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)
User:Rich Farmbrough is again creating pages based on some script (I hope, it is the only decent explanation for the mindlessness of many of the creations), which generates a lot of incorrect stuff. This is the same thing that happened with previous script based creations he did (see the ANI archives for other examples of this).
The Category:Various albums was created, deleted, and recreated, apparently because some infoboxes list the artist for albums as "Various". We now have three articles with this stupid category, with the category explanation "This category contains albums by Various."
This is the umpteenth example of this editor creating a mess for others to clean up, because his scripts aren't tested enough and his edits aren't checked manually (or not good enough).
Can we please have an edit restriction on any automated, semi-automated, or appearing-to-be-automated page creation (articles, categories, templates, ...) for this user? Fram (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am finding this all a little bit insane. I have had to delete a fair number of duplicates—overall, there is a gross amount of duplication going on through this process. Nearly every category I check has some sort of problem—either a duplication, or an incorrectly spelled name, or something. The user is also creating categories for labels that do not have articles on WP, while consensus at CFD has generally been that if a label has no WP article, it should not have a category for its albums. More care and/or thought needs to go into the creation of these categories, so please, yes, no more of this category creation via script. It's creating more problems than it is solving. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation technically only applies to articles; I'd suggested extending it to categories the last time this happened, but didn't make the effort to really push it as a proposal. In any case, given that existing policy and Rich's existing editing restrictions, it seems entirely sensible and a small step to amend those restrictions and declare that for Rich, the policy covers mass creation in any namespace. In addition, somebody might make the effort to propose amending the policy, which seems a sensible move to me. Rd232talk 11:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
December The creations in December were all of categories that had members and yet were non-existent (red-linked categories). They were done in such a way that if the category became empty it was categorised as such and could be dealt with. In most cases that meant deletion.
January Some of the categories created needed emptying, which has been done by an assiduous user. I deleted those that were emptied, however many had been created before, and I therefore re-created them as category redirects. There is an automated process that moves articles between cat redirects and their targets, since people have used these categories before it seems wise to have the redirection.
Note: There is a lot of inconstancy over naming of record label articles, also there are notable labels (e.g. Compost Records) for which there are strangely no album articles, and (e.g. Authentik Artists) for which there are album articles but a persistent deletion of the label article. Also Category:Siouxsie and the Banshees albums is the correct location, (speedy rename being requested). RichFarmbrough, 12:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I don't think it's much of a defence to say that the December creations were just "red-linked categories" and thus it was OK to create them. Some of the categories were obviously inappropriately named, and many were misspelled duplicates of pre-existing categories. Users need to use judgment and put some thought into creating categories—like making sure a category does not exist for the same thing already—as opposed to just creating something because it was red-linked. When you see two categories—Category:Ice-T albums and Category:Ice T albums on the same article as I did earlier today, you know someone's putting close to zero thought into the application of what they are doing. This type of problem was repeated many numerous times. Good Ol’factory(talk) 13:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The creations in December were all of categories that had members and yet were non-existent (red-linked categories)." So why did you create and delete e.g. Category:Universals Records albums twice in two days? Someone repopulated it between the first deletion and second creation? Or wasn't your script list updated yet? Or the misspelled Category:Warnern Music Group video albums, which you created, modified three times, then deleted one minute after your last modification, only to recreate it three hours later and redelete it one hour after that again? Anyway, if categories are redlinked, the answer is not to automatically create these ctageories, but to check whether they are actually needed or just e.g. misspellings. That would avoid the creation in the same minute of Category:Switchblad Symphony albums, Category:Swithcblade Symphony albums and Category:Switchblade Symphony albums... No one has a problem with you generating a list of potentially needed categories, such a list is useful. But the automated creation clearly leads to many problems which could be very easily avoided, like the creation of misspelled categories. Fram (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes as you can see, as part of that exercise, extensive tidying up took place. The remaining categories from that exercise are
perhaps you would like to resolve these flawlessly. RichFarmbrough, 15:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
No thank you, I have cleaned up after you often enough. Fram (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well these categories are nothing to do with me, I did not create or delete them, nor did I categorise anything in them. I was just suggesting something positive for you to do. RichFarmbrough, 16:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, but I have enough positive things to do here, like creating articles and so on. I guess that most people who have had to tag, correct or delete your incorrectly created categories also have enough positive things they would rather do, but maintaining an encyclopedia doesn't just involve creations and additions, but also removing the mess created by others, and making sure that they'll create less mess the next time around. Your latest category creation of this type, Category:Chikayo Fukuda albums is already up for deletion (not by me, by yet another editor who seems to have problems with your creations), so you are still continuing this mess, despite the obvious objections of many people (and who in his right mind wouldn't object against the creation of a category like Category:Spigot Records, In-Effect Records albums? Fram (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rich Farmbrough has now recreated Category:Yngwie J. Malmsteen albums, which was deleted at CfD (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 23), created by Rich Farmbrough yesterday, and deleted by Good Olfactory this morning. He added it to the article Rising Force[1], which already had the correct Yngwie Malmsteen cat as well, and removed it again from that article some minutes later[2], at the same time changing the correct link to Jens Johansson to the redlink Jenshansson (presumably by trying to remove all instances of " J" from the article). That same removal of " J" resulted in changing the correct French interwikilink to an incorrect one as well. Note that all this happend with the edit summary "(Correct caps in section header.)", which was one thing that didn't happen at that article. Can someone please just stop this loose cannon now? Fram (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rich even said to someone on his talk page offering to help clean up after him re the creation of bad categories Also might be worth watchlisting them in case I re-create them. What the hell? I've gone ahead, based on discussion, continuity with prior issues and a large dose of oh-for-god's-sake boldness, and amended Rich's editing restriction to prohibit unauthorised mass page creation in any namespace. I would expect the restriction to be temporary by virtue of soon being superseded by an amendment to Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation. I would be heartily grateful if (a) we didn't waste any more time on this particular case of this problem; (b) Rich accepts the amendment; (c) someone else does the heavy lifting on moving forward the policy change. If/when it happens, the new restriction should be removed as redundant.
Of course, if anyone feels that this was too bold, and requires more discussion before reaching this outcome, well, go nuts. You won't be doing Rich any favours, since that will entail closer examination of how his behaviour, however superlatively good faith, too often skates disruptive editing. Rd232talk 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do something. I don't know what I was thinking when I volunteered to help. I think the intentions are good but it has become quite painstaking to go through each one. And instead of just checking/correcting them, I also attempted to populate them, too. Whether red-linked or not, I'd check "what links here" for the label to see what other albums might be there that hadn't been categorize. Not a bad thing to do, I guess, for completeness, but much more of a laborious undertaking than I realized. The latest thing I'm seeing done is the addition of album categories to film articles because it has a soundtrack section (see Rocky II as an example). Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The population is cool, but not essential, the categories will eventually be populated. Thanks for your help so far anyway. RichFarmbrough, 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I fully support Rd232's amendment. But yeah, as Starcheer... says now we have the issue of tons of movie article being placed in "albums" categories because the article has a section about a movie soundtrack. I would venture to say that this would be a miscategorization. Perhaps a redirect like Rocky III (soundtrack) could be categorized in this way, but not the article Rocky III. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to ask the late arrival question... How are these categories being added? Manually, by script, or by 'bot? (One would think that category creation/addition wouldn't be done by a 'bot as it requires a degree judgment on appropriatness...) - J Greb (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it looks like script, though I am not sure. I believe it has something to do with what appears in the album template on a page, since he always seems to copy exactly what it says there, whether or not it is spelled correctly. It's not by bot I don't think—it's done through the account User:Rich Farmbrough. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point Olfactory. Excellent in fact. RichFarmbrough, 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Rich is also repeatedly creating categories like Category:EMI albums which have explicitly been merged and deleted via CFD. He has not learned from this ANI report and seems to continue to do what he was doing before, though at a slower pace. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to resolve these issues properly, rather than relying on the somatic information, if someone is creating an album article and they put in a label description that seems sensible to them they will recreate the category, or at least have to hunt for the correct one. By having a category redirect these problems can be avoided, since a.) they will see the correct category if they look and b.) Russbot will correct it if they don't. RichFarmbrough, 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, but you didn't create a redirect! You created a new category. You've now done it twice for this particular category and countless other times without even realizing you were creating a duplicate. Maybe you should do some hunting before you create a category in the first place. ... Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or it can be built into the infobox, with a switch reading the proper parameter and adding the category. Anything not in the switch list - that is the existing categories and known likely alternate spellings and typos - gets put into a tracking cat - "Album articles with unclear lable information". It may not be the nicest solution, but it keeps scripts from (re)creating bad categories. - J Greb (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the didn't only repeatedly create the EMI category, but that he also created the now empty Category:EMI Music albums as well, which is one more to delete. Fram (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually significant subtlety over EMI record labels, with nearly 100 listed on WP alone (Thorn EMI group was composed of several hundred companies), including the massive HMV, Harvest, and Columbia labels if I am not mistaken, and 1.3 million songs in their current holdings. It is by no means obvious that Wikipedia wishes to categorise some, many or all these together as your tone seems to imply. RichFarmbrough, 15:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Do I understand well that RF can create (OK) and delete (as an admin) their own pages at their own will? Not even a Speedy needed then? (Deletion of self-created pages documented: "The Category:Various albums was created, deleted, and recreated, apparently because some infoboxes list the artist for albums as "Various"." as fram wrote above), Oh these admins. -DePiep (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, and a note it is: RF is an admin and also an edit filter manager. They know what language is allowed an not. This person can block me!? -DePiep (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Rich's editing restriction was extended now to cover creation of categories by script, so I assume he won't be doing this by script anymore. Right Rich? Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that's correct. But even if Rich does desist from doing this particular sort of task, the latest episode is a further reminder of the folly of letting an editor use an unauthorised bot which doesn't even identify itself as a bot. Unless that wider issue is tackled, we'll just have more of these problems popping up in different areas.
I don't know why Rich believes himself to be exempt from the two basic rules of bot usage (prior approval of the bot and seeking consensus for the bot's tasks) ... but it's astonishing that this has gone on so long. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just block him and be done with it. Does anyone believe that his creation of exactly one category per minute between January 16 20:45 and January 16 21:40 was not script-assisted automated category-creation, throttled to be at one a minute only to give a slower (non-bot like) appearance? Fram (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rules regarding Admin's use of tools
What exactly are the rules? Can an administrator discuss content and edit the article - and then revert the edit he explicitly did not support and lock the article to all editors, ip or not - immediately enshrining his, and his close editing friend's, preferred version? Ever?72.5.199.254 (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they musn't use their tools for "win" a battle, never. TbhotchTalk and C. 00:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly they can, so presumably you're asking if they should. A link would be helpful. MalleusFatuorum 00:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just a moment while I gather it.72.5.199.254 (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with what Nev1 has done here. Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I saw was an edit war between the IP and another editor. The admin who locked the page was not involved in editing the article itself, so therefore they weren't considered "involved" and so I don't see any problem with the page protection. ArcAngel (talk) ) 00:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very clear to me that undergraduate essays cannot be considered reliable sources, as opposed to the sources they use themselves. In this particular case it seems to me that Nev1 has done the right thing in protecting the page rather than blocking adversarial editors, regardless of his views on undergraduate essays. MalleusFatuorum 00:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, "undergraduate essays cannot be considered reliable sources" - the problem is that Nev1 does not agree with you, and he was willing to force it back in...then lock it to all ... and then he refused to discuss it as if he was just a neutral uninvolved arbiter.....72.5.199.254 (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allegedly we have 1600 active admins, any areas of involvement is something that admins should avoid using their tools in completely, unless it is unavoidable and required to protect the project. Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The admin was involved in the content debate - he sided with his close friend and geographical neighbor whom he has edited on the same side as hundreds of times, and then he falsely presented himself as a neutral and uninvolved arbiter. I myself only just found his discussion of the content and support for inclusion. (1.)Nev1 was an involved editor. (2.)He is acting in support of a friend. (3.)His last act before locking to everyone, not just IP's, was to change the article to include the edit he is long on record of supporting. (3.)His lock was done under a false appearance of being a neutral and uninvolved arbiter ... These are clear acts, supported by ref's. And they are a violation - no matter how uncomfortable that may seem to some. 72.5.199.254 (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about this particular case, but I feel I'm noticing more admins using the tools while involved. Or maybe it's just more noticeable because overall it's happening less. Whichever it is, I've started a discussion about trying to clarify WP:INVOLVED. Discussion here for anyone wanting to join in, though it's already a bit bogged down. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 01:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that neither 72.5.199.254 nor 99.141.243.84, nor any facsimiles thereof, have been edit warring before Parrot of Doom (talk·contribs) declared that intent to stop discussing and start revert warring; nor is there evidence that the talk page discussion going back to August 2010 has been accompanied by any previous edit warring in the article on this issue by anyone. So it's possibly unfair to land the boomerang where some people plainly think it should be landing. The history here appears to be: talk page discussion started months ago → "I see little point in debating the matter further with you." → revert war → protection to get discussion going on talk page.
It's rather sad, but not entirely unexpected, to see that 72.5.199.254, by going on at length about a reversion to the prior stable version of the article, is shooting xyrself in the foot, by frittering away any potential support for xyr position on the content issue with this prolonged nitwittery about The Wrong Version. It's not as if pointing to this talk page edit wouldn't have immediately cleared up the matter of whether Nev1 has an existing stake and position in this particular content dispute, without all of the irrelevant silliness about who is "friends" with whom and who lives where in the world.
To be honest, if there'd been less of the combative and ridiculously personalized approach and more of the "You reverted and protected in a content dispute where you actually took a side on this very talk page a few months ago in August 2010, if you remember, Nev1.", perhaps Nev1 might have been persuaded of the error. Mind you, that still doesn't solve the problem of Parrot of Doom's declared intent not to discuss this on the talk page at all but to just revert war until blocked.
Yet another concern that could be corrected by "how about we just ban admin tool use in involved articles so they have to use the normal incident boards?". There's no reason they shouldn't very aggressively recuse from such areas. ♪Tstorm(talk) 02:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that doesn't correct this. Go and look at Special:Contributions/Nev1. See how many edits ago xyr August 2010 edit to Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered was, relatively speaking. Count how many times you have to follow the "older 500" hyperlink to get to it. Xe probably simply forgot that xe took a position on this months ago. No amount of policy and rules creep will stop people from just forgetting something from months ago. A simple reminder, and diff of the relevant edit, would have likely sufficed; and Nev1 would probably have acknowledged the involvement in the content dispute. But we'll never know, because 99.141.243.84 decided to go for the combative and acutely personalized approach instead, ironically claiming to have made 100,000 edits to Wikipedia along the way. One would have thought that someone who has truly made 10,000 edits per year would appreciate the problem of not remembering every edit one has made from last year.
And you're not even addressing the main problem here, which is the content dispute itself, with the intransigent editors who began by discussing on the talk page for months, and then decided to stop talk page discussion and start revert warring — ironically completely the reverse of the pattern that the article protection is intended to achieve. Don't miss the meat of the problem by focussing on the fashionable side issue du jour. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, but ANI is not for content disputes. Never meant to say that was anything close to a "fix", though, and I'm not speaking as to whether any admin ethical issues were conflicting here or not. ♪Tstorm(talk) 04:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
to suggest that nev1, an admin for whom I have the highest regard, is motivated by a desire to protect friends and acquaintances and not to help prevent a silly edit war, is nothing but dummy-spitting. I have repeatedly asked for help on this article but as usual nobody is prepared to do the hard work, even I'd that's merely reading the source which has proven so contentious. It's pathetic that more time is spent whingung about rules than is actually creating half-decent content, but not surprising. Parrotof Doom 15:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From 2 January there was a slow-moving edit war on the article, with a couple of reverts a day, but neither party breaching WP:3RR. Discussion was breaking down on the talk page and every post was preceded by a revert. I protected the article to keep it stable and so that both sides might concentrate on discussing the issue and searching for a third option. Before January 2011, my only contribution to the article had been reverting vandalism. I'd forgotten that nearly five months ago I said that maybe being published in Historical Discourses: The McGill Undergraduate Journal of History meant the essay satisfied WP:RS (and Joey Roe (talk·contribs) immediately pointed out that the journal was compiled by students, thereby rendering my point void). Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that the the expression, "both sides" is a bit of a stretch. There exists a consensus, every editor but one is against inclusion of the undergraduate's classroom essay. It's not a content dispute - its an enforcement issue regarding Wikipedia rules regarding Consensus, Notability, Reliable Source rules, Fringe..(not to mention impartial and neutral use of tools) etc, etc. Clear Consensus exists from numerous editors, here and there, over months to oppose inclusion. And not a single tangible argument has been provided by the intransigent editor, and not a single editor has supported his addition of the student essay. Not a one.72.5.199.254 (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a view on the content issue as I haven't properly looked into it yet (though I will), and I don't think Nev1 has done anything too terrible; anyone can forget a previous involvement and take admin action, though he should probably recuse in future; but I do see a potential problem in Parrot of Doom's edit here; he seems to be throwing down the gauntlet. As an experienced editor there is probably little value in warning him about WP:EDITWAR, and I fear a block may be necessary if he does not rescind the threat, or perhaps more practically if he follows through on the threat to keep edit-warring "until one of us is blocked", as this is not an acceptable or collegial way to behave. --John (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"With all due respect", that's not quite what Parrot of Doom said. What he actually said was "I will continue to revert your removal of this material until the matter is escalated for discussion elsewhere and a proper consensus formed, or until one of us is blocked.". Naturally enough you focus on the block comment though. MalleusFatuorum 21:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From your tone of disdain and the perspective you implicitly reference, I am under the impression you are referring to me. I don't believe I've never mentioned it.72.5.199.254 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you think I'm referring to you, when the indentation of my reply makes it very clear that I am not? My "disdain" is for those administrators who resolve what is clearly a content dispute over the reliability of a source with blocks. A better place to discuss this is WP:CONTENT, where there will hopefully be no veiled threats, just a rational discussion of the pros and cons. MalleusFatuorum 21:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, a block would be premature. I am sure some agreement can be reached. Edit-warring or threatening to edit war is seldom helpful; there is always a better way to resolve things without anybody needing to be blocked. I will take a look at resolving the content issue amicably. --John (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be getting a bit cart before the horse over there and now WP:OR is being first considered on it's merits. Ahh, such is the current laissez-faire zeitgeist of this period of wikipedia. At one time we suffered from an excessive application of rule minutia, now the pendulum swings away....99.141.243.84 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're probably right about the zeitgeist. I'm here to make the article better, how about you? --John (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, I'm completely here to better content(5), even in the crevasses. The students essay was first entered into the article by Parrot of Doom (1) ... and the students essay was immediately objected to, and just as immediately Parrot of Doom rejected any and all discussion, stating, "No I won't remove it, I'm happy that its a reliable source"(2). Numerous other editors objected from the start(3) And all have been driven away from "bettering the article", and all from the start have been asked to read the Original Research(4). Original research, via an undergraduates classroom essay, presenting an idea never uttered once in literature nor academia, has no place. It's not a reliable source. Period. Why must we first disprove the Original Research before we can remove it? It does not make sense. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like, to me, that inclusion of the student essay (pure Original Research presenting an idea unknown elswhere) is to be the only result. Still to this day the one intransigent editor has refused to offer any argument beyond - "Prove the Original Research Wrong". ...99.141.243.84 (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My first thoughts on this unblock request, due to the nature of the series of incidents, was to direct the editor to WP:ARBCOM. The editor continues to simply post "the first discussion said it all", which, clearly he would be unblocked if that was the case. It is a complex situation, and I would encourage all to read pretty much the entire page to understand the reasonings behind the block, and his responses since. It is up to you to determine if he's honest and sincere. Because of the nature of the block, I think it's appropriate to get a community decision as to their unblock. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock - There is a sense of 'grovel or stay blocked' in that discussion that makes me a little uncomfortable. Yes, he doesn't seem to have accepted that his use of 'Jew' was pejorative, but he has accepted several times that it was disruptive. A block can surely only be expected to change someone's behaviour, not their opinion. As he puts it "...regardless of whether or not I actually am the most monstrous bigot in the world, it makes no difference to the Wikipedia Project if I can in fact conduct myself in a way that is satisfactory to the goals of the Wikipedia Project." If you ask me, he has a point. So long as his behaviour improves, and his has promised it will, his personal opinions are not something he should stay blocked for. Unblock and give him the chance to prove that he has understood the behavioural requirements.--KorruskiTalk 13:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The problem is that we are all independent actors -- no one has the time, energy or inclination to follow another editor around checking every one of their edits to make sure that the editor's prejudices aren't showing through. So it does make a difference if the editor is the "most montrous bigot in the world" as any such closely-held POV will inevitably leak through into the editor's constributions, sooner or later. We cannot, therefore, be reasonably certain that their conduct will be "satisfactory to the goals of Wikipedia." Editing Wikipedia is not for everybody, and it seems as if it may not be for this editor. I am opposed to unblocking at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good wikilawyering, more of a Non-apology apology than an apology. Sometimes people's true nature comes out in "the heat of the moment". Does someone who throws around the term "Jew" when angry really get it? JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. JS makes a good point. People's true nature come out when they get emotional. When things heat up this editor starts talking about "Jews" and "cabals". Sure he's calm now but what happens the next time some "Jew" reverts his "Truth (tm)"?--Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I see nothing there that shows he is willing to work with others in a collaborative environment. –MuZemike 14:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock - Agree with Beyond My Ken. This project's standards for civilized, polite and constructive discussion are incompatible with anti-semitism/racism/bigotry etc. Also after having been told that the unblock request did not deal with all the issues 2 further un-block requests with nothing new is both tendentious and in fact an abuse of the unblock template--Caililtalk 15:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Using edit summaries like the one he used during an edit to the Circumcision article seems to indicate this person is an anti-semite. We don't want or need anti-semites. - Burpelson AFB✈ 19:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until such a time as they specifically apologize for using "Jew" as a term of opprobium. Saying "I don't consider 'Jew" an insult" doesn't address the problem. Corvus cornixtalk 19:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - FWIW I've alternated between permanently locking his talk page for practicing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (and wasting our time) and actually unblocking this user for a second chance. I'm entirely ambivalent on whether we'd have to block him again in a month for not working with the community, or just dealing with another bombastic personality which frankly quite a few of us have. I wouldn't oppose an unblock if other admins came to that conclusion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DEFINITELY NOT ANTI SEMITIC - I haven't looked at the full circumstances but I took a very quick look at the edit he was blocked for [3] and then his talk page. It seems completely clear to me that he wasn't being anti semitic at all - all he was suggesting is that there was a link between the users that were reverting him; in effect he was insinuating that they were likely to know one another. Now that may be a bit daft but it's not unreasonable to think that if they *did* know one another one way in which they could was by all being the same religion and thus meeting socially. If anything it's offensive that someone assumed that jew was an insult. It's a religious (and sometimes racial) term by default. It only becomes an insult if the speaker means it that way. Now as to whether he needs a block for the other stuff, I really don't know or care but if I were him I'd be very peed off about being called anti semitic Egg Centric (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Incidentally the current "investigation" (which is just daft) of my account should worry people - the phrase "chilling effects" comes to mind. Had anyone bothered to look on my user page they can see plenty of edits done by IP :) Egg Centric (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, edits dating all the way back to January 7! Special:Contributions/86.178.52.148. It is standard practice in discussions in the Wikipedia domain to note when comments are made by (apparently) very new users, for reasons that are obvious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it's also been withdrawn as groundless, not that I mind a check user either way. Anyway, Uncle G has put my views on THAT much better than I could. But the major thing for me in this case is I don't see the anti semitism. Or at least, I understand that an anti semite may make that remark, but it can also be - and most likely is - made completely innocently. Others need to decide whether the other offences justify a block (I think not but I'm not in a position to make a proper evaluation of it, which is why I haven't voted) - but I respectfully suggest that any block votes based on him being an anti semite should be reconsidered or ignored. Egg Centric (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amazed at the double standard here. An account makes a comment that xe doesn't know that two other accounts aren't in fact the same person, and it's used as one of the two foundation stones upon which the argument here for an indefinite block is being built upon. Magog the Ogre and Beyond My Ken accuse people of being sockpuppets, and not an eyelid is blinked.
Really, there's a whole tottering edifice being built, with bad arguments, double standards, and downright fallacious assumptions (Several people here should learn Hanlon's razor.) on top of just two edits here. And those two edits provide a crumbly and weak foundation for what has been built. If it weren't for the fact that the account in question has done nothing but edit penis articles for one and a half years, I suspect that more people would be making a fuss about the poor logic and demonization employed against someone who is clearly just a fool who doesn't think logically and is not malicious. It's only because this person's single-issue contributions aren't worth expending the time for that I suspect that people aren't.
And yes, that's unfair. But we're all volunteers with finite time, and we choose not to spend it arguing for unblocking a penis-only person. We have more than enough people who focus solely upon penises here at Wikipedia. However, it should be noted that a lot of the argument here is bad, and if the person blocked were not fixated upon penises and thus not worth the volunteer time to expend upon, more people would be pointing out the double standards, unsupported inferences, requests for shrubberies, and leaps to conclusions happening here.
It's very helpful actually, he said what I couldn't say. Egg Centric (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. You'll note my comment is about whether the remark is anti semitic or not (not specifically about the block per se) so carries just as much weight as any user. (P.S. If you worked backwards you could find other IPs) Egg Centric (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an involved user, I'd like to make a couple of comments. First, it's probably best to evaluate the edit summary in the context of ActuallyRationalThinker's other comments in this discussion. This comment in particular is rather distasteful to my eye: hostility towards Jews and Judaism is clearly apparent, and it seems to display deliberate, calculated rudeness, and absence of intent to collaborate with others in a civil manner. Second, when combined with other behavioural problems (see Jayjg's AN/3RR report for some of these), I am not convinced that this editor is able to conduct him/herself in a suitable manner. Jakew (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, a tough one. I agree that that edit (and discussion in general) is more troubling than the one I was looking at. I still wouldn't characterise it as necessarily anti semitic (again, it may be - it's anti-jewish practice for sure; the only question is whether it's anti-jewish practice because of said practice being done by jews or because of said practice being abhorrent to the OP) but it's closer to the line. Once again, no comment on the behavioural stuff as I don't feel experienced enough to have a useful opinion. Egg Centric (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce to time served. The edit warring and this edit summary rightfully deserved a block. But I see nothing that would require this to immediately jump to indef. Xe would obviously be on a very short leash wrt antisemitic remarks in future. -Atmoz (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indef does not mean permanent. All they have to do is to stop lawyering, and apologize, recognize why everybody is upset, and promise not to do it again. Corvus cornixtalk 02:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock. There was a dispute about the WP:WEIGHT that should be given to a particular aspect of the topic. An editor was concerned about the balance, and feels that zie is pounced on by a tag-team. Leave aside for a moment what anyone thinks about the substantive issues, and look at the editor's concern: that it appears to him that one particular group of people are trying to deny due weight to a viewpoint which is conflicts with their own. So he notes the influx of Spanish editors, and says "wow! Another Spaniard". When the Spaniard complains about the undue weight given to the Netherlands, the editor turns the comment around by applying the same arguments to the weight given to coverage of Spain. So far all we have is two sets of editors being rather unconstructive, and not working effectively to resolve the dispute ... except that in this case, the discussion was not about Spain, it was about Judaism, and the editor concerned said "Jew" rather than "Spaniard". He didn't drag it in as an irrelevancy, because Judaism's views on the topic form a major part of the article. That concern about balance and proportionality has been ignored in favour of an attempt to smear the editor as an anti-semite, and silence further discussion by the bad faith assumption that concern about an apparently Jewish tag-team is automatically evidence of anti-semitism. And then, after this editor is blocked, they are told in witchcraft-trail-style that they have to confess to being an anti-semite before they can be unblocked? This is an outrageous attempt to wikilawyer the NPA rules to silence dissent, and if Looie496 had not unblocked I might have done so myself. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Unblocking
I am about to unblock this editor, and would like to explain why first. The sole justification for imposing an indef on an editor who has never previously been blocked was the edit summary, "Wow. A third Jew, Brewcrewer--who has NEVER edited the circumcision article even once before--appears out of nowhere to join the cabal." That's offensive, and in combination with edit warring certainly justifies a block, but an indef block? I don't think so. Suppose the article had been about Scientology, and the edit summary had said Scientologist instead of Jew -- would an indef block have been imposed? I don't think so. With all respect for the opinions expressed above, I am therefore taking the initiative of reducing the sentence to time served. Looie496 (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Looie496. The strong consensus above is clearly not to unblock. If you want to voice your opinion in that discussion (as you appear to have done) please feel free to do so, but you can't take it on yourself to ignore the consensus above, or insist your single vote outweighs the statements of the clear majority here. Please reverse your unblock so that someone else doesn't have to do it for you. Jayjg (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looie496 has unblocked this user without consensus. Could somebody please reblock and start a deaminship process against Looie496? Corvus cornixtalk 05:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also rather concerned by the stunning disregard for consensus... Jakew (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfrickingbelievable in fact. A community discussion that is underway trumps an individual admin's choice in this situation - we've already had discussions about that elsewhere. Holy frickin' frick. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock- This editor has served almost three weeks, which is more than enough for what they said, and has done about as much abject grovelling as can reasonably be demanded. ReykYO! 08:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The editor looks to be a single-purpose account, dedicated to the "cause" from its very first edit,[4] and no stranger to making accusations of bad faith based on the presumed bias of other editors.[5][6] The use of the term "cabal",[7] i.e. "pro-circumcision cabal", a term which I saw used by another edit last summer, is perhaps even more ominous than his throwing the term "Jew" around, and I don't see anything on his talk page that suggests he no longer believes in such a "cabal". Given the editors' underlying assumptions, it is unlikely the editor will improve its approach, but we'll see. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem that "cabal" accusations by various users go back to at least March of 2006. It strikes me as peculiar wording, but maybe in regard to this subject it's a frequently-used slogan? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ActuallyRationalThinker has contributed little more here than than a few sporadic instances of edit warring on matters of the penis, accompanied by aggression directed at other editors. The antisemitic comment was way over the top, and it's reasonable for the community to take that as the last straw. If this odd editing is their only work on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is none the worse with them gone. If this is an alternate account, same result. The three denied unblocked requests didn't show any evidence that they would change their ways. Despite an apology they defended the antisemitic comment as either harmless or justified, and never promised not to do it again. Unblocking them sends the wrong message, that the community considers this okay. Unfortunately, re-blocking them would send a worse message, that the community can't deal with race baiting. The best way out at this point is to give them a stern warning that they should be on best behavior, and any further inflammatory conduct will get them reblocked for good. Looie496's unblock was unwise and out of process. Checking Louie496's history as an administrator, I don't see any other incidents of contentious use of tools. Let's hope this doesn't become a pattern. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't support taking any action against Louie496, and particularly not an administrative recall. That would be a gross overreaction to an isolated decision made in good faith, something best handled as a calm discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support taking any action against him either, so long as he remedies the error he made, which he can still do. Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To explain a bit more about the basis for the unblock: it was apparent to me, looking over the discussion, that a permanent block was disproportionate to the offense, and that for various political reasons there would never be a clear consensus to unblock. It seemed to me that it was necessary for somebody to step up, and I couldn't see why I should ask somebody else to do it. For what it's worth, I am uncomfortable with a number of aspects of this editor's contributions, and wouldn't be at all surprised to see more problems in the future -- but I don't think it is our custom to block permanently for a relatively minor offense merely because it worries us. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What "political reasons" - is that a code word for something? And what basis do you have for saying that accusing editors of being part of a Jewish cabal is a minor offense that needs somebody with administrative credentials to step up to the plate on? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The editor should have been kept blocked. But if he doesn't behave himself, he'll be back here pronto. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looie496, it's clear you think he should be unblocked. What's not clear is why you think your specific views on this weigh more than the strong consensus of other editors above, or why you think you can summarily ignore/preempt that consensus. Please restore the previous block until this discussion concludes, so that we can discuss ActuallyRationalThinker, rather than having to open an admin abuse discussion on you. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, this is a really out of process unnecessary unblock that demeans the whole process of discussion and consensus. For what is worth, which in this case would have been nothing - I also supported the block but as the weight of consensus and the discussion cleanly was in favor of support I didn't bother to add my weight of support for it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that the mid-discussion unblock wasn't helpful. That's particularly true when ActuallyRationalThinker is a sporadically used SPA. I think an indefinite block for that one remark alone would be inappropriate, but taken together with the reverting, and the single-purpose nature of the account, it wasn't unreasonable, and it would have been better to let the discussion play itself out. Now that he's unblocked, perhaps Looie would consider applying a one-year topic ban, so ATR can learn how to edit within policy by working on articles he cares less about. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 20:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm sympathetic to your suggestion, he really should be re-blocked, by Louie, until this discussion has run its course. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The unblock was a spectacular example of an out-of-consensus admin running wild, who even now is trying to claim that the refusals by multiple admins to unblock is somehow bad faith on their part. Corvus cornixtalk 20:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment. I understand why Looie did what he did. The edit was not anti semitic (or, at least, it probably wasn't) - but it takes balls to say so. Most right thinking people do not want to be accused of anti-semitism (nor racism, nor chauvinism, nor a bunch of other ugly things, another of his edits seemed a bit closer to the line but was still perfectly consistent with believing in a cabal that happened to be jewish [and if there is to be a cabal on circumcision not unreasonable to expect it to be jewish]) so err on the side of caution the other way.
Incidentally this is why religious tolerance (an indisputably good thing, although many religions think otherwise) so often manifests itself as respect for religion, which is at least arguably a bad thing. Egg Centric (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly antisemitic. There is no "probably" -- it either is or is not, based on the text of the statement. A person with a good heart and no racist intent can sometimes misspeak, say something unaware of how others will interpret it, or be ignorant of the inappropriateness of a comment, but the comment itself is still racist. I don't think those apply because angrily accusing someone of taking an action as a member of a Jewish cabal is neither harmless nor inadvertent. That's one of the primary and most destructive forms of antisemitism throughout history. Accusing Jews of conspiring behind people's backs in order to control things sets off warning bells. Perhaps the minority opinion here that the block should have been lifted is held by some who just can't see that statement as racist. For those people, please pay attention to the fact that the majority of people feel otherwise, and the nature of bigoted statements is that they don't have to offend 100% of the population, or even a majority of the population, in order to be hurtful. If your companions say that a comment was offensive but you don't see the offense, you should realize that the comment is still one that offends. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, my argument for an unblock (above) does not hinge on whether the statement is or is not anti-semitic. My argument is that blocks are (supposed to be) for the protection of Wikipedia, not as a way of forcibly extracting an apology. If the blocked party has promised to modify his behaviour (and he has, several times), then whether or not he agrees that he was being anti-semitic, or has apologised should be irrelevant. All that matters is whether we believe him. I don't, especially, but I would rather give him a chance (and some WP:ROPE).--KorruskiTalk 23:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of this, except that I am more optimistic of this user mending his ways. ReykYO! 00:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The comment deserved a block, but dragging it out this long is punitive rather than preventive. Keeping this user blocked is not preventing any harm to the encyclopedia. What is being required of this user is not merely an earnest statement that they understand the community finds that sort of comment extremely distasteful and that he won't do it again. He has already given that - explicitly - on his talk page in the form of a detailed bullet point list. No, what is being demanded is abject grovelling, as though trying to hold on to a modicum of dignity and self respect is a disruptive crime deserving permanent banishment. He's given at least three apologies and a firm promise to knock it off, but it seems that whatever he says it's always "not good enough! not good enough!" and there's always just one more humiliation necessary. We should either be honest and say "There is no possibility of an unblock, under any circumstances, ever" or we should be fair and accept an earnest (though possibly grumpy) apology. ReykYO! 00:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The community felt otherwise, obviously. As I said above, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but administrators do have to respect the community rather than invoking personal veto rights. My review of the apologies leads me to side with the majority here. He did apologize for edit warring, but regarding the offensive comments his calling them "unconstructive" and noting that his "remarks have upset people" is outweighed by his defiant attitude and refusal to acknowledge that they were wrong:
I felt I was being cornered by a clique of biased editors who..., seemed like suspiciously biased and organized behavior, and [Brewcrewer] spends an exorbitant amount of time cleaning, formatting, protecting, and writing articles that relate to Israel, Jews, Judaism, and the Holocaust...it validates the exasperation I was trying to express. (i.e. he was right about there being a pro-Jewish cabal)
born of exasperation rather than any kind of malice that could truly disrupt Wikipedia. and I never used any language that is even remotely racist; I can only apologize for transgressions that I did in fact make (i.e. what I did was harmless).
I take issue with Brandon's baseless and defamatory claim that my edits display any kind of "antisemitism", accusing me of such bigotry out of hand borders on libel, and doing so with the voice of an Administrator seems like an abuse of power, and "abuse blocking or banning as a means of exacting punitive revenge" (i.e. quit being so sensitive - classic blaming of the offended group, playing the victim, and telling them they're the bigots for taking offense)
His grudging apology, and promise not to do it again, is unconvincing given that he does it again in the course of making his unblock arguments - he is basically saying that he shouldn't have used the word "Jew" because people got upset, but yes, there is a cabal of Jewish editors including the person he first insulted who are abusing the encyclopedia to have their way. The lack of groveling isn't the problem, it's reiterating his original offensive statement in new words while blaming the accusers for abusing him. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Egg Centric, I think the concern here is that being Jewish is regarded as an ethnicity, not only a follower of Judaism. So in one sense, it's like saying "Wow, a third Scientologist," but in another sense it's like saying, "Wow, a third African American." That's why it caused offence. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 23:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To extend my example to yours (on re reading - not brilliantly - and on third thoughts apologies btw if black here is offensive, I'm not totally certain but it definitely isn't here in the UK and it feels very weird for me to constantly type out African American)... say he was editing gangsta rap and arguing that it led to shootings and domestic violence, and a few uninvolved editors who happened to be black came along and reverted him, and he expressed sarcastic surprise that they were all black - now he may be racist in pointing that out, he may not not be, he's almost certainly paranoid about there being a conspiracy against him and in my view that statement can be used in evidence of the latter but not the former. And my example is not brilliant as gangster rap is certainly not part of black identity (although most fans are black) - circumcision, on the other hand, certainly is an example of jewish identity. Anyway I just said I was going to bed in an other edit so had better do now! Egg Centric (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a side note, some would say that the majority of fans of gangster rap are suburban white kids. (citation needed) -- Ϫ 17:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind, his edit-summary comment about Jews wasn't his first or only irrelevant reference to Jews. Indeed, his first comments to the article Talk: page make it clear that this is a singular focus of his: Talk:Circumcision/Archive 67#Netherlands_section. Rather than actually addressing the issues brought up by other editors, he immediately brings up "The Jews" and "Jewish culture". When it is pointed out that this is off-topic, he responds by mimicking the comment made to him, using the phrase "even if Jews couldn't go on living without their daily fill of infant penis-reduction surgery", and subsequently makes it clear that he is not responding as part of a good faith exchange of views, but rather attempting to the "expose the unreasonable nature" of the arguments of those who disagree with him. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moving forward
If we can move past the question of the unblock and what should happen in the short term, what should the outcome be for this editor? I can think of a few. Some of these are mix and match:
Do nothing - leave unblocked, accept promise / apology and move on
Informal probation - advise the editor they are under some scrutiny and that further race-based insults and/or edit warring will earn another block
Extract promise - block / ban until and unless they acknowledge that whatever their intent it was wrong to categorize editors as Jewish and to ascribe conspiratorial motives to groups of editors in the context of their being Jewish, or vice-versa
Ask for promise that this is their sole account, with amnesty(?) if they acknowledge socking and go back to their primary account
Topic ban from Judaism and/or penis-related subjects
Topic ban from making disparaging comments, complaints, etc., that invoke the ethnicity or minority status of other editors
Agree with 1, 2, and 6. Neutral on 5. Disagree with 3 because blocks are for preventing disruption- not for extracting humiliation concessions, forcing people to agree with you, or punishing people for holding offensive or unpopular views. The user in question is free to believe whatever he likes about the remarks he made so long as he doesn't repeat them. Regarding #4, was there ever any convincing evidence of socking? ReykYO! 04:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. I was just throwing all the suggestions out there. I don't think there's any convincing evidence of socking, but rather an odd editing pattern that raises suspicio for some. Probably not worth pursuing if they don't otherwise get into trouble going forward. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) No "sanctions" for any admins involved and 2) Keep the guy on a "short leash". Is it really that hard to "re-block" him the instant he screws up again? It's not. Doctalk 06:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See, we had a perfectly reasonable and workable solution: the editor was indef blocked, appropriately, and the community consensus was that he should remain blocked. Why is anyone interested in what the community has to say now, to "move forward", when the community's views were shat on ignored by the unblocking admin? What's the point? There are numerous situations in which the community doesn't know, collectively, what it wants done, or when no one's interested in taking the time and effort to contribute to a consensus discussion, and in those circumstances, an admin who can take the bull by the horns and enforce policy is appreciated. This was not one of those situations: the community's voice was clear, and remains clear. The fact that the unblocking admin hasn't reversed his decision is highly regrettable, and yet another slap in the face to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why has no admin re-blocked him? (I don't think it would be a WP:WHEEL situation if they did considering the strong feelings towards this one user). The unblocking admin has expressed his desire for recall because of this mess. The editor in question hasn't made one edit since his unblocking; and blocks are to be preventative and not punitive. What damage has been unleashed since his unblock, and what couldn't be instantly remedied by an indefinite block by one of the many admins watching his every move if he dares resume the behavior that he was blocked for? To "punish" the unblocking admin is, IMHO, unwarranted. It's often an ochlocracy here, but sometimes one voice can ring out from the fray. Block him forever if he makes one more ethnic slur: then the unblockintg admin will be proven "wrong". Doctalk 08:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not advocate that the unblocking admin be "punished" in any way – and recall for a single incident is ridiculous anyway – but I do think he should feel the community's displeasure. As for the editor -- well, he hasn't edited at all yet, so we don't know what will happen, but by your logic, every indeffed editor should be unblocked, since we can always block them again. The editor's behavior was disruptive, he was blocked, he requested an unblock without showing any understanding of why he had been blocked, the request was brought here for the the community's opinion, which it gave, and then it was ignored and the editor was unblocked anyway. That doesn't sound to me like a reasonable way to run things, and I'd like to see -- at the very least -- some acknowledgment from the unblocking admin that slamming the foor in the face of the community's opinion was inapprooriate in this circumstances, no matter what his personal opinion of the original block was. Admins get the mop with the expectation that they will use their judgment in the use of their tools, and part of that is knowing when to act, and when not to. This was an occasion not to, to make his opinion known as a member of the community, and allow things to run their course. That he hasn't shown any inclination to indicate his understanding of that is distressing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the definitive consensus for the indefinite block above as clearly as you do, I suppose - the consensus is to keep him blocked, but it is not an overwhelming majority. I certainly do see a few editors calling for Looie496's head on a pike (not you, I reckon); and that's what concerns me more. We don't need to lose an admin who is willing to act boldly (open to recall)[8] because of one little editor. He doesn't have to grovel about it, and he doesn't have to "reverse" himself to make it right. If the decision was so completely profound in its error: I recommend another admin re-block him, like yesterday. What's stopping this? I don't think Looie's going to do it, as he appears to be "sticking to his guns". Doctalk 08:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When looking at the consensus discussion, you need to discount all comments added after the unblock. When you do that, the consensus is abundantly clear: 10 comments, 2 supported unblocking, 8 did not That's a clear consensus. As for why nop admin has re-blocked, perhaps they, too, are waiting to see if the unblocking admin might come to some understanding of the incorrectness of what he did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you need to discount all comments after the unblock? ReykYO! 14:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because to judge whether the unblock was appropriate you have to consider community consensus at the time; it's not realistic to credit Looie496 (or indeed anyone else) with the ability to foresee what might be said in future. Jakew (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is no point in continuing with this discussion. The admin has unblocked against consensus and that has been noted, as a stand alone ignore all rules situation its not even close to wheels dropping off, although IMO this situation regarding this contributor was not one that was worthy of making a stand and using his admin wild card, the unblocked user may never even use that account to edit again and if he does he will need to edit within the conditions of his unblock, so, moving on and closing the discussion seems the correct option. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the socking accusation - assuming Wikidemon and Reyk were talking about when I was being accused of being this user's sock, Maggie and Ken, please take note: this is why I was pissed off when you were making these accusations based on sod all. Mud sticks. There's no reason you couldn't have done so discretely (I have no objection to you having a suspicion and investigating it) Making a song and dance about it on flimsiest of evidence, especially when I have a new user account and it's hard to prove a negative, just isn't on imo. Egg Centric (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. So there's an answer to Reyk's question about #4! Egg Centric (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is the only central location people pay attention to....
Resolved
– 15 January 2011 is over!!! HeyMid (contribs) 09:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Birthday to this Collaborative Project We Call Wikipedia!!!!!
What I would give to be ten again.... Dusti*poke* 15:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ten more years! Ten more years! Ten more years!... Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where has the time gone. Remember when there were less than 500,000 articles? MarnetteD | Talk 16:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone remember those heady days when there were only 3,528,629 articles? It seems like only yesterday. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HAPPY TENTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Perseus, Sonof Zeus 19:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dwayne was here! ♫ 19:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiPedia is a wide-open encyclopedia project. Who knows where it will go?[9] The same goes for the next ten years. Will Bebacktalk 11:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FREE AS IN FREEDOM!!!! WIKIPEDIA FOREVER!!!!-- NovusOrator 11:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fashionably late. -- Ϫ 17:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Being a somewhat wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie, I'll sign just after Uncle G does :-) Back to the backlogs, for the noo. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're either ten days too early or ten months too early. If you feel such a bout of Scottishness coming on, mate, then you can remedy it by helping to decide what to do with Linburn (AfD discussion). Talking of Scots: I see that one has already done what is traditional and necessary, and eliminated the need for my doing it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But will it last for another ten? Or will it be inevitably superceeded by ineffably superior and sublime NAMELESS POWERS? Just a thought. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The rationales for the supports are not clearly explained in policy. Some of them appear to be incompatible with WP:XYZ. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an incident. Minimac (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am signing here because I am an undisclosed member of the evil Doc Glasgow's cabal. Better not to ask. Mathsci (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of contributions to articlespace.-Atmoz (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Signing is evil
Being evil is fun. --DorsalAxe 16:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Off to play Dungeon Keeper. Protonk (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's called the Coriolis effect. Clockwise above the equator and counterclockwise below the equator. -FASTILY(TALK) 04:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This user was the subject of a recent ANI on his civility and POV pushing. Most of the users condemned his actions (of which I was one), but agreed that a stern warning, not a block, was a sufficient response. I supported this result, but an admin who had previously interacted with the user noted "that there have to be consequences at some point". Arilang has (thankfully) shied away from civility issues, but I've noticed two very problematic practices that should be brought up and addressed on ANI.
The first, and most important, issue is the egregious amount of copyright violations (WP:PLAGIARISM) by the user. After encountering one of the articles he wrote, I noticed that the writing did not match the style of his talk page contributions, which led me to an investigation of the article. A quick google search revealed that much of the content was taken, or closely paraphrased, off other websites. Going over his contributions, I've noticed a host of other articles with the exact same problems. A few examples from randomly choosing articles off his Articles Created list:
From January, 2011. This was taken from the product review on Amazon.
Compare "Madame Chiang Kai-shek, beautiful, brilliant, and captivating, was one of the most controversial and fascinating women of the twentieth century" (Wikipedia) with "beautiful, brilliant, and captivating, Madame Chiang Kai-shek... one of the most powerful and fascinating women of the twentieth century". (Amazon)
Compare "manipulative “Dragon Lady” and despised her for living in Western-style splendor when most of the Chinese still live in poverty... this book is the result of years of extensive research in the United States and abroad and access to previously classified CIA and diplomatic files." (Wikipedia) with "manipulative “Dragon Lady,” and despised for living in American-style splendor while Chinese citizens suffered under her husband’s brutal oppression... the result of years of extensive research in the United States and abroad, and written with access to previously classified CIA and diplomatic files." (Amazon).
I have moved the related article into my sandbox to work on it when I have more time. Arilang talk 00:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Compare "Becker concedes that the American press reported the famine with accuracy, but leftists and communist sympathisers such as Edgar Snow, Rewi Alley, and Anna Louise Strong, remained silent or played down its severity. The tragedy could have been averted, Becker concludes, after the first year if Mao's senior advisers had dared to confront him (Wikipedia) with "Becker concedes that the American press (especially Joseph Alsop) reported the famine with accuracy, he notes that other Western "foreign experts" who admired Mao, such as Edgar Snow, Rewi Alley, and Anna Louise Strong, remained silent or played down its severity. The tragedy could have been averted, Becker concludes, after the first year if Mao's senior advisers had dared to confront him." (Amazon
I have removed the copyvio content. Arilang talk 00:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From January, 2011. This was taken from the product description on Amazon. The quotes used in the "review" section are directly copy-pasted off the Amazon list of reviews.
Compare "Based on secret and classified Chinese archives documents smuggled out of China...the most important and mythologized communist China leader" (Wikipedia) with "The most important, most mythologized leaders in the history of communist China, based on long-secret documents" and "classified documents spirited out of China". (Amazon)
The related article has been moved to my sandbox to be worked on. Arilang talk 00:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From December, 2010. This was taken from the product review on Amazon.
Compare "controls the government, courts, media, and military, and how it keeps all corruption accusations against its members in-house" with "controls the government, courts, media, and military, and how it keeps all corruption accusations against its members in-house". In this instance, the user did use quotes for the following sentence, but this initial sentence remained unquoted. An anonymous IP removed the segment with the editing summary "Removed copyright violation, new summary", but since (judging by the contributions) the IP's POV is different from Arilang's, I assume this is not Arilang's IP.
I have removed copyvio content. Arilang talk 00:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From January, 2010. This was taken from a blog posted two days before the article.
Compare "which is a satire on the mainland Chinese government’s attempt to “harmonize” China’s Internet with forced installations of Green Dam Youth Escort and the travails of mainland Chinese World of Warcraft players over the last several months" (Wikipedia) with "satirizing the government’s attempt to “harmonize” China’s Internet with forced installations of “Green Dam Youth Escort” and the travails of Chinese World of Warcraft players over the last several months" (Blog).
Not sure about this one, it has been long time since I worked on that article. Arilang talk 02:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Compare "The Dream of Ding Village is about a community in Henan where almost everyone is infected with HIV/Aids because of unregulated blood-selling in the 1990s. Far more than any of his previous novels, it is rooted in reality, yet Yan says it is no less surreal" (Wikipedia) with "The Dream of Ding Village is about a community in Henan where almost everyone is infected with HIV/Aids because of unregulated blood-selling in the 1990s. Far more than any of his previous novels, it is rooted in reality, yet Yan says it is no less surreal." (Guardian)
I have removed copyvio content. Arilang talk 00:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Compare with "On 2007 Mr Guo threw down a gauntlet to the ruling Communist Party by declaring that he has formed a underground New People's Party with 10 million members at home and abroad, and he was the acting chairman of the new party."(Wikipedia) and "Last year Mr Guo threw down a gauntlet to the ruling Communist Party by declaring that he was acting as the chairman of the underground New People's Party and claimed 10 million members" (Times)
I have removed copyvio content. Arilang talk 02:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From October, 2008. This was taken from this About page.
Compare "to generate systematic, multi-facted research in the field of Chinese journalism" (Wikipedia) with "position at the doorsteps of China to generate systematic, multi-facted research in the field of Chinese journalism" (About page).
I have removed copyvio content. Arilang talk 02:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Compare "Amnesty International says these activities spiked around last year's Beijing Olympics, which drew many protestors/petitioners. It's increased again with the recent Chinese National Congress meeting" (Wikipedia) with "Amnesty International says these activities spiked around last year's Beijing Olympics, which drew many protestors. It's increased again with the recent Congress." (Radio Australia)
I have removed copyvio content. Arilang talk 02:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And this was just from randomly picking articles off his Articles Created list, a more detailed review of his contributions will reveal more incidents. Since this user has largely worked on topics that most Wikipedians are not interested in, the user's copyright violations have remained undetected, and the damage could be extensive. A search shows that this practice began as early as 2008, and the user currently has 8,707 edits, so there is a massive amount of content that must be reviewed.
These are not isolated cases, this has been occuring for years and it's going to be a headache to deal with. Now, you could argue that Arilang is unaware of Wikipedia's stance on copyright violations, but this is a user that has been here since 2008, it's difficult to believe he can contribute 8000+ edits without encountering WP:PLAGIARISM. Pretending to be innocent through ignorance is not an excuse. He was notified for copyright problems on one of his image uploads, other users have reverted his edits for copyright violations, he should know better.
There's also the second issue, which may be just as worrisome. In his last ANI, he promised to behave, and began to back away from the articles where his edits attract the most criticism. One of the problems identified in the last ANI included Arilang's habit of adding external links that are of his POV, even if they may be unreliable or unrelevant. He's still doing this, but with internal links, look at this article he creates and the link he adds here, under the See Also section. Judge for yourself. This seems like an attempt to flout his promise to behave, a sneaky way to POV push without triggering the scrutiny of the editors that criticised him in his last ANI.
On his last ANI, he was dangerously close to a block and users advised him not to worsen the situation, which he had been doing. While the plagiarism problems were not included in the last ANI, concerns over POV were. I'm not sure what the best response is, but I leave this up to the administrators and editors.--hkr(talk) 10:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the fact that the plagarism is a "new issue" (yes, I know that this is an issue that he should have been aware of, but "should have" is not quite the same as "did know") that he had not been warned about, I am not inclined to advocate for anything other than a warning.
As far as the "sneaky POV pushing," I would advocate now not a one-week cool-off block (which I advocated last time) but a one-month ban from all China-related articles, with an explicit warning that while he could return to them after the one month, if this resumes, he will be blocked at least one month for each instance. I realize that this is a harsh sanction, but I believe that the behavior warrants it. --Nlu (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to protest against the "sneaky POV pushing" label, though on various talk pages I have never try to hide my "strong opinions", but when come to editing on actual articles, I have always tried to write in a neutral style. Arilang talk 11:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that this section is written in a "neutral style"? Don't you see how it would be problematic to link this article under the "See also" section of its subject? Please understand Arilang, I sympathise with your POV at times, but when act like this a few days after your last ANI, editors will take notice.--hkr(talk) 11:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the adding Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary to Zhou Enlai is an act of "sneaky POV pushing". On the contrary, it is in the everyday reader's benefit that more info about Zhou as a human being being offered in wikipedia. Arilang talk 12:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See? It's this type of response that creates the conflicts you've been involved with. A facetious response like "it is in the everyday reader's benefit" tells me that you're not taking this seriously. It's not your job to "benefit" the reader by promoting a bias. Don't you see how your contributions can be construed as POV? No amount of trouting seems to be working.--hkr(talk) 12:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The former is an article that has been worked on by many contributors and is (somewhat) neutral. The latter is an article that has solely been written by you, was created a few days ago with a clear POV, misrepresents the book it was written on by "selectively" quoting, and was created to (in my eyes), make a point of avoiding the scrutiny of the editors that typically frequent these articles. Strangely, the article acts as a disservice to the book (it's partially available on Google Books), which is much more moderate in its POV and nuanced in its analysis. I do not like Mao, I think the man is a mass murderer, but I care about neutrality, and this is the straw that broke the camel's back, with your last ANI so recent.--hkr(talk) 13:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have clean up Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary a bit, to make it more neutral. Since the article has been created new, I shall try my best to turn it into a more neutral article, just give me a bit more time. Arilang talk 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "selective" quoting might be too kind, "completely changing the tone of" is much more fitting. Compare the version of this section with the article its supposedly attributed to. Notice how the first expresses a negative tone of the subject, while the second is positive. Notice that both are attributed to same author, but make completely different points. He's taking quotes, chopping them up, and rephrasing them to make them support the POV he makes. There are ways of being critical while being neutral. Blatant attempts attempts like this are not. I've defended Arilang in the past, but I'm tired of all the final warnings. And the plagiarism issue remains.--hkr(talk) 14:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are also copyright problems with his images. This File:People's commune3.jpg, labeled public domain, credits "Google Image Search" as its source.--hkr(talk) 11:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have encountered these editing problems before in my previous dealings with Arilang, in which I have noted that he often inserts Google translated Chinese language blog and forum posts, as well as Youtube videos, as references and external links. While I believe that he added these in good faith, considering his time spent editing Wikipedia, I think he really should spend more time to familiarise with Wikipedia guidelines regarding these matters. Thus, I believe Nlu's suggestion of a one-month restriction on China-related articles to be appropriate.--PCPP (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we have a problem here. If Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary is Arilang's best attempt at writing neutral encyclopedic material, then this is more than just a failure. Given the long history of prior disruption, it becomes clear his presence is a net detriment to the project. I am willing to impose a lengthy block of disruptive editing here. Fut.Perf.☼ 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not convinced he's taken in the message about copyvio after looking at the article. And using Amazon's excerpts from reviews may not be as bad as copyvio but we need links to the originals so we can see the context of the excerpts. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph still contains the copyvio that I listed. The sourcing issues with the excerpts are a problem, but I agree with Doug that the priority should be on fixing the copyvios, removing or rewording the unquoted and closely paraphrased content.--hkr(talk) 15:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Main problem here are copyright issues (and frequently RS problems, as in his new article "Zhou Enlai..."). Perhaps the most constructive course of action would be as follows. Ask Arilang1234 to fix all copyright and RS problems he created, give him a couple of weeks for that, and check if he did it. If he can not, I leave this to judgment of more experienced people.Biophys (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The cases that hkr showed are not a comprehensive review of all of Arilang's contributions: they are random articles taken from the list of articles Arilang created. Given his 8000 contributions, the fact that his copyright and other problems go back to at least 2008, and his unsatisfactory record in fixing the articles so far, it would be prudent to open a broad CCI on Arilang's contributions. Quigley (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quote directly from Arilang1234-"when come to editing on actual articles, I have always tried to write in a neutral style"
Quote directly from Arilang1234- "Yes, quite a few of my uploads did get deleted, but I also had created quite a number of articles at commons, and successfully uploaded quite a few jpegs"
Is he being serious here? He doesn't seem to have a single clue' regarding rules for uploading images to wikimedia or wikipedia, saying he "successfully uploaded quite a few jpegs", with no evidence that he actually understands why there were allowed to stay on wikimedia while other images were deleted, he evidently has no understanding of public domain or copyright laws. He seems to by playing Russian roulette with his edits. Several entire articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between written English and written Chinese were deleted by Afd, and Arilang1234 himself saidWell, your are free to create new articles, as long as they survive AfD, almost as his procedure for writing wikipedia articles was creating them with absolutely no idea of wikipedia rules regarding copyright, content, and neutrality, and seeing whether they get deleted or not.Дунгане (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary into my sandbox to show my sincereness, and I shall try to fix the POV problem from there. Regarding other copyvio problems, give me some times, I shall fix them too. Arilang talk 19:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cautionary note: let's not turn this into an orgy of criticism. The issues are still: given what we have seen, what measures should be taken, if any? It should not turn into a regurgitation of everything that Ariliang1234 has done on Wikipedia (and criticism thereof), nor should it downgrade into personal attacks (which it has not yet but appears on the cusp of). My recommendation still stands (but I think we need more opinions on this): no blocks, one-month ban from China-related articles (with a block to come if ban is violated). --Nlu (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two separate issues here. 1. I do not think that creation of Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary can be interpreted as an example of WP:DE by Arilang. 2. Copyright problems. This needs to be assessed. If this is a serious problem in a large number of articles, that's one thing. Otherwise, this just needs to be fixed. When I saw that kind of things in Russia-related articles, I tried to fix them immediately by removing or rephrasing the text and leaving a notice to the user.Biophys (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier version of the article was clearly disruptive. Arilang's later "fixes" to the article after this ANI was brought up, shows that that he does understand what the concept of neutrality is (it's hard to argue ignorance), and acknowledges that his earlier article was pushing a POV. The idea that he is intentionally POV pushing is later reinforced by a comment on this ANI where he defends the act as a "benefit" to the reader. I appreciate that Arilang apologised, I welcome his desire to improve, but sooner or later, he has to understand there are ways to be critical without pushing a POV. User:Greg Pandatshang and User:Ohconfucius are examples of editors critical of the Chinese government, that do an admirable job at remaining neutral.--hkr(talk) 23:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly protest at hkr using "disruptive" to describe the creation of Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary, which is a notable book reviewed by scholars such as Jonathan Spence and others. And regarding all those POV and copyvio problems, I shall be able to fix them when I have more time. Arilang talk 05:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't WP:N, the subject is notable, and notability was never brought up as a concern. The main problem is creating an article with "all those POV and copyvio problems" a few days after being warned about POV, which is disruptive.--hkr(talk) 15:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nlu, the one-month topic ban from China-related articles could work. And the plagiarism issue, although extensive, can be dealt with at CCI, with the coooperation of Arilang. But, because of the WP:COPYVIO, WP:RS, WP:POVPUSH issues related to Arilang's article creations, I propose that a longer editing restriction on article creation be implemented. Arilang should be, for a time, restricted to creating articles in his sandbox, which can be moved to the mainspace upon review and approval by an admin or uninvolved experienced editor.--hkr(talk) 23:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was extremely forgiving last ANI thread in an AGF manner akin to "really, they won't do this again, who would deliberately get him/herself blocked after coming so close to the edge?", but I have to agree with User:Nlu and User:hrk this go. That's it's been only a few days since last "incident" suggests to me that any kind of block or topic ban would be 100% justified as preventative against further damage to the project. ♪Tstorm(talk) 12:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a second ANI thread about the same user during just a few days, but the only thing he did between the threads was creating a couple articles about books. He is also currently making an effort to fix the alleged copyright violations [10]. Blocking/banning a user while he is cleaning up his mess would be highly counter-productive. Biophys (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. Again, I am not questioning Ariliang1234's good faith in remedying the issue. But what I believe is that during the middle of that process, there will be a trigger for something else to occur. I think a one-month ban from the topic area will be good for him, as well as for the rest of us, to get him to take a step back from the topic area and reevaluate. --Nlu (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here isn't that he created the articles (this is not a WP:N problem), it's the content in the articles that's problematic, when you consider that he promised to back off making controversial edits in his last ANI, a few days before. Just compare (using an example I gave on Arilang's talk) what Arilang writes in this section with the actual article it's supposedly attributed to. The former is a negative assessment, the latter is a positive one, and yet both are attributed to the same writer! I've never seen a better example of a WP:COATRACK article. Promoting a POV is one thing, misquoting and altering the meaning of your sources to promote a POV is another, and he should know better. I am not against (hell, often I agree with) Arilang's POV. The problem is how he promotes it unrepentantly, in an egregiously conspicuous and heavy-handed manner. I appreciate that Arilang promises to act in good faith, but if you're going to use Wikipedia as a soapbox (which you shouldn't!), do it with a little finesse.--hkr(talk) 23:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You started this thread because of the alleged copyright violations by Arilag. Now you also filed a request for copyright investigation. Let's wait what this investigation would produce.Biophys (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"But I've noticed two very problematic practices". I'm aware of what I said. If this had only been about the plagiarism, I would have gone directly to WP:CCI.--hkr(talk) 00:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone have a look at, and close, the move request that is now at Talk:Standard Chinese. The discussion is not just in that section and flows onto other pages as well. A request was made at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves for this to be closed a couple of days ago as it has been around for a couple of months. I had a look but decided it wasn't suitable for non-admin closure. The move was then done by User:Kwamikagami (an admin) - the third time the move has been done while waiting for the requested move to be close. I went to reverse the move as I didn't think the result of the RM was obvious like they asserted only to find I couldn't due to the move being done without a redirect and then an "incorrect" redirect being made before being changed to the correct one. I'm struggling to assume good faith on this move as I believe that creating the redirect is the default option so I have no idea while they'd follow the course of action they have. They certainly aren't uninvolved so they shouldn't be doing an end-around on process like this regardless. Therefore I'm asking a) that an uninvolved admin close the discussion (and so hopefully stop the move war) and that b) there be a review of User:Kwamikagami actions. Dpmuk (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is clearly for the move. I don't know why this has been open for so long. There was no response to my request for closure when I and then Taivo were reverted a couple days ago by someone who objected to the move but had no cogent argument against it. No argument has been presented in the meantime either, except that we might want to consider 'Mandarin' instead of 'Standard Chinese', but the response since has been for the latter. As for the link, I think I must have unclicked redirect when I clicked to include subpages in the move. As for inappropriate tools, the fact that there's been a move war shows that it's not a matter of admin tools. — kwami (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I said possible inappropriate use of tools was there was "not creating the redirect" (ad admin tool albeit a minor one) and also the move of 13 January which I suspect may have needed the tools. You may have done nothing wrong in either case but I'd like someone independent to look it. It would also be good to get an independent view of your non-admin actions which I think have been very questionable. Dpmuk (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if someone had responded in the last two months to a very one-sided discussion, I wouldn't have moved it at all. It's not like anyone has presented an argument for keeping the article where it is, or that there's any cogent debate about it. — kwami (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Kwami. This issue sat without neutral admin action for two months. All the valid arguments are in favor of the move and the majority of opponents simply said "I don't like it" without any valid arguments based on either reliable sources or Wikipedia policy. There comes a time when it would be nice to have neutral admin action, but the failure of a neutral admin to act means that some other path must be taken. --Taivo (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the move request was closed, but not closed - the discussion was archived with the comment " article already moved by kwami (removing from RM list and this is not meant as a discussion closure.)" I've reversed that as this does a neutral closure and that's more likely to happen if it remains listed. Leaving it archived would be allowing a massive end around process. Now if consensus was clear that wouldn't really be a problem as we have the right result but in this case I don't think consensus is clear (the number of oppose votes alone mean consensus can't be that obvious) and so this end-around may be going against consensus. Have also updated section heading to make it clearer the move request needs closing. Dpmuk (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that the very fact that the RM is still open is a good sign that consensus from the discussion isn't as obvious to uninvolved editors as you think it is. Obvious discussions normally get closed pretty quickly - even long ones. Dpmuk (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This particular discussion illustrates one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia. On one side was a group of editors supporting the move who had overwhelming evidence and the support of Wikipedia policy. On the other side was a group of editors without evidence, without Wikipedia policy to support them, and without any reasons for opposing the move whatsoever. Indeed, many of them wrote "Oppose" without any comment or justification whatsoever and did not take part in any further discussions, thus blocking a true consensus. So either 1) the move process gets "stuck" without a consensus developing and the article title neither conforms with reliable sources nor with Wikipedia policy; or 2) an admin makes a content call based on the conformance of the arguments to Wikipedia policy and reliable sources and moves the article without a true consensus developing. During the last week, only one opponent of the move made any Talk Page contributions at all and that was still without evidence or policy to back up his/her opposition. So if you look at the discussion over the last week, a consensus did, indeed, develop with only one opposing voice. --Taivo (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please can someone actually take a look at this and close it - the lack of closure is resulting in a slow motion edit war. Dpmuk (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bump. Here is a chance for those admins who make difficult decisions to do so. It's much less drama than the ongoing personal blocks that end up at ANI but somebody must be bored, right? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recently came into conflict with two users registered to the Wiki-project Dacia concerning my map of the Roman Empire and Barbaricum in 125 AD. One of them (Codrinb) is in fact the administrator of the project.
On the map I created for Wikipedia I labelled the Daci as being part of the Balto-Slavic linguistic group based on some obvious connections between ancient Dacian and the Baltic languages pointed out by several linguists and historians (Harvey E. Mayer, Ivan Duridanov, T. Sulimirski). I have also labelled the Carpi and Costoboci barbarian tribes as of Uncertain origin based on the Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd edition, Vol XI and XII.
The troubles started when my collaborator's (Era Navigator) contributions to the articles on the Carpi (people) and Costoboci were voided because he supported a more neutral Uncertain classification of these tribes, as opposed to the Dacian identity as claimed mostly by the Communist-era Romanian archeologists and historians. Codrinb started to accuse me as well of doing OR and supporting unneutral or anti-Dacian theories on my map.
This was followed by an endless dispute with Codrinb who is trying to isolate the history of Romania from the history of Europe and the history of the neighbouring countries by aggressively promoting a unique and disconnected identity of the Getae and Dacians and their unattested speculative firm links with modern Romanians. He disagrees that there are no certified surviving Dacian words in Romanian and he is also attempting to Dacianize all the tribes with a probable non-Dacian ethno-linguistic affiliation (like the Carpi and Costoboci) in order to achieve a Dacian ethnically homogenous habitation of modern Romania. My opinion is that Protochronist agendas should be entirely condemned and anihilated from Wikipedia.
I just want to continue contributing with my maps to Wikipedia and be safe of any future wars with other users backing discredited pseudo-historical tendencies. One should only take a look at the project 'Neutral Point of View' intro which is mixing 'anti-Romanian' with 'anti-Dacian' agendas although we cannot speak of a Romanian identity before at least the Late Middle Ages and modern Romania came into existance only at the end of the 19th century. It is also stated that the project condemns protochronism but next they say they equally condemn anti-Protochronistic aggressiveness.
I beg you to block or disband the Dacia wiki-project before it becomes a nest for pseudo-scientific Protochronism under Codrinb's tutelage.
Thank you for your attention,
Andrei (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. This board is not about content disputes.
2. Sometimes you changed the content of the map, not because of reading sources, but because of your conflicts with CodrinB (probably also with me, now that you mentioned my name, too), thus a case of vandalism
3. You and EraNavigator have insulted me, CodrinB and other editors and scholars. Few examples: a) you: "maybe they are just paid by some organization to support theories" [11] b) EraNavigator: "Daco-Romanists with Stalinesque double-speak" [12], "continuity mafia" [13].
4. Your assertions about sourcing the map are incorrect: [14][15].
5. You have repeatedly asserted various things about me and my beliefs without a shred of evidence. Please provide evidence I was "aggressively promoting a unique and disconnected identity of the Getae and Dacians and their unattested speculative firm links with modern Romanians" (remember when I told you this: [16] ?) and that I was "attempting to Dacianize all the tribes with a probable non-Dacian ethno-linguistic affiliation (like the Carpi and Costoboci) in order to achieve a Dacian ethnically homogenous habitation of modern Romania." (not long ago I told you this:[17]). Daizus (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daizus I have nothing against you and I sincerely appologise for unfairly mixing you in this dispute I'm having with Codrinb. You're not the one advocating Protochronism and Dacomania around here! You have proven you are indeed neutral on all issues under debate and I admire you for that.
The Dacia wiki-project is a serious threat to the objectivity and balanced nature of this Encyclopedia. Someone has to take action and replace Codrinb with somebody more neutral to head the wiki-project. I urge an administrator to react to the biased pseudo-historical tendecies Codrinb is advocating!
Andrei (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your labeling of the entire project, open hostility and dubious agenda are insulting EVERY MEMBER of this project, formed by a very neutral and diverse group people with extremely various backgrounds, and beliefs.
All this after the obvious original research and dubious agenda have been pointed out.
Your constant and huge amount of blatant personal attacks, harassment, insults have been reported, after an equally huge amount of attempts on our side to bring calm, civility and collaboration, which you chose to ignore. Here are just a few examples:
[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]
You are even resorting to a large amount of blatant personal attacks on this very report you created.
An equally large amount of attempts to calm the situation has been done from the project level:
Your maps (not just the Roman Empire one, with original research|very founded suspicions of original research raised by Daizus and later by me) are actively used by many articles related to the project. No one is removing your maps if relevant and respect the WP policies. And your contributions as a graphics designer are excellent, very needed and highly appreciated!
HOWEVER, your behavior and agenda are openly hostile, uncivil, harassing, unacceptable, disruptive, unfortunate and unwelcomed.
--Codrin.B (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am an somewhat uninvolved editor here, having only come into contact with this dispute through the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dacian script. Now I couldn't tell you the difference between Protochronism and Protozoa, but I can certainly tell an edit war when I see it. First off, I would caution all parties to remain WP:CIVIL. Secondly, according to our policies even viewpoints that are demonstrably incorrect can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia as long as there is enough reliable sources that can prove the theory notable, such as in the example of Moon landing conspiracy theories. It is therefore an appropriate goal of the Wikiproject to make sure such theories are not given undue weight. One of the points I brought up in AfD is that merely adding weasel words such as "so-called" does not correct NPOV issues, and in fact makes the issues worse. Looking at the Protochronism article alone, the assertion in the lead that it is "largely relying on questionable data and subjective interpretations," is highly problematic. I'm not saying Codrinb is right or wrong in this edit war over these maps. What I am saying is that rejecting Protochronism outright is not the solution, but rather careful balance and a neutral point of view --RoninBKTC 17:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roninbk, I agree with you. I have only come to question Codrin's ability to head over the Dacia wiki-project after he started accusing me for following some sort of hidden agenda when I labelled the Dacians as Balto-Slavic and the Carpi and Costoboci as Uncertain. This is unacceptable as he wants me to embrace ideas which are associated with Protochronism, a highly unscientific and Dacian-biased tendency in Romanian historiography. I don't want to offend anyone who contributes to the Dacia wiki-project but I think a more neutral user should have the leadership. I propose Daizus, for example, to take Codrin's place as he has proven he is indeed neutral regarding all the issues under debate.
What agenda are you talking about Codrin? You are the one making false accusations on me. Please be a gentleman and admit your Dacian-biased tendencies make you unfit to head over this Wiki-project.
This is my last attempt to have a sensible dialog with you, although your gross violations of WP policies and your hostility doesn't warrants it in any shape or form. I put A LOT of effort in creating this project, all with an interest for the subject, an open heart and in good faith. Most of the articles around this subject are incomplete, of low quality and need help organizing their expansion. Many articles are also missing. As I do not claim the best qualifications but just an interest, I have actively reached out t o archaeologists, history professors and other specialists to contribute, none of whom are in any shape or form Dacomans. As a matter of fact, they despise them. I am aware of the high amount of controversy, nationalism, original research and fringe theories which can lurk around this project, give the limited knowledge we have about Dacians. Still, instead of sitting on the side, deleting, labeling and attacking, I had the courage to create such a project in an attempt to bring neutrality and organization, which are much needed. Every single phrase I wrote in the few articles I personally created (see Amutria) has a valid, verifiable source, of non-Dacomanic origin (whatever that might mean anyway!). And if any source is suspicious, I am open to discuss it constructively in the corresponding article talk page. I have invited you in good faith since the first days of the project (December), based on your edits. You chose to ignore it, and not bring your view or input, although you obviously have an interest in the subject. I respected that but now I know why you did it. I created the project work structure which involved a lot of work, but by no means I assume the leadership of the project or I am interested in or embrace any dictatorship. I treat this as a collaborative project, where everyone's constructive input and participation is welcomed. The people involved in this project, are of various backgrounds, nationalities and have different views (very welcomed!) over the various Dacia topics. This is the last comment from me, as this is the wrong place for this conversations and I want to avoid the negativity and further continuation of the conflict. From now on, all your comments, personal attacks, canvasing etc. will go ignored by me, but judiciously reported and reviewed by qualified admins. Deeply saddened and offended. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I kindly ask you again to be a gentleman and admit your Dacian-biased tendencies make you unfit to head over this Wiki-project. Some of your Dacomanic samples:
1. 'I was just reading this blog about the large number of Dacian statues made by Romans (quoting from a well-known Dacomanic blog). Leonard Velcescu did a PhD in art on this subject and found over a hundred of them. One wonders why the Romans represented so many Dacians, and didn't do the same for Celts, Iberians, Illyrians, Thracians or Germanic tribes? One puzzling question, why are they not in chains?'
2. 'Here is very long List of Dacian towns and Davae. Many of them also coincide with most major cities in Romania proving continuity'.
3. 'You are trying to separated from being also anti-Romanian but is a very twisted way of thinking. Honestly, everyone will associate the two (Dacian and Romanian) whether you like it or not'.
This and your false accusations on me that I am following an anti-Dacian agenda only add weight to your statements above. Noone with a genuine interest in the Ancient History of Dacia will accept an aggressive Dacoman hiding under an olive branch to have the lead of this wiki-project.
Both of you stop, please! Accusations of bias and agendas are by no means gentlemanly. There is not supposed to be a "leader" of any WikiProject, decisions are supposed to be made by consensus among all members of the WikiProject. Please calm down the uncivil language. --RoninBKTC 19:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerly appologise for my harsh language. From now on I think it would be best for me to ignore Codrin and vice versa.
I am seriously worried. What does "administrator of the project" mean? There are no other admins on this project other than those that have been approved by the community. Individual Wikiprojects had better not have administrators, or they should be shut down. Corvus cornixtalk 05:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Corvus, Codrinb crowned himself ruler over this wiki-project. He is already identifying himself with EVERY MEMBER and is acussing other users not sharing his views as having hidden (presumably anti-Dacian and anti-Romanian) agendas. See the above discussion and take a look at his statements here and at the wiki-project's stance on neutrality.
Making claims of being an admin of a project sounds like WP:OWNership to me, and should lead to a block. Corvus cornixtalk 20:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very familliar with Wikipedia procedures but I don't want to go so far as to block Codrin's account. I think he can still come to his senses. He never claimed being the project administrator but his aggressive behaviour and unfounded acussations on me and on Era Navigator of having hidden agendas and the way he's trying to identify himself with the entire wiki-project and its members are unacceptable. I think a warning from an administrator would be enough in this situation.
I did not claim myself as any leader or administrator in any way, shape or form of any project. I put a lot of effort in the project but I REPEAT, I am not claiming anything and respecting all WP policies. Please read my last statement above. This is part of a very long series of never endingfalse accusations, harassment and personal attacks started by user Andrei nacu and which have been reported (and unfortunately continue on this page and elsewhere). --Codrin.B (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for this, Mhiji (talk·contribs) is mass-stripping categories and any other additional markup from redirects.
Warning have been given. You_Are_the_Everything shows that they're re-doing these changes, even after they've been reverted by others. The rate of editing (several a minute, alphabetic order) also suggests an unauthorised 'bot.
There needs to be an admin-grade trouting to stop this (warnings from editors aren't effective), then a bulk rollback. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bot, because 5 edits a minute is impossible... --Hinatatalk 20:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User warned to stop until he achieves consensus here about what he is doing. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'bot ow AWB? If it's a 'bot, is there anything showing it was approved? If AWB, IIRC from prvious threds dealing with other editors, isn using AWB of of a base user account a no-no?
That aside it looks like the issue was raised with them on the 9th and they were still burning along until just before the warning and ANI post today. I'm not sure if this was a natural lull in their editing or if the cesation was because of the ANI report. If it is the later, that is really, really worrying. Especially since I seem to remeber this same editor has run other mass modification projects that wound up on ANI. - J Greb (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AWB on the base account is fine, as long as the base account is registered. 28bytes (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have stopped. A mass revert would be inappropriate since the majority of the edits where helpful (e.g. this one removing a misplaced edit request which has already been done). Mhiji 21:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no - running at ~9 edits a minute to remove material makes it almost impposible to believe you were looking to make sure that any of the edits were helpful. - J Greb (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Majority" is dubious. For one thing, if you've evaluated the "helpful" and "non-helpfuls" like this to show that helpfuls were in the "majority", then why were you making the unhelpfuls at all?
Secondly, mass-rollback is the easiest way to clear this up. Any of these that are agreed to be helpful by consensus can be re-done individually afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with mass rollback, because (a) there's no way to know which were harmful without scanning them all, and (b) while ones like this did actual damage, I'm not convinced that "helpful" ones like this one cited above actually do any good - the obsolete text is not visible, doesn't get in the way of the redirect, and deleting it saves no space since the deleted version is still stored. JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just referred to this conversation by JohnCD after posting on Mhiji's talk page. I'm not privy to the discussion going on here, but I can say that I received an auto-generated CSD notification from Mhiji, which notified me of the speedy deletion of an old AfD page, though the template used was obviously meant for new editors who created nonsense pages. This may have just been a mistake on Mhiji's part, but given the discussion here, I think it indicates a lack of attention to detail in his editing. From what I can tell, his intentions were good, just not the methods with which he carried them out. --Hojimachongtalk 21:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of they're talk page, they seem to be on a deletion spree of some sorts. I'm not sure if they are trying to trim some perceived waste on the project, but from when I have encountered Mhiji on other stuff, they are always in deletion-related material. My question is Mhiji, why are you so intent on trimming stuff? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for mass-rollback also; people leave other content in redirects for a reason — i.e. Kenneth Pinyan. No evidence a majority (or even many) of these were useful, let alone necessary enough to cause this amount of collateral damage. --Closeapple (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing support for mass rollback. Deleting comments like the one JohnCD cites is completely unjustified. 28bytes (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Mhiji's been overzealous with trying to get rid of redirects, their edits should be mass-rollbacked and they should be reprimanded for their incaution. (DISCLAIMER: Mhiji nominated a redirect I made in 2008 for deletion.) —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 04:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mhiji has been doing a lot of editing very quickly tonight. He moved several pages on music albums and individual songs from disambiguated titles to less disambiguated titles (e.g. he moved Anything Goes! (Maki Ohguro song) to Anything Goes! (song)) because there was no article at the other title. However, this was a problem because several of these articles were disambiguated from pre-existing articles on other albums and songs with identical names (there are plenty of subjects with the title "Anything Goes", several of them being songs). I've corrected him on this, but those edits he fixed are way behind in his edit count at the moment after he's made a bunch of BLPPRODs and TFDs.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This Mhiji (talk·contribs) person/bot/whatever also make other kinds of multiple moves without any explanation in the edit summary, like moving non-encyclopedic userbox templates from "Template:User BQZip01/*" to "Template:User *", though they seem to be spaced as if they were script-assisted manual changes, rather than full-on mass edits: Mhiji edits from 2011-01-16 04:12 back. Aren't the "cutesy" types of userbox templates supposed to stay in userspace, per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Which namespace? and the resulting Wikipedia:Userbox migration? He seems to have stopped about 2 hours ago (from the time I'm posting this message). --Closeapple (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made a post at Mhiji's talk page several days about this, but it received no response. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support mass rollback. A huge number of changes have been made with very little scrutiny, many of them damaging. It also appears that some sort of unauthorised bot is being used, so I suggest a block until that is clarified. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were 44 edits made in a single minute at 00:45 on 16 January 2011. Editing 44 times in a single minute is obviously a bot. This is very concerning if the bot is not authorized. - Hydroxonium (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mhiji blocked - suggestions invited for unblock conditions
I have blocked Mhiji (talk·contribs) because the discussion above, plus a study of his talk page and contributions, have convinced me that he is doing more harm than good - many even of those edits which are not harmful are at best "pointless tidying". In similar situations (e.g. Betacommand), unblock has been agreed with restrictions on the number and rate of automated or semi-automated edits, or conditions on gaining prior agreement before undertaking them. I invite suggestions here about what unblock conditions might be suitable. Any admin may unblock who is satisfied that suitable conditions have been agreed and that Mhiji has accepted them.
There is consensus for a mass rollback of his "redirect cleaning" - I will ask at AN how to arrange that. JohnCD (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mass rollback of yesterday's 300+ redirect edits has been done by Rich Farmbrough (talk) - thanks! JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a similar edit restriction to Betacommand's:
Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Mhiji must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Mhiji must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.
Mhiji must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.
Mhiji must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.
This would address the issue of bot-like editing (#2 and #3) and the issue of choosing tasks that turn out to be inappropriate (#1). — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that. What about the MfDs? He generates a lot of those, some quite spurious [33], some not; seemingly from some auto-generated list, since they're placed at MfD in Unicode (not alphabetical) order. 28bytes (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something about how they achieved more than 40 edits / minute — because at that rate a lot of damage could be caused before anybody catches it. Maybe something about bot use from user accounts and bot authorization should be part of this. - Hydroxonium (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point of the 4 edits/minute part, which slows down the edits enough that it's harder to rack up hundreds without anyone being able to comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit restrictions as written up by CBM above. The carelessness with which Mhiji has been editing does indeed necessitate some kind of intervention, and a block was appropriate, but I do think indef is a tad excessive. Although I've been annoyed with Mhiji's persistent nominations at TfD, RfD, etc, and his general lack of interest in content building, it is still the area they chose to work in, and they are editing in good faith, plus I do believe even the little things matter. With that said, I hope Mhiji can agree to the terms above, and perhaps take a bit of a break from the deletion areas. -- Ϫ 02:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that the edits themselves may have been made in good faith, though they were undoubtedly reckless. However, I question whether running an unapproved bot was done in good faith. I'm inclined to think that anyone clueful enough to create their own bot is likely to have encountered WP:BOTPOL. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly support edit restrictions as drafted by CBM, although 4 edits per minute seems a little high to me; at that speed, there's little scope for scrutiny, and I suggest that 2 edits/min would be more appropriate. I disagree with OlEnglish about the block length: an indef block is not a permanent block, it's a block until the issues are sorted out. I would support lifting the block either when terms are agreed, or when Mhiji agrees to hold off further such editing while terms are discussed. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit restrictions outlined above; agree that the he should be unblocked if he agrees to the terms of the editing restrictions ultimately agreed to. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think Mhiji could be very useful to the project. But I would like the bot run from a seperate account and to be approved by the WP:BAG before it is used. To be clear, I am saying Mhiji is using a bot as opposed to bot-like editing as noted by the 44 edits made in a single minute at 00:45 on 16 January 2011]. - Hydroxonium (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 44 edits per minute is probably some sort of automated editing (it fails the duck test). The point of the proposed 4/minute restriction is that it's very hard to prove someone is using a bot if they slow it down, but if they slow it down enough then it doesn't matter any more how they do the edits. Bots should be run from another account, you're right; if a particular task should be done by a bot, someone can point it out during the 24 hours discussion period on VPR. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the proposal is four edits in ten minutes, not one minute. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's 4 per minute averaged over a ten minute period, i.e. not more than 40 in any ten minute period. The point of that is that it allows someone to make 5 edits and then take a break, without worrying about accidentally breaking the rule. It's easy to exceed 4 in one minute with manual editing; it's only a problem if it involves a lot of articles, which is covered by the other points of the restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern is that WP:BOTPOL be followed as it is an official Wikipedia policy. WP:BOTPOL covers scipts, automated editing and semi-automated edited. More specifically "Automated or partially automated editing processes, known as "bots", must be harmless and useful, have approval, use separate user accounts, and be operated responsibly.". Underlining is mine. - Hydroxonium (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The restriction says he is supposed to manually review every edit, which should eliminate actual bots. The restriction would not prevent him from getting approval to run a bot if he follows he usual process, but it would make it less likely for him to run a bot from his main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, I'd misread it. That does seem about right then. GF manual editing is indeed "bursty" in just that way. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Support editing restrictions. I became aware of this discussion after visiting his talk page to see if he made any response to my post there about his closures of RfD discussions (user talk:Mhiji#RfD closings). Related to this and other comments in this thread, I'm wondering if restricting him to a maximum of a single nomination per day at each XfD process (with no more than 1 group nomination every 2 days) would be appropriate? I'd also explicitly restrict him from closing any discussion before the standard time period has elapsed, and from closing (at any time) any discussion in which he has taken part. Thryduulf (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the edit restrictions. - Hydroxonium (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to see Mhiji's response before I can make a Support/Oppose decision on this. What (s)he using a bot, AWB, etc.? →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣←
Rjborrn
Rjbronn (talk·contribs) has been adding a lot of biased information from random sites, he looks like a sock puppet of some banned user. Please take care of him and restore my twinkle back.--NovaSkola (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted a couple of edits to Kurdish People and this editor seems to be involved in some contentious areas, suggest other editors look over his contribs. Exxolon (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NovaSkola - two problems with your post. One, you've used the "vandal" template for Rjbronn - unless the editor is obviously vandalising that template is inappropiate, please change it to the "user" template. Two - if you are requesting restoration of Twinkle, please make a separate post, the two issues are not related. Exxolon (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct - User:Inka 888 made that edit, my apologies. I will be having words about editing other user's posts. Exxolon (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, an SPI would be needed to see if socks accounts are used to make reverts and engage in edit-warring by possible accounts of Rjbronn. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a bad name ban for this vandal?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, bad name? If you can explain why it's a bad name at WP:UAA it probably will get done, but I don't see it at first glance. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the name, the editor made eight edits—all of them unquestionable acts of vandalism. They won't be back. Favonian (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am at the end of my tether with Nipsonanomhmata (talk·contribs). This editor displays a unique mixture of WP:COMPETENCE problems joined with political prejudice, POV agendas and opinionnatedness. He creates a new problem almost every day. Yesterday, we discussed him here because he was insisting on proposing Rauf Denktaş and other presidents of Northern Cyprus for deletion (because the diplomatic non-recognition of that state meant they were "not notable"!). Today, he has identified the location of Atlantis, no less! and insists on writing [34] there is "compelling evidence" for its being Santorini, based on a recent TV documentary(!) written about in a tabloid newspaper. The other day he was edit-warring at Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) to force some obvious POV qualfiers into the wording [35]. This has been going on and on for many months. This editor is completely unable to understand NPOV, tell apart reliable from unreliable sources, or recognize his own OR, and I have rarely met an editor so utterly impossible to reason with. Since he has a tendency of spreading the same or related POV issues over many articles once he doesn't get his way on the first (as for instance when for many months he kept pushing for the notion that the 1896 Olympics weren't the "first" Modern Olympic Games, and that certain predecessor games outside the canonical sequence should instead be fully counted), it has been necessary to monitor him continually, and he is now evidently convinced I am "hounding" him. Something needs to be done about this editor. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All because I added a reference concerning an excellent documentary about Santorini. This was the response I got from Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk·contribs) [36]]. This is not untypical of how Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk·contribs) communicates with me. I have behaved impeccably today and well within Wikipedia rules. This is a hysterical over-reaction on Future Perfect at Sunrise's part. And no, I was not edit warring. I avoided edit warring because I know there are limits. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't seriously going to use the Daily Mail as a reliable source for the location of Atlantis? The mind boggles. SpartazHumbug! 17:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail reference was written by the presenter of the documentary. I also added a BBC TV reference to back it up. But the article was well written and it is a worthy reference. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the daily mail is a worthwhile reference. SpartazHumbug! 17:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least you are happy with the BBC TV reference. That's something. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given a 3RR warning (and reverted), there is no way we are going to have Wikipedia saying there is 'compelling evidence' for this. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have given me a 3RR warning and I have not committed a 3RR. Interesting approach. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I might just point out that you have a warning which means you are approaching 3RR. If you had broken it you would have been blocked. S.G.(GH)ping! 18:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I appreciate the advanced warning even though I had already given up hope of being able to contribute a useful BBC TV reference to the article. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, the section is called speculation, surely you could have just changed the tone without throwing out the addition? RichFarmbrough, 18:18, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Everything that could validly be said about it was already covered in the article. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see [37] which is a revert of the previous edit which had removed the claim, [38] which clearly says rv, and a third at [39] after which I gave the warning - am I wrong? The Santorini hypothesis is already in the article, all this editor is really adding in terms of content (besides a new BBC source) is the 'compelling evidence' bit which he insiste on keeping in. Otherwise we'd probably just add the source as another cite. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Might be worth keeping the BBC cite, but I didn't examine it. RichFarmbrough, 22:05, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
The theory that Santorini (Thera) was Atlantis is venerable and widely remarked on (which is different than saying that the evidence is compelling) and is worth mentioning on notability grounds, but a TV series is not a good source for that. Nipsonanomhmata is best advised to find an academic source or two for that type of edit. scholar.google.com is a good place to find such sources. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A new user (10 minutes old) showed up in the article Frank Dux. The article has a history of sockpuppetry and fans/followers of Dux trying to add unsource, questionable claims of Dux's derring-do and super-ninja abilities. Last night, User:Phoenix2923 arrived and started posting on the talk page. Initially, he demanded that I not dicuss the issue because I was not an admin and was a little uncivil. After some back and forth, he calmed down and started to act civil. I suggested that he simply show the sources he was planning on using and I'd tell him what I thought and it would allow others to view it as well and get their input. The documents were a series of scans allegedly of a statement made by a reporter in Dux lawsuit where the reporter claims that he investigated what Dux said (complete with anonymous secret special forces operatives) and that Dux really was a super-spy. The other scan is a pic of Dux supposed Russian ID, a pic that is in his book. Anyway, I explained problems with these documents as they pertained to the policies and WL'd to the applicable policies. Since everything was uploaded listing the reporter as both the author and source (making no mention that these were from court records in the source), I asked if User:Phoenix2923 was in fact the reporter and WL'd to some policies that would apply if he were. Then I suggested that he start as thread at RSN to get some opinions there about the reliability of the documents. User:Phoenix2923 went on a tirade: " I would prefer to speak to people that have a brain. You're probably some old pedophile with nothing better to do thatn troll on Wikipedia with people who are actually trying to show credible material for edits to this page."[40], "If you really care, as you obviously do or you wouldn't troll here 24/7, go pay a few bucks and see for yourself. You have a serious problem guy."[41], "Are you a muslim terrorist the Dux kicked in the face back in the 70's?"[42] and some rant about the Gabrielle Giffords article (an article I haven't even read, let alone edited). Niteshift36 (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself has not had much editing so protection isn't needed, I will give the account a final warning about personal attacks but someone with more experience of the article will probably spot a sock a mile off. S.G.(GH)ping! 18:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect a sock of a previous sock, but to be honest, the whole SPI thing is so tedious, I hate doing it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just point out that Niteshift did notify the user of the threat ([43]) he just did it on the user page rather than the talk page, accidentally I presume. S.G.(GH)ping! 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I hit the wrong tab, my bad. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, User:Phoenix2923 makes the unlikely claim "Niteshift36 seems to have a conflict of interest with Mr. Dux. They both served in Desert Storm and could very well have a personal vendetta given Mr. Dux's role during this conflict and certain prior covert operations". If true, this would be a case of WP:OUTING, nicht wahr? If not, it seems WP:TEND (or perhaps Paranoia). User:Phoenix2923 is a WP:NPA; a WP:COI seems a possibility. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just stating another coincidence. Where is I Corps? Hmmm, I believe I walked past I Corps everyday for 3 years while stationed at Ft. Lewis which also happens to be 30 minutes south of Seattle. Home of Frank Dux. It is just as easy to call your interest coincidental as well. I have very good reason to question your credibility as you served in the military during the same period Dux claims to have served and you were stationed in Ft. Lewis. Very coincidental. Please stop pointing fingers at me for trying to add documents to an article. Why is this turning into such a huge friggin' deal anyways? Phoenix2923 (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how he figures that anyway. I wasn't in Desert Storm, so there is no outing. I've never been in the middle east, nor have I ever crossed paths with the super-ninja Frank Dux.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still not quite succeeding at being civil [44]. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The latest response was done from an IP address that shows Lynnwood, WA. Dux lives in the Seattle area. Also, further down the page, you'll find a posting from someone claiming to be an investigative reporter (and claiming that he contacted the Wikimedia Foundation and was told to put this stuff up) that, of course, comes back to the Seattle area as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, this is what I mean. Ever since I began posting on the topic you have attacked ME. Of course I'm going to get defensive. Who gave you the right to speak to me that way in the first place? As an editor your judgment should be NEUTRAL which it obviously isn't. I do not live in or near Lynnwood, WA nor am I nor did I claim to be an investigator or a reporter. You also have a history of attacks on people in Wikipedia which are duly noted within the community. I would also like YOUR attacks to be listed here as well. Phoenix2923 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were a "new user" who doesn't know how things work. Please, follow along. I did not say you claimed to be an investigative reporter or jornalist. I said that someone from your area claimed to be one and just, conincidentally of course, came in, having edited no other articles, and started pushing the same stuff in the same article. Your IP comes back to Lynnwood. Of course it's just a huge coincidence that you, Dux and the guy claiming to be an investigative reporter are all from the same area. Pointing fingers at me and saying "well you said this to someone else, some other time" won't justify your behavior in the Dux discussion and THAT, my friend, is what the topic is. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And because you ASSUMED that there is some connection between me and somebody who lives in the same state as me MUST be connected somehow gave you the right to treat me the way you did? Do you speak that way to every new user you come across? I have USED Wikipedia for a long time but I have never created an account until I came across Frank Dux's page. I see unreferenced disputes that don't hold any more weight than the articles that support him. You were intentionally provoking me in the discussion and anybody with common sense can see that. Why don't you try being helpful for once instead of sarcastic and accusatory. Phoenix2923 (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was no assumption my friend. The possibility was mentioned, as was the coincidence. I have been helpful. I've linked you to the applicable policies. I've given you honest assessments of the problems you are encountering. I suggested that you take the matter to the RSN and get some input there before even trying to use it. You've simply ignored those things because they weren't the answer you wanted. And those same people with common sense will see that my skepticism of your intentions sure don't warrant calling me a pedophile etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you're telling me that you used the utmost respect in conversing with me and you weren't sarcastic or degrading in any way. shape or form? Come on guy, get off your pedestal. You have been extremely disrespectful to many contributors on that page and you aren't even an admin nor are you anybody with a reason to be posting there anyways. You have no authority about what is edited and what isn't anymore than I do. Like I said before, you intentionally provoked me into engaging in a cyber-argument when my first post FIRMLY stated that I did not want a back and forth rhetoric with people that would just as soon argue with me instead of being constructive. Phoenix2923 (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I don't deny that I was skeptical at your first post and that it is possible that you thought it was sarcastic. But it sure as hell is a huge leap from that to the name calling you did. No, I'm not an admin. I don't want to be an admin. Ever. You seem to think that admins are some magical, all powerful entities around here. They aren't. Most of these content and source disputes get ironed out without admin involvement. I learned a lot from non-admins. So can you. And no, I haven't been all sweet and nice to some of the SPA's that came there before. Some have ended up being banned because of their activities. Some were found to be sockpuppets. You're right, I don't have more authority than you. But I do have a lot more experience. Consider for a minute that I might know a little more about the policies and then actually go read the ones I'm telling you apply. Have you actually read them yet? For someone who doesn't want "back and forth", you're sure doing a lot of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't want the back and forth but I do like to defend myself. Yes it was wrong of me to call you names, I felt attacked and looking through the discussion page I assumed you were a troll. Yes I have read some of the policies but the damn things give me a headache sometimes. I see now that, yes, you are an experienced user and I would appreciate help and advice as opposed to skepticism. I understand why you would be skeptical but I'm just trying to help a page that I found intriguing. I like controversial topics in general. I was going to start with some other sites but their discussion pages were insanely messier than Frank Dux's. Well if we are able to at this point, I would love to start over and have a constructive discussion pertaining to where I went wrong with my uploads. I don't fully understand some of the policies regarding sources and references. Phoenix2923 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise that you both trust your admins and let someone assess this without continuing to use ANI as another forum for debate. Leave the report to lie still and let someone review it in due course. That way you don't compound your perhaps otherwise valid point with something regrettable in the middle of the ANI board. S.G.(GH)ping! 17:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Performed by a non-admin in a discussion in which opinion was strong in both directions.
No reasoning/explanation given for deciding to move despite the apparent lack of consensus to move (this was an article that was moved with clear consensus support recently, and this was an attempt to move it back, but, although a slight majority in favor of moving back is there in terms of vote counts, there was no consensus support to move it back, especially when weighing the argument presented in terms of being well-argued statements based in policy and guidelines.
Experienced editors in good standing are allowed to close some requested move surveys.
Non-administrators should restrict themselves to:
Unanimous or nearly unanimous discussions after a full listing period (seven days);
Where there is no contentious debate among participants;
Which do not require a history merge or history swap; and
Which do not have large numbers of subpages that need to be moved along with the move of the project page, such as voluminous archives (administrators have the ability to move up to 100 pages in a single click).
Not only is this user not an admin, but I don't think he or she even meets the "Experienced editors in good standing" criteria.
Got a better idea -- let's topic ban Born2cycle from naming discussions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Never mind.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm the one that has posted most of the concerns about this user's closes to their talk page - so far I've queried 4 closures of theirs with them. I was hoping they would respond to some of my comments, although I had decided that I would take this here if they made another controversial close without any discussion which is exactly what they now have done. I agree with Born2cycle's comments and also ask that someone else tries talking to this user about the problems they're causing. [For the sake of transparency I am a non-admin who has been closing many requested moves and this is how I came across these. I would hope however that I am considered a "Experienced editors in good standing" and have only been closing relatively uncontroversial discussions (although I have been pushing it a bit in an attempt to clear the backlog)]. Although Born2cycle may have had their own problems in this area a quick look at this user's actions will show that Born2cycle's concerns are valid. Dpmuk (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think your concerns are valid with the closes by this editor. Following your notice to me, I did leave a note on their talk page that their closes could be considered vandalism and they should not do any moves for a while. While I may agree with some of the moves, others are clearly wrong. But too may have questionable consensus or were against consensus. I'm not commenting on this particular close, just the actions of the closer that is being discussed here. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a participant in that discussion, I have to agree that was a highly inappropriate "drive-by, no comment or rationale" close. It needs to be reverted and properly closed by an uninvolved admin willing to analyze the arguments and explain the rationale for moving or not moving the page. 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've discussed problems with him before, see [45] - a discussion which he didn't participate in and which involved what were felt to be disruptive moves of White Rabbit pages, perhaps also via an IP in the past. If he doesn't respond to this discussion I'm considering a block. Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please also consider 28bytes' request for a revert and unclose of the discussion/decision in question to allow for an uninvolved admin "to analyze the arguments and explain the rationale for moving or not moving the page."? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Macr86 (talk·contribs·logs) has a short contribution history consisting almost exclusively of article titling work: redirects, page moves, and posts to move discussions, as well as a few AfD-related contributions. I'm posting to his talk page now.
I agree that it would be appropriate to revert the closure of the discussion. People were still making points, and it's a significant discussion, in the RM world, for what that's worth. I'm not going to do anything adminly, because I closed the previous discussion, so that would look funny. (My position on the move is in the discussion: I'm an observer.) -GTBacchus(talk) 22:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, you are probably correct. The first move had consensus from a small group. However there is no clear consensus to support the first move in the second discussion. Maybe that is what macr86 saw. So before an admin reverts that close, they really need to determine if the close was wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For all we know Macr86 flipped a coin. 28bytes (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The situation appears to be that there was a close of the first move which some say was improper, which led to a discussion whose closure is also being described as improper. Maybe flipping a coin was the most rational way to decide this issue. ;) Will Bebacktalk 22:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Well, then we'd need an RfC on who could call "heads". 28bytes (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not fair to compare the first close by an admin where consensus among those participating was clear, to the second close by a disruptive non-admin editor who made a move decision without explanation despite there being no consensus in favor of the move established. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is. The first move discussion had a very small number of participants. The closing admin decided unilaterally that the naming convention is no longer valid and so discounted one of the comments entirely. A better solution would have been to relist it for more discussion. Will Bebacktalk 00:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't. You can complain directly to me, if you're not happy with my earlier close. I can see that it may have been overly hasty, but I did not "decide unilaterally" anything. I was closing move discussions, as always, and this one seemed to be a case of a guideline in transition. There is ample discussion on many pages showing that the community is not of one mind regarding this state-names issue.
I was doing my best to reflect the community thinking that I believe I observe, in that discussion and in many others. I'll accept that I made a bad call, but I wasn't trying to "unilaterally" anything. I've got no dog in this fight. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, more input is certainly welcome at the discussion in question. Lots of people are questioning just where the line is regarding names of US cities (Los Angeles/"Los Angeles, California", versus Albuquerque, New Mexico/"Albuquerque"). The more people in the conversation, the clearer a consensus we'll obtain. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have naming conventions, one of the purposes of which is to avoid having to argue over the names of individual articles of the same type. Will Bebacktalk 00:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding arguing might have been the intent of specific naming conventions that call for pre-emptive disambiguation, but probably just a presumed unintended but welcome consequence, but how has that actually worked out for the last 10 years? I suggest that we've seen the opposite. That is, enforcement of naming conventions, at least for topics that have obvious, clear and natural names (like cities but not like highways), has resulted in much more arguing. This is why arguing is drastically reduced whenever pre-emptive disambiguation is no longer required. That has been true not only for the U.S. cities on the AP lists, but for just about every naming convention that has "loosened up" in this respect. This is why even guidelines like WP:NC-TV and WP:NCROY now have provisions to allow those articles within their domains that have clear, obvious and natural unambiguous names to have those names as their titles. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's worked out great. Although there are thousands of US places covered by that naming convention, page move discussions are relatively rare. What arguments there have been appear to have been instigated mostly by a small number of users. Anyway, I'm not going to engage in a another 10,000 word thread about naming conventions. Will Bebacktalk 00:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will, you've got that backwards. I suggest you look at the names of the users who propose most of these moves a little bit closer, and in particular pay attention to how rarely they are proposed by those of us in the small of group "regulars" who support concise names when possible. For example, you might start with this particular move at Talk:Ann Arbor which was initially proposed by a user who, as far as I know, was not involved in any of these discussions. I suggest that's typical, and contrast it with the proposed revert, which was started by one of the members of your small group of "regulars" who are dead set in their opposition to changing the U.S. city naming guideline. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted this entirely inappropriate move. If and when a consensus developed regarding moving the article, then an experienced and uninvolved admin can move it. Until then, the discussion should be allowed to continue, so a consensus develops. Jayjg (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, as an involved editor/admin it's not really optimal to have you deciding if the move was appropriate or premature. No uninvolved admin who saw this felt there was a need to undo the move. Will Bebacktalk 01:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Jayjig was clearly involved and has voice support for the outside conventional usage of Ann Arbor. It was not appropriate for him to undo the move. AgneCheese/Wine 02:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it more profitable to direct energy into deciding the name, rather than deciding whether some previous action was appropriate or not? The name is not going to be decided based on a technicality of who messed up when. It's going to be decided based on what the community consensus favors.
Please remember that RM discussions are not AfDs, and "no consensus" does not default to "no move". We're going to choose the best title, based on arguments presented, so what's the point arguing about technicalities? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We had a discussion, with a lot of input, and an uninvolved user judged the outcome. Then an involved editor/admin didn't like that outcome so he moved it back and re-opened the discussion. We wouldn't need to be having any more discussion if it hadn't been for that action. Will Bebacktalk 02:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that discussion was still ongoing. It appears that the earlier one I closed could have used more time as well. Why don't we let the conversation run its course? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing that Jayjg did after re-opening the discussion was to argue with two editors who had previously posted opposing views.[46] That seems like taking a second bite at the apple. Will Bebacktalk 02:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, or picking up a conversation that had been interrupted. Why assume the worst? Let's just let the discussion run its course. Your side is probably going to be the one decided on, have you noticed? Just let it happen. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interrupted? No new editors had commented in over 36 hours. I'm still trying to figure out on what authority Jayjg decided to move the article. If he wants to move it move he should start a fresh discussion, not shortcut the process by putting it back to where he wanted it. Will Bebacktalk 02:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes get away from the computer for a long time. I've spent longer than 36 hours on a single trip by airplane, during which I had no Internet. The point is, it's open now, and after a suitable and finite interval, someone uninvolved will close it based on the arguments people have made, and then all will be well. Right? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous move discussion, you closed it less than 12 hours after the last comment. As it happens, someone uninvolved already closed the discussion. Then some partisans reopened it. I realize that no decision on Wikipedia is ever final, but this is getting silly. Will Bebacktalk 03:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we've agreed that my initial close was overly hasty. I think a good reaction to that is to be very sure that we're not hasty again. I'm looking at this in the larger context of many move discussions, and there's a big conversation that people are having all over the major US cities. It's happening on any number of talk pages, and trying to rush it along on any one of them is not going to make it go away.
Let's be very thoughtful and deliberate, hear the best arguments on both sides, and allow a consensus to emerge. The state of the guideline right now is that it doesn't enjoy the strong consensus support that we like for our guidelines. If we allow this conversation to happen, it can be made stronger. That's good, no matter what side one may be on. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind "No new editors had commented in over 36 hours" because User:macr86 had improperly closed the discussion. As soon at it was re-opened, there was lots more discussion. Jayjg (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Will, the "uninvolved user" who close the discussion in this case is notorious for making controversial "decisions" - so there can be no confidence that that decision was thoughtful. Look, we all know this is an important decision, and we really it need it to be properly evaluated and closed by an experienced, knowledgable and uninvolved admin. If this user had closed it without moving, I admit I probably would not have bothered to file this AN/I, but I suspect someone would have, and that close would have been surely reversed just as this one was, and I would not have objected to that, even if it was unclosed by an involved admin who favors the pre-emptive disambiguation side. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a problem with the closure and move then an uninvolved admin could have fixed it. None thought it necessary. Will Bebacktalk 02:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After this report, there will doubtless be more editors and administrators looking in. That can only be for the best, because we'll gauge a clearer consensus. Good work, us. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 03:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be much support for Jayjg's move. Unless there's a consensus here that it was done in process I think the previous closure by an uninvolved editor should be restored. Will Bebacktalk 03:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should really be closed by someone with more experience with the site. There is no need to rush anything here. The conversation is still happening, and it's a good conversation for us to have. Wikipedia is growing; let it happen. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're reversing the onus here. The conversation was on-going (and still is), and there was no support for the out-of-process move by User:macr86. You don't close discussions and move articles before a consensus has developed, and certainly not while the move discussion is still on-going. And do you seriously think an editor with under 250 edits, who has made a number of disputed moves already, should actually be making this decision, or closing this extremely active RFM? I can't imagine you would. Let's see where the discussion leads, and then an uninvolved and experienced admin can make the final determination. Jayjg (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to agree that the close by Macr86 was so dubious that it should be undone. Yes, they may have been uninvolved but their other closes show that they do not properly understand how to close a requested move, which given their lack of experience is perhaps unsurprising. As such I think the close by Marc86 had no validity. I think the reason that it hadn't been reversed was that no admin had, so far, taken the time to read the discussion and possibly re-close and that people were waiting for that to happen rather than simply re-opening. In the absence of a re-close, re-opening is the best option so that eventually it will be re-closed by someone with more experienced. I would have reversed it myself had I noticed it before it arrived here but as it was already here before I noticed it I thought it best to leave to an admin to reverse. Yes I'd agree that it probably shouldn't have been reversed by Jayjg given their involvement but given that it was, in my opinion (and that of others here), the right decision lets not worry about it too much as we have the right end result. Dpmuk (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that User:macr86 also closed a discussion prematurely here: Talk: Rosalie. Then he/she moved the page prematurely. I think he needs to understand that these sorts of editorial operations are best done by more experienced editors and require consensus. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate behavior and edit summaries
Resolved
– blocked →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 18:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Special:Contributions/24.77.203.125 you`ll see a shwack of edit summaries such as: unacceptable spelling mistake!!! i will kill you all, i swear. and other rude/inappropriate things. Also note the comment here which is quite inappropriate. This user needs to be punished for their incivility and inappropriate actions so I`ve taken it here. Thanks. --Addihockey10e-mail 20:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked by HJ Mitchell. GiantSnowman 20:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just note, we don't "punish" users, blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive. Something to keep in mind... -- Ϫ 02:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Help this article now! Tunisia
The Tunisia article is an article about the country. There is no history at all in the article after World War II. This is a major flaw that makes Wikipedia laughable. Here we are in the internet era and our article is less up to date than a paper encyclopedia printed in the 1970's!
I know ANI is usually the forum to complain about bad editors but this is a major flaw that needs help. If you are an administrator and like to block people or talk about administrative stuff, change for a while and go directly to that article and help add maybe two paragraphs. Madrid 2020 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not add whatever you think is missing from the article? Why expect someone else to do it? MalleusFatuorum 22:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most likely explanation for there being no information about Tunisia's history after 1956 is that there ceased to be ongoing coverage of it. It seems likely that none of the 10 million or so Tunisians cared enough to write anything about their country from about 1957 onwards. Google searches for "Tunisia after 1956" returned only 44 results (ie. barely any) and nothing in GNews. Probably we should delete Tunisia per WP:NOTNEWS, on the basis that coverage of the nation is limited to a short burst between the 10th century BC and 1956 and there is no evidence of ongoing real-world significance or wide geographic impact. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be against any sort of AfD, everyone has heard of Tunisia! It's a really brilliant country and I went there on holiday once. I've worked really hard on the article and it would be really horrible if you nasty deletionists came and removed all my hard work. As a compromise, perhaps we could suggest a merge with Algeria in a section on neighbours? - ManicSpider (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could that have possibly been a really, really bad attempt at irony, DustFormsWords? You do recognize that you just insulted a nation's entire population, right? Breathes there a man with soul so dead, who never to himself hath said, "This is my own, my native land!"? – OhioStandard (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was intended ironically. Probably not as amusing unless you've argued a bunch of AfDs that take the format, "This organisation has verfiably distributed over a billion dollars in aid money throughout Africa but does not appear to have coverage in English-speaking newspapers and is therefore not notable." Apologies to any who didn't catch the (intended) funny. Apologies also for bringing humour to ANI, which I realise per policy is a dull and humourless place where hope goes to wither, die, and be indefinitely blocked. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I have a cold and seem to have exchanged my head/intellect for an anvil. I hope it's temporary. Perhaps I'll one day understand sophisticated humor again. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was humorous? I'd better go and undo my A7 then. I'm really only here because I like to block people. EyeSerenetalk 14:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite sadly, I got it ... --Epeefleche (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the reason that there has been no recent coverage is because in the 1970's the region was renamed to Tatooine... >.> --RoninBKTC 18:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two days ago user was blocked for violation of 3RR rule. Today he tried to add unreliable sources (Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer) and a blog here to support his POV, I reverted him and warned him in his talk page. He obviously didn't like that, so he is now reporting me (!!!) in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Please someone deal with this guy. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His User page has just been deleted as an attack page, and he then went on to try to request the deletion of User:A Macedonian's User page - I've reverted that. These actions, coupled with that ridiculous Arb case, strongly suggest he's not here to edit in a collegial manner to improve Wikipedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked indef, very few constructive edits, the user page and the retaliatory CSDing of someone else's userpage does indicate that. Black Kite (t)(c) 23:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Matter resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Anyone notify Kleopatra of this thread (FYI for courtesy's sake)? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank, Berean Hunter, for notifying me. I think your intentions were 100% good, but I think SandyGeorgia was right not to notify me of this thread. --Kleopatra (talk)
I overlooked it because 1) I always forget, 2) I didn't think it should concern you (it was on my talk page, best not to spread it, and 3) I was busy reading FAC. Sorry! Once this is all sorted, an admin has to decide what to do with my talk. And actually, I wouldn't have even bothered with ANI, just waited for one of my talk page stalkers to deal with it, except that curiously, when checking his contribs, I found he had posted here and been removed, with no attention! So I posted here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with your not notifying me in this case; in fact, I assumed you didn't notify me on purpose for reason 2. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And now we have admins restoring "Kleopatra is a cunt" Wiki brah edit summaries for some reason. You know, users are banned for reasons. Their edits should be deleted from wikipedia. Their edit summaries should be redacted. Instead, it seems that their edit summaries are getting them as much attention as they want and more.
I was posting this on User:Prodego's talk page. It can just as well go here. Wiki brah need dealt with quickly. There's nothing new or original. He/she calls female editors cunts in edit summaries when he/she sees a lucky strike. Administrators should know that calling someone a cunt in a edit summary is not part of writing an encyclopedia.
Why would you restore an edit summary by a sock puppet of User:Wiki brah that calls someone a cunt? A personal attack edit summary that says, "(cur | prev) 14:48, 16 January 2011 Anette Thewylwl (talk | contribs) (138,079 bytes) (No worries, Kleopatra is just a cunt) (undo)" by a banned user does not need to be in the edit history of a policy page.
I rev deleted the edit summary, because I misinterpreted it as outing a different editor. When I realized that was not the case, I reversed my action as I no longer believed my action was in accordance to policy. I'd say toughen up Kleopatra, everyone gets attacked, don't take it personally. Prodegotalk 00:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking it personally. I'm taking it policy--banned users don't get to post on wikipedia. Your deletion, then restoration, and another users multiple deletions and restorations of the edit were feeding a banned troll. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am the only one who has rev deleted that edit. I am never going to give up the right to undo any of my own actions if I decide they were incorrect. I believe very strict requirements should be applied to rev deletion, so others may disagree, but that edit does not meet my criteria for rev deletion, and so I believe my deletion was in error. Prodegotalk 00:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could have a lengthy theoretical discussion here as to whether this edit should have been rev-deleted or not in the first instance—my view is yes—but even if the deleting administrator decided it was an error, I don't think it was necessary to reinstate the edit, which could be potentially be seen as apparently happened as some sort of endorsement of that edit, which of course is not what was intended. Without intending to create a cause celebre or a precedent here, I don't think it does anyone any good to continue this line of discussion, and since the edit was highly offensive while containing no meaningful content, I've deleted it again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problems with that at all, as I mentioned my personal criteria are stricter than most interpret them as, and if you are willing to delete the revision, that is fine by me. If I think any of my actions was in error though, I am absolutely going to undo it. As administrators we are accountable for every admin action we take, and I am not going to stand behind an action I believe is wrong. No administrative action endorses anything (as m:The Wrong Version will have you know), so interpreting one as such is simply incorrect. Prodegotalk 00:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's for BLP articles. Still, this is not within any intent of wikipedia to give a platform for banned users to call other editors cunts. Banned users have been deemed by the community to not have any right to edit wikipedia. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this matter is resolved. There's no reason to call attention to the edit in question through further discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User Markvs88 has repeatedly vandalized the Cheshire Academy Page
He has repeatedly complained that people listed under 'Notable Alumni' do not ALL have Wikipedia pages, so he has simply deleted almost everything. I am unable to find any requirement that Notable Alumni have their own Wikipedia page, only that there be some reference to them somewhere.
This appears to be some sort of vendetta against the school. No such standard is applied to pages for similar nearby schools, such as Choate Rosemary Hall, which includes a matriculation list.
In its vandalized form, the Cheshire Academy page includes notes that it has no references, because the lengthy reference list for sports, awards, and alumni has been deleted.
When posting here, you are required to post the template to the talkpages of the people you are mentioning here, not post the notice here. Have you notified the person on their talk page? Heiro 02:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked into this article's history. The edits that Markvs88 reverted were largely additions of unsourced content and promotional language. I can see how the way he reverted entire edits without explaining the issues must be frustrating for Skranish (there should have been more communication), but for the most part his changes implemented Wikipedia policy (the fact that other schools have promotional language in their articles does not justify adding promotional language to this one -- our policy states that Wikipedia is not a promotional service). I spent some time rewriting and cleaning up that article. I'm not done with eveything that needs to be done, so I sympathize with Markvs88's mass-reverting as being a far easier strategy than "surgically" addressing the problems (which is what I attempted to do). Being a newbie (with respect to Wikipedia experience, although the account was registered in 2008), Skranish would benefit from reading up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:NOT, WP:Copyvio, and WP:Citing sources. I've placed a welcome template on Skranish's talk page to provide links to those pages. --Orlady (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC) I've also placed a message on Markvs88's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Please note that I reverted edits on Cheshire Academy (twice) to edits by Drmies, which I felt were justified given the amount of "poof" in the article that he trimmed out. Also note that I dropped a cordial note on user talk:Skranish for discussion, and did point Skranish to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines, he chose not to reply. Anyone can look at my prior edits on this (or any other CT school page for that matter), which are to remove puffery. Some examples are Pomfret School, Avon Old Farms, Choate Rosemary Hall, etc. I am happy to discuss the matter and answer any questions. Thanks to Orlady for her efforts! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a backlog
Hi folks. I think there's a backlog in the Category:Articles tagged for copyright problems. I see a bunch of articles in there that are tagged and probably need tending to. Basket of Puppies 04:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently made edits to the article Mind in the Gutter due to the fact that the information on the article is incorect. The single has not charted in any country on any chart other than the US iTunes. I am simply trying to fix the page from the lies that have been posted onto it.
Also, several times in the article it says "critics feel" or "the critics" but yet there is no sourced information to say what critic said it, and when did they say it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethjohnson95 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This user just registered yesterday but I'm quite wary of him already because of what he has to say on his userpage and talk page. I don't know what he thinks Wikipedia is but it appears that he's taking WP:BATTLE to a whole new level. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK...so you're saying there's not going to be a pay raise? Tiderolls 07:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About time I got some monies for this crappy job. KrakatoaKatie 07:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a message on Lt Col Warringham's talk pointing the to the user talk guideline. If another admin finds the pages excessively disruptive or trollish, I certainly would understand. Tiderolls 07:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He created a hoax article which was taken to AfD but I've speedied it after a search. Now that I've done that cleaning I've got to do house cleaning, which is much more boring but doesn't involve templates. Dougweller (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to comment on the same issue. In my opinion, it's enough of one to apply the standard remedy, and the editor seems otherwise unconstructive. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious troll is obvious? I guess the only question if he has actually been disruptive enough to warrant a block. Taemyr (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. :-) I've done the obvious, blocked indefinitely for trolling and disruptive editing. Enough is enough, he can always appeal. We should probably delete his user page and the subpage, at least. Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment): Not sure if an admin can do that (I don't think they can) but that is definitely a legal threat. Block until they recend. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a legal threat. It looks as if he is talking about "litigation against Google Inc". You forgot to notify him about this so I did. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 10:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there was discussion about this before. I believe the status is that he is a photographer of nudes who has released some to commons & WP - but now does not want his name associated with them. I understand he is suing Google to get them to disassociate his name in search listings with the name (why he continues to contribute here on the Wiki on the same topic... well, that defeats me). I believe in the past there was a fuss when he tried to get his name disassociated here on the Wiki and was blocked for legal threats during the confusion. Given the context (I wasn't aware he was unblocked) I suggest pointing him at OTRS to solve the issues (he has this annoying way of referring to himself in the third person as well, so be aware of that) --Errant(chat!) 11:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I've now replied to him at the Help Desk. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no legal threat towards Wikipedia:Help_desk#help_altering_a_page_please....in any way at all. The Foundation authorized the attribution change to the CN Foundation. I am involved in litigation against GOOG and there is a jury trial in July. I am simply trying to prevent thumbnails from being presented to my daughter's school on safe search at GOOG images. The personal name in the history of the file at the bottom of the page allows GOOG to still return the thumbnail. I have sought a preliminary injunction but am trying to cause display of the nude thumbnail to cease in any other way possible. I contribute in the topic and am sure not to use my name in an articles because I am not yet notable or dead. I do not want my name to return nude thumbnails to minors. I stated that if it is not possible that I understand completely and I will never threaten Wikipedia Foundation. EVER. I will send an email. Thanks. CurtisNeeley (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather concerned about the user page of Mactruth (talk·contribs). While I think it can be good to describe one's nationality, ethnicity, etc (it helps to show the diversity of Wikipedians), I think this is going too far into battlefield territory and is being used to attack Greeks. I nominated it for CSD:A10 (attack page), and that was declined - correctly, I think, as it is not "wholly" attacking. But I do think there are sections which overstep the line. User:Mactruth#How propaganda works is attacking Greece and Greek Wikipedia editors. User:Mactruth#Articles of irresponsible treatment of Macedonians by Greece is another attack on Greece, and can really only be seen as deliberate WP:BATTLE mentality. I'm not sure what needs to be done, but I think something does - maybe just the removal of some sections of that page? Maybe a warning that this battlefield approach to Wikipedia is not acceptable? I'll leave it to you folks to decide - and I'll go inform User:Mactruth of this discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He has also recently done this. Granted he might have felt provoked, but changing someone's signature to call them "A Christian refugee wishing he was Macedonian" seems out of order. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Mactruth has a long history of battleground mentality and related sanctions. One of the most unproductive agenda editors I've met in this field, and that's saying a lot. WP:ARBMAC exists to deal with users like this. Fut.Perf.☼ 12:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be true in the greater scheme of things, I know nothing of any long term issues and am not trying to address them - I'd just like some action on a couple of provocative/attacking/battlefield User page sections, and I don't think ArbCom is necessary for that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:AndroidCat is a long term editor in the Scientology topic area who was Topic banned as result of WP:ARBSCI. After receiving a recent block for violating his third edit coming off the block was to Rick Ross (consultant) an activist who has campaigned extensively against CoS and has been involved in high profile litigation with CoS. This is blantant disregard for his topic ban and topic that Arbcom sanctions are in effect for other users. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of those editors who asked him to stop. Virtually all his recent edits are to add unsourced gun identifications to plot summaries. I see no evidence that he's contacted anyone to try to discuss this. Zachlipton (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding my name as another editor who has asked him, both in edit summaries and on his talk page, to cease adding these unnecessary details. In addition to being tediously unnecessary, this is original research, as he cites no sources to indicate that his information is correct. He also does not use edit summaries. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked them for a month in view of the persistent nature of the problem. Hopefully, they will request unblocking, in which case we can demand a promise of better behavior in the future. Otherwise, it'll be "escalatio". Favonian (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved
10:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#File:Roman_Empire_125.png){kind=link}
![[15]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Roman_Empire_125.png){kind=link}
Resolved