Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. 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) |
An all encompassing complaint regarding the disruptive editing behavior of User:Dolovis
First of all, let me begin by saying to any admins, if this is in the wrong place, feel free to close or move it. Perhaps it belongs at WP:RFCC, but I feel this user has had so many issues brought upon him that I should take it directly here. Over the past few months, User:Dolovis has become increasingly disruptive across Wikipedia, to the point that I have decided to bring a complaint to ANI that covers, to the best of my knowledge, all of the issue that in my mind deem this user as a disruptive editor. This complaint largely stems from a diacritic removal campaign he is currently engaged in on the bases of following policy. However, this user has been told on multiple occasions that his interpretation of policy is incorrect. His current ploy involves the mass moving of articles with diacritics in their titles (85 in the past week), to English character titles, ignoring the fact that no new consensus has emerged on their usage, which would suggest that their current usage (no consensus to move) remain. As I mentioned, this user has also engaged in other forms of editing that I would consider disruptive, as I have pointed out in the following list that I believe encompasses all of Dolovis’ misconducts (although I don’t doubt for a second that I have missed many additional misconducts).
Diacritics controversy
Page moves while a discussion is on-going
Despite the on-going discussion on the usage of diacritics in biography article titles that has not gained a consensus of either pro or contra diacritics, Dolovis has begun a highly controversial campaign of mass moving of articles with diacritics in their titles. Since he initiated the discussion on 17 May 2011, he has moved a total of 103 articles with diacritics in their titles, listed here. More alarming is the 85 he has moved in the past week alone. He claims that anyone with a problem should follow WP:BRD, and while that would usually be the procedure to follow, can someone explain to me who has the time to list 85 page move requests in one week? I don’t. One user recently listed multiple page move requests at a central location (Talk:Martin Ruzicka), and Dolovis has argued that “each move must be judged on its own merits”. Like I said, I’m not sure who has the time to initiate 85 separate discussions. This is highly disruptive, as Dolovis knows no one has the time to do this.
Reply comment: The page moves that Nurmsook refers to are actually "Undoing" page moves made contrary to the established policy of WP:Article titles. I have not been doing the mass-page moves. It is, in fact, quite the opposite, as hundreds (thousands?) of biographical articles have been systematically moved from their WP:COMMONNAME WP:ENGLISH WP:Article titles to their non-English form. It is well-established policy to Undo a controversial move to invoke Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Dolovis (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Talk:Martin Ruzicka is another mass-article move discussion started by another editor for 10 articles that were created with English titles. Dolovis (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Page move discussions while a discussion is on-going
In addition to the moves Dolovis is making, he has continued to make WP:POINT requests for article moves. Since the naming conventions discussion was initiated on 17 May 2011, Dolovis has requested 8 page moves, again, a number highly disruptive as it is extremely difficult to keep track of all of these requests. You will notice that each move request that had a high level of discussion was closed as no consensus (Talk:Pierre Pagé, Talk:Jakub Petružálek, Talk:Anže Kopitar, Talk:Petr Sýkora, Talk:Tomáš Divíšek, etc.). If the page move requests he is making are consistently reaching no consensus, wouldn’t that suggest that pages should remain where they are? Not move 85 in a week? Is it not disruptive to repeatedly canvass the Wiki community for their opinion on a subject that has already been made?
Reply comment: The discussion which I started on 17 May 2011 at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) has steadily devolved into a quagmire of POV repetitions with no consensus in sight which might change the established policy of WP:AT or WP:EN concerning the use of diacritics in article titles. When the situation calls for making a move request, the proper procedure is to open a WP:RM to seek a consensus on the issue. It is false to say that my RM are always closed as "no consensus". One example of a "support" consensus is found at Talk:Eric Castonguay. Dolovis (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I said each request with a high level of discussion closed with no consensus. Your example includes four participants. I certainly do not consider that to be high level of participation. Dolovis' blatant misinterpretation of my words is a prime example of how this use misinterprets policy. He chooses to take what he wants from it, and demean anyone who disagrees with him. – Nurmsook! talk... 22:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that you're being overly sensative about this. You seem to be personalizing everything. You're making accusations here on AN/I, asking that another user's editing be restricted, so I'm not sure why you would be surprised that the other user is defending himself.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)- Please point to where I asked that another user's editing be restricted. Stop distributing lies about me. Like I said, I came here to get uninvolved admins opinions and certainly have no issue with Dolovis defending himself against these accusations. But when he does defend himself, I'll make sure to fact check his defense. That is my right, just as defending himself is his. – Nurmsook! talk... 22:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- ehrm... "Page move ban for Dolovis" isn't a restriction, I suppose. Ridiculous.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)- Check the edit history. That section was not one that I added. – Nurmsook! talk... 00:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- ehrm... "Page move ban for Dolovis" isn't a restriction, I suppose. Ridiculous.
- Please point to where I asked that another user's editing be restricted. Stop distributing lies about me. Like I said, I came here to get uninvolved admins opinions and certainly have no issue with Dolovis defending himself against these accusations. But when he does defend himself, I'll make sure to fact check his defense. That is my right, just as defending himself is his. – Nurmsook! talk... 22:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that you're being overly sensative about this. You seem to be personalizing everything. You're making accusations here on AN/I, asking that another user's editing be restricted, so I'm not sure why you would be surprised that the other user is defending himself.
Previous ANI controversies
- Dolovis previously brought a user to ANI here. Of note, Dolovis was removed of his Twinkle rights because of abuse of the tool at this discussion.
- Another example of Dolovis' use of ANI can be found here
- Dolovis' controversial accusations of Darwinek, shown above, is another example of an ANI controversy. Not to mention his second set of accusations against the same user, also listed above.
- Of course, another ANI was recently posted here regarding Dolovis' conduct.
Reply Comment: I have been editing on wikipedia for 14 months. I have made some mistakes, I have learned from them, and I have moved on. Dolovis (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Allegations of sock puppetry
- Without any sustained evidence, Dolovis make a bad faith sock puppetry accusation of a long-time Wikipedia user and administrator. That quick-ending discussion can be found here. Dolovis simply made the blatant accusation without adding any additional commentary once his claims were disputed. His claims were identified to potentially be retaliation to a content dispute (note that Darwinek is the same user that Dolovis twice took to ANI on dispute claims).
- Dolovis was accused of and blocked following a sockpuppet investigation here.
Reply comment from Dolovis: The sock puppet allegation raised by Nurmsook was demonstrated to be a false positive, and that is why all of the blocked accounts (the alleged master and puppets) were all unblocked. Dolovis (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
User and User talk page misconduct
- Dolovis has acted inappropriately at his own user and user talk pages. In one instance, he banned a user from his talk page (Evidence) despite being reminded that he cannot do so per WP:UP#OWN (Evidence). In addition, he proceeded to threaten administrative action when the user made a comment after this supposed “ban” (Evidence), which is in clear violation of WP:TALKNO.
- From 12 February 2011 until 31 May 2011, Dolovis claimed on his user page that he held rollback rights, when he in fact does not and was actually denied use of the tool when he requested it. This, again, is in violations of WP:TALKNO.
- Some time ago, a user reached out to Dolovis following a dispute between the two editors with an apology. However, Dolovis took this apology, placed it on his user page, and is essentially parading it around to show others something along the lines of a “I told you so” or “I was right” type statement. This may or may not be against any policy or guideline, but it certainly is highly inconsiderate and the user in question has taken offence to its placement on Dolovis’ user page.
- Dolovis again violated WP:TALKNO when he blatantly accused another user of ethnocentrism (Evidence), a claim to which the other user was highly offended by (Evidence).
- Dolovis engages in censorship of his talk page, something Wikipedia is not. While he has the right to request other user do not post to his user talk page, I argue that his approach to end discussions at his own discussion, even if other user may still have something of value to add, something that doesn’t fall in line with the spirit of using talk pages (Evidence), (Evidence).
Reply comment: I disagree with the perception presented above, but that being said, it is my talk page and how I engage others on my talk page should be given a wide range of latitude, as it should be given to all editors. I have read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and I believe that I have acted well within those guidelines. I do try to avoid harassment and vandalism directed to my talk page. I am open to constructive criticism on this topic, and will continue to try to make my talk page a place for informative and constructive discussion. Dolovis (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Tag removal
- Dolovis has conducted disruptive tag removals. In one instance, another user placed a {{merge to}} tag on the article Ivan Svarny. Without following the proper discourse of discussing the merge on the talk page, Dolovis removed the tag altogether, forcing the other user to undo Dolovis’ edit (Evidence).
Reply comment: The tagging editor User:Fly by Night mass-tagged about 16 articles for merge. The tagging editor was clearly using improper an interpretation of WP:MERGE, and I removed just one of the 16 tags and sent him a note here to engage him to discuss the issue as he had not started any discussion on the talk pages of the effected articles. Fly by Night replaced his own tag and proceeded with the mass-merge request anyway, which had a unanimous community consensus against the merges as demonstrated by the discussion on that issue. Dolovis (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- There was no improper interpretation. I quoted the rationale " If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.…" several times. You had created over 100 one-sentence, one reference, presumably notable, BLPs. I saw from your edit history that many of your older creations had been untouched for 30+ days. If none of those had been expanded, then why should the new ones? So, by the quoted criteria, I tagged your 16, one-sentence, one reference, presumably notable, BLP's for merger into the club article of the players' team. There was also no unanimous consent. In fact, myself and several admins brought a case against you here. Several people support sanctions on Dolovis's editing. There was eventually a consensus that no editing santions should be taken, but there was a broad agreement that his conduct was unacceptable. Here's a link to that discussion This all shows that Dolovis either sees, or chooses to represent, things very differently to how they actually are. Notice above where he supposedly sent sent me a note here to engage in discussion… That was clearly a reply to a message I sent him! — Fly by Night (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Final commentary
I firmly believe that this evidence proves that Dolovis has consistently been engaging in disruptive editing since his arrival at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Dolovis' disruptive habits are not limited to the areas I have listed above. Dolovis has been widely criticized for creating, in some instances, unreferenced BLPs and other one-line stubs that he likely will never go about editing, regarded by some as content forking (I should note that I do not have an issue with his creation of stubs (I am an inclusionist), but still feel that the issues other users have with it should not go unnoticed). Additionally, Dolovis can be highly confrontational and aggressive towards other users, something not held in high regard by the spirit of Wikipedia. Frankly, the only reason I decided to bring this users habits to light is that I was shocked that no other user had done it before. In my opinion, Dolovis' abuse of Wikipedia is far and beyond a prime example of disruptive editing. Prone to engaging in disputes with anyone who disagrees with him, this User never makes the slighest attempt to reach a compromise or listen to someone else's opinion. Anytime he feels he has any sort of leverage he takes it. In fact, Jimmy Wales recently posted how he is opposed to diacritics, and Dolovis has since been parading this quote around as is anything Jimbo says, goes. He also recently begun edit warring with another user, and was warned of this on his talk page by User:Bearcat. The fact that Dolovis has been able to go about disrupting Wikipedia so blatantly alarms me to no end. How someone can make 85 controversial moves in one week and get away with it sickens me. I hope administrators will see the evidence I have posted and do something about it. This user does not edit at all within the spirit of Wikipedia. – Nurmsook! talk... 17:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- WP:TL;DR. This has too many individual issues and particulars for examination at ANI. You were right; it should be handled through WP:RFCU. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about the "too many individual issues". The main complaint is that Dolovis moves articles from titles with diacritics to titles without diacritics. I have a solution (below). Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Reply comment: The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. I am not the one who is moving articles contrary to policy. I am not the instigator of these moves, but I have undone many moves made without discussion and against the policy of WP:AT; and it appears that Nurmsook, who is a strong and vocal supporter of encouraging the use of diacritics in article titles, may have a COI "difference in perception" with my vocal support in favour of following the established policy of WP:AT and WP:EN. Dolovis (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is the type of conduct I have referred to that pushed me to submit this ANI. Dolovis IS instigating these moves. He appears to forget that every page has an edit history, and a quick check of this history shows that most of these pages he has moved we originally created at their diacritic location. This is not a case of a move "undo". Further, Dolovis' consistent use of the term "Conflict of Interest" towards those who oppose his editing habits is perhaps his most evident disruptive habit. He disagrees with anyone who thinks what he's doing is wrong. I have never once stated that I am pro-diacritics. On the contrary, I have stated multiple times that I don't care if they stay or go. My problem with Dolovis' editing habits is his blatant misunderstanding of policy that has resulted in him moving 103 pages. Frankly, him saying I have a COI and blatantly lying about my position on diacritics is absolute slander. – Nurmsook! talk... 21:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Simply not true. A quick check of this history shows that most, if not all, of the page moves I have done/undone were originally created at their English title location. Dolovis (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. (although, Nurmsook does have a point about using COI. It's a really minor point though, since you're hardly alone in that misapplication of the policy.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)- Okay, I guess I'll do the research myself, because I hate being accused of lying or hiding evidence or blurring facts. I don't want to spend my night diving into this, so of Dolovis' page moves since 22 June 2011:
- Just because I have accused you of undoing page moves, doesn't mean you need to say I am lying. Sure, maybe I was wrong to say that most of Dolovis' page moves were originally at diacritics locations, I'll admit that. But for Dolovis to state that all of his page moves were originally at English titles is horribly false. When I get involved in policy debates, I do my research. Trust me, as a grad student, research is my life. The url's of page history are there. Check the evidence and then tell me I'm lying. – Nurmsook! talk... 22:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Six current example of move/RM abuse I am trying to defend against is found at Talk:Andrej Tavzelj where there is yet another request for multiple moves away from the commonly used English name. Nurmsook makes the argument in support of these moves stating “No established usage means they shouldn't have been moved in the first place”, however, contrary to Nurmsook's assertion, all of the articles were created with English titles. If that statement represents Nurmsook's true position on the issue of diacritics, then he should be supporting my efforts to “undo” these controversial moves away from their established use. Dolovis (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Talk about misrepresenting the facts! Every single page taht you linked to above was at a page title that didn't use diacritics and was moved without discussion by others to a page title with diacritics. Who's actually being disruptive, here?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)- Are we reading the same edit histories!? Why are you shedding some sort of disruptive light on me when all I'm doing is presenting facts! Some of those pages that I linked were created at diacritic titles, and then moved by Dolovis to non-diacritic titles. The others were also created at diacritic titles, moved by Dolovis to non-diacritic titles, then moved back by another user, but then moved back to non-diacritic titles by Dolovis. Each of the 19 articles I linked were created at diacritic titles. Which ones do you think were not and I'll be happy to clarify them for you, diff by diff. – Nurmsook! talk... 00:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- False.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)- Haha. Your answer makes it pretty clear that you are just refusing to admit that you are wrong, but know you actually are. Let me just take a couple of these and explain the article histories on them so you can see what I mean by all 19 originated at diacritic title. Honestly, edit histories don't lie, so to say I am based on truthfully conveying these histories is bad faith editing. Link #1, Revision history of Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey): Article was created at Tomáš Svoboda 20:50, 2 January 2011. Dolovis moved Tomáš Svoboda to Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) 23:00, 23 June 2011. HandsomeFella moved Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) to Tomáš Svoboda (ice hockey) 04:39, 26 June 2011. Dolovis moved Tomáš Svoboda (ice hockey) to Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) 09:46, 26 June 2011. Link #12, Revision history of Lukas Endal: Article was created at Lukáš Endál 20:34, 2 January 2011. Dolovis moved Lukáš Endál to Lukas Endal 18:29, 23 June 2011. Both took different routes to get where they are now, but both started out as diacritic titles. Explain to me, now that I have shown you this very clear evidence, how these articles started at non-diacritic titles. – Nurmsook! talk... 00:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Reply comment: Rubbish. The edit histories for those two articles show that both were created by myself on January 3, 2011 using English article titles. Dolovis (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are clearly misunderstanding how edit histories work. They track the movement of all pages. The first page move at these pages was from a diacritic title to a non-diacritic title. It's very clear in the edit history that, for instance, the first move of the Lukas Endal page occured on June 23 and that move was Lukáš Endál to Lukas Endal. The edit history very clearly identifies that. Because this is the first time the page was moved, we know the page originated at Lukáš Endál. If it, as you claim, originated at Lukas Endal, there would have been a move before June 23 of the page from Lukas Endal to Lukáš Endál. There is no evidence of that in the edit history. How can you claim that the page originated at Lukas Endal when it is evident, per the edit history, that it did not. This is a simple case of you misunderstanding how edit histories work. Any user here can see that the page originated at Lukáš Endál. It is documented in the edit history, and cannot be refuted. – Nurmsook! talk... 13:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Reply comment: Rubbish. The edit histories for those two articles show that both were created by myself on January 3, 2011 using English article titles. Dolovis (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Haha. Your answer makes it pretty clear that you are just refusing to admit that you are wrong, but know you actually are. Let me just take a couple of these and explain the article histories on them so you can see what I mean by all 19 originated at diacritic title. Honestly, edit histories don't lie, so to say I am based on truthfully conveying these histories is bad faith editing. Link #1, Revision history of Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey): Article was created at Tomáš Svoboda 20:50, 2 January 2011. Dolovis moved Tomáš Svoboda to Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) 23:00, 23 June 2011. HandsomeFella moved Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) to Tomáš Svoboda (ice hockey) 04:39, 26 June 2011. Dolovis moved Tomáš Svoboda (ice hockey) to Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) 09:46, 26 June 2011. Link #12, Revision history of Lukas Endal: Article was created at Lukáš Endál 20:34, 2 January 2011. Dolovis moved Lukáš Endál to Lukas Endal 18:29, 23 June 2011. Both took different routes to get where they are now, but both started out as diacritic titles. Explain to me, now that I have shown you this very clear evidence, how these articles started at non-diacritic titles. – Nurmsook! talk... 00:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- False.
- Are we reading the same edit histories!? Why are you shedding some sort of disruptive light on me when all I'm doing is presenting facts! Some of those pages that I linked were created at diacritic titles, and then moved by Dolovis to non-diacritic titles. The others were also created at diacritic titles, moved by Dolovis to non-diacritic titles, then moved back by another user, but then moved back to non-diacritic titles by Dolovis. Each of the 19 articles I linked were created at diacritic titles. Which ones do you think were not and I'll be happy to clarify them for you, diff by diff. – Nurmsook! talk... 00:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. (although, Nurmsook does have a point about using COI. It's a really minor point though, since you're hardly alone in that misapplication of the policy.)
- Simply not true. A quick check of this history shows that most, if not all, of the page moves I have done/undone were originally created at their English title location. Dolovis (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- As a general comment: while I don't expect much of anything to emerge out of this discussion, I believe Dolovis is going to keep coming to ANI over and over and over again because I find him to be a net drain on the project. Far too much time is spent dealing with his move wars, lazy article creations and general standoffish nature that could otherwise be spent doing something productive. I will also note that while Dolovis seems willing to be a non-diacritic warrior on article titles, he doesn't bother to anglicize the articles themselves. So tell me, if the player's name at the lead of the article is Tomáš Rachůnek, why is the article located at Tomas Rachunek? Dolovis can't even make up his own mind as to whether diacritics should be used or not. And these inconsistencies become little messes that, as is typical, someone else has to deal with. Resolute 13:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Reply comment to Resolute: The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. For example, the article is titled Paul McCartney, not "Sir James Paul McCartney" as appears first in that article. Dolovis (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Page move ban for Dolovis
Proposal: Dolovis is banned from moving any article that has a title with diacritics to one that does not have diacritics, and vice versa. He may propose such moves at WP:RM for consensus to be established as to whether or not the page should be moved. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would support this measure. I got drawn into the dispute today and can attest that his understanding of WP:UE is definitely a little skewed — and that he simply ignores any consensus that doesn't match his own preferences. Additionally, I can attest that I've had past interactions with him in which he ignored multiple polite requests to change something about his editing habits — so clearly some sort of escalation is necessary here. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Bearcat, will you please be specific and point me to the consensus that you are referring to. Some editors have been very quick to say that there is a consensus to support their POV, but no one has yet been able to show me the consensus that has changed the policy of WP:AT or WP:EN. Dolovis (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not appropriate for mob justice. Follow dispute resolution: Send it to RFCU and Arbcom. --causa sui (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a question of "mob justice"; it's a question of an editor simply not following standard and easily enforceable rules. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- You've described the two ends of the stick. Situations like this need a closer look than a complaint and a summary vote. For example, there may be more editors involved who need their conduct scrutinized as well. Also, it is outrageous that voting has begun before the user to be sanctioned has had a chance to respond here. (I'm aware of his previous comments on ANI). --causa sui (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, I may be inclined to support the measure with the caveat that it was a temporary injunction pending the completion of regular dispute resolution channels. --causa sui (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) What vote, where? I don't see one. I see a community discussing to reach consensus, yes, but no vote. GiantSnowman 19:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've got no problem with it being a temporary measure whilst further avenues are explored. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would support this temporary injunction while third party administrators can review the case. – Nurmsook! talk... 23:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've got no problem with it being a temporary measure whilst further avenues are explored. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- You've described the two ends of the stick. Situations like this need a closer look than a complaint and a summary vote. For example, there may be more editors involved who need their conduct scrutinized as well. Also, it is outrageous that voting has begun before the user to be sanctioned has had a chance to respond here. (I'm aware of his previous comments on ANI). --causa sui (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a question of "mob justice"; it's a question of an editor simply not following standard and easily enforceable rules. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Opposed - In the current environment this is an obvious partisan move, regardless of whether it was intended to be or not. If you want to join the diacritics debate then do so. Attempting to generate sanctions against those with differing opinions than yourself, in the middle of a debate, certainly isn't the best example of collegial behavior.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)- This is certainly not why I launched this ANI. As I have shown in my original post, this boils down to much more than the diacritics issue, something I have tried my best to stay away from, as I am impartial to if they should stay or go. Rather, this is a case of abusing one's ability to move pages. Saying I am lacking in collegial behavior despite an intensive research of Dolovis' editing patterns is rather disappointing. If you are arguing about action in the middle of a debate, perhaps you should be more inclined to support a page move ban. It is, after all, Dolovis who is blatantly moving pages while the debate is ongoing. – Nurmsook! talk... 21:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I hear what you're saying, but perception is reality, you know? Also, I would be supportive of a page move ban if it included the other parties in the debate who have been moving pages in the other direction. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Running to AN/I to try and place restrictions on one person involved in an ongoing debate is hardly constructive.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)- As I said, your bad faith accusation of me is very offensive. I did not "run to ANI" to "place restrictions on one person involved in an ongoing debate". Absolutely not the case. I brought multiple issues to the table in the hope that third party administrators could add their commentary. I don't want to see Dolovis banned. I think he's a great editor, and being an inclusionist, I love the work he does creating articles for people that meet notability standards. What I am opposed to is his often confrontational demeanor and the fact that he has moved 85 pages in the past week. That's not normal. Please refrain from accusing me of whatever you think I might be doing here. – Nurmsook! talk... 22:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- If that's actually the case, then why not participate in the RM's (even create them, if needed) and in the ongoing discussion on the WP:UE talk page? Instead, you're here picking on one participant in that debate. What about the other participants, who have been moving pages in the other direction? You say that I'm making an bad faith accusation, but you're provided the proof that you're not acting in good faith by singling out the actions of one editor in what is essentially a multi-party content dispute. The cries of neutrality here ring very hollow.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)- I'm not going to get into an endless argument with you. For the last time, I did not come here on the specifics of the diacritics issue. I actually have an almost bigger issue with how Dolovis conducts himself on his talk page or when he communicates with other users. Other users have come into this discussion and claimed that the page moves thing was the overriding problem; it's not. If I wanted to out Dolovis from the diacritics debate, I wouldn't have titled this ANI the way I did. As it states, this is an all encompassing account of his disruptive editing patters, not specific to one event. Check my history, check my background. I've been doing this Wikipedia thing for 6 years now. I have never once seen an editor that has been so overwhelmingly disruptive across the board that I decided to take my complaint to ANI. Go ahead an accuse me with whatever you like, but know that it simply is not constructive to this debate, and I know you are acting in bad faith making those accusations. This is Wikipedia, and everyone has the right to be heard when they feel a user as stepped outside the boundaries of what is acceptable editing practices. That is why I brought this here, not because of some silly diacritics dispute that has been ongoing since Wikipedia was first created! – Nurmsook! talk... 22:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- If that's actually the case, then why not participate in the RM's (even create them, if needed) and in the ongoing discussion on the WP:UE talk page? Instead, you're here picking on one participant in that debate. What about the other participants, who have been moving pages in the other direction? You say that I'm making an bad faith accusation, but you're provided the proof that you're not acting in good faith by singling out the actions of one editor in what is essentially a multi-party content dispute. The cries of neutrality here ring very hollow.
- As I said, your bad faith accusation of me is very offensive. I did not "run to ANI" to "place restrictions on one person involved in an ongoing debate". Absolutely not the case. I brought multiple issues to the table in the hope that third party administrators could add their commentary. I don't want to see Dolovis banned. I think he's a great editor, and being an inclusionist, I love the work he does creating articles for people that meet notability standards. What I am opposed to is his often confrontational demeanor and the fact that he has moved 85 pages in the past week. That's not normal. Please refrain from accusing me of whatever you think I might be doing here. – Nurmsook! talk... 22:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I hear what you're saying, but perception is reality, you know? Also, I would be supportive of a page move ban if it included the other parties in the debate who have been moving pages in the other direction. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Running to AN/I to try and place restrictions on one person involved in an ongoing debate is hardly constructive.
- This is certainly not why I launched this ANI. As I have shown in my original post, this boils down to much more than the diacritics issue, something I have tried my best to stay away from, as I am impartial to if they should stay or go. Rather, this is a case of abusing one's ability to move pages. Saying I am lacking in collegial behavior despite an intensive research of Dolovis' editing patterns is rather disappointing. If you are arguing about action in the middle of a debate, perhaps you should be more inclined to support a page move ban. It is, after all, Dolovis who is blatantly moving pages while the debate is ongoing. – Nurmsook! talk... 21:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Listing every event that the user has done something wrong is not appropriate, it's as if you're trying to start a lynch mob. SilverserenC 02:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Disclosure: I am involved in the diacritics discussion. SilverserenC 02:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support I feel most of these actions all fall into the category of edit warring. There should clearly be a moratorium on any page moves surrounding diacritics, particularly by Dolovis and Nurmsook, whilst the discussions are pending. As these involve global interpretation, it makes little sense to tackle these page moves on a piecemeal basis; a global solution needs to be found. There are currently RfCs in progress, and Dolovis appears to be executing the page moves in an deliberately pointy and provocative manner. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Question for Ohconfucius: What about undoing a controversial move? How is that pointy? I would think that it would be the first bold move that is provoking, not the editor (me) who is undoing that move. How would an editor invoke the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? Dolovis (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- The sum total of your actions here and elsewhere indicates that you have an active agenda of ensuring diacritics do not impact Wikipedia. Something does not become controversial merely because you or I or any one individual object; it does, however, so become when there are a number of people. Most people running into the sort of opposition you are facing would be right to question their own actions as "controversial". As to your "undoing a controversial move", it seems that it is intimately related to the issue of diacritics use. Two wrongs don't make one right; you are not a Wikipolice officer. WP:EDITWAR and WP:DISRUPT were written to cover what you are doing. You should self-impose a moratorium, not only on page moves whilst the discussion has not been resolved, but also mass creation of stubs of marginal "presumed" and not "actual" notability. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure why my name was mentioned as a potential page move banee. I certainly have not been active in moving any diacritics pages. Rather, if I do stray into these discussions, it is only at RM. I simply brought an issue to ANI that has been ongoing for months at WP:HOCKEY, so this would be a clear case of shooting the messenger. I know I opened myself up to scrutiny when I brought this issue here, but the level I have received from users for simply trying to bring an extensive list of disruptive editing patters to light is really discouraging. I think I'll try to stay away from these sorts of discussions in the future. – Nurmsook! talk... 13:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Question for Ohconfucius: What about undoing a controversial move? How is that pointy? I would think that it would be the first bold move that is provoking, not the editor (me) who is undoing that move. How would an editor invoke the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? Dolovis (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not that there'd be anything terribly wrong with imposing such a ban on all parties involved in this round-robin fracas until the underlying issue was worked out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose specific ban on Dolovis, because in the two examples specifically called out above, Tomas Svoboda and Lukas Endal, Dolovis originally created the articles with diacritics before moving them to non-diacritic versions, and there was very little substantive editing besides his. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. While Dolovis's actions have clearly been sub-optimal, there must be at least to users involved to have a "move-war". Dolovis is not the only user who has been moving articles while the discussion is ongoing, so my proposal would be to either move ban everyone who has been involved in the move-warring, or move ban no-one. This is analogous to a 3RR report where multiple parties have breached 3RR; either block (in this case ban) all involved, or block (ban) none. It's wrong to just pick on one of the users involved because you think they were incorrect while the others were correct. Disclosure: I have been involved in a number of RMs involving diacritics and have agreed with Dolovis's opinion the majority of the time. Jenks24 (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support – I'm baffled that so many editors oppose a page move ban. It seems that several of them have not informed themselves properly, and believe this is about punishing an editor for having the "wrong" views. It is not. This ANI is not about the use of diacritics – it is about user behavior. And a ban would not last forever. It would serve as a warning, so it would not be the end of the world for Dolovis. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Gaming the system
While Dolovis still doesn't usually create redirects from the proper names for his stubs, when he does, he has an unusual error rate. With six of the last seven redirects, Dolovis made a "mistake" and created a page history that blocks non-admins from moving his articles (these diffs speak for themselves: [1][2][3][4][5][6]) This is just the newest way the user is gaming the system. And he does this while being the subject two active AN/I threads. Can we finally concentrate on the forest and not the trees? Prolog (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- First I'll admit that I was the latest, though maybe not the last, editor that Dolovis got into an edit war with – though I never exceeded 1RR on individual articles – so I'm not squeaky clean. My only defence is that I didn't know of this forum, so I didn't know where to report him, or how else to stop him. My input here could thus be perceived as biased.
- But I think this proves Nurmsook's point: Dolovis has a pattern of acting in bad faith, and he is pushing an agenda of ridding wikipedia of diacritics, at least in article titles. In his arguments, he has been misrepresenting guidelines to motivate his page moves and his reverts of others' page moves. (Speaking of reverting page moves, I thought Dolovis was an admin,
anduntil I recently found out that a page move can be reverted as long as there is no edit history on the redirect, which he now has "fixed" by applying the above measures noticed by Prolog.) When you check the guidelines Dolovis refers to, they don't hold water, but it could probably have worked on more easily impressed editors. I think his actions motivate a page move ban and a page creation ban, let's say for a month (at least). But he could still keep editing, though. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not to mention things like using db-author on pages that other people have already edited (in this example a redirect) so that he can move the page to his newly desired location. [7]. He has also db-authored entire pages that weren't redirects in the same manor in the past only to recreate them immediately after deletion at the new location without the diacritics. Clearly we need to look at the amount of various bad faith type editing not just the individual incidents here. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Dolovis is correct, when he mentions that those articles were (years ago) moved to diacritics style, without the benefit of an RM. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I assume "RM" means "Requested Move" (forgive my ignorance). Why request a move when you can do it yourself? You don't request edits, do you? If you move in good faith, and in accordance with guidelines and recommendations, that can't be wrong, can it? And does it have anything to do with gaming the system? HandsomeFella (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Motion of no confidence
This is the second time in two weeks that Dolovis has been brought here. A quick summary of the points raised are as follows:
- Creation of poor quality, poorly sourced BLPs and refusal to update and expand said BLPs.
- Engaging in conduct contrary to WP:POINT, especially relating to the use of accents in BLP titles (with possible connexion to the previous point).
- Deliberate misrepresentation of past communication and edit histories.
- Edit warring and acting in bad faith.
This list is by no means exhaustive. It is just the main points from this current thread and this previous thread. In both discussions, various santions have been suggested, and have not found consensus. This failure to find consensus has been misconstrued by Dolovis as giving legitimacy to his actions. (For example, shortly after the BLP discussion fizzled out. Dolovis carried on in the manner that had caused his conduct to be brought to WP:AN/I). However, it is clear that Dolovis's conduct has annoyed many users and has fallen below the standard that we expect on Wikipedia. I do not propose any sanctions against Dolovis. I mealy propose a "motion of no confidence".
By supporting this motion you would be giving a clear sign to Dolovis that his behaviour and conduct fall below the standard that is expected of an experienced and supposedly well meaning editor, and that you expect Dolovis to improve his conduct and to work with the community to further improve the project.
- Support − I forward the motion as outlined above. — Fly by Night (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment What's the point of this? Start a RFC/U, that'd be more productive than this meaningless "motion". --Blackmane (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- RFC and productive? What is remotely productive about a non-binding process that carries on for a month or two and that the subject of can utterly ignore?--Crossmr (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Right, but what good is a "motion of no confidence" that has even less meaning? Not only is it non-valid in Wikipedia, it's not even phrased appropriately. If someone thinks this is trouble enough, and RFC hasn't worked, then it's off to ArbCom ... a useless more-heat-than-light motion solves nothing. Dolvis clearly will not change his style (which appears to be what is wanted by some) without forcing it, and a silly motion won't do it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- The point is clear: the lack of consensus for direct sanctions is being interpreted by Dolovis as the community condoning his conduct. Hopefully if he see that this isn't the case then he will change his ways. It's a bit unfair to call it "silly". If you've got a better idea then please, lead the way. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Pretty sure I already gave my better idea in my original post ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- The point is clear: the lack of consensus for direct sanctions is being interpreted by Dolovis as the community condoning his conduct. Hopefully if he see that this isn't the case then he will change his ways. It's a bit unfair to call it "silly". If you've got a better idea then please, lead the way. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Right, but what good is a "motion of no confidence" that has even less meaning? Not only is it non-valid in Wikipedia, it's not even phrased appropriately. If someone thinks this is trouble enough, and RFC hasn't worked, then it's off to ArbCom ... a useless more-heat-than-light motion solves nothing. Dolvis clearly will not change his style (which appears to be what is wanted by some) without forcing it, and a silly motion won't do it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support – Frankly, I'm baffled that so many editors oppose the page move ban suggested above. It seems that several of them have not informed themselves properly, and believe this is about punishing an editor for having the "wrong" views. It is not. This ANI is not about the use of diacritics – it is about user behavior. And a ban would not last forever. It would serve as a warning, so it's not the end of the world for Dolovis. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sadly it was the same with the last case at AN/I about the BLPs. It was clear that some people had just read the last three posts and then commented. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's what you get when you bring long, complicated user conduct problems to ANI. RfC has its flaws (a great many of them), but for long-term user conduct problems it's the best we've got except Arbcom. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have never brought any issue to AN/I. Both threads were initiated by others. It's the responsibility of people commenting to be fully informed. There is no reason to believe that people would read the thread in any more detail if it were posted elsewhere. The length of the thread is a reflection of the problems left in its wake − big stones make big ripples. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's what you get when you bring long, complicated user conduct problems to ANI. RfC has its flaws (a great many of them), but for long-term user conduct problems it's the best we've got except Arbcom. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sadly it was the same with the last case at AN/I about the BLPs. It was clear that some people had just read the last three posts and then commented. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Meaningless proposal. If anyone here wants to advise Dolovis that they disapprove of his contributions they can do that on his talk page. If you want actual injunctive relief, dispute resolution is the way to go. See WP:RFC/U or WP:ARBCOM. Regards, causa sui (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- A simple and straight forward question: do you think Dolovis' behavior – as accounted for above – is ok? That is what the motion (and the page move ban proposal) is about. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I sincerely have no opinion. When an RFC/U is filed and the involved parties have each posted their statements I may consider forming one. Regards, causa sui (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- You demonstrate that you haven't read the links I gave. I, and many other people, have raised concerns on his talk page. But he refuses to do what is asked. I politely asked him twice to expand his BLPs, and he wouldn't. That's why people brought these two AN/I cases. He's been asked on his talk page, he's been asked on article talk pages, and he's been asked in two AN/Is. This is a text book example of why Wikipedia is broken. People can act like jerks all they want and when someone tries to do something about it, no-one will support them. 00:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- This has zero to do with support. It might seem like you've gone to City Hall and said "there a 40ft wide and 12' deep crater in the middle of Main Street" and they say "we can't do anything unless you fill out form T567P-1b in triplicate, thank you". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you "sincerely have no opinion", then why do you oppose? Are you trying do obstruct the ANI process? HandsomeFella (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- You must have read my mind. I was thinking exactly the same. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Such a motion is not within ANI process. It is not binding and has no action called for. I believe causa sui is opposing the filing of the motion but has no opinion with regards to the substance of the motion, however I may just be putting words in their mouth. --Blackmane (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- In that case, it should be labeled "comment", and not "oppose". HandsomeFella (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Such a motion is not within ANI process. It is not binding and has no action called for. I believe causa sui is opposing the filing of the motion but has no opinion with regards to the substance of the motion, however I may just be putting words in their mouth. --Blackmane (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- You must have read my mind. I was thinking exactly the same. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- You demonstrate that you haven't read the links I gave. I, and many other people, have raised concerns on his talk page. But he refuses to do what is asked. I politely asked him twice to expand his BLPs, and he wouldn't. That's why people brought these two AN/I cases. He's been asked on his talk page, he's been asked on article talk pages, and he's been asked in two AN/Is. This is a text book example of why Wikipedia is broken. People can act like jerks all they want and when someone tries to do something about it, no-one will support them. 00:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I sincerely have no opinion. When an RFC/U is filed and the involved parties have each posted their statements I may consider forming one. Regards, causa sui (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Beyond this meaningless edit warring over diatrics, Dolovis' accusers believe that he's in the wrong for creating a large number of articles that pass WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. If you believe they're in a sad state, expand them. I can't believe that an argument used against him is that he's been asked kindly to expand articles and didn't feel like it. dimaspivak (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- That really touches a nerve. Have you looked at his first 100+ BLPs? They all scraped through WP:NHOCKEY by the skin of their teeth. But NHOCKEY does not mean that they are notable, it means that they are presumably notable, i.e. not certain! In the first AN/I I linked to several BLPs that has been untouched (except for BLPPRODs) for over six weeks. He used a link to the same stat page to wriggle out of the BLPPRODS for multiple articles, i.e. one team's stat page for all of that team's players' BLPs. After being asked by many editors (even people that had previously supported him) to expand them, he refused. His attitude was the thing that has annoyed so many people. If it was due to inexperience or lack of know-how then that would be different. But he knows exactly what he's doing; or more aptly: what he's not doing. When I suggested a merge per Rationale 3 he objected saying that they will be expanded. But hang-on, he refuses to expand them, he has articles over six (now over eight) weeks old that haven't been expanded. Who's going to expand them if the creator can't even be bothered? — Fly by Night (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I looked through a number of them and they're clearly stubs describing professional hockey players in the highest leagues in Europe. If the fact that the pages have little more than player statistics bothers you, go ahead and contribute to them. As far as I see it, Dolovis has no obligation to continually maintain and expand a page just because he created it. On the contrary, I see the benefit of what he does; if I were a fan looking to add information about a player, I'd be much less likely if I had to go through the trouble of creating a new page and adding infoboxes on my own. Merging pages of hockey players is, in my estimation, not in the spirit of Rationale 3 as the players, while part of a team at the time of writing, are often traded and have varying amounts of information available about themselves. As such, simply merging them would mean an unnecessary amount of maintenance of redirects and long articles when the alternative is just to have stubs. As an outside observer, I also wonder why you and a number of others take it personally that an editor creates a lot of pages that are light on details. Sure, I'd love if every article contained as much information as that found in the typical NHL players', but who is being harmed here?dimaspivak (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- That really touches a nerve. Have you looked at his first 100+ BLPs? They all scraped through WP:NHOCKEY by the skin of their teeth. But NHOCKEY does not mean that they are notable, it means that they are presumably notable, i.e. not certain! In the first AN/I I linked to several BLPs that has been untouched (except for BLPPRODs) for over six weeks. He used a link to the same stat page to wriggle out of the BLPPRODS for multiple articles, i.e. one team's stat page for all of that team's players' BLPs. After being asked by many editors (even people that had previously supported him) to expand them, he refused. His attitude was the thing that has annoyed so many people. If it was due to inexperience or lack of know-how then that would be different. But he knows exactly what he's doing; or more aptly: what he's not doing. When I suggested a merge per Rationale 3 he objected saying that they will be expanded. But hang-on, he refuses to expand them, he has articles over six (now over eight) weeks old that haven't been expanded. Who's going to expand them if the creator can't even be bothered? — Fly by Night (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
User: Δ / Betacommand violating community imposed sanctions
Everyone is encouraged to take a break from this discussion, and come back with a fresh new attitude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
User:Δ (formerly User:Betacommand) is under community imposed restrictions here. However, it appears he is habitually violating those restrictions. Specifically, this one:
Most recently, today, in the series of edits beginning: 2011-06-27 11:32-11:22 Previously: 2011-06-20 16:42-16:29 (where he went up to 51 edits in a ten minute period, and was warned here Before that: 2011-05-30T10:12:53Z, for which he was blocked for one week. And: 2011-05-18T11:25:23Z (where he went up to 95 edits in a ten minute period) And: 2011-05-18T08:52:24Z (up to 115 edits in a ten minute period) And: 2011-05-12T13:54:17 and so on and on (looks like at least daily sometime multiple times a day). Some of these seem to be in support of massive revert wars. At this point he seems to be ignoring warnings, or his friends are removing the warnings altogether. Either these sanctions should be removed or actually enforced. 64.217.182.58 (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
64.217, you appear to be unconnected with Delta. Could you explain how you come to make this post here today? Syrthiss (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Propose lifting of Δ sanctionsAs far as I can see, the edit count sanctions aren't serving much purpose except to give people a club to beat him over the head with and making a lot of work for people trying to micromanage someone else. Making lots of edits isn't in and of itself a sanctionable behavior for normal editors and while I know he has a background, I don't see anything wrong with what he's doing in particular. It's time to let this go and let the hounding end. If he engages in truly disruptive behavior then just reinstitute the full ban and leave it at that. This half-measures stuff is causing more trouble than it's worth and the ones complaining about him based on technical evidence seems more disruptive to me than Δ himself does. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
GiantSnowman 20:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Propose Delta NFCC notification bot
Propose suspending Δ sanctionsThis proposal is the same as proposed above, except that instead of lifting the sanctions, we lift it temporarily until September 1. Until that time, the sanctions are not valid and Δ will be treated like any other editor. Then on September 1, we discuss here if the sanctions can be lifted, should be reinstated, or if we should let the suspension stand and re-evaluate the situation again some time later. Count Iblis (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Can we request a stopPending consensus on whether Delta's entitled to embark on this latest mass deletion effort? He's made at least 720 edits in the last 12 hours[11] and judging from a sample size of one that showed up on my watch list[12][13] (those logos aren't copyrighted, despite the tag) he's generating a high error rate. I see he's templating the regulars with block warnings using what appears may be an automated tool[14], edit warring,[15] and being generally unhelpful and unfriendly[16] over image rationales with obvious flaws that should have just been fixed.[17] Moreover, nearly all of the images he's removing are perfectly valid uses here but simply have flaws or missing information in their use rationale templates, a technical shortcoming that deserves a technical fix. This is nearly the exact scenario that played out a few years ago all over the encyclopedia and that led indirectly to his current restrictions. Whether it's a bot, or cut and paste, one edit a minute or ten, mass edits + poor judgment + lack of communication = damage to the encyclopedia. Could we at least ask Delta to stop until we see if he has consensus, and perhaps steer him in a more productive direction for fixing these image rationales? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Propose topic ban
Proposed topic ban has serious problems; no evidenceIn the proposal by Georgewilliamherbert, he indicated that the reason for the topic ban is because the work being done is raising objections, tension, causing drama, and there are significant errors. The problem here is many fold; (1) no errors have been identified (other than page moves, which is refuted) (2) No effort's been made to identify how Δ actually induced tension/drama/objections. With this in mind, the very same proposal could be made against anyone who conducts this sort of work. With no factual evidence to support the topic ban, it has no validity. This is a massive case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Stopping Δ will not stop all the other editors who are doing the exact same work. It's time for the next step in WP:DR if you want a topic ban, so at least SOME idea of providing actual evidence to support positions can be pursued. As is, this topic ban is void on the face of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Propose alternative 'ban'
I would like to urge the community to come up with a process to, collaboratively, fix the articles which do not have a rationale. We may want to put some deadline on it to show that there is a collaborative effort still going on after three months.
Articles from those supporting a restriction on Delta being targeted by his friends for deletionI see that user:Black Kite, after posting about how he dislike for those who want to put restrictions on Delta has taken to rapid fire targeting article frequently edited people who supporting a restriction on Delta for removing images and nominating for deletion. I guess that will show us we are not allowed to voice out opinions on a proposal in the future! I consider myself targeted for intimidation. Great work Black Kite! Mathewignash (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Bigger issue? False claims of free licensingWhile liberal usage of non free images is an issue against the foundations aims and ambitions, it is a minor issue in relation to the false claiming of commons copyright and public domain pictures inserted to our project. Much more damage is done to the owners value of such pictures, a non free picture is at least honestly posted under a copyright of such, the issue there is only hair splitting about wikipedia's personal guidelines, - they are basically only our guidelines and either side of the line - a rationale is not very clear or missing, so add one, the wheels are not dropping off about it - the picture is correctly templated under a non free copyright template, this is so far away from the damage to someones product and property being falsely advertised as a free use picture or file for lengthy periods of time. There are thousands and thousands of other peoples property illegally uploaded without permission to the project and then republished through us as free to use/commons compatible when there is no evidence of permission or ownership at all - this is much much more serious for the project than weak application of fair use rationales. Rather than having all this disruption just go strengthen the non free use guidelines - one pic per article and only in direct relation to specific content and make it totally clear to users. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
|
A more community-oriented method of going forward
Delta has identify via a toolserver script the list of articles with images that lack explicit rationale for these pages, here [35]. I propose
- Make a template warning message to be added to image pages about the image lacking explicit rationale for page X, that places the images in a maintenance category, such as "Images lacking rationales for use on articles".
- Use AWB to take this list and place that template on these images.
- Make sure that this list is well broadcasted as a "Cleanup" area, possible using category intersection tools to try to get WIkiprojects aware of it.
- Set a deadline - let's say, by August 1, 2011
- Engage the community to clear out this list, recognizing that most are simple typos from malformed page moves or the like and takes maybe 5-10 seconds at most to do one image.
If this is accepted as a solution by the community, I would agree then that Delta should be prevented from removing NFCC images from articles that lack rationales during this period. Once that deadline has past, however, and images still remain, Delta (barring anything else) would be free to continue that task within impunity, possibly even pointing back to the community notification for this.
We also then can repopulate this list each month or so, but ideally the repopulated list should be very small after the initial batch. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Seeing that more people react when they see their pages edited, it is better to tag the article talkpages with 'this article uses non-free media with a missing (or broken) fair-use rationale.' - more people are watching the talkpages than the image description pages (which sometimes are only watched by the uploader, who is long-gone). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'd recommend both, then. A template ambox message on the image page (which categorizes it), a nice warning message to the image in question on the article talk page. I'm not seeing any single page with more than 2 or 3 hits in this fashion, so I'd not worry about spamming a talk page with multiple messages. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- And of course, the idea of putting the images in the category would mean there would be eyes on them even if the uploader is long gone. But I still support double warnings. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I like the idea of a template on the file description page. I don't know if we have the templates to cover all the situations, though. I was looking at Wikipedia:Template messages/File namespace for a template that pointed out a mismatch of the article title(s) in the rationale(s) and where it was actually being used. On the film-related side, two examples I saw were targeted because the article title was changed, though the topic was the same. A template like this would put the onus on others to correct the description and/or image placement. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- From Delta's list, all this are images that are used on page X that don't have mention of page X in their description. That could be a typo, a result of a page move, a missing rationale, or several other possibilities. All the templated warning needs to say is that "there is no explicit rationale for this image on this page, but it may be one of several easy-to-correct problems once identified". The image page tag gets the uploader (any watchers), the talk page message gets any watchers of the affected article, and the category broadly gets anyone else interested in resolving this necessary NFCC function. We probably do need to consider special cases (where there is no rationale to start and someone needs to create it, for one) and have extra templates/categories to drop those into if they don't already exist. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I like the idea of a template on the file description page. I don't know if we have the templates to cover all the situations, though. I was looking at Wikipedia:Template messages/File namespace for a template that pointed out a mismatch of the article title(s) in the rationale(s) and where it was actually being used. On the film-related side, two examples I saw were targeted because the article title was changed, though the topic was the same. A template like this would put the onus on others to correct the description and/or image placement. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I like this idea. Fixing non-free image issues is very important. and the key is FIXING. deletion is not fixing. I fully admit to doing very little with images ever on en.wikipedia, but the policy and issues here are very important. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fine as a general idea, and getting wikiprojects involved should help, but it might need to be carefully throttled to ensure that there isn't such an avalanche of cleanup tags that they overwhelm the community's ability to process them, resulting in mass removal when the deadline passes. Start slow, see how that goes, then do more on the next run. Rd232 public talk 19:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- The idea would start that the community as a whole would be informed this was happening; tags would be placed en masse; and then 4-6 wks or one month is given for everyone to fix them. The size of the list is management if there's, say, a few hundred editors doing a couple of projects they are involved in and a dozen or so editors dealing with the leftovers, along with the number of editors on this thread alone that likely don't want to see any valid non-free images removed for trivial reasons, that we shouldn't have any mass deletions at the end. (And I would be willing to make the deadline flexible if we're clearly making progress three). The idea is that hopefully by the end we will have instituted a new monthly process that would be a standard cleanup process aided by a bot to tag such images. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Rationale repair
Ive got functional Disabig repair code that Ive been manually reviewing and fixing, that works fairly well. If people want, get the ball rolling and I can convert this into a bot so that it can be done large scale. ΔT The only constant 00:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Any chance we can dial down the hyperbole from both sides of this issue?
The amount of dramatic overstatement being employed in this discussion is considerable, and it would useful, I think, if everyone toned it down several notches. The claims made by both sides of damages done, good faith not assumed, conspiracy among like-minded editors, and danger to the project have been vastly overblown, to the point that the discussion has become very toxic and unhelpful.
Could everyone please take several giant steps back and calm down a bit? Here in the States it's holiday weekend, and I'm sure there are good summery things to do elsewhere in the northern hemisphers, and good books to read or films and TV shows to catch in the south. Why not take a break, do something fun, clear your minds, and come back with a fresh attitude? It couldn't hurt, and it might help.
To encourage everyone to do so, I'm going to hat the entire discussion above. I won't revert any unhatting, but maybe it would be best to let it sit for a while. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion and I'm only reading the page because I posted a topic later on, but isn't this a no-brainer? The user was under restrictions and violated them. If Delta felt he/she had a serious reason to break the sanctions, the way to go would have been to ask here, or on the parent page, if it was okay. Unilaterally breaking the sanctions is just.... wrong! Maybe as a n00b I'm being naive, but the levels of nonsense in this discussion is almost suffocating. Absconded Northerner (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think you have your information out of context. The few recent cases with violating the edit throttle where not on purpose, in fact I have been trying to pay fairly close attention to it, however I have slipped a few times and exceeded the throttle. Not by that much, but I did exceed it. However there is a small vocal group that does not like my actions and tries to take every opportunity they can to stop me from doing NFC enforcement (according to policy). ΔT The only constant 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Like today, for example: 2011-07-02 04:50-04:31. Up to 55 edits.... 75.23.46.157 (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Those seem to be rote edits as well, but they were to fix rationales for pages that had been moved for disambiguation rather than to remove images. Most who objected to the earlier removals would probably approve of these edits. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Like today, for example: 2011-07-02 04:50-04:31. Up to 55 edits.... 75.23.46.157 (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think you have your information out of context. The few recent cases with violating the edit throttle where not on purpose, in fact I have been trying to pay fairly close attention to it, however I have slipped a few times and exceeded the throttle. Not by that much, but I did exceed it. However there is a small vocal group that does not like my actions and tries to take every opportunity they can to stop me from doing NFC enforcement (according to policy). ΔT The only constant 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's a great sentiment, but trying to jam closed several open discussions, including an open proposal where a majority currently support topic banning Delta isn't very helpful at this point and doesn't really help matters.--Crossmr (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
An uninvolved admin needs to go through and close these proposals
With Ken being involved in the discussions it's already inappropriate for him to be closing them regardless of the reason. While hatting isn't closing, it's more or less the same. There were several open discussions there, including 3 proposals. An uninvolved admin needs to actually go through and close those various proposals appropriately. Otherwise we're just telling the 60-80 people who took part in this discussion, thanks for hashing this out for 5 days we're just going to pretend it didn't happen.--Crossmr (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- My involvement was minimal, limited to !voting in various proposals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- You were still involved with stating a position in the debate. This precludes you from closing the debate.--Crossmr (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I did not "close the debate", I suggested that everyone take a breather, step back and regain perspective. Things had gone over the top, and any hope of a productive dialogue between disparate opinions was being sunk by people taking hard-line positions. I trust that we're all here because we want the best for the project, but we're unlikely to reach a consensus one way or the other if each side keeps forcing the other into taking the most extreme position possible. It was (and remains) my opinion that everyone needs to back off, do something else, then return to the discussion with, I would hope, some new thoughts and a new perspective. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- You were still involved with stating a position in the debate. This precludes you from closing the debate.--Crossmr (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- My involvement was minimal, limited to !voting in various proposals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- The discussions need to be either reopened or evaluated. The question is not whether the community will chill or not, it is whether Delta will be restricted or not. A simple yes/no question that can be answered by looking into the discussion. —Kusma (t·c) 04:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree that we "wasted" that time. Several points have been made clear from both sides that I think point to that numerous editors do not want to see Delta engaging in mechanical edits for NFCC even though this NFCC patrolling is mandated by the Foundation; the disagreement is if that restriction needs to be a block or simply offloading the task, or requiring him to do something more. Since we still have to correct those, the community needs to be handling this better. My suggestion above about a community effort to fix the list is one proposal that needs to be discussed more. I'm sure there's a few bot ideas that came up to handle bad page moves that break images, etc. --MASEM (t) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- It wastes our time in that we won't get an administrative close and possible enforcement of the proposals. From my quick !count, the proposal to lift the sanctions was split 50/50 while there was basically no support to lift them for a limited time. The proposal to ban him from NFCC was being supported 60/40. I've gone out and lead by example with how to do it a better way. Those who feel the need to do NFCC work are capable of going about it exactly the same way as I have an improving articles, the project and the image of NFCC. But again, the NFCC issues are separate from Delta's behaviour issues which is what we're discussing here.--Crossmr (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- !vote, and in such a case, I would think any non-involved admin would avoid any other decision besides "no consensus" with numbers that close. Which is why we can't get hung up on the resolution on Delta, but instead look to get the community involved to avoid anything else in the future. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- And to one more point, NFCC issues are central to this because there is no other policy besides BLP that allows for the types of editing that Delta was doing, free of 3RR and acting in a mechanical manner; if Delta was doing exactly the same types of edits over something like, say, WP:MOS or WP:V, he'd have been banned in a heartbeat (and I wouldn't be able to support him). If the fact that general NFCC edits are exempted from the manner in which other policies are handled that is causing people to dislike the editing actions Delta does, its part of the problem, and people need to suggest change that policy to avoid the taint that Delta has brought upon that. It's not the only problem, but you cannot ignore that its core to the overall issue, and there's other places to discuss how to improve it for the better from this. --MASEM (t) 06:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- *claps for Crossmr for finally coming close to achieving his wiki-goal* (And 56/44 is not 60/40). Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- It wastes our time in that we won't get an administrative close and possible enforcement of the proposals. From my quick !count, the proposal to lift the sanctions was split 50/50 while there was basically no support to lift them for a limited time. The proposal to ban him from NFCC was being supported 60/40. I've gone out and lead by example with how to do it a better way. Those who feel the need to do NFCC work are capable of going about it exactly the same way as I have an improving articles, the project and the image of NFCC. But again, the NFCC issues are separate from Delta's behaviour issues which is what we're discussing here.--Crossmr (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikilove
HI folks,
Just an FYI/heads-up so that you're ready. The tech team just informed me that they intend to fully deploy Wikilove (see this blog post for more information) to logged in users of the English Wikipedia on Thursday. You can imagine, we expect there to be some minor abuses of this tool... they're working on using the bad image list to handle some of that but some of our folks are... ahem, "creative"... and I suppose we'll see some unexpected use. You might keep your eyes open, and treat them as you usually would treat inappropriate comments. :-)
Best,
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nifty! Thanks for the heads up, Philippe. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wikilove? How did y'all find out about me and the Lady? Drmies (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- For those who aren't aware, it will be implemented starting 29 June. Hopefully, it will rekindle some appreciation toward those editors who normally go unnoticed or underappreciated, and keep them motivated towards making the encyclopedia better (which I think a few of us could do a better job of appreciating others' efforts, myself included). –MuZemike 01:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- @Drmies. It's seems that their are no secrets on wiki anymore. Perhaps it was leaked over at WR in "da emails"? ... :P — Ched : ? 01:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm flattered--if indeed my indiscretions (I am also still pregnant with Moonriddengirl's child) are discussed at such high levels. Thanks for the thought, Ched! Drmies (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- @Drmies. It's seems that their are no secrets on wiki anymore. Perhaps it was leaked over at WR in "da emails"? ... :P — Ched : ? 01:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- This touchy-feely stuff cannot possibly be for real. Is this story from The Onion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- As offensive as templating regulars? Place your esteem tokens in my one armed bandit of random reactions to inappropriate, unwarranted and unesteemed praise. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ewww. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is a nifty and adorable idea. When do we deploy Wikihate? Or Wikimeh, for those situations when it's difficult to work out whether someone's being a jackass or a saint? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
There's a time and a place for features that don't really add to the experience. I guess this is the Facebooking of Wikipedia. Having to edit raw text in a window like this instead of a realtime, rich editor? How's that a great experience? Its sad to see when Internet companies get sidetracked trying to compete on style when a lot of times substance is the real desire. Look at all the horrible Myspace pages there were. Not much style there, but it filled a niche that people wanted. Easy editing of a web-based presence. -- Avanu (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wikimeh. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
So, this is one of those idiotic nifty new features the developers have come up with, that we have to choose to go opt out of instead of choosing to opt into? And, how much will this slow down and screw up the servers like happened a few months ago when we were all automatically enrolled in the "email me when someone posts on my talk" feature. Makes me contemplate a month long wikibreak just to avoid that hassle again.Heiro 03:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
When will the Wikihate button be rolled out? Malleus Fatuorum 04:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hate Here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Praising other's edits by clicking on a button and dropping a template is indeed about as deep as clicking "like" on Facebook--a hollow act producing a formulaic compliment (even if they can be tweaked whimsically) that requires no investment and is therefore meaningless. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal interaction does a lot to get people into things. The experiences of working with Mila on a waterdrop photo, RexxS on a table, FS on an image mod, or Counting Crows fellow on footnotes were very positive and led to more interaction. Mostly to my benefit, but they've had fun too. I think that bright orange bar does more than anything else to draw people into working together. But you have to have a personalized message with like thoughts and stuff afterwards. I mean, I'm a newbie so I still like barnies and all (don't stop) and I never got a welcome plate of cookies. But, honest, the interaction with shmartiepants people like Wehwalt and Malleus is more exciting than some random love icon.
P.s. Of course this could be a total "doh" moment if the Wikilove thing is not what I think it is, but I'm worried, it will be lame.)
P.s.s. I claim priority on having the first friending system here at Wiki.
- I've test driven the system; it's fun. It's not a random love icon, but rather a tool to simplify users placing barnstars or friendly graphic-laden notes on the talk pages of other users when they choose to do so. There are preloaded image options or you can substitute your own. People who are not the type to attract cookies to begin with are probably not likely to see much difference with the tool, unless their friends enjoy tweaking their noses. :) Deep interaction? Not inherently, no, but likely to be pleasing to some and harmless if taken in moderation. :D (Just the thing, Drmies, for decorating a nursery.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- We have editors that need a simpler tool to be able to place barnstars on another contributors page...? Perhaps it is best, then, that we distract them from the content pages with these frivolities. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think you forgot to harumph. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- We have editors that need a simpler tool to be able to place barnstars on another contributors page...? Perhaps it is best, then, that we distract them from the content pages with these frivolities. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. A well intentioned idea that somehow manages to be implemented in a way that is inappropriate, unsettling, unattractive, juvenile, condescending and counterproductive all at the same time. Is this a first for Wikipedia ? And when does the 2011 Fundraising Appeal start ? Gandalf61 (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Goodness, why not (speaking to the grumpy ones here)? Our most widely used automated tools are for slapping new users with 6 levels of warnings for about 25 possible violations of Wikipedia policies. A tool that's used for expressing appreciation? Gasp! zOMG! Could this be a threat to the Grumpy Old Boy's Club on Wikipedia? Probably not, but one can hope.... First Light (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm more irritated by the fact that every time they roll out one of these myspacey/facebookie things, they default include everyone. I would not have even known about this if not for this thread, as I don't usually follow the developers or village pump. As I mentioned above, the last time they rolled out a new function like this, it caused serious server lag for almost a month, made it difficult to edit, and caused a lot of scratched heads as the vast majority of us did not know what was going on. I suspect the same thing will start happening again in a few days. Ands speaking of the Old Boys club, does anyone know if this is supposed to be one of the new ways of attracting more female editors?Heiro 15:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Does this mean Esperanaza is coming back? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Discussion like this was probably good inspiration for this essay. --causa sui (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is intended to have us shove barnstars or other stuff down others throats (especially if they didn't deserve it). I mean, I know I can do a better job myself in showing recognition to those editors who do the right things. Perhaps I'm just saying to give it a chance and see what results from it. I really don't see how this can hurt the editorship of the encyclopedia or likewise move us any closer to re-establishing Esperanza (as one pointed out above, and also where "WikiLove" originally came from). –MuZemike 18:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Quick, better check "exclude me from feature experiments" in your preferences. If it actually does anything. MER-C 02:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- The WikiLove deployment will respect that user preference, i.e., if it is checked, you will have to opt-in to use WikiLove.--Eloquence* 18:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't Twinkle-style automation of things like barnstars defeat the point a little bit? A barnstar is as close to a pat on the back as one can get on the Internet, and this feels a bit like an automated back-patter. That one has to manually edit the page and paste the code is part of its charm. However, I can see some merit in the other wikilove templates, especially having a consolidated list of WikiBooze templates (which I suppose would be handy if you're WikiDrunk!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I thought I was the cynical one. Adding some positive stuff to talk pages is something to be worried about? Wow. The foundation realizes that it needs to adapt to stay relevant. I disagree with the foundation on many things but this isn't one of them. If anyone else here actually took the survey (wasn't it only like 5k or did I read it wrong?) you would see that the goal is to make radical changes. They will end up ticking most editors off and a fuzzy kitten or a tasty looking beer are the actual good things. But if you really want to fix the problem: get rid of templates to address the BITE issue. If you think that sounds ridiculous you should hear my idea to get more female editors. Cptnono (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- So what is your idea for attracting female editors? Pure curiosity. Annatalk 03:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)Shouldn't this be at the community portal or the administrator noticeboard, this is for incidents. Well, its deployed. I would like to be able to opt-out though. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 23:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I consider the deployment an incident. You can opt out of "showing WikiLove" (i.e. display of the obnoxious heart symbol) by unchecking the box under My preferences -> Editing -> Labs features. If you want to make it clear that you don't want to become the victim of "WikiLove" you can use my userbox, for example (see below), but there is no way to really prevent it. Hans Adler 23:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Great April Fools' Day contribution, only 3 months late
Wow. This is a great April Fools Day joke, but why couldn't you wait another 9 months? Making it easier to leave impersonal, semi-automated messages with intimate/sexual overtones. And there is a setting for not using this option, but no setting for preventing to be WikiRaped that way. And of course the selling point is that supposedly it will make Wikipedia a more welcoming kindergarten brothel collaborative encyclopedia. Hans Adler 21:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, it's a very versatile "tool" that can even be used for autoeroticism.
- On a more serious note, I can understand why strategic attempts at improving our communication habits are not discussed widely before experimental implementation, but if you want to prepare such things sneakily you really need to think things through to make up for the lack of community vetting. Hans Adler 21:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Some other reactions above look as if there might be more general interest in my new userbox {{User:Hans Adler/No WikiRape}} {{User:Hans Adler/No WikiLove}}. Hans Adler 22:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC) [edited after rename]
- While I may be being a humourless curmudgeon here, I'd like to see the word "rape" thrown around a bit less casually, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good point. In my defence, I couldn't help reading some of the recently leaked Arbcom emails, and as a result wasn't merely pissed that the childish "barnstar" rubbish is getting official status now – but this "WikiLove" stuff also reminded me of the behaviour of the creepy predator/stalker who features in one of those threads. Hans Adler 06:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- While I may be being a humourless curmudgeon here, I'd like to see the word "rape" thrown around a bit less casually, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Any chance of moving it to a title less likely to cause offense, then? You know you'll be asked to do it eventually, so better sooner than later for the sake of dramavoidance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Hans Adler 10:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I wonder how often we'll see "make WikiLove, not edit war" on WP:AN3. -- Atama頭 16:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Hans Adler 10:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Any chance of moving it to a title less likely to cause offense, then? You know you'll be asked to do it eventually, so better sooner than later for the sake of dramavoidance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it's nice to check in and see that Wikipedia has decided to answer the question of whether it's an MMPORG or a social networking site in the affirmative... to both. Should do wonders for attracting and retaining teenagers and adolescents, the lifeblood of the enterprise.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
RFC?
As there seems to be a little resistance to this tool can we run this thourgh the RFC to gain community consensus on whether to deploy this tool or not? Clearly any fairly major interface changes need to be approved by the editing community at large before deployment - especially if controversial. --Errant (chat!) 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- WMF is not likely to care about an RFC for a feature which hasn't even been deployed yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Uh...go to a user talk page and look up there ↑ by the star for watching a page...it has been deployed. Tex (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- And for that, you get... a barnstar! It is quite a nifty little gadget and very easy to use. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- TBH the only objection I have to it is the name is puke worthy and it is misrepresented as something to increase editor retention (which any seasoned vet knows comes nowhere near the issue). But it seems this is controversial - and I agree the current implementation (the heart and the terminology is "Facebook like"). --Errant (chat!) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- In case you guys are interested, you may want to know that pretty much everything about the extension is configurable on-wiki (by editing MediaWiki:WikiLove.js). If en.wiki doesn't like Kittens, you can replace them with bags of coal or whatever. You can even change the heart icon to something different if you like. It's totally up to the consensus of the community as to how you actually want to use this tool. (You can also configure it personally in your vector.js or monobook.js.) Wouldn't it be more useful to start an RFC on what changes you want to make to WikiLove? Unlike most interface features, you don't actually have to ask the developers to implement any changes. Any admin can do it locally. The configuration documentation for the extension is somewhat minimal right now, but I will be expanding it significantly over the next few days. Just let me know if you have any questions about it in the meantime. This is supposed to be a tool for the community to own and use however they want. If you want to replace the Food and drinks with WikiProject invitation templates or whatever, that's fine with the Foundation. I think the only thing the Foundation would object to is replacing all the items with warning templates. Kaldari (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the entire idea is silly. It's very easy to annoy someone by templating them with a warning message. Making someone feel welcome by templating them is much harder to achieve. I, for example, feel offended when I get such silliness. If it comes from someone I haven't seen before, then I'd wonder if it's a sockpuppet trying to brown nose me or someone who genuinely feels thankful for something or other and seriously thinks it's appropriate to show this by templating rather than writing a personal message. If it comes from someone I know well it would be even worse.
- This project is full of people who are semi-literate in the sense that they don't really like reading or writing more than a sentence or two, and prefer templating and reverting. By offering these silly new templates you are pushing things even further in that direction. I cannot believe that the kind of people who think it is socially acceptable to leave automated "kittens" and "barnstars" on other people's talk pages are more likely to contribute well-written text to the encyclopedia than those who don't want to be associated with this infantility. In fact I expect the opposite.
- Whenever a bureaucracy makes up a target such as "make the editor community grow again" there is the danger that one then tries to optimise a single parameter without keeping the others in mind. I am not sure why we need growth in the first place as we are moving from construction of the encyclopedia towards maintenance mode. But if we do need growth, then we need growth by encyclopedia writers, not by naive social networkers who can be pleased with the push of a button. It's true that this project has too much negativity, but that cannot be balanced with feel-good superficiality. Hans Adler 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hans Adler is correct in most of his points, this seems geared to the social networking happy-talk crowd, when what we really need to attract are the writers, researchers, copyeditors and photographers of each oncoming generation, and, at the same time, to make things better for those who do those tasks now, so we don't lose them from burn-out and disinclination to participate any longer. Those kind of people aren't going to come here because of WikiLove, they're more likely to be repulsed by it.
Personally, I don't object to people expressing to me their appreciation in whatever form it comes, but a sincere "Thank you" is just as good, and appreciated just as much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Precisely. Template the experts with kittens often enough and they will probably leave. —Kusma (t·c) 08:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hans is correct. A couple of years of kittening each other will change the community from here to write the encyclopedia to here to socialize, and discussions about issues will resolved on the basis of I like it. What editors need is a light-weight mechanism that stops unhelpful behavior before the people concerned learn bad habits, not cute decorations. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hans Adler is correct in most of his points, this seems geared to the social networking happy-talk crowd, when what we really need to attract are the writers, researchers, copyeditors and photographers of each oncoming generation, and, at the same time, to make things better for those who do those tasks now, so we don't lose them from burn-out and disinclination to participate any longer. Those kind of people aren't going to come here because of WikiLove, they're more likely to be repulsed by it.
- I find the assumption that the next generation of "writers, researchers, copyeditors and photographers" will be put off by occasional kitten images amusing, given that the majority of the such people that I've encountered may even devote a whole day of their blogging to kitten pictures. (Of course, none of these people edit Wikipedia and often cite the unfriendly environment of crabby, entrenched editors as the reason.) The next generation—and I'm talking about the recently degreed, not the recently toilet trained—are social networkers. If you find this sort of thing unpleasant, you can put a message at the top of your talk page and tell any violators to get off your lawn. Danger (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there's social networking and then there's social networking. Certainly a generational change has occured which means that almost everyone will use social networking in the future, but there are those who live and die by it, and those who use it simply as a matter of course. There are already some number of people editing Wikipedia who appear to be here not to edit and improve the encyclopedia, but for whatever social interactions they can get out of it (limited though that may be), and we really don't need to encourage more to join, since what they contribute is essentially overhead and not content or logistical support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I sincerely doubt that the people you refer to are going to be abandoning Facebook for Wikipedia based on the creation of the WikiLove extension. I mean, Facebook has Farmville, which is far more entertaining than a kitten template or two. :) It is a matter of encouraging established editors to stay. How many prolific editors have we lost in the past 6 months because they've felt that their contributions are not appreciated–or actively denigrated? Danger (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you that retention of valuable editors is the more important problem to solve. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I sincerely doubt that the people you refer to are going to be abandoning Facebook for Wikipedia based on the creation of the WikiLove extension. I mean, Facebook has Farmville, which is far more entertaining than a kitten template or two. :) It is a matter of encouraging established editors to stay. How many prolific editors have we lost in the past 6 months because they've felt that their contributions are not appreciated–or actively denigrated? Danger (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there's social networking and then there's social networking. Certainly a generational change has occured which means that almost everyone will use social networking in the future, but there are those who live and die by it, and those who use it simply as a matter of course. There are already some number of people editing Wikipedia who appear to be here not to edit and improve the encyclopedia, but for whatever social interactions they can get out of it (limited though that may be), and we really don't need to encourage more to join, since what they contribute is essentially overhead and not content or logistical support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I find the assumption that the next generation of "writers, researchers, copyeditors and photographers" will be put off by occasional kitten images amusing, given that the majority of the such people that I've encountered may even devote a whole day of their blogging to kitten pictures. (Of course, none of these people edit Wikipedia and often cite the unfriendly environment of crabby, entrenched editors as the reason.) The next generation—and I'm talking about the recently degreed, not the recently toilet trained—are social networkers. If you find this sort of thing unpleasant, you can put a message at the top of your talk page and tell any violators to get off your lawn. Danger (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- It might be a smidgen more useful if the "create your own" feature actually worked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The best reward I get on Wikipedia is when I'm told my work is appreciated. Just about every time that's happened, it's been with plain text and a custom message. When it takes actual thought and effort to thank me, that's when it counts. That's also why I always leave custom messages, even when I deploy barnstars. I've gone as far as to create custom stars and custom templates too (as anyone who voted at the FS main page proposal knows). Making "Thank you" into empty words is going to make Wikipedia worse, not better. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a stupid waste of space. Can someone post whatever javascript/css needs to go where to get rid of it at my usertalk? I'm using monobook. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Any chance of someone making an opt out for this ridiculous feature? I always thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, but I guess now it's Facebook. --B (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- How to disable WikiLove (it's in the editing prefs). Kaldari (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ummmm, this may be kinda obvious - but if you don't like it, don't use it! And you could always have a message or something at the top of your user talk page to say "No Automated WikiLove, please!" Personally, I'm open to kind comments and so on, no matter how many keystrokes they require - provided that I've deserved them :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a terrible idea, and Hans Adler is absolutely right. We seriously do NOT want to do anything to encourage the idea that being a Wikipedian is about distributing barnstars and cookies and pictures of fluffy kittens so that you can make "friends" who will send them to you and you can add to your trophy page. It's something to be able to turn it off, but I would support an RFC on the idea of opting out of it for the whole site. JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would certainly oppose any attempt to force others to opt out of it. Yes, this is social-networking-website-like. It's pretty far from ideal, but it's also a genuine attempt to make Wikipedia a less hostile, less contentious, and less fractious place to be. The intention is to foster a pleasant and collegial working environment.
Naturally, there will be problems. One expects the various factions (pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, ARS, etc.) to start awarding each other barnstars in a kind of circle jerk, and to use them as victory celebrations when a counterfactional editor gets sanctioned or topic-banned. One expects that there will be editors who find excuses to be offended when offered a small token of respect. And it is silly and facebook-like. But, we need to increase the number of positive interactions between editors, or at least, find some way to reduce the number of interactions that are negative and hostile. Particularly for newer editors.—S Marshall T/C 22:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- This seems more appropriate as a gadget than a MediaWiki extension. If we convert this to a gadget we can get rid of the stupid name and heart and more importantly, make it opt-in rather than opt-out/forced down our throats. (I'm highly allergic to cats.) MER-C 03:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Inappropriate use of a talk page while blocked?
I am concerned that the content here is inappropriate for a user talk page, for a number of reasons. The section consists exclusively of long, block quotations, copied-and-pasted from several sources. While I find this in itself dubious with regard to fair-use guidelines concerning text, what is potentially even more troubling is the fact that the content relates to a living person, and is essentially collected criticism of that particular individual. I am not convinced that the user's claim that the sources are reliable (although they are more or less opinion pieces) is a satisfactory rationale for using part of their talk page as a holding area for lengthy extracts, especially when the quotations are highly negative about the subject – the user page content guidelines state: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."
I believe that a user talk page is not the place to host this content, which presents multiple concerns pertaining to WP:BLP and WP:UPNO (and quite possibly WP:COPYVIO), and that, consequently, it should be removed. I would appreciate opinions from uninvolved users and administrators.
Context: Following a series of short-term blocks, PhanuelB (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has been indefinitely blocked since September 2010 for "Disruptive editing: Long-term SPA, WP:Battle mentality, WP:NPA)". Their talk page access, revoked in January 2011, has recently been restored to allow for further discussion. However, since returning to Wikipedia, the user has indicated little or no understanding of the reasons behind their block, and their actions have amounted to a continuation of the behaviour that resulted in the block being imposed in the first place. In this comment, besides barely addressing the concerns that I had raised about content on their talk page, the user accused a blocking administrator of "false allegations", which have yet to be meaningfully substantiated. SuperMarioMan 05:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- My initial inclination is to cut the editor some slack on this point. The quotes, while on the long side compared to what we typically use in articles, thus pushing the boundaries of fair use, are not so long as to be a clear violation of fair use. They are clearly sourced, so there is no confusion on that point. They were added recently, so it is too early to claim he is "maintaining" such a list. It is titled as a list of reliable sources, so no one reading it is accidentally going to think it is a complete exegesis on the subject; I don't think the requirements of balance apply here. I realize this is a complicated situation, and I've only peered at the tip of the iceberg, but I don't feel this is the right next step.--SPhilbrickT 12:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is a single purpose account, existing only to try to plug a particular point of view regarding Murder of Meredith Kercher. The user repeatedly created user page forks of the article in user space in order to be able to have a version which would express the user's chosen point of view. These user space pages were deleted as results of deletion discussions: see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/sandbox and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. eventually the user was indefinitely blocked, as described above. The user then proceeded to create a similar page at User talk:PhanuelB, which, in the circumstances, was a clear abuse of the talk page, so I removed talk page access. Since then the user has carried on a campaign via email. I have received several emails, and I know that some other users have also been emailed. My own view is that the email campaign came close to constituting harassment, and that withdrawal of email access might be considered soon. However, I was approached by another user who had been emailed by PhanuelB. This user clearly also thought that PhanuelB's email campaign was becoming disruptive, but suggested restoring talk page access so that if PhanuelB thought that he/she had a reasonable case then he/she could have an opportunity to express it. The user also mentioned WP:ROPE. My own feeling was that PhanuelB had already been given plenty of opportunities to express a reasonable case, and had instead been belligerent and obstructive. Nevertheless, I agreed to restore talk page access to give PhanuelB one more chance. PhanuelB has proceeded to use their talk page to assemble material intended to justify their plugging of a point of view, rather than, as before, to create a POV fork of the article. The situation is therefore not identical to that before. I was approached on my talk page with concerns over this, but I was reluctant to act unilaterally, and instead suggested bringing the issue here to allow input from others. However, as I see it, PhanuelB is continuing to use Wikipedia to promote a campaign to publicise a particular point of view, and to try to get a Wikipedia article altered to reflect that point of view. PhanuelB has also conducted this campaign off-wiki (i.e., completely away from Wikipedia, in addition to the emails I have mentioned). Whether the particular way that the user talk page is being used as part of this campaign requires any action is, as I see it, the question at issue here. Finally, I should like to say that I have no opinion whatsoever as to the article which PhanuelB wants changed: my involvement has been entirely related to PhanuelB's use of user space in various forms. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I've blanked the section. This is clearly soapboxing, and given that the target is a living person there really isn't any alternative. — Coren (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- The editor in question seems to be compiling reliable sources which could be used on articles about the subjects at hands, topics which other editors have already identified as possiblying having some legs.
- On a different note, it may be time to review this editors' indefinite block. He was purged with a bunch of other editors for borderline violations of wikipedia policy as part of their attempt to restore order (or gain ownership) of a specific article. Several of the other indefinite blocks have already been reversed and identified as unjust or over-the-top...perhaps it's time to review this one, too.LedRush (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- As an administrator uninvolved in multiple disputes around the article in question, when I was asked to review the block (technically I was asked to "take a look at all of the illegitimate blocks", but that's neither here nor there) I agreed with the original block that was placed. Other administrators are welcome to review it and reach their own conclusions. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I too agree with the block. I also don't know in what sense the policy violations were "borderline". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I can't really find the discussion that led to his block, but from what I pieced together on the talk page, it seemed to be accusations of disruptive editing and violations of NPA and BLP. The examples I saw were pretty minor and/or wrong. Of course, if there is more to it than this, I could definitely be wrong.LedRush (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright violations? How is the use of quotes of a public figure from a news source a copyright violation? And it is not allowed to state things about living figures which may be deemed negative? Does that mean that an article such as this is a violation of WP rules? It seems like a lot of editors have been blocked over the MMK article which raises suspicion of vindictiveness. I personally find the strident tone of some of the editors on that page distasteful and it is hardly an example of neutral editing. As for "off Wiki campaigns" what is that supposed to mean? Are we only allowed to conduct our lives on WP? I agree that a review of this blocking is warranted. BTW the living individual in question, like the one I linked to, is and Italian prosecutor who has been convicted of abuse of office and has a pending sentence of about two years. Other negative aspects of this prosecutor have been well documented. Just in today's front page news in Corriere della Sera we have the following comment on the forensic science employed by this prosecutor's office: "International protocols of inspection, collection, and sampling were not followed [knife]. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells on the item [bra clasp]; There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile of the autosomic STRs; There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile relative to the Y chromosome;" In other words, not only did they not follow proper procedures, in the case of the bra clasp there was nothing there to begin with. Dougbremner (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I too agree with the block. I also don't know in what sense the policy violations were "borderline". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- As an administrator uninvolved in multiple disputes around the article in question, when I was asked to review the block (technically I was asked to "take a look at all of the illegitimate blocks", but that's neither here nor there) I agreed with the original block that was placed. Other administrators are welcome to review it and reach their own conclusions. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- The main question, as I have explained above, is whether stockpiling long, copied-and-pasted, negative quotations about a living person is appropriate for a Wikipedia user talk page. Your comparison to the Blagojevich article (an article rather than a user talk page) is therefore invalid. Copyright was not my main concern in filing this report. Soapboxing with compilations of third-party quotations is soapboxing nevertheless, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. SuperMarioMan 16:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is there evidence that he's stockpiling? They've been there for less than a couple of days. Also, several editors (yourself included?) accused him of making edits which violated BLP. His defense is that there aren't BLP violations, and the quotations are evidence.LedRush (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- The main question, as I have explained above, is whether stockpiling long, copied-and-pasted, negative quotations about a living person is appropriate for a Wikipedia user talk page. Your comparison to the Blagojevich article (an article rather than a user talk page) is therefore invalid. Copyright was not my main concern in filing this report. Soapboxing with compilations of third-party quotations is soapboxing nevertheless, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. SuperMarioMan 16:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Collecting", "compiling", "stockpiling" ... more a matter of semantics, if anything, but continually adding to the section, to me, seemed to be inappropriate. The user seems to be under the impression that a dispute resolution process is coming up, if I have read this response correctly. How the "evidence" will have a part to play in the said process is unclear, however. Their time would probably be better spent putting together an unblock request, rather than amassing a load of diffs that do nothing to refute the concerns that led to the block. SuperMarioMan 17:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I have followed this dispute on and off for some time and it seems to me that the content on the user’s talk page is an entirely reasonable attempt to present a detailed defense against a series of dubious allegations against him. As a matter of fact, he has been remarkably restrained in response to what seems to be a campaign of abuse and attempt to silence him. Certainly, this editor is seen to be biased on the subject of a certain contentious article. But no more so than the others who oppose him. It is no sin to be motivated by bias in an attempt to keep an article neutral and prevent an opposing bias from unfairly influencing it. It IS wrong to single out and target an editor with a differing opinion (SPA or not). What concerns me is the tactics that have been used to oppose this editor and others who have attempted to support him; including baiting users into attacks and apparently one-sided application of sanctions. While it may be difficult to prove, there is a definite perception that one or more biased admins may have used their powers to support one side by selectively interpreting and enforcing rules. (To prevent reprisals from these admins, I have chosen not to log in to make these comments, but for the information of anyone who examines the IP address, I make these observations as a private individual and NOT as a representative of the U.S. government.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.17.254 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- So, to return to the actual matter in hand - namely, how a user talk page has been used - could you perhaps explain how amassing lengthy quotations about a living person is related to composing "a detailed defense against a series of dubious allegations made against him"? SuperMarioMan 16:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Indef'ed SPAs should not be allowed to continue to use their userspace to soapbox in their topic area of interest. I think it is well time for a revocation of talk page access here. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- The above editor has not acted in a neutral fashion relative to the MMK page. For instance he accused another editor commenting on the current page of being a "liar". That is not cool. Dougbremner (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- As we see above, any editor who does not toe the Knox-is-innocent line is immediately set upon by all the other SPAs and declared to be "non-neutral", or when they're feeling less charitable, a "pro-guilter". This topic area needs a clean sweep, but for now, kicking one soapbox out from under one of these blocked editors would be a good thing. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- There should be some kind of moratorium on this subject until the the case is fully processed. There's a concerted effort by some editors to use wikipedia for advocacy, which is absolutely not what wikipedia is about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that the advocates owned the article for so long, that the resulting article has many POV problems ingrained in the structure. Since March, when the offending Admins and many of the offending editors left, the article and tone of discussion has gotten much better.LedRush (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Really. Just judging by the sheer amount of drama I see on your talkpage and that of a couple of other editors related to the article, as well as endless mutual accusations of uncivil posting on every noticeboard, I'd have thought otherwise. MLauba (Talk) 16:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, when you indef virtually all editors who disagree with your position, the talk-page may be civil, but it won't be constructive. Also, it engenders more anger by new editors (which you then need to indef...wash, rinse, repeat). The article (and talk page) has made vast strides since March, and I don't know that I've seen more than a couple of people disagree with that sentiment. Anyway, back on subject...LedRush (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Surely the first sentence in your reply is a hypothetical view of yours, right? Because if it's an accusation, I will have to ask to provide diffs demonstrating who indeffed whom for their views (as opposed for their conduct) or retract what amounts to a clear personal attack. Thanks. MLauba (Talk) 17:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Man, and people said I was too sensitive to personal attacks! The "you" above should read as "one". However, even if it didn't, it still wouldn't be a personal attack.LedRush (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- We all know perfectly well what blocking administrators you were meaning with your you / one, and you allege misconduct of one or several administrators, which, unless you can provide diffs, is indeed a personal attack. MLauba (Talk) 17:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Man, and people said I was too sensitive to personal attacks! The "you" above should read as "one". However, even if it didn't, it still wouldn't be a personal attack.LedRush (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Surely the first sentence in your reply is a hypothetical view of yours, right? Because if it's an accusation, I will have to ask to provide diffs demonstrating who indeffed whom for their views (as opposed for their conduct) or retract what amounts to a clear personal attack. Thanks. MLauba (Talk) 17:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, when you indef virtually all editors who disagree with your position, the talk-page may be civil, but it won't be constructive. Also, it engenders more anger by new editors (which you then need to indef...wash, rinse, repeat). The article (and talk page) has made vast strides since March, and I don't know that I've seen more than a couple of people disagree with that sentiment. Anyway, back on subject...LedRush (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Really. Just judging by the sheer amount of drama I see on your talkpage and that of a couple of other editors related to the article, as well as endless mutual accusations of uncivil posting on every noticeboard, I'd have thought otherwise. MLauba (Talk) 16:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that the advocates owned the article for so long, that the resulting article has many POV problems ingrained in the structure. Since March, when the offending Admins and many of the offending editors left, the article and tone of discussion has gotten much better.LedRush (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- There should be some kind of moratorium on this subject until the the case is fully processed. There's a concerted effort by some editors to use wikipedia for advocacy, which is absolutely not what wikipedia is about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- As we see above, any editor who does not toe the Knox-is-innocent line is immediately set upon by all the other SPAs and declared to be "non-neutral", or when they're feeling less charitable, a "pro-guilter". This topic area needs a clean sweep, but for now, kicking one soapbox out from under one of these blocked editors would be a good thing. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- The above editor has not acted in a neutral fashion relative to the MMK page. For instance he accused another editor commenting on the current page of being a "liar". That is not cool. Dougbremner (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
LedRush and the SPAs have been leveling that charge against Black Kite for months now, it's regrettably nothing new. What they fail to consider is that perhaps one "side" is simply incapable of conducting themselves maturely, while the other "side"...if simply wanting the article to reflect the reality of reliable sources, i.e. Knox is in prison for killing Kercher, though is appealing...can be considered a "side" is debatable. Myself, I am not for or against any player in this topic area, but like in other areas in the project, I am simply anti-fringePOV. Tarc (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I was going to say something along the lines that the article is less toxic these days because we now have editors pushing PhanuelB's POV who don't use a modus operandi of claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with them is somehow "pro-guilt", but I take that back now. LedRush is clearly the same as all the others. Like the others, he doesn't understand the concept that previous editors were indeffed for standard WP reasons - persistent incivility, battleground mentality, edit-warring, socking, using meatpuppets to stack votes, etc, etc. I thought he was better than that; clearly I was wrong. Yet again, I ask LedRush, the 152.x.x.x IP, or anyone else, to point out any time where myself, MLauba, John or any other admin who has acted administravely here has edited the article to favour one POV or the other. Here's a clue - you can't, because it hasn't happened. Either put up or shut up. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Everyone involved, including you, could do with being a bit more nice to each other. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Can you please point to an instance where I accuse you, MLauba, John or any other admin who has acted administravely here of having edited the article to favour of one POV or the other? Can you please point to an instance where I have indicated that anyone who disagrees with me is pro-guilt? This type of personal attack against editors who don't agree with you is exactly the problem on the article. I have often and consistently worked with editors who have been accused by others as being part of the "pro-guilt" group to fashion a better article, and I have consistently warned editors (yes, even ones that others accuse of being "pro-innocence") that they are being uncivil and that their edit requests do not conform to WP policy. Yet I am still the subject of this type of personal attack.
- There was a time on the article when editors would get indeffed after only one edit for behaviorial evidence of sock puppetry. Or editors would get indeffed for accusing a group of people as being "pro-guilt", while the same Admins accused a group of SPAs as being part of an advocacy camp. Other editors were blocked for borderline civility issues. Were all the blocks bad? No. The SPAs are often too aggressive and not mindful of WP policies. But that doesn't excuse certain actions, it explains them. Now that some of the more controversial Admins and editors have dialed it back, the article has been improved vastly since March (Will anyone argue seriously that the article in existence in February is better than the one today) and people who want to explain the controversy pursuant to WP policies are not dismissed out of hand. Some SPAs still don't get it, and they are blocked. Some established editors still attack newbies, and this is the subject of controversy. Personally, I don't believe calling attention to incivility or uneven handling of editor disputes should make me subject of even more personal attacks.
- Unforunately, once again, a subject which requires actual attention is being ignored...can we get back to the topic at hand?LedRush (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Above you ask "Can you please point to an instance where I accuse you, MLauba, John or any other admin who has acted administravely here of having edited the article to favour of one POV or the other?", yes? An hour previous to that, did you not say "Well, when you indef virtually all editors who disagree with your position..." ? Tarc (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Where in that do I accuse them of editing the article to favour one POV or the other? (answer - no where.) And I don't suppose you want to get back on the topic instead of trying to squeeze out some kind of "gotha" moment that doesn't exist?LedRush (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- You said, and I quote "Well, when you indef virtually all editors who disagree with your position..." - yet I, and the others have no position on this article other than NPOV. Frankly, I couldn't care less if Knox is guilty, innocent or a giant banana from the planet Zog - the only thing we are doing administratively is enforcing Wikipedia policies. Why is this so difficult for people to understand? Black Kite (t) (c) 22:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ledrush, you're engaging in some mighty fine hair-splitting here. Again, you said "when you indef virtually all editors who disagree with your position". You are being asked to specifically name a "you" who has done such a thing, or retract the statement. Do you understand? Tarc (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, I do not understand. If others want to misrepresent my views, and I ask them for examples, I think it is fair to ask based on what they (and I) actually said, not something imagined. Regardless, this off-topic sniping should stop. If you want to persist in this discussion, can I suggest your talk page or Black Kite's?LedRush (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Answer the question, or strike the comment. Apples or oranges, yin or yang, Coke or Pepsi, the Beatles or Elvis. You just have to pick one. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, I do not understand. If others want to misrepresent my views, and I ask them for examples, I think it is fair to ask based on what they (and I) actually said, not something imagined. Regardless, this off-topic sniping should stop. If you want to persist in this discussion, can I suggest your talk page or Black Kite's?LedRush (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Where in that do I accuse them of editing the article to favour one POV or the other? (answer - no where.) And I don't suppose you want to get back on the topic instead of trying to squeeze out some kind of "gotha" moment that doesn't exist?LedRush (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Above you ask "Can you please point to an instance where I accuse you, MLauba, John or any other admin who has acted administravely here of having edited the article to favour of one POV or the other?", yes? An hour previous to that, did you not say "Well, when you indef virtually all editors who disagree with your position..." ? Tarc (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- The following was written by PhanuelB on his talk page with the request that it be put here. Robert Skyhawk (T C) 20:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am currently blocked and unable to properly defend myself at a discussion at WP:ANI. I request that a neutral admin copy this content to that area.
- Black Kite writes:
- "Yet again, I ask LedRush, the 152.x.x.x IP, or anyone else, to point out any time where myself, MLauba, John or any other admin who has acted administravely here has edited the article to favour one POV or the other. Here's a clue - you can't, because it hasn't happened. Either put up or shut up. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)"
- Really? Jimbo Wales says here that there has been systematic exclusion of reliable sources. Look at the responses by Black Kite to my list of reliable sources on the Meredith Kercher topic. here. I have fully proven that Black Kite engaged in "systematic exclusion of reliable sources." False allegations of AGF and NPA were made against me for saying the same thing that Jimbo found when he came to the page.
- I have another idea. How about somebody go over and remove Black Kite's block of Gregmm. Let's see if he's a sockpuppet or not. What can it hurt to unblock him and see what happens. PhanuelB (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Gregmm has been unblocked.LedRush (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- By Black Kite, no less. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Calling editors "liars" (Tarc, MoMK talk page) and telling them to "shut up" (Black Kite) is a clear violation of WP:NPA and sniping at new editors as SPA is violation of WP Don't bite the newcomers. LedRush has been very patient with these blatant violations of WP policy. I don't think these editors, with MLauba, are acting in a fair way. I would like to return to the subject at hand, which was related to the repeated blocks of this editor. Dougbremner (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, for .... "Put up or shut up" is clearly saying "either validate your personal attacks with diffs or other proof, or stop making them". Have you actually looked at this in any detail? Myself and the other admins involved (and other non-admins as well) have had to waste huge amounts of our time with legions of SPAs, recruited off-wiki, whose only purpose is to slant this article to their POV. I'd suggest looking through the reams of previous ANIs before you start casting aspersions on people. As for the blocks of PhanuelB, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher may be a good place to start. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- They are quite right, Black Kite. Irrespective of what their editing patterns are, everyone should remain civil, including you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- So they are allowed to accuse me of administrative abuse, yet I am not allowed to ask them to validate those claims or stop making them? I've got a thick skin, but this is really starting to get ridiculous. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you are allowed to ask them to validate those claims. You are not allowed, however, to tell them to "shut up or put up". It's not what you're saying, it's how you're saying it. As an administrator, I know you are aware of this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- So they are allowed to accuse me of administrative abuse, yet I am not allowed to ask them to validate those claims or stop making them? I've got a thick skin, but this is really starting to get ridiculous. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- They are quite right, Black Kite. Irrespective of what their editing patterns are, everyone should remain civil, including you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, for .... "Put up or shut up" is clearly saying "either validate your personal attacks with diffs or other proof, or stop making them". Have you actually looked at this in any detail? Myself and the other admins involved (and other non-admins as well) have had to waste huge amounts of our time with legions of SPAs, recruited off-wiki, whose only purpose is to slant this article to their POV. I'd suggest looking through the reams of previous ANIs before you start casting aspersions on people. As for the blocks of PhanuelB, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher may be a good place to start. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Calling editors "liars" (Tarc, MoMK talk page) and telling them to "shut up" (Black Kite) is a clear violation of WP:NPA and sniping at new editors as SPA is violation of WP Don't bite the newcomers. LedRush has been very patient with these blatant violations of WP policy. I don't think these editors, with MLauba, are acting in a fair way. I would like to return to the subject at hand, which was related to the repeated blocks of this editor. Dougbremner (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- By Black Kite, no less. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Gregmm has been unblocked.LedRush (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I recommend placing {{NOINDEX|visible=yes}} on his talk page and any subpages and possibly allow the content he has been amassing in collapsed boxes (possibly on subpages). This will remove undue exposure.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've placed the noindex tag..so is it workable with the collapsed boxes?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Deskana, you're out of line. This motley collection of sock and meat puppets routinely screams "ABUSE!","you're incivil!", you're controlling the page!", etc... yet when invited to follow our procedures to deal with such things...dispute resolution, 3rd opinion, mediation, Wikiquette alerts...they specifically and emphatically refuse to do so. Instead, they just continue to drop in the same accusations whenever they post here or at the article talk page. Black Kite is wholly within his right to tell them to put up or shut up, and I have said the same thing to Ledrush once as well. You can't simply let people accuse, over and over and over, someone of doing something wrong. If they really think there is a wrong, take it to somewhere like WP:WQA so uninvolved editors can have a look. Tarc (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am not out of line, and it seems like Black Kite you are missing the point too. Civility does not stop being policy no matter who you are talking to, whether they are SPAs, sockpuppets, or banned users. I agree with everything that you and Black Kite have said, but how you are saying it is unacceptable. That is the point of the civility policy. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tarc, when you say "This motley collection of sock and meat puppets..", who exactly are you referring to? Oh I get it.. you're being ironic.. You're not attacking others, you're making a joke.. That's why these handful of 'neutral' admins aren't rushing to INDEF you like they have so many others over the last year for far lesser sins. Sorry, sly wit often doesnt translate well across the internet.. So back to the topic of PhanuelB..(Question to no one admin in particular) So put down all the flowery debate team language for a moment and let's talk man to man. What bothers you guys so much about PhanualB? What are you scared of? What do you care what he does with HIS SANDBOX so long as he's not changing your precious Meredith article? I remember him from last year.. I got indef'd for defending him.. He was passionate but I dont recall that he was ever as bitter, nasty or vengeful as some of you all have been at times. Why so much effort being put into blocking his/her voice ? So many admins working to keep his opinion out makes me think he must have something very important to say... tjholme Tjholme (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that must be it; disruptive, combative, tendentious editors aren't ever blocked for their disruptiveness, combativeness, or tendentiousness. No, it must be because such editors are dangerous revolutionaries whose message must be suppressed at all costs. By golly, why didn't I ever realize that before? Tarc (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thankyou, Tjholme, for ending your 3 month editing hiatus just in time to prove my point exactly. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Something I've asked for before on here that would be tremendously helpful on the talk page are a couple of uninvolved admins willing to watch the page soley for civility and call everyone when they slip up. The new editors often come in hostile and aggressive, boldly pointing out cabal's and proclaiming anyone that might possibly object to their view as "pro-guilt". There have been an extremely large number of SPA's that have been on that page, often using forum-type tactics and tone. From experience, once you get labeleing "pro-guilt", your hints, suggestions and warnings are ignored at best and deemed censorship and/or yet another example of the clique of experienced editors slapping down the little guy. Having a couple of admins that stay out of content and only focus on controlling the general tone would go a great deal towards helping. I've walked away for a few weeks from the article because I got damn sick and tired of constantly getting crap from a couple of editors and nobody calling them on it, save for the "pro-guilt" clique. Which gets ignored, derided or pointed to as an example of how The Truth is kept from he article. Until there are several admins willing to aggressively ride herd on that article, it will not change. Ravensfire (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Revensfire's suggestion about getting neutral admin to take a look, but I strongly contest his characterization of the talk page. Yes, SPAs and new editors often push too hard for their changes, don't demonstrate a full understanding of WP policy, and sometimes break civility issues. But what is surprising to me is that the "pro-guilt" editors (horrible name, I know) don't recognize their role in this. They are constantly condescending, insulting, bitey and agressive to the newer editors. Their frustration is understandable, but it should not be condoned. If new admins come in to police the talk page, I hope they do so with an even hand, and also with a mind towards understanding that not everyone is an experienced editor who knows all the rules (meaning polite and friendly warnings rather than knee-jerk blocks will be better for the long term health of the board). I would also hope that these admins would be able to recognize, and politely warn established editors from, the borderline uncivil needling aimed at the newer editors.LedRush (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ravensfire and LedRush, I already serve that role. I have been very careful to remain neutral with regards to article content on the talk page, and as I have not read the article and have no knowledge of the subject matter, I am free from bias. I agree that there should be more administrators with such a role on that talk page, but as we are all volunteers you may find it hard to fill such a position. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The talk page access is only kept for blocked users to allow them to discuss and appeal their block. Talk page access was already revoked, but lifted last week. I have now again removed talk page access. The user can appeal to ArbCom or other accepted unblock channels if they want to discuss an unblock, but until then, their contributions are not wanted on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Ignoring all the personal stuff
I would assume that everyone in this discussion would agree that the correct order for productive contribution to our encyclopedia is as follows:
- Get yourself unblocked
- Compile sources for use on articles
As such, does everyone agree that PhanuelB should, in principle, concentrate on getting himself unblocked before working on sources for the article in question? If so then we're done here, at least until PhanuelB actually requests an unblock. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- And that he will. He's requested an unblock to me through private channels before, and he's emailed quite a few other users though I can't speak to whether those emails were about getting unblocked or not. The evidence he has cited for his unblock has been checked by me before and I've agreed with the original blocking admin. Rather than admitting his mistake and vowing to change it, he insists he has done nothing wrong, which both the original blocking admin, JamesBWatson and I have disagreed with. There's nothing further to be accomplished by reviewing the blocks he's had placed on him for the nth time. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly. A blocked user (or any user) can compile all the info they want to, on their own PC, and save it for when (or if) they get unblocked. To post it on-wiki is defiant, and hence is self-defeating. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- PhanuelB has emailed me a few times in the last month or so - on one occasion requesting the blocks be reviewed. A few weeks later I did take a look at some of the blocks (including his) and agree the blocks were valid because the editors were a disruptive influence. Sadly, unless he can demonstrate an understanding that his previous behaviour was unacceptable and agree to work constructively on the article talk page (keeping his temper, discussing content and understanding that his POV may not always represent the neutral one) I see no reason an unblock can be granted.
- To that end; a blocked editor may only use his talk page for requesting or discussing an unblock - misuse of that privilege usually leads to it being removed. Suggest that if this happens again talk page access be removed again until it is impressed upon PhanuelB what the talk page access is for.
- As a final disclosure I would not support an unblock right now because in his first email to me PhanuelB forwarded private emails from the Arbitration committee (to himself) without permission - which I do not think demonstrates the sort of change in behaviour we are looking for. --Errant (chat!) 12:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, PhanuelB seems (to me, at least) to be under the impression that an unblock will be obtained not by accepting the disruptive nature of his own conduct, but by compiling massive lists of diffs and quotes about the supposed misconduct of other users - such an approach amounts to little more than blatant WP:NOTTHEM. Furthermore, some of the comments above suggest that his emailing campaign (which has involved multiple correspondents) has, at times, bordered on harrassment. As such, I wonder whether - at some point in the not-too-distant future - his email access will need to be revoked in addition to his talk page access. In the case of this user, I'd argue that WP:ROPE is now well and truly a dead horse - the problems regarding WP:IDHT are simply too rife and entrenched. SuperMarioMan 12:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Mmmm. PhanuelB wasted little time in mailing me (twice) following this thread, following the established trend of blaming others / arguing over the article content rather than his behaviour. If that's what everyone else is getting subject to when commenting on this issue it's probably time to disable email access, as the user seems not to get that it is his behaviour and not that of others which needs to be addressed for an unblock to happen. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- If it is true that PhanuelB has once again started to send disruptive emails, I would endorse revoking their email access without further delay - enough is enough. This user's approach to editing and discussion is completely incompatible with Wikipedia values. SuperMarioMan 15:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- There are posts at these people's "Injustice in Perugia" web forum following the initial block where this PhanuelB solicits other users to come here and argue on his behalf. Once again, these are people who are not here to contribute to an encyclopedia; they are here to demonstrate and advocate for a particular cause. Tarc (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have disabled PhanuelB's email access. It is impossible to tell how many users have been recipients of emails, but it is clear that at least several users have each received at least several emails, and that in at least some cases this has come close to harassment. It is also clear that the emails, in common with the talk page abuse and the other editing which led to the block in the first place, are not part of any attempt to work at improving the encyclopaedia, but rather part of a concerted campaign to promote a point of view by all means available, including subverting Wikipedia to serve that purpose. Therefore email access is not helpful to Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good call. It would certainly seem to have been a wide-ranging campaign - at least five email recipients, from all that I have read - and a persistent one at that. Definitely time to put an end to all this madness. SuperMarioMan 13:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Tarc, what's the deal here? Are you stalking PhanuelB? Googling for their connections? Are you a member of 'Injustice in Perugia' or one its counter sites? How in other words do you know what they wrote on another website? I find it really disturbing that you seem so bent on keeping an editor blocked that you've searched out any information you can find on them. Probably taking things out of context. Wow, just wow. Issymo (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Considering that Phanuel has more meatpuppets than Hormel, what do you expect? Now, beat it, before you get lanced. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I believe it's called "due diligence". It's not all that uncommon, really. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Tarc, what's the deal here? Are you stalking PhanuelB? Googling for their connections? Are you a member of 'Injustice in Perugia' or one its counter sites? How in other words do you know what they wrote on another website? I find it really disturbing that you seem so bent on keeping an editor blocked that you've searched out any information you can find on them. Probably taking things out of context. Wow, just wow. Issymo (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good call. It would certainly seem to have been a wide-ranging campaign - at least five email recipients, from all that I have read - and a persistent one at that. Definitely time to put an end to all this madness. SuperMarioMan 13:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have disabled PhanuelB's email access. It is impossible to tell how many users have been recipients of emails, but it is clear that at least several users have each received at least several emails, and that in at least some cases this has come close to harassment. It is also clear that the emails, in common with the talk page abuse and the other editing which led to the block in the first place, are not part of any attempt to work at improving the encyclopaedia, but rather part of a concerted campaign to promote a point of view by all means available, including subverting Wikipedia to serve that purpose. Therefore email access is not helpful to Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Proxy editing
The Friends of PhanuelB have made attempts to add a message her eon his behalf; Tjholme (one) and NigelPScott (one), (two). I think we're in block territory here, certainlly for the latter. Tarc (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yep. I concur with blocking the latter because he was warned on his talk page earlier today.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)- It is upsetting that some of the editors we have interacted with on the talk page may have been colluding off-wiki. I know Knox has a lot of internet support but I assumed, perhaps naively, that these individuals were here, like the rest of us, as individuals - except they shared a particular view of innocence. To now find they may be posting messages influenced by a blocked editor (at the very least) is.. disappointing to say the least. --Errant (chat!) 23:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have left a warning for NigelPScott. This edit, besides proxying yet again for PhanuelB, also contains egregious soapboxing. SuperMarioMan 23:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Gentlemen, I would ask that everyone simply take breath and rest a sec before escalating this further. I cant speak for NigelScott. I only speak for myself. As to Proxy-editing: I didnt 'edit' for PhanuelB as such. Like a number of you I received a communication asking simply that I post a message to a Talk Page where his unblock request was being discussed. He (she?) stated that due to his block he was unable to defend himself. That he should have a say in a discussion about him seemed reasonable to me. In any event I wasnt aware that messaging the admins while blocked was a violation of WP:ANYTHING. I did a person a small favor. My bad. I received a warning from Tarc letting me know not to do it again. I'm ok with that. No need to make this into something bigger than the minor faux pas that it is. Additionally, PhanuelB's communication was a simple, straight forward request for assistance. To call it some kind of conspiracy or collusion is really a stretch. On the subject of warnings and blocks: I would like to point out that I only know about Tarc's warning because I stumbled upon the note at the bottom of my Talkpage quite by accident. I almost posted PhanuelB's note again when I saw it had been removed, thinking I hadnt saved it properly.. As I said, I cant speak for NigelScott but his double posting may well not have been some act of defiance but just the result of not knowing that posting to a ANI Talkpage is considered 'Proxy-Editing' It's been a long day.. I suggest we put this issue of blocking down for today.. Let bygones be bygones.. and take appropraite measured action when and if it happens again.. now that we're all on the same sheet of music. Regards, Jake Holmes Tjholme (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the honest explanation; that makes me a lot happier and I do withdraw my comments in relation to yourself. --Errant (chat!) 11:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for being honest. Nigel did know and saw his warnings because of his preamble where he indicates that we should be running a totalitarian state and a number of other things that I won't elaborate on. Phanuel will need to appeal to ArbCom; it is no longer a matter for this noticeboard. This isn't the place to stage a defense. No one here can do anything for him now. Like many here, I have received emails from him and one held the response from a previous ArbCom appeal...this is a matter up to them. Further postings on his behalf are actually hurting his chances for appeal, seen as disruptive and potentially hurting those who, unwittingly or not, post on his behalf. Please see this excerpt of policy which forbids editing, presenting or transmitting something on behalf of an indef-blocked editor.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Gentlemen, I would ask that everyone simply take breath and rest a sec before escalating this further. I cant speak for NigelScott. I only speak for myself. As to Proxy-editing: I didnt 'edit' for PhanuelB as such. Like a number of you I received a communication asking simply that I post a message to a Talk Page where his unblock request was being discussed. He (she?) stated that due to his block he was unable to defend himself. That he should have a say in a discussion about him seemed reasonable to me. In any event I wasnt aware that messaging the admins while blocked was a violation of WP:ANYTHING. I did a person a small favor. My bad. I received a warning from Tarc letting me know not to do it again. I'm ok with that. No need to make this into something bigger than the minor faux pas that it is. Additionally, PhanuelB's communication was a simple, straight forward request for assistance. To call it some kind of conspiracy or collusion is really a stretch. On the subject of warnings and blocks: I would like to point out that I only know about Tarc's warning because I stumbled upon the note at the bottom of my Talkpage quite by accident. I almost posted PhanuelB's note again when I saw it had been removed, thinking I hadnt saved it properly.. As I said, I cant speak for NigelScott but his double posting may well not have been some act of defiance but just the result of not knowing that posting to a ANI Talkpage is considered 'Proxy-Editing' It's been a long day.. I suggest we put this issue of blocking down for today.. Let bygones be bygones.. and take appropraite measured action when and if it happens again.. now that we're all on the same sheet of music. Regards, Jake Holmes Tjholme (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, the next editor to proxy edit for a blocked user will themselves be blocked by me. There shall be no further warnings. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Even if they've never been warned? That seems...excessive.LedRush (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- If they're posting here, then they'll see their message and it'll serve as their warning. So far there have been three attempts to post messages from blocked users here. Three violations of our standards is what's excessive. I'm not going to tolerate a fourth. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Ohconfucius/script altering accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD in violation of WP:DATERET
User:Ohconfucius/script is running a script that automatically changes all accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD to another format, regardless of consensus or previous usage
He documents his intent at User:Ohconfucius/script#Date_formats based on what he dislikes. The MOS permits accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD (Access and archive dates in references should be in either the reference format, or YYYY-MM-DD.) Changing without getting consensus appears to be a violation of WP:DATERET. --JimWae (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Have you considered discussing it with them before bringing it here? Amalthea 21:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. The script page in question includes a detailed section on what the script does with dates and why. ANI is not supposed to be the first port of call for whining about other editors' actions, be they admins or not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I have. No response, yet. I realize I did not wait long after talking there, but he has donre the same thing to so many articles that I thought some wider notice should be posted somewhere. People ought not be running scripts on hundreds of articles just to enforce their personal preferences in violation of what the MOS permits. I think characterizing this as whining is very unnecessary. If this is not the place for wider notice, please advise me where is? --JimWae (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- You need to talk to him at User talk:Ohconfucius not User talk:Ohconfucius/script. I'm not sure I agree with what he is doing, but I don't think it is personal preferences. Rich Farmbrough, 22:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC).
- ... and Ohconfucius hadn't edited since. I haven't looked at the changes, and don't know where consensus lies. In general I would advise anyone doing mass formatting changes to get an explicit consensus in advance; if there isn't one for those changes and the two of you can't agree on the best way forward, the respective MOS talk page might be the first place to look for further opinions, and it may be best if Ohconfucius would hold back with further changes of that kind until there is an agreement. Amalthea 22:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not to stir this further, and I haven't clicked on any links, but what's being described here sounds like it amounts to running an unauthorized bot.
- Not again. This bot keeps cropping up as problematic on Admin various boards, even during my rather brief spell of being hyperactive here. Is the problem a vagueness of the MOS or a POV? - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not to stir this further, and I haven't clicked on any links, but what's being described here sounds like it amounts to running an unauthorized bot.
- Keep your hat on! A bit hasty to come running to ANI... JimWae created a new discussion page and expected me to be watching it, then came here while I was off line. Yes, I admit there were a couple of named cases where the formats ought not to have been unified, and these have been partially reverted. There's no reason to revert the others, as they were definitely done in accordance with MOSNUM. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- You are infringing WP:DATERET -> WP:DATERET is part of MOSNUM -> your edits are not done in accordance with MOSNUM. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- MOSNUM is above all concerned with consistency within any given article, as witnessed by the opening sentence: This part of the Manual of Style aims to achieve consistency in the use and formatting of numbers, dates, times, measurements, currencies and coordinates in English Wikipedia articles.. The reference to DATERET is not a stand-alone, and certainly doesn't trump MOSNUM of which it is a part. It is intended to be read in context of the desire for consistency expressed in that first sentence, that assuming dates were correctly formatted, they ought not to be changed by a whim. Thus alignment of all other inconsistent formatting is expressly compliant with MOSNUM. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- The edit to Vancouver by Ohconfucius was specifically requested by JimWae when he added the {{Use mdy dates}} template in May. The consensus for this change was demonstrated when the template was allowed to remain by the editing community for more than a month. What, you say, that's really not what {{Use mdy dates}} means? Then change it. What, you say, a hidden template cannot demonstrate consensus? Then enact a policy that all hidden templates that demonstrate consensus must contain a diff to the version of the talk page that demonstrates consensus. But don't blame Ohconfucius for satisfying JimWae's request. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- The second item on JimWae's list, Manhattan, had inconsistent date format in the reference section and was thus eligible for correction. Ohconfucius's choice of format can be justified by this edit which is the first actual choice by an editor to place an access date in the reference section. Prior date inclusions are template transclusions, and there is no telling what the transclusions looked like back in 2006, so I discount those. Since it is evident that JimWae's list is not properly screened for actual violations of WP:DATERET I don't intend to examine any further entries. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Background:
Previous threads and warnings about the exact the same issue with the user (changing YYYY-MM-DD dates to something else):
Also note that according to Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates, the community's consensus is to retain the YYYY-MM-DD date format. I believe Ohconfucius is acting against consensus. Can we finally at least get him to suspend his activities until he can demonstrate that consensus is on the side of his edits? My view that Ohconfucius seems to be simply ignoring all the requests and warnings urging him to stop, and just keeps going on and on with his mass-changes. The correct thing for him to do would be to launch a community discussion about the issue, and only resume his mass-changing of date formats if a consensus is formed that supports what he is doing. Nanobear (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- There is already community consensus for Ohconfucius's edits: see WP:MOSNUM. In this case, Ohconfucius made two mistakes (ie edits that weren't consistent with MOSNUM) and as soon as he was made aware of this, he immediately reverted his changes (even though Jc3s5h shows how they were basically borderline calls that could have gone either way). This should not even have come to ANI, as it could have all been resolved by one comment to his talk page. There is absolutely no evidence in this thread that Ohconfucius is acting against consensus (all I see is an editor who made two mistakes and promptly fixed them when notified). Jenks24 (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the above comments and clarifications. I think my position expressed here and elsewhere is demonstrably clear and not in violation of any policy or guideline. Unless anyone has any more to add, let's not waste any more time on the complaints of those who seem to be insisting on preserving the existence of ISO8601 dates in reference sections that may be in violation of said guideline. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Request for a little help with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware / Gargoyle Router Firmware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hullo;
Having completed the close, I find I am now unable to delete the article. At first I thought my privledges had been mistakenly removed, but the "delete" link is still on other pages I see... Can someone please either tell me how to get to deleting that page, or if you're feeling really generous just do the deletion? (presuming you agree with the close, etc) I promise to bomb you with Wikilove if you help me. (^_^)
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- The delete button worked for me. Looks like a reasoned close so I'm not going to second-guess or endorse/dispute. DMacks (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like a !vote and not a close to me. -Atmoz (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Just for the interest of ANI readers, the deletion is currently being reviewed at DRV - see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 1. 62.200.86.169 (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Jeffpiatt Unblock Request
Jeffpiatt (talk · contribs · logs)
The user has requested an unblock. He was blocked indef for "Vandalism: repeated creation of deleted articles" preceded by several image no-nos in 2007. Personally I don't have full knowledge of the user's historyn but I would think after four years perhaps with some strict guidelines on editing and a clear understanding from the user in question regarding what does and does not constitute good image use, perhaps we could have an unblock?
That is presuming there has been no socking. I can't find any linked socks. I'm also curious to know why the user has suddenly come back. Is it just a passing fancy? S.G.(GH) ping! 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have advised the user in question and the admin who blocked them indef. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Seems like a reasonable request. Indef for repeatedly creating deleted articles is perhaps harsh - that's not vandalism per se it's just irritating - and there's no sign of attempting to recreate the article in the intervening period. Fences&Windows 18:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I was going to unblock, but I held off when I saw SGGH's wise comments on the editor's talk page. 4 years is a long time, and the editor's conduct prior to the block doesn't seem all that terrible. I will point out, though, that Jeffpiatt did add a very large number of images with rationale that didn't conform to WP:NFCC (dozens of them, maybe up to a hundred) that were deleted. So if Jeffpiatt is unblocked, I'd hope to see more care taken with image uploads. -- Atama頭 19:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- This looks like it's worth a try to me. There's a big difference between (maybe) 16 and (maybe) 20. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I was going to unblock, but I held off when I saw SGGH's wise comments on the editor's talk page. 4 years is a long time, and the editor's conduct prior to the block doesn't seem all that terrible. I will point out, though, that Jeffpiatt did add a very large number of images with rationale that didn't conform to WP:NFCC (dozens of them, maybe up to a hundred) that were deleted. So if Jeffpiatt is unblocked, I'd hope to see more care taken with image uploads. -- Atama頭 19:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I support giving a second chance. However, if there are any images that need to be uploaded, then they need to be checked to make sure they are valid (alternatively, we could stick a condition not to upload images on the unblock, but IMO I don't think it's necessary). –MuZemike 21:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- A requirement to use WP:FfU would seem to be sufficient to fulfill that condition. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Seems fairly safe then. I'll unblock with the condition that admins will be watching closely for a while, and he must use WP:FfU and demonstrate a good understanding of image use. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Done with conditions per above. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Non-stop editing by socks of User:Prince-au-Léogâne
This guy doesn't stop. Everytime a sock or IP is blocked, he starts editing from another one. The last IP to be blocked was 76.109.142.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which began editing one of the socks' userpage to indicate it was an administrator. That IP was blocked on June 30th. Within a few hours, the sockmaster began editing from 76.109.149.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and that IP's edits include using the usertalk page of a sock to spam himself. Is it possible to look into a rangeblock on this one? Singularity42 (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Best ask at the SPI, although I am willing to bet that the potential range has too many good editors to allow a block. I would also suggest that any of the self promotion edits can be reverted when found, which I realise is a pain as they make many legit (but often trivial) ones. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've added a couple more patterns to the title blacklist, which should slow them down a bit, and softblocked 76.109.0.0/16 for 72 hours -- existing registered accounts will still be able to edit from that range, but anons will not be either able to edit or create new accounts. The next logical step in this process is to create a rule in the edit filter. -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- The article has been created again with a different title - see HipHop561 (talk · contribs) and 64.134.27.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Peter E. James (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've added a couple more patterns to the title blacklist, which should slow them down a bit, and softblocked 76.109.0.0/16 for 72 hours -- existing registered accounts will still be able to edit from that range, but anons will not be either able to edit or create new accounts. The next logical step in this process is to create a rule in the edit filter. -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, so much for the rangeblock idea. Singularity42 (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I'm working on crafting a filter. Currently, it's in log-only mode -- I'll wait a couple of days, and see what happens. I'm going to lift the rangeblock now, since it's clearly ineffective. -- The Anome (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This is in relation to the resent WP:POINTy disruptive edits, accusations of bad faith, edit warring and spiraling Civility issues. The user has become something of a single purpose account recently. Focusing on the articles Tau, Turn (geometry), Michael Hartl (also its AfD), and Pi. It's all based around the recent coverage of τ-day, where some people have proposed using τ = 2π in place of the mathematical constant π. He's made it his issue to include τ wherever possible. Whenever it's removed, he reverts.
After reverting my edits, Gandalf61's edits, and David Eppstein's edits (all three of us are Wikipedia Maths Project members and Maths Reference Desk regulars) at the article turn (geometry), he was given a 3RR warning by Arthur Rubin. When reverting David's edits, who is an admin, he left the edit summary: "bad faith edit that significantly damaged the article". When I undid the changes he made while accusing David of bad faith and disruptive editing; Rememberway came to my talk page to pick a fight. I archived the discussion (on my own talk page), and Rememberway undid that to say that my actions were pathetic and that he was not in an edit war.
He seemed to calm down following the 3RR warning, but has started up again, edit warring on Tau with Quandle. We can see from the edit history that Quandle was trying to engage Rememberway in discussion ([36] [37]). Rememberway's response was to issue Quandle with a 3RR warning. Given that Rememberway had initiated the reverts, I gave him a 3RR warning. His response was to quote WP:DICK, [38].
Basically, to recap, the issues are as follows:
- Possible ownership of articles.
- Edit warring with anyone that disagrees with him.
- Accusing admins of bad faith and disruptive edits.
- Edit warring with people on their own talk pages.
- Increasing levels of incivility.
Obviously, this is just one side of the story. I hope that you will check the edit histories of Tau, Turn (geometry), Pi, Michael_Hartl's AfD, User talk:Fly by Night, user talk:Quandle, user talk:Rememberway; especially the latter because he wipes all cautions and warnings. Don't take my word for it because I've lost the plot. — Fly by Night (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- This guy ^ is seriously harassing me, and continually assuming bad faith; and basically 'making shit up'.
- The Arthur Rubin thing was discussed User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#3RR.3F here, and you can see that I'd only done one revert of David Eppstein's edit that bizarrely accused me of POINT (for no reason I could see at all), and then I got accused of OWNERSHIP by Fly By Night, and of edit warring with Gandalf61, someone I had never reverted, nor him me. According to Fly by Night this constitutes OWNERSHIP of an article I had contributed to in good faith. Just totally bizarre.
- He's just being totally ridiculous. Just unbelievably bad faith all the way from start to finish. -Rememberway (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- As for Quandle, if you check the history of the article tau, Quandle has been removing a link to the turn article for months, and people keep putting it back in again. There was also a peak in traffic usage three days ago where people were obviously searching for information about the tau constant, and they still are, it's still dying down. Quandle's entire argument seems to be that news sources like BBC and CNN and periodicals aren't reliable sources and don't confer notability or something daft like that. -Rememberway (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fly by Night has done stuff like: "removing recent material pero WP:NOT#NEWS. The author's article is subject to an AfD. &tau'-day has been in the news today, and some people have been adding it to as many articles as they can" where I'm pretty sure he meant me, but it was immediately reverted by Waldir with the text "Restore text removed by User:Fly by Night: 1) The AfD has nothing to do with this content 2) The content was here way before today so it's not recent/news 3) Noone's been adding tau to "as many articles as they can" (otherwise, diffs?" And that was true, I'd only added brackets for a wikilink, and nobody else had either.
- It's just horrible, horrible bad faith and horribly tendentious. There's much more of this crap, but I can't be bothered to put it here, can someone get him to leave me alone? -Rememberway (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- WP:DRN causa sui (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- In his previous accounts Rememberway was sanctioned for writing articles on words. Now he's moved on to letters. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive216#Proposed editing restrictions on User:Wolfkeeper. Mathsci (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Uh? No? (I was AFDing articles that violated NAD). And hell no? And note I'm not under any restrictions at all. -Rememberway (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Your block log [39] and talk page history tell a different story. Atama blocked you for having previous accounts and possibly evading previous sanctions. Mathsci (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nope again. I was unblocked because I had not violated any of the restrictions while they were still in force (except for changing accounts, but they let me off that, probably because some mild stalking restarted as soon as it was clear who I was, which was why I hadn't publicised it.) -Rememberway (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- At WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wolfkeeper/Archive, there is evidence that Wolfkeeper/Rememberway violated sanctions on multiple occasions. Warden (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, not even. Actually, I'm glad you bought it up, the edits you pointed to there were edits to talk pages, I was not ever blocked from those. Oh and I made entirely uncontroversial changes to Chav to make it follow WP:LEAD. No, this is and was just you slinging mud in the hope that some of it will stick. But it won't. That happened 9 months ago, and I am under no restrictions at all. -Rememberway (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- These edits (amongst others) by Rememberway [40] are an example of disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. It is not surprising that such edits were immediately reverted by multiple editors connected with WikiProject Mathematics. As Wolfkeeper, he was already blocked for making pointy edits across multiple articles. This is a repetition of the same conduct. Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Um... Disrupting to make a point is when you do the opposite of what you believe just to prove how silly it is. Given that I think that tau is notable, I'm at a complete loss to understand how I could be being POINTy, and I'm sure I've done nothing that is unreasonable at that article. -Rememberway (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nope again. I was unblocked because I had not violated any of the restrictions while they were still in force (except for changing accounts, but they let me off that, probably because some mild stalking restarted as soon as it was clear who I was, which was why I hadn't publicised it.) -Rememberway (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Your block log [39] and talk page history tell a different story. Atama blocked you for having previous accounts and possibly evading previous sanctions. Mathsci (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Mainstream mathematics does not recognize this eccentric usage of tau. Any agenda to suggest otherwise on wikipedia is WP:UNDUE, unreasonable and disruptive. Indeed if you continue doing so, I would fully support the imposition of some new kind of long term topic ban on editing mathematics articles. Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, mainstream maths is extremely flexible. You can set any unused symbol at all to 2 Pi and use it throughout your work without any problem at all. -Rememberway (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- In fact, you have taken a small subset of my edits entirely out of context. I believe this to be completely unfair, and an entirely bad faith personal attack. While I still do not consider it very good, the Turn article is, it seems to me, significantly better organised now and better written than it previously was, and a great deal of this is due to my editing. That you are trying to threaten me with blocks says it all really. -Rememberway (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked Rememberway for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, with a block rationale of "There appears to be a schism between what WP believes and what Rememberway perceives to be legitimate editing. It is unfair to expect Rememberway to exist in such an indifferent editing environment." I did review the specific complaints and found them justified, but the decision to indef block was Rememberway's responses above to the complaint here; they exemplified the behaviours complained of. It may be that Rememberway/Wolfkeeper is correct and the WP community wrong, in which case the editor need find an editing environment that is more sympathetic. Wikipedia is not a place to "right great wrongs", or small ones either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- As a (relatively) new user I would appreciate criticism of my conduct. Quandle (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you want more general feedback, you might like to look at WP:Editor review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Farsi and Persian
User:Kamran the Great continues to change references to Farsi to the Persian language,[41] despite being asked on multiple occasions by multiple editors to stop doing so[42], [43], [44], based on the fact that all English dictionaries consider Farsi to be an acceptable term for the language. Could an admin please try to talk sense to the guy as he is ignoring everyone else and has failed to produce a single RS to support his case? Ericoides (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have changed the equation; Kamran the Great may explain why they should be unblocked and be allowed to continue to edit the encyclopedia. I advised them that they should consider basing any unblock request upon an undertaking to adhere to WP:Consensus and WP:RS in their contributing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Daniel Case
Two months ago I reported that this administrator had revoked my talk page access on the ground that an innocent failure to log in was "socking". Whatever happened to WP:AGF? I would like to respond to a reader at Talk:Computus#Miscellaneous and should be grateful if my talk page access could be restored to enable me to file an unblock request to enable me to do this. The proposed text of the response is
- Something very similar was legislated for Britain in the Easter Act, 1928. One of its provisions was "Before this Act shall come into force regard shall be had to any opinions officially expressed by Christian churches" (don't quote me on the exact wording). Still unimplemented yet still on the Statute Book after 83 years, this must be a record for deferred legislation. The churches cannot agree.
I've been examining Daniel's contributions and some of them are plain weird. Some of them are downright offensive, involving swearing and ridicule of people in authority (congressmen, judges, police officers, Jimmy Wales) and particular groups (Germans, obese people, voters, women). Here is a selection:
Extended content
|
---|
If your brother got a hold of the account that's it. Over. Fat lady sang. Goodbye. We do not unblock admittedly compromised accounts. Start a new one if you wish to edit productively. DarkfireII2, 9 March. The evidence before the Court is/Incontrovertible; there's no need for the jury to retire... Unitrin, 14 March. And SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF PEOPLE! IT'S MADE OF PEOPLE!! Right? That's the truth, too? Seriously, this is trolling. It's only because of AGF that I'm not cutting this talk page off. One more request like this and it will be, however. 208.54.87.73, 19 March. What color is the sky on your planet? 92.7.157.4, 21 March. So how would you explain this edit, then, Mein Herr? Huh? Just why are people like you obsessed with this sort of thing? Huh? 64.136.197.17, 6 April. Account creation is blocked from this IP for the duration of the block since some juvenile person made edits like this and...this, daring to defile the most holy and sacred user page of OUR LEADER. In cases like this we often prevent account creation from IPs we have blocked because otherwise vandals would just go create accounts and continue their dastardly deeds. 124.129.207.254, 9 April. First, this account is blocked directly so this template isn't applicable. But letting that go...you were warned several days ago to stop vandalizing and then...you went back, Jack, and did it again...Wheel turning' round and round you went back, Jack and did it again. 192.148.117.83, 17 April. I don't find anything more convincing in your latest begging; as for what's presented at the SPI, "the evidence before the court is/Incontrovertible; there's no need for the jury to retire. So not only am I denying this, I'm cutting access to your talk page off because you would otherwise be wasting administrators' time looking for one who'd unblock. But, since you did ask, there are other avenues for this (but that should not be taken as a guarantee of ultimate success, and per Fisher Queen above you should really consider other ways of spending your time). So, I will commend you to email.unblock-en-1@lists.wikipedia.org and see what happens. Or doesn't. Ultra X987, 25 April. We are the future. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. 138.163.160.41, 4 May. Obviously we can't handle the truth! Boredsohere, 17 May. GOO GOO G'JOOB. Talk page access revoked. Casuallybeingawalrus, 20 May. NO, IT DOESN'T. SO I'LL TELL YOU WHAT TO DO: SIT BACK AND TAKE YOUR MEDICINE (BY SAYING "THANK YOU SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?" OR SOMETHING SIMILARLY CUTE), OR WE'LL HAVE TO TELL YOUR PARENTS YOU HAVE BEEN A VERY BAD BOY. Flying Fische, 29 May. You have now officially lost your talk page access. How's that for voting Hi, Congressman Weiner: Per WP:GOTHACKED, we generally leave admittedly compromised accounts blocked for security reasons. If you'd like to open a new account, just make sure you note the connection on your userpage. Tpunk628, 8 June. So a group of ski-masked ninjas broke into your house, held Glocks to your head with cocked hammers, and told you they'd pull the triggers unless you opened a new account? I didn't think so either, and otherwise you can't claim you were "forced" to open a new account. And, even allowing for your full control over your own actions in doing so, there is a procedure for abandoning old accounts in favor of a new one, which you didn't follow. Talk page access revoked; we've had enough of this and we need to be able to review requests from people who might actually have a valid reason to be unblocked. Toug ma Tojer, 13 June. "It's an orangy sky; always it's some other guy...It's just a broken lullaby" You have done nothing but repeat the same basic request over and over in the hope that some new admins will take pity upon you. Well, with this previously uninvolved admin you have had the opposite effect. We have been far too patient with you, IMO. I am actually doing what BWilkins threatens to...not only declining but revoking your talk page access so we don't have to deal with this anymore. "Closing time...You don't have to go home but you can't stay here". Incogfrig, 13 June. Unfortunately there is no page here entitled Wikipedia:Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining, because if there were it would be a perfect link in response to your continued (soon to be discontinued) preposterous parade of unblock requests. Whether you remember it or not, it's there...several grafs up on this page. Talk page access revoked for duration of block. "But officer, I didn't notice I was speeding". That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee with the judge at traffic court. Talk page access will still be revoked...if you're that reckless in your editing, we're doing you a favor. Dbpjmuf, 29 June. |
Can a more experienced editor please notify the parties required to be notified under the rules? 194.66.226.95 (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- 194.66.226.95, your next step is to request a review by emailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org; requesting edits be made on your behalf is not the purpose of this board and could be construed as block evasion. Tiderolls 14:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Those edits are, in general, responses to unblock requests from vandals claiming they didn't really do it. Silly responses to unblock requests are not exactly professional behavior, but they're hardly actionable other than "hey dude tone it down a bit". --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- As noted. How come no one complains about FisherQueen's unblock denials? She's funnier than I am. Is it because she's a lesbian? Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Flip mode off: Perhaps we should stick with the original issue, rather than the completely irrelevant issue of my occasionally finding it necessary to write unblock denials in something other than boilerplate (And I rarely use profanity ... in fact I think the "don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining" one is probably the only one I've ever done in any off-color language). OK, it is relevant. What's wrong with quoting from popular songs? They get the point across, and they're more memorable. I would also add that some of those that he seems to think are offensive to particular groups are not ... in the "Mein Herr" one, I was alluding to the fact that the user kept adding "Jewish" to descriptions of people when it was not clearly relevant. (I do admit the Flying Fische one was a little overboard, and I said as much later).
But ... I do not know what talk-page revocation he speaks of because he provides no diff nor a user account to check. Could he please do so? Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Clubfoot Johnson removing talkpage comments
User believes that this sort of behaviour is acceptable and believes that removing it because editor feels it's defamatory is acceptable. An administrator is required to intervene. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Your comments appear unnecessary and come across as a personal attack; I don't blame Clubfoot Johnson for his reactions (which are in turn not ideal). I would suggest you retract your accusations on your own accord. And please notify Clubfoot Johnson of this discussion, as is required. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I see that you have suggested to Walter Gorlitz that he retract his accusations of his own accord. To this point he has refused to do so. What are my options in requesting someone else remove these attacked from the Larry Norman talk page? It doesn't seem fair that someone can make an attack on another editor and the only issue be with the offending comment being deleted by the one who was attacked. Thanks for your help.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Strange Passerby. A couple of you folks need to tone it down before ya'all get sent to the naughty step. I also took the liberty of letting ErrantX know about this as he seems to be up to speed on that thread as well. No comment on article content. — Ched : ? 17:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback, and I appreciate the third party review. I agree that my more recent comments may not have been helpful, but this was after many requests on my part for Walter Gorlitz to stop his personal attacks. When he not only continued but started accusing me of engaging in slanderous behaviors, I was not sure what else to do but delete his defamatory comments. He reverted each attempt I made at this, and then accused me of vandalism. I did not want to simply leave such an accusation sitting there without response, so I responded - and may have been a bit more curt in my tone than my previous responses out of frustration. I also attempted to collapse the conversation out of respect for those engaging in the actual topic, but he then pirated the label to say "Clubfoot Johnson is a single purpose account but is the editor showing a conflict of interest?" This is really becoming too much. I would appreciate any intervention you can offer on my behalf as I am not familiar with how to address this kind of harassment (he has done the same thing to me on another article). My preference would be to simply participate in the Wikipedia community without the constant harassment and stalking of this individual. Thanks.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeh it quickly became apparent (when I raised the issue) this is a contentious subject :S which is derailing what is IMO an important issue. It's always worrying to see articles about controversial people bring that controversy on-wiki. But I've deliberately not commented on their little "spat" so as not to feed the flames :) thanks for the FYI Ched. more eyes on the content issue would be excellent FWIW, even though that is tangential to this AN/I --Errant (chat!) 17:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- NP .. and I notified Clubfoot. — Ched : ? 17:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- No personal attacks. No slander on my part either. And no accusations of vandalim, just notifications on editor's talk page not to remove or refactor the comments of others. No pirating of labels, I simply expanded the conversation, but that could easily be edited. And definitely no harassment.
- I have noted that Clubfoot Johnson is a WP:SPA and am trying to clear the editor of my concerns regarding WP:COI. The fact that he has removed my comments several times on the article's talk page is more troubling. Sorry that I failed to notify Clubfoot Johnson that this was undergoing. First time I've done this. I now see the notice at the top of the page. There is no question though that the editor is a SPA, so I take it that there is no COI?
- Now as for claims of stalking, I have been an active editor on the two only articles Clubfoot Johnson has taken an interest in for several years and simply notice a disturbing tendency to restore any material that is libellous to David Di Sabatino. I am not stalking the individual in any way, nor am I harassing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- They are absolutely personal attacks, and I would like you to please stop harassing me. Your questions regarding COI have been asked and answered more than once. I suggest you move on and leave me alone. The personal attack comments have been removed from the LN talk page as, in addition to being personal attacks, were inappropriate to the topic.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- They most certainly are not personal attacks. I'm sorry you feel that your behaviour has opened you up to these charges though. I will not move on as those articles are in my field of interest as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- They are absolutely personal attacks, and I would like you to please stop harassing me. Your questions regarding COI have been asked and answered more than once. I suggest you move on and leave me alone. The personal attack comments have been removed from the LN talk page as, in addition to being personal attacks, were inappropriate to the topic.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz and misuse of the term "vandalism" again
Walter Görlitz has now reported Clubfoot Johnson to WP:AIV, inappropriately, for "vandalism". There is most certainly a revert war going on regarding the comments at this talk page and it would be best if an admin stepped in and handed out some blocks. I note that WG was here very recently over his misuse of the term "vandalism" and then-abuse of Twinkle... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- My apoogies. I didn't misuse the term. Twinkle's ARV tool reported it as vandalism. The editor, Clubfoot Johnson, has removed my comments on Talk:Larry Norman at least five times today and was warned four times. The last was after the fourth warning. Is there a way to report without labelling it as vandalism? I didn't know that it would be labelled as vandalism when reported. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Reference to a death in the future
Should something be made of this? An IP has filled in Josh Smith's death date as September 11, 2011. Zagalejo^^^ 21:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- What about it? Revert it as vandalism, block the IP as needed. --Conti|✉ 21:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I did revert it. Should it be considered a credible threat of violence? Zagalejo^^^ 21:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Probable vandalism, yes. Credible threat of violence, not very likely. A side effect of Wikipedia's policy of liberally granting editing privileges to practically anyone with access to the internet is a steady supply of juvenile pranksters and sophomoric nonsense. Unless you have additional information showing this is something more than simple vandalism it is usually best to not make more of it that needed. If you do have additional evidence showing this is more than simple mischief then your local police/law enforcement agency would be the appropriate people to talk with. --Allen3 talk 22:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I did revert it. Should it be considered a credible threat of violence? Zagalejo^^^ 21:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Personal attacks by User:TreasuryTag on his talk page against another editor
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can't for the life of me see how these remarks are allowed on someone's talk page. I have tried to remove them (and I see in the history that others have also) and frankly I don't feel like engaging the user himself due to their attitude (see ongoing editor review) so I guess I have to take things here.
In the interests of full disclosure, yes I have had a couple of disagreements with TT over the last couple of days (see Talk:Shipping_Forecast#Let's talk about the introductory statement... if you're interested, although I believe that is now settled in my favour) and that is how I became aware of the content of his talk page, and yes I'm also aware of WP:BOOMERANG. But this is not point scoring or whatever - that seems to be a personal attack, clear as day, aggressively defended for gawd knows what reason.
Perhaps some reasonable Wikipedians will disagree.
Egg Centric 22:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Although I have seen TreasuryTag say some pretty pointed things and post in a hard-edged tone, the example you reference here seems more like sour grapes on TT's part than anything else. I just see a ranty string of WP:THIS and WP:THAT, hardly a personal attack unless you are a fluent speaker of Wikipedian. I would just let it pass and focus on those times when TT actually says something harsh. I wish there was a way for editors to resolve things without templating and feeling the need to rush to an Admin venue, but this is Wikipedia, for better or worse. -- Avanu (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Saying someone has a "rather lacking understanding" of a site policy or policies is not a personal attack. If it were, half of the people who commented at TT's editor review would need to be blocked, including the author of the comment that TT was responding to. On the whole TT has been remarkably restrained in responding to comments there. I don't see this as an issue that needs admin attention. 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yawn. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Kind of snippy, but more about behavior than anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems inappropriate for TT to keep comments such of that on his talk page, but I guess there isn't a policy covering such things. He has accused me of nearly every wiki-acronym in existence, which is quite an achievement! Basket of Puppies 05:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deletion review: Lewinsky (neologism)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I deleted an article that appears to violate WP:BLP and blocked the editor who created it, an account created today with only this one article as edits. Please weigh in here. Dreadstar ☥ 23:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- So how is this "santorum" garbage not a BLP violation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, only this one is worse. Dreadstar ☥ 23:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hard to imagine how. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if you're poor little Monica it's one thing, an ex-senator, presidential hopeful, it's quite another. And I doubt the senator was a pawn of a more powerful person, or that he ever created the frothy mix. I tend to be far more sympathetic towards Miss Lewinsky than Santorum. This is just a pathetic worse step against human dignity. Dreadstar ☥ 23:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've added the article name to the heading. I hope editors will explain their thinking about the BLP issue at the DRV. Will Beback talk 23:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- A quick look at Google suggests that it had do with "giving a Lewinsky". That at least reflects reality. The "santorum" thing is the extremely gross fantasy of some shock-jock and is way much more offensive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, let's victimize Monica even more. Pile on. Dreadstar ☥
- The people responding at DRV seem to be using it as a proxy for the "santorum (neologism)" dispute. Each article should be considered separately. This term has been discussed in many sources and has actually appeared in slang dictionaries (unlike "santorum"). There's no clear BLP violation, and requests to point to the part of that policy which it violates have gone unanswered. This seems to be a simple case of "I don't like it". Will Beback talk 23:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're the one who proxied it there, Will, what the heck are you complaining about? It's a clear violation of BLP to me, but obviously not to you. Stop trying to twist this. You proxied it. Dreadstar ☥ 00:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- The people responding at DRV seem to be using it as a proxy for the "santorum (neologism)" dispute. Each article should be considered separately. This term has been discussed in many sources and has actually appeared in slang dictionaries (unlike "santorum"). There's no clear BLP violation, and requests to point to the part of that policy which it violates have gone unanswered. This seems to be a simple case of "I don't like it". Will Beback talk 23:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, let's victimize Monica even more. Pile on. Dreadstar ☥
- A quick look at Google suggests that it had do with "giving a Lewinsky". That at least reflects reality. The "santorum" thing is the extremely gross fantasy of some shock-jock and is way much more offensive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hard to imagine how. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see how it can be a BLP violation when it reflects something she did and was unashamed of it. The santorum thing IS a BLP violation because it's about a shock-jock equating his own bodily fluids to a politician. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's certainly debatable whether neologisms named after living people are BLP violations. But it does not appear to meet the criteria a speedy deletion without any discussion. There is a good reason we have a specific list of CSDs. Will Beback talk 00:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a BLP violation. The argument should be notability, not BLP. The term may have been all the rage in 1998, but that's ancient history by now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Debatable" (controversial). "WP:BLP" (contentious). Inconsistent. Will, instead of your usual 'attack the editor instead of the content' tactic, try a different path this time. Dreadstar ☥ 00:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't attacked anyone personally. If I have then please post the diff instead of making an unsourced accusation (I'm a living person too!). The fact remains that "debatable" is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Will Beback talk 00:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Your posting at the Santorum neo article is close to canvassing a location that has proved to support such disputed/divisive/disruptive - content. Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- "This seems to be a simple case of "I don't like it"", is, I'm sure, not a comment about others. Nah. No way. Obviously about content. "I" being..well..you know, the "I" that means, well, not the personal I, but the All seeing eye. Yeah that one. I have more, but that'll do it until the inevitable RFARB, right? :) Dreadstar ☥ 01:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- If that's a problem talk page then deal with its problems separately from the "Lewinsky" neologism. I don't see where I've made any personal attacks, and I consider the accusation itself to be a personal attack, one which Dreadstar has made repeatedly without evidence. Will Beback talk 01:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're saying I deleted this article and blocked the editor because I didn't like it. I take that as a comment about ME, and not the actual action. Dreadstar ☥ 01:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Haven't you ever seen WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It's a well-known section of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions which refers to arguments for without reference to a specific policy provision. I think it's strange that you consider that a personal attack yet you consider it perfectly acceptable to tell me to "fuck off".[45] Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Will Beback talk 01:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're saying I deleted this article and blocked the editor because I didn't like it. I take that as a comment about ME, and not the actual action. Dreadstar ☥ 01:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- If that's a problem talk page then deal with its problems separately from the "Lewinsky" neologism. I don't see where I've made any personal attacks, and I consider the accusation itself to be a personal attack, one which Dreadstar has made repeatedly without evidence. Will Beback talk 01:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't attacked anyone personally. If I have then please post the diff instead of making an unsourced accusation (I'm a living person too!). The fact remains that "debatable" is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Will Beback talk 00:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's certainly debatable whether neologisms named after living people are BLP violations. But it does not appear to meet the criteria a speedy deletion without any discussion. There is a good reason we have a specific list of CSDs. Will Beback talk 00:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, only this one is worse. Dreadstar ☥ 23:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ironically, as opposed to the Santorum malarkey, I have actually heard "doing a Lewinsky" in actual RL conversation. But that's anecdotal, and doesn't mean anything. Deletion is correct here. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- On what basis? Will Beback talk 01:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- B L P ?, perhaps? Dreadstar ☥ 01:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- On what basis? Will Beback talk 01:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Which provision of BLP does it violate? I've asked you before but haven't received a reply. Will Beback talk 01:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- This content and this DRV and this thread is disruptive. This is nothing to do with creating an online encyclopedia it is just the multiplayer online game with no educational value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Persistant autobiography creations
Tonight, a friend directed my attention to the existance of the article George Jay Wienbarg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has been deleted several times in the past when it was located at George Wienbarg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), both of which had been created and heavily edited by Georgewienbarg (talk · contribs). I've sent George Jay Wienbarg to its third AFD (second under the current title), and also discovered Davidcapurso (talk · contribs) and David Capurso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the process. This behavior should not be allowed to continue as it has for the past several years. Georgewienbarg should no longer be allowed to edit this project or to have his biography or the biographies of his associates (Davidcapurso started the current page on Wienbarg, and Georgewienbarg created David Capurso) in any form included on this website.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- The new article looks substantially similar to the originally deleted one; can any admin confirm this? It may be a candidate for WP:CSD#G4, even though the previous one was deleted in December 2006. (Note: I can only find one previous deletion discussion; the other two prior to that were policy-based.) Frank | talk 02:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Checked, and I find them not 100% identical, but substantially the same in content. These various reincarnations are obviously a tenacious attempt on the part of the author to get himself into Wikipedia. G4 seems appropriate. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Black Kite's interpertation of NFCC=one non-free image per page maximum?
Since the liklihood of adminstrative action here is trendning to zero and there is a perfectly good talk page at WT:NFCC I'm closing this as outside the scope of ANI. Spartaz Humbug! 01:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
|
---|
Recently user:Black Kite went on a bot-like spree blanketly removing images from articles under WP:NFCC for everything in a category that had more than one non-free on a page. Now I know we are enforcing NFCC pretty strictly these days, but is it reasonable to justy shotgun remove the second or third image in a bot-like fashion without any talk? Particularly when the pages involved describe different versions of a fictional character, and detail pictures of the two versions? Is NFCC a blanket permission to remove anything more that one non-free image on any page at the editor's whim? NFCC #3a states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." I don't think that's justification to remove the second picture on a page IF the second picture shows how a character is radically differen or has changed over the years. Mathewignash (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirt Boss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - please move to - Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria - there is already a lot of discussion going on at the policy talkpage - , Off2riorob (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
Conduct by User:Tifetondu on Bernard Tomic
I'd like an admin to look at the situation surrounding this page. Some brief background: following various back-and-forth edits, the page was fully protected by Fastily to force some proper discussion. There has been a generally productive discussion here, and a consensus had emerged just prior to the expiry of the page protection. According to the talk page consensus, Jenks24 changed the page to incorporate the new text.
Just a few hours later, Tifetondu (talk · contribs) changed the page to incorporate his/her own version of the text, completely ignoring the consensus. I undid the change once, but Tifetondu has reinstated its version. I'm not going to get into an edit war, and since Tifetondu is ignoring talk pages, it's probable that dispute resolution won't be of much use either, so I'm coming straight here. The talk page is still being used to re-evaluate consensus, but Tifetondu doesn't seem interested in discussion. All we've had so far are a series of SHOUTING comments and no real responses.
I know that things should only be brought here if specific admin assistance is sought, so I'll be plain and state that I'm asking for a temporary block for Tifetondu. The debate is already hot enough without somebody pouring hot water over everything by making unilateral edits. Thanks for your time. Absconded Northerner (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I will only add that I endorse Absconded Northerner's summary of what has occurred. Jenks24 (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Reporting User:A young communist, request to block
I had reported the following on the vandalism page, but I have been asked by administrators to move the report for such users/incidents here in the past:
A young communist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is the second time in one month I am reporting the behaviour of this user with respect to the same article Soviet War in Afghanistan. User makes similar vandalizing edits to the article and myself and some others are having to continuously undo his actions, see revision history of that article (specifically edits on 20 June 2011 and 30 June 2011, and several others in late May and early June). There is an entire section on the discussion page of that article relating to the edits he is doing but instead of discussing he continues unabated. He has been told to discuss before making the same edits and he has been warned several times already. In fact he was blocked for 60 hours for similar actions on the same article earlier this month itself but it seems to have had no effect on him. Looking at his user talk page, he has been vandalizing other articles in the past, which were reverted. He had been blocked for edit warring in the recent past and was also recently warned for personal attacks and abuse on others. As if all this wasn't enough already, he is also a known sockpuppet (again, just see his user talk page User:A young communist (talk page)). I request a longer duration block on this user this time, along with another sterner warning on his talk page. 202.3.77.210 (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- No one is going to block the editor for those edits, at least not until some serious edit war breaks out. There are other elements of the editor's history (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of A young communist, for instance--see its history) that suggest a less than cooperative attitude, though. But what's happening on Soviet War in Afghanistan is far from blockable at this point. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
User page question
Anyone have any thoughts on this user page, User:Calethistlefan? Parents are listed there, jobs...also, that image seems to be missing a rationale. If it's non-free, it shouldn't be in user space, but I don't know that it is. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- User appears to be 19 years old, as far as the personal information is concerned, I don't see why we should not defer to the user. The image is scheduled for deletion shortly, so I don't see any reason to worry about it too much either, unless the deletion process doesn't result in a delete. Monty845 04:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Tiptoety has deleted the userpage. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Talk page harressment by user:2andrewknyazev
user:2andrewknyazev keeps on harassing me on my talkpage by repeatedly adding a deleted comment [46][47][48][49][50][51],... the whole thing began when he deleted repeatedly [52][53][54][55] a sourced statement by the Economist Blog Eastern Approaches, which mentions that a soon to be released movie about the 2008 South Ossetia war has been financed by members of the Georgian Government; calling The Economist (and other media) material either "irrelevant info", "your irrelevant propaganda", "the questionable edit", telling me in condescending tone to do Original Research about the party affiliations of all the other members of production, and "to post reliable and relevant information, with proper references." When he was told by another user to stop deleting the material [56] he ignored that and immediately deleted it again. He fails to understand WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:OR. Also from his edit history it is clear that he has pro Georgian POV [57][58], adds Original Research [59] or unsourced material to articles [60].
I have now inserted the material again with 4 more sources and as neutral as possible [61], and he hit my talkpage again with the same edit immediately afterwards [62] - four times! the second time with the comment: "repeated deleting would not do you any good"... and then even after another user told him twice [63][64] not do it anymore HE KEEPS DOING IT AGAIN AND AGIAN [65][66]. noclador (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- And while I was writing this he did it again [67]!!! WTF!!! noclador (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- user:2andrewknyazev clearly broke 3rr on your talk page, but I think you also broke it at the article. This really seems more appropriate for WP:ANEW Monty845 04:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's at least disruptive. Whatever happened on that article is not relevant: a user has the right to not have a posting repeatedly placed on their talkpage, plus they were notified of those rules by another user. I've given them a 4im warning and trust that it will not happen again. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I just want him to stay clear of my talkpage! I told him after his first edit on my talkpage "Keep it to the articles talkpage!" but he never posted the question there just kept on harassing my talkpage! noclador (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- half a dozen warnings later... he does it again!! [68].... noclador (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I just want him to stay clear of my talkpage! I told him after his first edit on my talkpage "Keep it to the articles talkpage!" but he never posted the question there just kept on harassing my talkpage! noclador (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's at least disruptive. Whatever happened on that article is not relevant: a user has the right to not have a posting repeatedly placed on their talkpage, plus they were notified of those rules by another user. I've given them a 4im warning and trust that it will not happen again. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- user:2andrewknyazev clearly broke 3rr on your talk page, but I think you also broke it at the article. This really seems more appropriate for WP:ANEW Monty845 04:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I've reported this editor on AIV for his harrassment and violation of 3RR. He reverted my removal of his harrassment as "vandalism". The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- thanks! I am still dumbfounded by this! :-O noclador (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Is any admin going to block this guy? Despite a page full of warnings on his Talk page, he's now accusing a vast conspiracy of attacking him on the article's Talk page. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
This article was created by User:Tyler j1992 a few days ago. It was only a half complete list, and so was tagged for an AfD. Tyler j1992 asked me what he could do to stop the article from being deleted. I recommended that he work on it in his own user space. In order for the article not be be deleted by the AfD, and so to avoid WP:CSD#G4 when it was reintrodiced; I suggested that Tyler j1992 tag the article with {{db-author}}. That's exactly what he did. He moved it to User:Tyler_j1992/Sandbox, the AfD was closed, and the article was deleted per {{db-author}}.
Whilst reviewing the New Pages list, to my horror, I noticed that user:Ck786 had created more-or-less the same article (with two columns swapped), some information left out, and with a slightly different title; at Triple J Hottest 100 Australian Albums of All Time, 2011. It was well documented on the original AfD and on the orignal article's talk page that Tyler j1992 had moved it to his user space to work on it.
I was hoping that someone could take a look at this? The article, as it stands is a half empty list that will be completed sometime in the future. As it stands, the article does not deserve to be up there. Like I said, it was several days into an AfD and was looking as though it would be deleted.
I feel terrible. I offered my advice to Tyler j1992, and he followed that advice. It sets a really bad example to him: play by the rules, and someone else will come along and beat you to it. If there's nothing that can be done, then can we at least re-open the AfD? — Fly by Night (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- There is a possible reason to delete. As the original was on Wikipedia, any recreation by another editor would need to be attributed, otherwise we are straying into WP:COPYVIO territory. If the article was not attributed when (re)created, it could possibly be deleted for that reason. Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
99.90.197.244
The IP refuses to not refer to others as liars[69][70] use quality RS while trying to make a point.[71][72] The English is also unworkable. A clear history of edit warring and other issues in the block log and talk page.[73] I am requesting a 6 month block on the IP since there is nothing but trouble coming from it since April 2010[74]. Cptnono (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Proposed community ban on BelloWello
- BelloWello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Salegi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- WikiManOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 50.72.159.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Letsgocrazytogether (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Dumler for Supervisor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BelloWello's name has appeared several times on this noticeboard. When editing as WikiManOne, he was on the verge of being community banned because of his edits related to abortion. All the accounts above were operated by the same real life person who recently divided his accounts into two: one to edit or create articles connected with Democrat campaigning in Albemarle County, Virginia (last two accounts); the other IPsock to continue tendentious editing of articles relating to Seventh Day Adventism. The new accounts used as a source the real life blog of this editor, which was in blatant contravention of WP:RS. This editor has consistently used wikipedia to push an agenda. In the latest SPI, when the connection between the different accounts was mentioned, his response was defiant and aggressive, when it was evident that he was deliberately operating sockpuppets.[75] This last round of sockpuppetry and activism is the final straw. This editor has shown that, despite being given one last chance after another, his editing goals conflict with those of this encyclopedia. I therefore suggest that he be indefinitely banned by the community (the possibility of an indefinite block was not discounted by Jclemens, one of the checkusers who has been involved in checking several of the accounts above).
- Support as proposer. Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support provided we ban Mathsci as well. Two particularly odious birds with the same righteous stone. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)