serious discussion (though it is important enough to leave here as well). Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that where the account has made edits, the stewards are only able to perform requests where the wiki has no local bureaucrats or local crats haven't responded to requests after a reasonable period of time. WjBscribe23:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could some kind person point me towards the usurption request pages at Commons and fr-Wikipedia and (if possible) a translation of the French Wikipedia one, if that exists? And do I need to attempt usurption on both Commons and fr or just Commons? (I have a differently named account on Commons, but no account on fr, and both Commons and fr have an account with the same name). Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it looks like the French Wikipedia doesn't offer usurption. From the page on renaming: "Il n’est pas possible de prendre un nom de compte déjà utilisé," translation: "It isn't possible to take the name of an account that's already been used." No mention on any exceptions to this. --Infophile(Talk)(Contribs)03:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the user in question agreeing to usurption would help (I haven't tried to contact them yet - they have been inactive for over a year with the exception of a single upload on Commons in August this year), or maybe it is a legal thing to do with GFDL? I've had a reply on Commons, and it seems that request might go through (it seems it is the same person). What does this mean overall, though? Does it mean that my global account (when I create it) will work on all projects except fr-Wikipedia and Commons (unless the usurption requests are successful) or does it mean I can't get the full benefits of SUL? (the answer, from meta, is "You will be able to use the global account on all wikis except for the ones where the named account is not under your control.") And what if the fr-Wikipedia user resumes editing and they want to create a global account? Surely the only way they can do this would be to get renamed, because I will have taken the global account first? And what happens when an admin takes a global account that a non-admin user with many, many edits wants? Could be problems. Also, my French is not great. How am I meant to ask on fr-Wikipedia about the usurption process - are interpreters available? I would like to ask at the meta help page, and make sure the developers are aware of these threads, but don't have an account over there yet (I was waiting for SUL, surprisingly - I know, it is best to create the accounts anyway, to avoid cybersquatting, but still). Hmm. Questions, questions! Any answers? Carcharoth (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) By the way, I actually needed a link to the French usurption page, and when you don't know a language it is almost impossible to find this sort of thing. I've made a request for more interwikis and help here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't give a link as the page doesn't exist. The renaming page is here and requests are here, though. I assume that if the editor agreed to usurption, they could simply do a double name change (that's allowed on en, even if the editor in question has edits). It might be easiest to contact a bureaucrat on fr. I won't be able to help you much with communication, though. Roughly interpreting French into English is the extent of my ability. --Infophile(Talk)(Contribs)18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think (but don't quote me on this) that ordinary usurping when you don't have any edits you want to claim, just involves renaming the other account to another name, taking the edits with them, and then you gaining that user name. I think that can happen after creating the global account. What can't happen is for you to have previously registered an account and want to rename that to a "global account name", and that can't be done (yet, and it may take a long time to happen), which is why renaming (to credit edits to your name) needs to take place before the global account is created. eg. I need to get my Commons:User:Carcharoth (Commons) edits renamed to Commons:User:Carcharoth, which involves a usurption request. Only then should I create the global account. But a straightforward usurption of the name, with no edits to rename to the name, is less of a problem. eg. I request fr:User:Carcharoth to be renamed after I create the global account, and then I can automatically login as Carcharoth on the French Wikipedia. I think. The Commons account is a problem for me, in that the passwords of en-Wikipedia Carcharoth will match the Commons one (I could change this to avoid confusing the system), but the usernames won't match, though a match for usernames will be found (but different passwords). Did that last bit make any sense? Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The implementation of Unified Login may mean that bureaucrats should agree to perform renames in circumstances where our practice is currently to decline them. I have created the above page in an attempt to get a feel for community consensus on SUL and how far bureaucrats should go to accommodate SUL-based rename requests. Input from all welcome and appreciated. WjBscribe01:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be facetious, but there is a rather glaring typo in the page name. Will add a more useful comment at the page if I can get in there before someone jumps in and moves it. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of late, I've been more off Wikipedia than on it; so, I do not know how the community reacts to SUL. I personally feel that SUL is indeed a good system in non-controversial cases where there is no conflict of 2 users having the same username on different Wikimedia projects. I also believe that it is important that people who have gone for SUL signal that their username is unique on all Wikimedia projects - I created the template {{Unified login}} to signal that. Pl. feel free to use it/ improve it. --Gurubrahma (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just moved the page Novak Djokovic, because it was listed in the backlog at WP:RM. As you can see at Talk:Novak Djokovic, this was a controversial move proposal, and an editor has requested that I get review on this decision from other admins. I can comment on my reasons for closing as I did, but in order not to prejudice the review, I'll hold off on that. I'll be back in 4 hours. -GTBacchus(talk)01:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Find me one English-language source that uses Slobodan Milošević or Zoran Đinđić and not Slobodan Milosevic and Zoran Djindjic. I think you'll find that Milošević was much more well-known than Đoković and yet, there are double standards on Wikipedia. The Serbian language accepts both Cyrillic and Latin scripts and the name of the tennis player is Novak Đoković. Why can't people accept that, why is it such a big deal to single out Đoković? --GOD OF JUSTICE21:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who you think I'm singling out. I was working on the backlog at WP:RM, and the request was sitting there. I don't know Novak Đoković from Adam, but I know how the community has decided time and time again regarding article naming. Now, I don't know why our Slobodan Milošević article is titled at variance with our naming conventions (there's never been a move request for that page), and maybe that should change, but the presence of certain inconsistencies isn't an argument in support of making more. -GTBacchus(talk)23:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, so I don't know if my comments are welcome here, but (FWIW) I think this was a highly inappropriate move. There was plainly no consensus for the move, nor did it seem to me that there was a clear superiority of argumentation of one side over the other. If there was anything approaching a consensus on anything, it was that WP policy was inconsistent and could be cited in support of either side.
I am disquieted at the way in which evidence in favour of the move tends to be referred to as "established practice" (or some equivalent phrase), while evidence the other way is standardly denigrated under the heading of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am also disquieted at the way some users seem to be making a crusade of this – Franjo Tuđman, for example, was cited as contrary evidence to the pro-move agenda, so – guess what? – one of those arguing for the Đoković move has now proposed the same for the Tuđman article. Piecemeal picking-off of inconvenient counterexamples is frankly a pretty crappy way to proceed. Vilĉjo (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you're an admin, your comments are welcome here. I disagree with your characterization of my rationale as "piecemeal picking-off of inconvenient counterexamples". That's not what I did. I saw the counter-examples that were cited there, and none of them have had their titles discussed by the community. When the community actually talks about article names, they're remarkably consistent in deferring to sources. I'm still working up a list of examples, as that was requested by one of the editors at Novak Djokovic, but I've never seen a case where Wikipedians decide to go with "correctness" over what is reflected in the preponderance of sources.
I'm not even sure what you mean by "evidence against the move". People were simply pointing out that the guideline WP:COMMONNAME is not consistently applied. However, in those examples, there was no actual community decision; the articles are just where they happened to be created. If there are actual examples of groups of Wikipedians choosing to title articles at variance with our naming conventions, then I'd like to see those. My experience in requested moves tells me otherwise. -GTBacchus(talk)01:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of Catgnat, the evidence linking the two would be the name (obviously) and the creation of Asshole Fish, which is now protected from creation. Cheers, Spebi (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Image:Yellow_Sub.JPG isn't being used anywhere. This seems supicious.
Secondly, I found a really amusing comment in an article recently that isn't vandalism per se, but just a very very funny phrasing. Should I do anything about it? I really don't want to. 81.149.250.228 (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing suspicious about it. Correctly licensed at a glance, and we have thousands of unused images like this. This one is also unusable, so feel free to send it to WP:IfD for discussion if it bothers you.
If you don't want to do anything about the "funny phrasing", then don't. Editing or not editing is not compulsory. You could, however, provide a link and let others judge. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 08:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see what the other editor thinks s/he means here: the tags on the image say it's a screenshot of Wikipedia, and we allow ourselves to use screenshots of Wikipedia (almost) anywhere on Wikipedia. However, virtually no Wikipedia is visible, so in fact I'd say this is actually a screenshot of Internet Explorer 6 and thus only for use in the mainspace and only where relevant under the NFC policy. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for crying out loud... Fasach is back and continuing what he does best; stalking me, and only me. Too bad. After a period of rest I was this close to closing this RFC. I will change the image, but one more incident like this will result in a ban request. — Edokter • Talk • 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the problem with this image. It bears no Wikipedia logo, and the IE6 interface is not visible either. I'd say this is protected by GFDL and therefore free. -- lucasbfrtalk17:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It sure looks like a perfectly reasonable GFDL tag. It's a screen shot of a bit of Wikipedia body text, along with a couple of scrollbars at the edge of the window. (The title bar and the remainder of the window are not visible.) At best, I would say that this is an overzealous interpretation of the fair use policy; at worst – if Edoktor's reference to a past dispute is accurate – it is an example of a timewasting and vexatious complaint that may warrant censure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see—the original image included the whole IE window. Still, a bloody wrongheaded attempt to manipulate the fair-use policy in such a way as to annoy and harrass another editor. The screenshot was being used as part of a reasonable effort to troubleshoot a problem with the way that Wikipedia pages rendered in IE. Deciding that it needed to be immediately removed from the talk page because it contained portions of the IE interface demonstrated either abominably bad judgement or bad faith. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
cough* Not on my part, I hasten to point out. I assumed good faith on behalf of the original poster (and Edoktor, for that matter) and had no reason to know there was any history between them. I am many things, but omnipotent isn't one of them. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a steady stream of new users who are so called "wiki-mafians". Be on the look out, they have a tendency to mess with RFA, AFD, the mainspace and user talk pages. Rudget.14:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SA in trouble again? More evidence of WP:CIVIL out of control?
I completely disagree with a 72 hour block for this, or stating someone's arguments are boneheaded. I mean, come on, this is really pushing it. I am disgusted frankly. I will also note that SA apologized immediately after: [88].--Filll (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The block also mentions this other edit [89]. Also, wonder at his awesome block log [90], altough I have to say that on first sight he was never blocked before for WP:CIVIL, so maybe 24 or 48 hours would have been enough for first violation of civility --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While SA might be a bit sarcastic and testy sometimes, he is a valuable contributor. And frankly, I value productivity more than worshipping the god of WP:CIVIL.--Filll (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, civility versus productivity need not be an either-or choice. Civility can be viewed not as an end in itself, but rather as a way of keeping discussion productive. When you're overly rude, or make things personal when they need not be, it distracts other editors from more productive pursuits. Friday(talk)18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Friday. But as Raymond pointed out on SA's talk page, this was two days ago. Blocking for something that occurred 2 days ago (and for which SA apologised) appears to be unnecessarily punitive. We don't do punitive blocks. Guettarda (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the project needs SA. Productivity isn't the issue - he deals with cesspools that most of us can't stomach cleaning up. Credibility of the project is what matters, far more than productivity. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, this dif is two days stale? Ok punitive blocks aren't good at all. I suggest an ublock, or at minimum, a drastic shortening of the block. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please explain the preview button to SA? It does wonders for my civility and I suspect could help him out if he committed to using it. But Fill is correct that long blocks for this don't seem to be helping the overall productivity of the encyclopedia. 72 hours seems excessive given how productive an editor SA is. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked SA given the relative staleness and the presence of an apology. I'va also asked him to reconsider the... combative nature of the current state of his talk page. — Coren(talk)19:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I was under the mistaken impression that this was already the case— I've apologized for that oversight on his talk page. Also see below. — Coren(talk)19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Coren, but this was really a poor decision. Without regarding the merits of the block or unblock, we have WP:AE for a reason, and the report was handled there in the usual manner for reports of Arbitration sanction violations. I would be more than happy to merge the entire board back into WP:AN or WP:ANI, but complaints really need to be handled in one place. Specifically,
Filll is forum-shopping, the enforcement request was made and acted on at WP:AE, as was explained on SA's talk page.
You have not checked with GRBerry, or reopened the WP:AE thread to offer your dissent.
Did you review GRBerry's explanation? SA is under Arbcom sanction for repeated instances of bad behavior.
If you feel blocks made at WP:AE are not made in a timely fashion, please consider patrolling there on a regular basis.
With all due respect, how did me posting this note in one place (aside from a discussion on a subpage of Raymond Arritt's, which I was not aware was a venue for administrative action), without even asking for any action, or petitioning anyone for redress, but to express my displeasure, constitute forum shopping? Have I asked at AN/I for action? Did I petition arbcomm for action at AE? Have I asked ANYONE to unblock SA? Please, perhaps I have forgotten doing so. Please demonstrate to me HOW I am forum shopping. I would be glad to make amends and apologize for forum shopping if it can be demonstrated to me that I am. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was made aware of the block too late to chime in at AE (I guess I should spend some time there, if only to give a hand). I did mistakenly presume GRBerry was aware of this thread - an error I've already expressed my regrets over to him.
As for the unblock, I want to make certain it is very clear that it's not a reversal of GRBerry's decision, with which I have no beef, but a post facto unblock because of mitigating factors. Frankly, SA has made giant strides if he can recognize that he was uncivil and apologize for it; and I wanted to make certain he would not perceive the block as punitive (which, judging by his talk page, was already the case) to reinforce that positive step forward. — Coren(talk)19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did he actually recognize that he was uncivil though? "I apologize for any perceived incivility" is not the same as "I apologize for being uncivil." A step maybe, but it's no giant stride. --Onorem♠Dil19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And further, I believe GRBerry took the apology into account in his decision, disregarding it as a "non-apology apology". I concur with Thatcher's point above regarding forum shopping and the out-of-process actions. Ronnotel (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I think that the unblock was unwise, but will not be acting further in this matter at this time because SA has clearly climbed the Reichstag since the block, and effective measures to get him down from it need to be taken by others. Overall, I think SA is making some progress towards reform, but like anyone with a longstanding behavior pattern that is attempting to modify their behavior, backsliding occurs along the way. For SA to remain as an editor in the long run, Filll and other editors who agree with SA's point of view need to help SA succeed at eliminating this behavior pattern of attacking other editors. Otherwise, I forsee a future arbitration case giving SA a long term vacation from editing. GRBerry20:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)This is not a case of forum shopping at all. The discussion at WP:AE was inconclusive, and moreover closed directly after the block, thus preventing further discussion there. Bringing it here and to the attention of a larger group is entirely acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a poor apology, but it's a significant improvement nonetheless. I've already gotten SA to tone down the rhetoric on his talk page, and with a bit of luck we'll have him down the Reighstag soon. Consider this an attempt on my part to mentor him for a while. I'll keep an eye on his behavior; I didn't intend to unblock and leave someone else to clean up after me. :-) — Coren(talk)20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan is right - there one complaint, two people who say "don't block". GRB's decision to block is opposed by the discussion at AE, not supported by it. Trying to justify this block via AE is just perverse. Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way I read it at AE, John254 makes the initial complaint, John Vandenburg says "not worth a block", and Rocksanddirt disagrees with John Vandenburg (and thus presumably concurs with the complaint about civility). It does not appear to me that GRBerry was going against consensus, and everyone (John Vandenburg included) there seemed to think there was incivility at some level. alanyst/talk/20:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I misread Rocksanddirt, he's disagreeing which John Vandenberg. But he doesn't seem to be expressing a clear opinion on the complaint. I can't see his conclusion as support for the complaint either. 1:1 is still not consensus. Guettarda (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 1:1 is not consensus, but the 1:1 disagreement was about whether a block was warranted, not about whether SA had been uncivil; where everyone involved seemed to think SA was uncivil to some degree, GRBerry's decision to block in accord with the civility parole does not suggest poor judgment to me. I don't think he needed a strong consensus for it because of the existing sanctions. alanyst/talk/21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the remedy as decided by ArbCom: "Should (SA) make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, (SA) may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." It doesn't seem to be calling for consensus, just the view of one admin. I don't see GRBerry as acting out of process. Ronnotel (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have really only had contact with SA over one entry, Anomalous phenomenon, where he has failed to remain civil but as some people seem to be objecting to the civility guidelines then that one article includes plenty of other interesting edits - if I am not mistaken he has not only violated WP:3RR[91] but, after being asked to take this to the talk page and discuss things he resorted to simple vandalism [92]. When I asked for more input (so we could reach an consensus, he removed my comments and accused me of inciting meatpuppetry [[93]]. And that is just one article over the space of a week or so - comments on his talk page would suggest this is only one small part of a bigger issue. (Emperor (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The problem is his refusal to accept responsibility for his incivility, which will often take the form of non-apology apologies. He continues to insist that it is not his actions that are getting him in trouble, but others reactions to his actions - for instance, someone being 'offended' by what he wrote. SA could never offend me because I'm not offended by Wikipedia talk page comments, no matter how rude - but that doesn't mean it's impossible to be uncivil towards me, it just means I have a thick skin. But whether someone is offended or not, continued incivility does make collaborative editing problematic. Now he states on his talk page that he will no longer participate in talk page discussions. One must wonder how he hopes to reach consensus with those with whom he disagrees if he's not willing to talk to them. Dlabtot (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, no dispute because of no talk page usage would be an improvement. There is no requirement to discuss anything on talk pages, and as long as no edit warring is taking place, it's good enough for the time being. Let's see how this goes. — Coren(talk)21:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user 213.97.51.67 is continously attacking other users, myself as well as the Macedonian people. The user, who by his own admission is a Greek nationalist, repeatedly accuses anyone not sharing his view of being a troll and pushing for POV, [94], [95], [96] even going so far as to claim that those who doesn't share his view should be "indefinitely banned" from Wikipedia. [97] As can be seen already by a quick look at his edits, it's pretty clear the user is the one with a POV-agenda as he only acknowledges the Greek point of view [98], [99], [100]. A good deal of his anger is directed at me. For the record, I'm neither Macedonian nor Greek, not in any way involved in the dispute and have reverted edits by nationalists from both sides to uphold WP:MOSMAC. This is enough for the user to repeatedly call me a troll and to call for me to be blocked [101], [102]. He has been warned over his incivility, but has instead decided to go even further today, including claims that Macedonians "steal, usurp and kill everyone" [103] and continued attacks against myself [104], reinserted even after an admin removed them [105]. I consider his continuous attacks directed at me on multiple pages harasemment and slander. Obviously he takes no heed of requests for him to observe WP:CIVIL. JdeJ (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBMAC applies. However, it isn't clear to me if this is a stable IP or one with changing users. Can anyone tell? If stable, notify the editor for the case. GRBerry20:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly been stable since 25 February, possibly even since last year, as this points to the same user (the IP is in Spain, so it's not just any random Greek). You can apply ARBMAC sanctions against the user currently behind it, and then if he resurfaces under other IPs they can automatically be applied to those too. Fut.Perf.☼20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've put the IP address on warning, using the good faith version because it might be a shared IP. Admins applying sanctions probably need to reevaluate stability at the time they prepare to act. GRBerry20:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that seems insufficient to me. "This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part"? If you really meant that, then why did you give the warning in the first place? That the notice might at some point in the future be read by somebody uninvolved is an entirely different issue, but the point is, the person who is using that page now needs to be given a much much stronger signal.
I used the assuming good faith version of the ARBMAC warning because I think there is a high likelihood of the warning eventually being seen by someone other than the current editor. If the IP is a small business with more than just a modem/DSL connection, then there could well be other employees. If the IP is a modem/DSL connection, then it will likely be eventually reassigned to some other customer of the ISP. (The power outage scenario, for instance.) If you feel that stronger actions are needed for current behavior, feel free using the usual tools. The point of the notice is to make the full discretionary sanction toolkit available in the future. GRBerry20:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I appreciate the ARBMAC, I wish to repeat that I consider his multiple attacks directed at me harassment, and that's a matter outside ARBMAC. JdeJ (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. His behaviour was so clearly disruptive that there's really not much need waiting with sanctions for another round of warnings. Fut.Perf.☼20:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I'm stupid. I totally forgot that I had warned him already myself, on 4 March [108].. So, definitely no reason not to apply sanctions at this point. Fut.Perf.☼21:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unprofessional
I am disappointed that an admin User:DarkFalls has decided to remove messages other than their own, from another users talk page User:Lindymorrison, with the comments "Remove Rubbish". This is hardly what I would expect from an admin. Considering the comments I left on User:Lindymorrison's talk page are an official Wikipedia tag, and User:Lindymorrison had removed sourced information from the article, I am well within my rights to act on vandalism, let alone the other issue of vanity/self-promotion going on. TheClashFan (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary may not have been the best, but removing warnings and tags given by other editors is common place. It's something I do also; I often replace warnings with a welcome template if the person's edits look more like test edits than vandal edits. In a situation where a new user is involved, we shouldn't WP:BITE. Some people just need a bit of help or at least the offer of help to get started constructively. Did you need to bring this to the board? Could you not have continued discussing it at DF's talk page? Seraphim♥Whipp23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at the situation in more depth. TheClashFan did you realise you were reverting edits made by the subject of that BLP? I've struck through what I wrote before as that was more a generalisation on the topic of removing templated warnings and new editors and clearly does not apply in this situation. Seraphim♥Whipp23:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The template does apply when clearly the user is claiming to be the subject in person, and removing content from that article and replacing it with their own, with no references. That's a conflict of interest on behalf of the user. TheClashFan (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BLP. We always take the subject of the matter, in this case Lindy Morrison's view of the matter, over a source. Please note that the subject in question has filed an OTRS complaint about the content of her biography; and reverting her edits with an automated tool and templating her can lead to nasty consequences. Please also take a look at WP:COI carefully. Her edits were not in violation of NPOV, and quite frankly, labelling them as vanity/self-promotion or vandalism when they are removing untrue sentences is innappropriate to say the least. She was not promoting herself or using her article to promote her point of view, but merely removing inappropriate comments. The automated warnings were removed so she does not take further offense. —Darktalk05:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Lindy Morrison was offended, she should have asked another editor to write up a properly referenced article. It makes wikipedia look bad when people can control an articles POV about themselves, see Wikipedia:Autobiography. I disagree with you on the tags being "inappropriate". Content was removed and replaced with unreferenced content, by the subject in question. TheClashFan (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Content was not replaced. The article consists of content from revisions prior to her intervention, with some omissions due to their factual accuracy. She was never controlling the POV of the article, she was making sure the content of it is true. Even if the article is POV, which it isn't, please take a look at WP:VAND#NOT, especially "The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. Though inappropriate, this is not vandalism in itself." As I stated before, the subject has registered a formal complaint through OTRS, and it is not incorrect for her to remove wrong information. The sources that were deleted were not very reliable either... —Darktalk06:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen Morrison's email, so I have no clue what particular claims she's objecting to. Looking back at the history page, as I've mentioned elsewhere, a quick google search on some of the claims reveals that she indeed was arrested and went to court (from what I've just seen in the google search, it was also mentioned in a documentary film called Pig City), and that a drum machine was also used. Both claims were removed by the user in question. TheClashFan (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing Recent Changes reversal for a few months now and this particular problem escaped my attention. I reverted edits that were very helpful. Perhaps helpful enough to improve the article's quality rating. Unfortunately, the poster was anonymous and edited my personal page in response...and I didn't see it until now.
here's the diff: [109]
from December 27.
Unfortunately, the edits that I reverted have now been built upon by other people. I think this is valuable information that should not be lost. How do you suggest we proceed?
Jadeddissonance (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the information is important enough, use the info from the diffs and weave it into the article. In the edit summary, cite the diff where you found the information. I also think it's very admirable in the care you've shown by bringing this up here.Seraphim♥Whipp23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Long list of image sourcing, unspecified license, and disputed fair use rationale for user's uploads
Wiki-film-fan has a long stream of issues with his image uploads, which have all been tagged as delete because of their lack of licensing information, fair use rationale, sourcing, etc. I think this is the place to report this sort of thing. — scetoaux(T/C)23:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Postlethwaite(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) earlier today blocked User:Cream as a sockpuppet of User:EpicFlame. EpicFlame was banned for harassment last November, and has returned since then under one or two sockpuppets, each time "flying off the handle" when reblocked. This sort of behaviour is, I believe, well observed. An otherwise good faith contributor is blocked on the basis of an incident in their past, and gets understandably angry, does stupid stuff and ultimately extends their ban. Myself and several others have been in conversation with the user on IRC over the past few days, and the impression that I've certainly got is that he wants to make a fresh start. He seems quite determined not to be blocked and to be able to get on under a clean record. I don't think he expects to be made an admin at any time in the future or anything, but just wants to be able to repair some of the damage of past months, and contribute constructively.
I would propose an unblock for Cream on the basis of offering a fresh start, and hopefully putting the past behind our collective selves. He would of course be on strict civility parole given his history, and in the event of violations of this parole should be issued blocks of escalating lengths. I'm happy to take it upon myself to keep something of an eye on him, though it would be a help if other (non?)admins could assist.
Just to sum up - keeping a user who wants to be here banned and repeatedly blocking them only causes drama and hurt feelings. We need to get over ourselves and give people fair chances - where they're not hiding from the admins or fleeing the vision of a checkuser. Thanks, Martinp2301:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I was heavily involved with Molag Bal when he was active. When I actively banned every sock I found, he'd come back and cause problems. Now that we've collectively stopped hunting him out - ie stopped having a vendetta - we've stopped having problems with him and I don't doubt he's contributing constructively somewhere - he certainly is over on Wikia. It just doesn't work, and I'd have expected you to be able to recognise that by now. Martinp2301:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So his account from 5 weeks ago (User:KickTheJew) was how he is supposed to be acting constructively? Vandalising with his IP on 23 February? This is showing us all how he's reformed? Not a chance. This is obviously an immature guy who probably has far more band hand accounts under his belt. Ryan Postlethwaite01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a checkuser to determine a link between the accounts? If indeed he does have bad hand accounts now, then they shouldn't cause a problem unless his primary, good account is blocked. If they do, a routine checkuser or IP block could be very revealing. I don't see a good reason not to unblock in your arguments. Martinp2301:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if he is capable of editing constructively, as you yourself has just said and as we've seen with the Cream account, then surely it's worth the effort. Martinp2301:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We gave worse vandals more chances to redeem theirselves. I believe he seriously means to start all over again. I'm in favour of such proposal, and I may help keeping an eye on him if it's needed. SnowolfHow can I help?01:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go along with such a proposal - I kinda think we were a bit too quick to block and ban EpicFlame before, there are certainly other users who have had a lot more warnings, "handling" and blocks before being locked out of the site. Nick (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recently someone at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection requested indefinite semi-prot at Furry fandom. It's been protected several times in response to vandalism, before, and doesn't seem likely to stop being a target. That said, I'm not sure if it regularly rises to the level of vandalism I usually associate with indefinite semi. Previously the page was indefinitely move-protected, and so I haven't applied any automated expiry to my current protection (such an expiry would also remove the move prot). Leaving the floor open for discussion of an appropriate expiry time on this current protection (if any). – Luna Santin (talk)06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from the history, there's a good deal of vandalism at the article for the past week. It's fairly common for the article to be the target of forums or just bored folks. That said, I'm not sure an indefinite is necessary, as the majority of the vandalism is caught rather soon and reverted. The occasional *chan attack will happen, but we can protect it when that does. I'd say a week at most is all we need right now. -- Kesh (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
