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.
You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reason: Continuing WP:NPA, WP:POINTy and non-good faith comments despite repeated messages and warnings: Start of recent history:
| Diffs and extended history |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Xerographica's remarks:
|
Further edits and evidence worth considering:
- Xerographica brought up an ANI regarding SPECIFICO, Rubin and myself. Overall the discussion was more about his behavior. See: [118]."
- He developed a "to do list" (name changed after discussion) User talk:Xerographica/Archive 4#My To Do List as a WP:UP#POLEMIC during his block period.
Besides numerous warnings, there have been efforts to promote positive editing since block expired:
- User talk:Xerographica#Article creation break? – started by User:Lawrencekhoo
- User talk:Xerographica#Unnecessary war – Comments by me, as a comrade in arms.
- User talk:Xerographica#Military SMEs needed – Comment by me suggesting a change of focus to military topics.
- User talk:Xerographica#Change your approach – Comments by User:Little green rosetta
- User talk:Xerographica#Burden of proof on Tax choice – Comments by User:Writ Keeper
- User talk:Xerographica#Suggestion – Editor Review – Suggestion by me that he undertake WP:ER
- User talk:Xerographica#Last chance – Further comments by Little green rosetta.
- User talk:Xerographica#Extra training – Suggestion by me, as a former US Army NCO. If he had agreed, I would have assigned WP:ER.
- Additionally, I sought to give him input via
(confused) and 
(facepalm). But even 
(raspberry) did not faze him.
.svg){kind=small}
Comments about his behavior, attitude, remarks, etc. have been added by various other editors in talk page commentaries. These diffs are not provided.
Final observations:
- WP:TE is perhaps the most pertinent essay for analyzing Xerographica's behavior. I think that 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.13, and 2.14 are directly on point.
- WP:DE applies, particularly in terms of consensus building and ignoring community input.
- While WP:GRIEF pertains to spammers, the various stages of grief apply to Xerographica.
As the last diff (of 13 February) is the latest NPA, following repeated level 4 final warnings, this history is submitted for consideration.
- – S. Rich (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of hatting the diffs above, not to hide them but for the sake of brevity. That is a longer list of material than I've ever seen on ANI. Many will just TLDR and not even look at it. I'm sure an admin will say the same that excessive material is not likely to be looked at. Blackmane (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- For better or for worse, the forbearance of many editors has enabled user Xerographica's abusive edit list to achieve unusual length. A shorter list is given here [119] [120] SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of hatting the diffs above, not to hide them but for the sake of brevity. That is a longer list of material than I've ever seen on ANI. Many will just TLDR and not even look at it. I'm sure an admin will say the same that excessive material is not likely to be looked at. Blackmane (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Non-admin: I made it through Feb. 05, and I'm just not really seeing anything other than an editor who is obviously frustrated, and should probably communicate a little more level-headed...but nothing crazy. Definitely not personal attacks. What are you wanting the admins to do with this? Ditch ∝ 19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- An WP:RFC/U might be better equipped to handle this than ANI (has one been done already? Did I miss it?).--v/r - TP 20:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- User Xerographica has already been blocked four times for similar behavior. [121]
- The block log indeed shows action, some quite recent, and the subject's talk page is a train-wreck (deserves credit however for not "scrubbing" it, like some I could name) and I'd say the complaint is valid, taken all together. Agree that an Rfc/U may be the next step here. Good call on the hat also. Jusdafax 20:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- By OP: Yes, I did consider RFC/U, but felt it would not result in definitive action. The result would be a "Nah-nah-nah, you tried to get me!" from Xerographica. The alternative, next stronger stop would be ArbCom, but that was not appropriate course of action either. As for the non-NPA nature of his remarks, I've felt he was "Borderlining" to an extreme, and thereby failing to work towards consensus. (And thanks for the hatting.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- The block log indeed shows action, some quite recent, and the subject's talk page is a train-wreck (deserves credit however for not "scrubbing" it, like some I could name) and I'd say the complaint is valid, taken all together. Agree that an Rfc/U may be the next step here. Good call on the hat also. Jusdafax 20:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- User Xerographica has already been blocked four times for similar behavior. [121]
- Comment This complaint is certainly a two way street. But in my defense...I'd like to think that I'm improving and "evolving" over time to more closely conform to Wikipedia behavioral standards. For example...
- Recently I have been seeking feedback from neutral editors...User_talk:Little_green_rosetta#ioby
- Since this warning by Writ Keeper...User_talk:Xerographica#Burden_of_proof_on_Tax_choice I have not undone a single edit by Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO
- And as Ditch Fisher noted above, I am no longer engaging in personal attacks
- Regarding my own complaint...well...if you've read over the evidence shared by Rich...it's clear that my biggest complaint is that they make substantial edits to pages without first reading the reliable sources. Therefore, given that their edits are not based on reliable sources...then clearly they violate the no original research policy. Unfortunately, it's not that clear to outside editors. I'm fairly confident though that it's just a matter of time before enough other editors start to catch on.
- Additionally, these editors are engaging in Wikipedia:Harassment. They follow me around undoing my edits. For example, how in the world would Rich have known to undo my edit on the House_of_Cards_(U.S._TV_series)? That's just too much of a coincidence. But doesn't the volume of evidence that Rich shared speak for itself? How could there possibly be so much editing overlap unless they watch my contributions? Our interests truly are not that aligned. If they were, then I wouldn't have to try and persuade them to read the reliable sources. --Xerographica (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- By OP: Is WP:GAMING going on in Xerographica's remarks? I.e., 'Playing the victim' by saying these editors are harassing him. I.e., 'Playing policies against each other' by saying my complaint is a two way street – e.g., that he might have a complaint about me? I.e., "sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected" when he says that "other editors [will] start to catch on" to his POV regarding OR, SYN, RS? Other bits of gaming: 1. Ditch Fisher read through 5 February and did not say Xerographica was no longer engaging in PA. 2. It is clear to Xerographica alone that other editors are not reading the RS and are therefore engaged in OR. 3. The "recent" requests for feedback were not to evaluate his behavior, but to look at edits made by other editors. (Nevertheless, as the requests were made to Little green rosetta, I certainly accept the good faith of the requests in and of themselves.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- By OP – This is interesting. While this discussion is going on, Xerographica continues to make remarks about other editors. [122] – "Hugo Spinelli built the article up, and Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO are trying to tear it down. SPECIFICO is the one who nominated it for deletion... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Freedom_of_choice. Where's their positive contributions? Where are the reliable sources that they've brought to the table? I know it's hard to see a pattern with so few instances. But thanks for taking a look at it." In a comment made to User:Writ Keeper referring to Freedom of choice. – S. Rich (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- How is it "gaming" to share my side of the story? And it clearly is harassment. Out of all the articles mentioned in your evidence...how many did you edit before I did?
- And Rubin even admitted that he's harassing me...User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_2#Stalking...
- If you think I'm following you around, you're correct. If you want to point to any other editors who are primarily creating articles consisting of quotefarms, with "See also" sections pointing to all articles in a topic, such as public choice theory, I'll follow them around, too.
- I deserved to be "stalked" because my area of interest is public choice? The only other active editor who is also knowledgeable about public choice theory is Thomasmeeks. Here's what he had to say about the subject...Talk:Benefit_principle#Recognition_to_creator_of_this_article
- Some tough things have been said above about aspects of this article. The Talk page is just the place for such. At the same time, I think the harshest critic would agree that the subject is very appropriate for WP and probably long overdue. Identifying that gap and trying to plug it is IMO a not inconsiderable achievement of User:Xerographica, even at the cost of falling well short of what are likely X.'s own standards and risking the kind of responses as above. Sometimes that's the cost of being WP:BOLD. That's not to condone any avoidable lapses of course but to at least keep them in proportion.
- X. has to balance his own priorities & might have enough on his plate to keep way busy in other activities. Still, if time & inclination allowed, X. might be best qualified to improve the article in the near term. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- This dispute is really only going to end when the three of you stick to editing articles that interest you enough to actually read about. --Xerographica (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- And Rubin even admitted that he's harassing me...User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_2#Stalking...
- Others have repeatedly suggested to X that, with a fraction of the time and energy he puts into his talk page and other non-article messages here, he could instead be improving the articles. He states that he is familiar with the various subjects and the associated literature. Over and over, he's been asked to use properly-sourced material, properly-cited to create encyclopedic prose content that would prove his talk page assertions correct, while improving WP. Sad to say, I can't recall any example of him simply citing the text of a reliable source which would support the specific content he insists should belong in any of these articles. Other users have patiently tried to mentor and encourage X to become a constructive contributor, but for whatever reason this has not happened. Given his recidivist history, I am afraid that only a lengthy block is going to give him the time to reconsider his perspective and priorities about participation here. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Really? Seriously? You can't recall this... Talk:Tax_choice#Kennett_failed_verification.3F? Let me know if that doesn't jog your memory and I'll be happy to provide plenty more examples. Also, speaking of jogging your memory...don't forget about this...Talk:Government_waste#Removal_of_reliably_sourced_content --Xerographica (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's because it failed verification. I'm not going to say that you didn't read it, but no one with good knowledge of English who did read it would find it supported the statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Really? Seriously? You can't recall this... Talk:Tax_choice#Kennett_failed_verification.3F? Let me know if that doesn't jog your memory and I'll be happy to provide plenty more examples. Also, speaking of jogging your memory...don't forget about this...Talk:Government_waste#Removal_of_reliably_sourced_content --Xerographica (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Others have repeatedly suggested to X that, with a fraction of the time and energy he puts into his talk page and other non-article messages here, he could instead be improving the articles. He states that he is familiar with the various subjects and the associated literature. Over and over, he's been asked to use properly-sourced material, properly-cited to create encyclopedic prose content that would prove his talk page assertions correct, while improving WP. Sad to say, I can't recall any example of him simply citing the text of a reliable source which would support the specific content he insists should belong in any of these articles. Other users have patiently tried to mentor and encourage X to become a constructive contributor, but for whatever reason this has not happened. Given his recidivist history, I am afraid that only a lengthy block is going to give him the time to reconsider his perspective and priorities about participation here. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
By OP – I ask that Xerographica's comments directed towards SPECIFICO's past editing not become a distraction from the main issue. – S. Rich (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I tried taking these pages off of my watchlist, but the dispute seems to have followed me regardless, so I guess I should just drop a note here. From my somewhat limited prior experience with this dispute, it appears to me that Xerographica is very passionate about this subject, adn has good intentions. That's not in and of itself a problem, but who was it that compared strong opinions on Wikipedia to tigers in a zoo? It comes to mind. The things that I had an impression are the real problems are these: a) Xerographicahas little sense of discrimination as far as material that should be in the article as opposed to material that should stay out. It appears that, in Xerographica's mind, a reliable source guarantees inclusion in an article; any edit that removes sourced content is a negative edit, no matter why the material was in fact removed. See Talk:Tax_choice#Eisenhower_vs._Hitler? for an example of this. Second, and more importantly, it seems that Xerographica doesn't quite understand original research and especially synthesis; it seems to me that Xerographica is, perhaps unknowingly inserting their own inferences and conclusions between sourced bits of information. An example of what made me think this way is at User_talk:Xerographica#Burden_of_proof_on_Tax_choice. Basically, this unfamiliarity with Wikipedia norms is leading to Xerographica's frustration with the other editors, who are objecting to their edits for seemingly incomprehensible reasons, causing the lashouts. Unfortunately, because Xerographica is so passionate about this issue, they're not particularly willing to accept criticism, and also prone to edit-warring and other seemingly aggressive behavior. The edit-warring is what drew my attention to Xerographica in the first place, but to their credit, I have not heard that they continued to edit-war after I issued a warning. Again, I haven't made a comprehensive survey of Xerographica's edits, so I can't say if this is a consistent problem, or if this is the same issues that others have noted. This is just what I've observed in the conflicts I've been exposed to, and what seems like the root of the problem to me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I believe WP:TIGERS is what you were looking for. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I had one rather strange and frustrating interaction with X on electoral fusion; I think the portion of Writ Keeper's comments beginning "Second, and ..." and ending "... aggressive behavior" are an excellent diagnosis of the situation and of X's behavior. --JBL (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that is part of the problem. However, while it's perfectly understandable that a new editor might start out that way, most will listen to advice and guidance and develop the ability to work within WP norms and protocols. In X's case, however, despite a lot of guidance and supportive dialogue from a number of capable editors and experienced mentors, X has simply failed to progress beyond the dysfunctional behavior. In light of this, the situation will not be remedied by more of the same mentoring or guidance. Those have been demonstrated to be ineffective. A significant block is much more likely in my view to have a beneficial effect. SPECIFICO talk 04:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt a block will have a beneficial effect on Xerographica's editing. Quite the opposite, if anything. Of course, there is a time when it ceases to matter what will improve Xerographica's editing; whether we've hit that point, I don't know and don't really have an opinion. While we're on the subject of sanctions, a well-targeted topic ban might be more effective, but who knows? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- By OP – Observations: 1. The very day the tiger was released from his cage/block, he started clawing about the museum. (Indeed, the block was extended because he would not retract his fangs when appealing the block.) 2. I think a ban would have to be pretty extensive to be effective. Namely, anything in the economics category. – S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Economics" was what I was thinking. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- By OP – Observations: 1. The very day the tiger was released from his cage/block, he started clawing about the museum. (Indeed, the block was extended because he would not retract his fangs when appealing the block.) 2. I think a ban would have to be pretty extensive to be effective. Namely, anything in the economics category. – S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt a block will have a beneficial effect on Xerographica's editing. Quite the opposite, if anything. Of course, there is a time when it ceases to matter what will improve Xerographica's editing; whether we've hit that point, I don't know and don't really have an opinion. While we're on the subject of sanctions, a well-targeted topic ban might be more effective, but who knows? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that is part of the problem. However, while it's perfectly understandable that a new editor might start out that way, most will listen to advice and guidance and develop the ability to work within WP norms and protocols. In X's case, however, despite a lot of guidance and supportive dialogue from a number of capable editors and experienced mentors, X has simply failed to progress beyond the dysfunctional behavior. In light of this, the situation will not be remedied by more of the same mentoring or guidance. Those have been demonstrated to be ineffective. A significant block is much more likely in my view to have a beneficial effect. SPECIFICO talk 04:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I had one rather strange and frustrating interaction with X on electoral fusion; I think the portion of Writ Keeper's comments beginning "Second, and ..." and ending "... aggressive behavior" are an excellent diagnosis of the situation and of X's behavior. --JBL (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I believe WP:TIGERS is what you were looking for. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Regarding improvements in my editing. Here are three of my most recent articles...
- The Other Invisible Hand
- Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy
- Scroogenomics
- Where's one article that Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO have actually built up? My contributions are certainly far far far from perfect...but can you name any editors who are actively creating/improving economic articles? I mentioned Thomasmeeks already...and recently Hugo Spinelli did a great job with Freedom of choice. Yet look on the talk page to see his difficulties with Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO. They criticize and tear down other people's efforts but I've never once seen them build up any article. I can share plenty of articles that I've made a highly imperfect effort to try and build up. Yet where's a single article that these three editors have significantly improved? Where's an article where they've done it better? Doesn't anybody think it strange that these editors cannot provide a single example of an article that they've built up?
- I wouldn't at all mind criticism from these editors if they actually led by example...but they really do not lead by example. They can't even provide one single example! I can show you plenty of my contributions so you know exactly what you'd be losing if you blocked me from editing economic articles. But what would be the loss if you blocked Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO? There would be no loss...and that's a problem. --Xerographica (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- wow, 168 violations in the hat. did anyone read each example, is there a highlight reel? since i havent clicked each, which was the worst? the few random examples i did follow seemed rather tame? whatever happens with this case, i suspect one of the parties is in error. either X has flown under the radar for quite some time, or R is looking too hard. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- By OP – Clarification for Darkstar. The count is 116, as the diffs begin with #52. The first (#51) is the block log, provided as the starting point. Was I looking too hard? Well, there is the pre-block history, which is not included. And I might have given descriptions to the his comments, like "snide" or "cute". (I did so in response to him directly a few times.) But the point is, that Xerographica constantly throws out these comments. So, given the borderline nature of many of them, they are invidious. Alas, someone needed to do something; and, as there are other things I rather do, I did not enjoy this project much. – S. Rich (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- wow, 168 violations in the hat. did anyone read each example, is there a highlight reel? since i havent clicked each, which was the worst? the few random examples i did follow seemed rather tame? whatever happens with this case, i suspect one of the parties is in error. either X has flown under the radar for quite some time, or R is looking too hard. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I have had the same problems with Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO since I edited Freedom of Choice, but now things seem to be moving on. Anyway, as far as I know, I don't see any serious violation of WP's policies by Xerographica. I find it really hard to assume good faith with their disruptive edits and abuse of DRs, so I can understand Xerographica's frustrations. I share the same. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- By OP – In reply to Xerographica immediately above.
- I'll refer you to Carl Eytel, which I started and which took one year and over 500 edits from myself and 14 other editors to achieve Good Article status.
- Here are the diffs on Scroogenomics: [123] – 3 by you at the start in setting up the article and 22 subsequent edits by 5 other editors.
- Hugo Spinelli did not suffer disruptive edits from me. I modified the talk page headings in accordance with WP:TPO to neutralfy them. I posted the rationale on the edit summary when I did so. And I have quoted the particular language of the TPO guidance on that talk page. And I apologized to Hugo when it appeared that he did not understand the rationale. (And I am sorry to see that Hugo finds it hard to AGF. This essay WP:AAGF, is one that he might find interesting.)
- – S. Rich (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- if cute and snide are grounds for action, i fear the whole of wikipedia will need to block itself Mr Richiepoo. Have a dandy doodle day sweetheart. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The deingrating comment of "richiepoo" and "sweetheart" above and in the edit summary certainly is, however ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- By OP – Please see my response to Darkstar on his talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- support. i am convinced some action is needed. thx to srich for having the patience to explain the issue in such detail. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- By OP – Please see my response to Darkstar on his talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The deingrating comment of "richiepoo" and "sweetheart" above and in the edit summary certainly is, however ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- if cute and snide are grounds for action, i fear the whole of wikipedia will need to block itself Mr Richiepoo. Have a dandy doodle day sweetheart. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support RFC/U Look, I don't know what the hell else to try in order to get Xerographica to fall in line with Project and Community Norms. Blocks don't phase him. Polite correction has xero effect. Attempts by some of the most patient and knowledeable editors are ignored. It's either indef-block and lose the potential for some good edits, start an RFC/U, or let this editor run roughshod over everyone. My choice is b. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- i see what you did there Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I am not an admin and I am unsure whether I should comment here. If not, I apologize and will remove this. I was mentioned in the 'extended history' above and have two thoughts. First, it is inappropriate to hide Easter Eggs in articles (humorous or otherwise) in order to make points about whether Wikipedia editors read or comprehend your additions. Second, the assertion that other editors are incapable of understanding or are insufficiently interested in and hence incapable of editing is appalling. This editor has passion and fire. It needs some tempering. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- By OP – To Bwilkins & Capitalismojo: please see my comment to (my buddy) Darkstar here: [124]. I really don't think there is a pony under all of that horse shit. To Capitalismojo: your comments are most welcome. We are not just "users" of WP, we are contributors. – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment While I have noticed problems with X (and they appear to continue to a lesser degree) I can understand his frustration with a cadre of editors following his every move. Not that him being followed is a bad thing for the pedia, but it is certainly making him uncomfortable. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC) - By OP – Various observations about Xerographica being uncomfortable, upset, frustrated, or whatever are missing the point. The fact that certain editors, or any editors at all, are monitoring his activity, and making repeated efforts (with both honey and vinegar) to get him to improve his attitude and editing, is missing the point. The fact that he might have something to contribute alongside his tirades, pleadings, unfounded admonitions, complaints, highhanded sounding superior comments (and attacks), is missing the point. Note, please, that his disruptive, truculent, and selfish pattern of editing and commenting has gone on for some 2,000 edits, 770 of which are on article pages and the remainder on article/user talk pages. (I cannot tell you how many comments have been made about or to him. I suspect the number would be a comparatively high one.) Pleading, discussion, warnings, blocks, etc. have not helped. Moreover, with the conclusion of each block, he continues with the same behavior. (Indeed, he has had blocks extended because of his comments made in appealing the blocks.) The point is that the community is being treated unfairly when his behavior continues as it has. The point is that actual contributors, not just those editors who are following him, are frustrated, upset, uncomfortable, and disrupted each time Xerographica issues another "you are not qualified to comment because you are biased, did not read, do not understand, do not see the wisdom that I seek to impart to the world, etc." Is it unfair to "hound" Xerographica? Only if the hounding lacked basis or was simply personal – but that is not the case. Is it unfair to the community to have him continue on? Yes. I am convinced that a RFC/U would have no positive results. The RFC/U could only repeat the admonitions about his DE, and ask him to stop what he has been doing for these 2,000 edits. Xerographica had had his chance to behave according to community standards when the last block ended, but his behavior picked up again immediately following the block. So I ask, who is being treated unfairly? In my opinion, the community is. And allowing Xerographica to snarl about, unleashed, uncaged, is a disservice to the community. – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It's a case of the snarling tiger versus the proverbial bull in the china shop. I'm only snarling at the bull because it's destroying the china. But maybe it's not destroying the china? Unfortunately, there just aren't enough editors to form a credible consensus with regards to economic topics. That means that any "snarling" on my part is far easier for outside editors to spot than the destruction of china is.
- But I've honestly made an effort to tone down my "snarling". The thing is...I really don't think it's "snarling" to ask another editor whether they've done their homework. These three editors follow me around and undo my edits. Maybe they know something that I don't. So I ask them whether they've read the material. And then they accuse me of personally attacking them. If they asked me the same question I would simply answer "Yes, I have". If they produce a source that I haven't read (which has never happened), then why would I accuse them of personally attacking me if they ask whether I've read it? --Xerographica (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- By OP – Observations:
- We had much of the same in [125] the block of last December. Arguments were made in that appeal which simply repeated the behavior that lead to the block. With the December block in mind, I submit that the "They don't read" is nothing more than the other side of the the same "They don't add value" coin.
- Last month's block [126] has the same thing that we see above. E.g., he said "I think I've shown Good Faith in wanting to learn about what behavior...is...or isn't acceptable." (X's closing remark in appealing the block.)
- Both before and after this last block I and others talked to him about what a worthless and disruptive question the inquiry is. E.g., I tried to tell him that he should not ask "have you read the sources I provided?". (And here he repeats it!) Why?
- 1. AGF means you assume the other editor has read it. On the other hand, asking if "Did you see this part: 'The world is round' in Columbus' diary? I think it supports the idea of ...." That sort of question opens dialogue. That sort of question is focused. That sort of question can and does AGF. But no ....
- 2. No what? No, X has figured out on his own that other editors have not read stuff, and he declares so directly in his comments.
- 3. In any event, what are the two possible answers to X? They are: a. "No. I haven't." Which would only reinforce his smug, superior attitude and thereby engender another remark belittling the editor. Or, b. "Yes. I have." In one such case, X ended up saying [127] "read more and edit less" in his edit summary. (Albeit not directly to Rubin who had answered yes. The ES was, perhaps, more directed to me.)
- 4. Regardless, Xerographica purports to know so much about this stuff that no editor could overcome his superior knowledge and analysis. But he misses the point, repeatedly made, that his OR and SYN is unacceptable.
- Xerographica had repeatedly said "Where's one article that Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO have actually built up?" Patting myself on the back, I hope Carl Eytel will shutoff that spurious comment.
- His "they don't read" comments are only part of the problem. He has engaged in POINTy behavior and other disruptive conduct.
- Here's a suggestion. What if this ANI was a RFC/U? (In a sense the last few months with Xerographica have been an ongoing RFC/U on his user talk pages.) Would we get a different result? No. I submit that his comments above are simply burying the pony even deeper in the pile.
- Last point, consider if Xerographica had made the above remarks in a block appeal. Would they survive scrutiny? Has he made a WP:NICETRY? Does he consider and comply with WP:NOTTHEM? Has he actually agreed that huge portions of his behavior are unacceptable? The answer, pre-block appeal and now, is no.
- – S. Rich (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- if he promises to stop snarling altogether can we close this thread? Darkstar1st (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I thought he had already promised to stop snarling.... But, perhaps, we disagree as to who the the proverbial bull in the china shop is.
- Many editors assert that Xerographica is the "bull", creating articles which are not encyclopedic, promote his POV (which I generally agree with, but, I recognize it is a POV), have excessive quotes and "see also" links, and do not have references (and probably other problems I don't recall at the moment.)
- Xerographica asserts that many editors have not read (his provided) source materials; are removing relevant quotations, references, and Wikilinks; (and probably other offenses I don't recall.).
- So, who is (creating the) bull?
- As an aside, in most cases, I don't think X is violating WP:OR except as WP:SYN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I thought he had already promised to stop snarling.... But, perhaps, we disagree as to who the the proverbial bull in the china shop is.
- if he promises to stop snarling altogether can we close this thread? Darkstar1st (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- By OP – Suggested course of action:
- While I am not familiar with the technical details, I recommend a one-month WP:TBAN on Xerographica from editing on any pages related to economics, libertarianism, capitalism, or politics. Article categories (by parent) would be the determinants.
- Likewise, Xerographica be interaction banned from commenting on any talk pages, user or otherwise, for the duration of the ban. (His own talk page would be the exception.)
- Xerographica undertake an WP:Editor review during his ban. If he completes it before the close of 30 days, he can appeal the ban and ask for an early termination. If he does not complete the review, he must go to the banning administrator/community and justify the delay.
- As part of the ER process, he post the ER templates on his user/talk pages.
- In return (and at the risk of making this nonsense look like a personal battle), I will WP:DGF and undertake two reviews of the backlogged Editor Reviews. One at the outset of the 30 days and one upon completion of Xerographica's review.
- This ban may be imposed in one of two ways. If technically or administratively possible, as a WP:CBAN IAW WP:Banning_policy#Decision_to_ban. If not by Banning policy, then voluntarily by Xeriographica.
- In either case, the sanction gets logged.
- That's it. I'm putting away my WP:BLUDGEON. – S. Rich (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't planning on commenting again in this thread, but I'd like to say that a ban from posting on any talk page is a terrible idea. If we're considering sanctions other than blocks, it should be because we're trying to guide him into being a more productive editor. An essential part of the editing process is discussion of differences on talk pages; taking away that option will only make things worse, not better. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment For everybody's consideration, here's one of my most recent interactions with Rubin and SPECIFICO... Talk:Free_rider_problem#See_also_-_preference_revelation. Was there snarl on my part? Yes. Like I said, it's frustrating when the same three people follow you around and undo your edits. In the past I would have engaged in an edit war and would have been far more snarly. But now I simply post my disagreement on the talk page. In this instance I made a genuine effort to try and help Rubin, and then SPECIFICO, understand the connection and relationship between the two concepts. I could have been nicer, I could have been more patient and I certainly could have better explained the connection. But if it had been anybody else (other than Rich) I certainly would have been nicer and more patient.
- From my perspective, just like I'm completely clueless about physics...these three editors are completely clueless about the free-rider problem and all of the other economic concepts that they edit. But now I'm posting my disagreements on the talk pages. It might take a month, or a year or 5 years...but hopefully eventually another editor will come along, read what I've posted on the talk pages and undo the damage caused by these editors. It's certainly not "natural" for me to standby and patiently and politely voice my disagreement with their edits. But I've got the standby part down. I no long undo their edits. Regarding patience...well...I did spend my time trying to help them understand the concept. That took a lot of patience on my part. Regarding politeness/civility...I no longer engage in what most would consider to be personal attacks. Can I eliminate the "snarl" though? Could you not be snarly to editors who are clearly and constantly harassing you?
- How about this. If you guys actually enforce the policy against harassment...Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding...then I will really try to stop snarling at these three editors. If not, then all I can promise is that I won't engage in what most would perceive to be personal attacks. --Xerographica (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here's a better idea: you make a month worth of edits that are a) all within policy, b) all assume good faith, c) don't attack any editor directly or indirectly ... and I can guarantee that most editors will find no reason to have to follow your non-compliant editing behaviours (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding:
- "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."
- Whether or not you agree, I see related problems on multiple (economics) articles, and articles you perceive as economics articles, including {{quotefarm}}, providing "references" without indicating what text in the reference might be relevant to what text in the Wikipedia article, misreading sources (often, by adding your own knowledge of (a particular school of) economics to interpret the source), adding "See also" links which are only relevant through another article already Wikilinked, or are not relevant at all, interpreting common "folk" sayings as economic concepts, etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
By OP – Any comments on my proposed course of action? Or does Xerographica get to decide what the community has to do? – S. Rich (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I recommend as follows:
- 90-day topic ban on editing articles in categories economics, libertarianism, capitalism, and politics.
- No restriction on any talk page interaction or on article editing in other categories.
- Subject to WP rights of unblock request and appeal. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I fear it will not be sufficient (and I commend the patience of the editors who have not given up trying to explain the concept of WP:OR to X, who in my opinion simply feels that a superior intellect such as his is not bound by it, so tries to argue it out of existence); but nonetheless I support Specifico's recommendation. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- By OP – Jeez, I thought I was tough as I was looking a 30 day period of rehab. But my proposal was toughened up with the Editor Review, which I hope could steer X into a less confrontational and demeaning interchanges with his fellow editors. Well, I'll sweeten the bargain on my end. One, if X will undergo the ER, I'll double my load on reviewing their backlog. Two now and two upon completion of X's 30 day ban. But X has gotta act soon if he's interested in doing the ER voluntarily. I may pull my offer off the table, which would not benefit the ER backlog. (And don't get me wrong, I've made some recent changes concerning ER which should improve it and its' role in the project.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am uneasy imposing a mandatory ER as a penalty. I prefer to give X the freedom of choice to elect such a review for himself. X can evaluate his opportunity cost for the Editor Review against its potential to improve his chances for successful editing career here. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- By OP – Jeez, I thought I was tough as I was looking a 30 day period of rehab. But my proposal was toughened up with the Editor Review, which I hope could steer X into a less confrontational and demeaning interchanges with his fellow editors. Well, I'll sweeten the bargain on my end. One, if X will undergo the ER, I'll double my load on reviewing their backlog. Two now and two upon completion of X's 30 day ban. But X has gotta act soon if he's interested in doing the ER voluntarily. I may pull my offer off the table, which would not benefit the ER backlog. (And don't get me wrong, I've made some recent changes concerning ER which should improve it and its' role in the project.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I fear it will not be sufficient (and I commend the patience of the editors who have not given up trying to explain the concept of WP:OR to X, who in my opinion simply feels that a superior intellect such as his is not bound by it, so tries to argue it out of existence); but nonetheless I support Specifico's recommendation. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Regarding original research, I recently expanded the article on preference revelation. Where's the OR? Clearly there's plenty of research...but where have I added anything that's "original"? Regarding "rehab", I think it's unreasonable to expect me to be nicer to the three editors who are harassing me. It's also pretty unreasonable to block me when they are the ones who are clearly violating Wikipedia policy. --Xerographica (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Here's what Rich said above..."I hope could steer X into a less confrontational and demeaning interchanges with his fellow editors". And here's what he just posted on his talk page...
- Fuck you, Spinelli, there's no edit war going on.
- Do you know what Orangemike blocked me for two weeks for saying? He blocked me because I said that other editors were "willfully ignoring reliable sources"...User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_3#Courtesy. --Xerographica (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- By OP – And here is the discussion I had with Spinelli before he tagged by talk page with his edit war message: Talk:Brady_Haran#Future_Projects – S. Rich (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC) PS: Was my comment WP:VULGAR? Obviously so. Should I say WP:SORRY? I'm thinking about it. (I've said sorry in the past for my mistakes, including a sorry to X.) But (or should I say "Butt") the issue in this discussion is regarding Xerographica's many uncivil and non-AGF remarks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know whether you should apologize (actually don't care), but I know that invoking the name of Paul Harvey to justify telling someone to fuck off is exceedingly lame. Unfortunately we don't have a Wikipedia:Biographies of dead persons policy here, so there's not much I can about such a disrespectful use of a man's name. NE Ent 15:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I added a section on preference revelation to public goods, public finance and public economics. Rubin undid my contributions with the following explanation, "Somewhat relevent, but much too long". Rather than undo his edits, rather than tell him exactly what I think about his edits, rather than tell him exactly what I think about the value of his contributions as an editor, rather than give him honest feedback, I simply posted my highly filtered thoughts on the talk pages. It's really not easy to hold back...especially when he is clearly harassing me and none of you admins are doing anything about it. But I did hold back. I'm not asking for an award here...I'm simply asking that you don't block me. --Xerographica (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, so adding incredibly long and therefore knowingly inappropriate sections to an article, then whinging when it's removed is supposed to somehow absolve you from the fact that competence is required? Those edits were pointy, and you know it - you knew they would be removed before you even clicked "save", but you couldn't wait for your adversary to remove them so you could come here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's one possible interpretation. Another possible interpretation is that, based on a thorough review of the relevant literature, I identified where there's significant room for improvement and made the effort to contribute valuable and well cited content. Could it have been shorter? Sure, just like all the other preexisting sections could have been shorter. But I don't see Rubin removing all the other sections because they are "much too long". Nor do I see him removing all the sections that are poorly cited at best. And I certainly do not see him contributing any content to these articles or to any other economic articles. All I see is him following me around undoing my edits. But rather than do anything about it, you'd prefer to assume that I intentionally added that content for the sole purpose of entrapping Rubin. I'm certainly not surprised that one of these three editors undid my contributions, but I'd much much much prefer it if Rubin hadn't. Who wouldn't prefer not to have their considerable effort undone? --Xerographica (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, so adding incredibly long and therefore knowingly inappropriate sections to an article, then whinging when it's removed is supposed to somehow absolve you from the fact that competence is required? Those edits were pointy, and you know it - you knew they would be removed before you even clicked "save", but you couldn't wait for your adversary to remove them so you could come here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Look, people ... many kb of text ago, it seemed to be clear that an RFC/U was the right way to go. Rather than actually take that step, the sniping escalated: Person A sniped at Person B, Person B sniped at Person C...and so on. Are you afraid of RFC/U's because your own actions will also be looked at? Tough shit! Yeah, Xerographica is disruptive, but not to the point of block via this board at the moment, capische? Continuing this thread well past its useful life is also disruptive. File your damned RFC/U - I'm sure you'll have more than the requisite number of certifiers. Until then, I recommend some voluntary topic bans, some voluntary interaction bans, and at least one person whose username starts with X should go back and re-fricking-read the purpose of this project and WP:CIVIL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- BY OP – Seems everyone wants something done (including X, who wants something done to everyone else but him). Of course I do too, and that's why I worked up this ANI. And in attempts to get this resolved, I made my repeated suggestion that X undertake an ER. (Seems that the scale of possible actions goes from ER, next to RFC/U, to ANI, to ArbCom, etc.) X won't do an ER on his own, and no one can force him. But I think a block, that would be immediately lifted upon positive results from an ER, would be helpful. So I ask an admin to set up the block – or close this discussion. If the block is implemented, I shall fulfill my commitment to undertake ER reviewing on the backlog regardless of X's own willingness to undertake. If this discussion gets closed without a block, then I shall undertake the RFC/U. (I'd rather have the time devoted to ER reviewing.) So, concerned admin, whoever you are, please take action. I and the community will be grateful. – S. Rich (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Or just close this. If something were to be done, it would have been done by now. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Or just close this. If something were to be done, it would have been done by now. little green rosetta(talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Topic ban on user SuzanneOlsson
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SuzanneOlsson (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for a week for disruptive editing by admin KillerChihuahua. Since the ban has expired she has returned and continues to push her fringe theories and make personal attacks on other editors. See User_talk:KillerChihuahua#SuzanneOlsson for the blocking admin's opinions supporting a topic ban. I would therefore like to propose a topic ban for this editor on the article Roza Bal, and any directly related articles. --Biker Biker (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can you give more information like clarify the topic, what the mainstream views are, and what the fringe views are? What's the backstory here?--v/r - TP 04:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The back story is that SuzanneOlsson has incessantly pushed her own theories and website about this topic. Anyone who disagrees with her point of view, or dares to remove the link to her website is subject to a torrent of abuse. This can be seen at Talk:Roza Bal and Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#www.rozabal.com --Biker Biker (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I read the talk page. I don't understand it because I know nothing about the topic. Please educate me. What exactly is the problem, with diffs? It's your job to make your case and you've not made it. You're only alluding to the matter that a case exists and we have to find it. Not trying to be a dick, but we need you to be more clear here on this board instead of pointing us elsewhere and expecting us to gather what you're getting at.--v/r - TP 04:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Short version: Jesus didn't die on the cross, his brother did and then Jesus left Palestine and died decades later as a very old man and was buried at Roza Bal - he is supposedly one of the two graves - and that should be in the Roza Bal article and a couple of Jesus articles. Which is a problem, because there are zero serious historians and/or archeologists who think there is anything to it. A cross or rosary found there is cited as evidence. Now, no one cares what Olsson believes, that's her business. But she can't put it in our articles until someone serious, someone major, someone, IOW, who meets RS, has written about it. She's an SPA with The Truth(tm) and we've all had experiences with such before. This is why she's here, I'm afraid. To "set the record straight" (from what the regular historians and anthropologists and theologists say) to "let your readers know". I wish her well in her endeavors, but I wish her to stop trying to popularize them using Wikipedia to do so. KillerChihuahua 13:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I read the talk page. I don't understand it because I know nothing about the topic. Please educate me. What exactly is the problem, with diffs? It's your job to make your case and you've not made it. You're only alluding to the matter that a case exists and we have to find it. Not trying to be a dick, but we need you to be more clear here on this board instead of pointing us elsewhere and expecting us to gather what you're getting at.--v/r - TP 04:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am sorry you have been left with such a bad impression of me. I have not been here to 'push my views' or my website. My website has been at Wikipedia for years associated with various topics. Recently I acquired the domain name Roza Bal and have moved my entire website to point to that domain instead of the old one. There is nothing sinister happening. I have however been shouting loud and clear that some editors have pushed their own agendas when editing the Roza Bal page. Scholars are shot down as 'crackpots' and valid sources and links removed so the entire theory looks like fringe crackpots- thus offending millions of Ahmaddi Muslims worldwide. Religious scholars like James Tabor, Elaine Pagels, and Fida Hassnain are not referenced, or are only referenced with a note that this is all fringe crackpot theories invented by local shop keepers and manufacturers of fake relics. It is all too shocking to see this deliberate, religiously biased misinformation at Wikipedia. This conflict with Wiki editors goes back several years and is always centered around one or two particular editors...I am not raising a ruckus to hurt myself so badly here- but to correct the terrible inaccuracies and biases at the Roza Bal Wiki page. I have been taking a terrible beating over this. It would be much easier to just walk away. But the editing has not been honest, fair, scholarly, or accurate. That's the problem. It's never been about me or my website or my personal "crackpot" views. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The back story is that SuzanneOlsson has incessantly pushed her own theories and website about this topic. Anyone who disagrees with her point of view, or dares to remove the link to her website is subject to a torrent of abuse. This can be seen at Talk:Roza Bal and Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#www.rozabal.com --Biker Biker (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Elaine Pagels is a well-respected intellectual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minorview (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)I have been monitoring this dispute from the outside and I notice that SuzanneOlsson has accused those who want to keep her from editing this article of calling her a "crackpot" (in quotes) multiple times; however, Ctrl+F on Talk:Roza Bal indicates that she is the only one who has used this word. There seems to be some serious assumption of bad faith, and not on the parts of those who are arguing against her. I would be willing to guess that some real-world experts on the subject have called her this in the past, and she is now projecting her feelings toward those people onto other Wikipedians. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know why SuzanneOlsson throws around names like Elaine Pagels. Anyone who has a look at the website will realize that this is not an academic publication, and linking to the site is basically spamming since the most informative thing on it is a link to Amazon.com. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing that out.The link led to my website- which never mentions Elaine Pagels there. The books are there as 'fillers' while the entire website has to be moved to a new server and created completely from scratch in a new program/format. It isn't intended to be 'scholarly' but to point everyone to additional resources. That's all I can manage for now. The site is under construction for the next few weeks. I did not perceive this as a "sales pitch" for amazon, nor spamming. I am sorry that you expressed that impression. Further, as websites go, it contains the least amount of information about me! So much for self- aggrandizement and self-promotion. I have promoted every other author more than myself! By the way, please note that I have done no editing, inserted no links to my website nor anyone else's. I have answered editors who attacked me and wrote misleading untruths. I regard that as necessary so the inaccurate info does not remain as the 'last word'...if anyone knows a better way, please explain it to me. I resent being called names and having innuendos about me posted by Wiki editors. Wouldn't that bother you too? Sue SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne Olsson~~.
Elaine Pagels is a very reputable scholar. Minorview (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support formalisation of voluntary withdrawal from topic Article edits, but allow Talk edits - this is giant fringe, and has been massively disruptive creating/deforming Roza Bal, Unknown years of Jesus possibly some other articles, but as it stands Suzanne hasn't re added these self-published sources or websites to the articles. Suzanne has undertaken on Talk:Roza Bal to go away and try and get some basic refs with page numbers and ISBNs and come back. There are a couple of tangible page refs which only exist in Urdu translations and I suspect Suzanne is probably the only one who can get them. In the meantime, like it or not, Ahmadiyya claims and use of Sanskrit/Persian texts, however ludicrous to mainstream scholars are still notable, so they need WP:IRS sourcing. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment If the problem is Ms Olsson's website, wouldn't it be a simple matter to just remove the link to the website until such time as the site has completed migration at which point its suitability as a source can be reassessed? Blackmane (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I think T Paris' request for clarification with diffs is reasonable, given the length of talk page discussions and I will try to provide a brief response. I became aware of Ms Olsson's edits a few weeks ago, but my understanding is that the situation goes back to 2008 and may be characcterized as follows:
- 2008 issues
- Ms Olsen wrote and self-published a book that refers to a building known as Roza Bal and her book proposes that Jesus of Nazareth died in Kashmir at age 130 and is buried in that building.
- In 2008 debate started about possible WP:COI, her use of Self-published sources, including her own book, and the issue of non-WP:RS items
- User comments from then are on her talk page and I will just reproduce some here:
- In May 2008 she was told about reliable sourcing by user:PaulB
- She was told in May 2008 not to add self-published items to Wikipedia by user:Dougweller.
- And user:itsmejudith told her in clear terms that the Olsson book is not reliable and should not be used
- There were also basic policy issues in 2008 and there is a statement by user:Fullstop that: "Not only is SuzanneOlson not following what she's quoting, she has a general lack of understanding of how WP works.
- 2013 issues
- Recently Ms Olson obtained the website Rozabal.com and restared adding article links about her website, along with references to her own book and some people she knows in Kashmir.
- There were often less than properly sourced items that other editors objected to and removed. As far as I can tell I did not actually remove any of her article text myself.
- She was blocked for a week by user:KillerChihuahua. User:JamesBWatson, the admin who declined to unblock, echoed the same sentiment as user:Fullstop had expressed in 2008, and said: "you think everyone else is wrong, that you are the victim of a conspiracy, that anyone who disagrees with you is biased and prejudiced, etc." and added that the problem has been "your single-minded concern with the notion that you are RIGHT and anyone who expresses an opposing view is WRONG"
- The user has also made somewhat strange statements, e.g. that Doug Weller reverted her because he has a secret crush on her, etc. At one point she apologizes about saying things, but later says similar things. Very unusual.
- She decided to stop two weeks, but has since returned and made statements regarding sources by Elaine Pagels supporting her views. I think Pagels would be surprised to hear that.
- User:Biker Biker who was not involved in the previous discussions started this thread.
- In January 2013 I predicted that this user would be banned sooner or later, partly because she said somewhere that she will defend the Roza Bal hypothesis until the day she dies, and that type of determination often results a topic ban; also because in 2008 she was quoting Jimmy Wales on sourcing and still does not source properly. I saw no way out then, and see none now. I think a topic ban happens either now or later. May as well be now before more user time is taken up. I have really had enough of this. As I said on her talk page, I stopped editing the Roza Bal page 2 weeks ago and will not be editing that article or commenting on it ever again. This has been just enough. Wikipedia can be a very strange place. History2007 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban on Roza Bal related article edits, broadly construed, as suggested by user:EdJohnston on Feb 1 2013, prior to this thread. I have spent too much time on this, and this will be my last comment on the issue, and I will not be responding here further. Will just look back later to see what happened. History2007 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic and spam ban per "the puppy" (KC) and WP:SPA. If the site becomes a "WP:RS" in the future, then information and links can be added at that time. — Ched : ? 14:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban per KillerChihuahua and History2007's useful information and diffs. That must have taken some time to collect and lay out, History; I don't blame you for sounding tired. But as regards a "spam ban", per Ched — well, I don't mean to go all lawyerly — of course I'm for that if there's some practical point to it — but surely Wikipedia has a generalised spam ban? Nobody gets to spam us. Most especially not with links to websites they have an interest in driving traffic to. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC).
- Support per KC and History2007.--v/r - TP 15:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban per KC and History2007. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban. If we don't do it now we'll just go through all of this again at a later time. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban per Dougweller. Five years seems enough.Capitalismojo (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Just a quick look at Talk:Roza Bal shows that something indefinite is required to stop the waste of time regarding the peddling of unsupportable fringe views. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - though I'd have more faith if the editor in question came to understand the premise of WP:OR and volunteered not to make Roza Bal related edits on that basis. But failing that, community-enforced action is clearly necessary. Stalwart111 23:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- You still have faith that might happen, Stalwart? People have been explaining WP:OR to her for at least five years. Here's a link from 2008, and here's one from 2013. Surely it's time we concluded she doesn't want to know. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
- Possibly not, and let me be clear - I support a topic ban entirely. I just tend to think there is a better chance of long-term "rehabilitation" of TB'd editors if there is some element of volunteerism in their instigation. But that's obviously not always possible and 5 years of WP:IDHT is justification enough for an enforced topic ban, absolutely. Stalwart111 12:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban. Recent comments like this suggest she doesn't still understand the issue here after five years.--Cúchullain t/c 18:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban on Jesus of Nazareth, broadly construed, including the life of Jesus, the lost years of Jesus, the historicity of Jesus, and articles about people who study the topic, and literature about the topic. Note that such a topic ban would effectively ban the editor from Wikipedia, as this topic is her only interest. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I made errors when I first came here in 2005.Even naively allowing others (children and grandchildren) use my computer and log on to Wiki was a mistake. They became 'sock puppets'.. something I never even knew existed (my mind didn't work that way- nothing devious or fraudulent was ever intended) and it stopped immediately once I was made aware the problem. Please show me one incident- JUST ONE- where I inserted my book since once in 2008- 5 years ago. I have not. I have been reminded of this by several editors, but I have not done this! They were reminders,. Nothing more. I also objected to discrimination at Wiki, such as attacking my 'self-published' book while allowing others to remain because they were 'more notable' according to certain Wiki editors. In one incident, the self-published author of fiction even acknowledged me as his source and inspiration. He remains at Wiki to this day. I dont come to Wiki more than once every 2-3 years, and then only to update a broken link on one or two pages, links that have been here for years. I have not gone around Wiki inserting links to my web pages or books, and what is here had been here since years ago.Why is it now suddenly criminal and sinister? Inaccurate, misleading,prejudicial information however, is inserted, the Roza Bal page being an example. I asked permission to make contributions to help the page, new sources, documentaries, et cetera. We all acknowledged COI and were mindful of it. My son suddenly died and I had to deal with that and the funeral right in the middle of this. Before I had a chance to search out the references as I promised I would, everything was deleted, I was under attack, and things from 5 years ago brought up as though this was ongoing and regular. It isn't. I acknowledged that since getting the domain 'rozabal' I would have to be more careful. But to accuse me falsely of going around Wiki inserting links to my book and website "everywhere" this is simply not true. I do not think that Doug Weller is a good editor for the Roza Bal page. I have always said that. I do not think that History2007 knows that much about history and should not be making contributions to the Roza Bal page. He knows as little about the facts of Roza Bal as does Doug Weller. I may not be swift at understanding all Wiki policies- simply because I'm not here often enough. I am not familiar with what keys to strike to create indentations or topic headings here.I dont edit much here, less than once every year or two. I don't pretend to know everything about Roza Bal, or about Wiki, but I do know when false or misleading information is promoted. That's the real issue, the real problem. I noticed that some new fresh eyes (editors) have come to the Roza Bal page. They too noticed problems and recommended changes. I am most grateful for that. Thank You,and whatever the outcome for me here, I hope the page will continue to be improved by others. That's all I've ever asked for here. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Please show me one incident- JUST ONE- where I inserted my book since once in 2008- 5 years ago. I have not." --->11:21, 29 January 2009 — raekyt 05:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Another? 07:41, 14 February 2009 you as an IP? because minutes later you do that edit]. And this. Inserting a link to your webpage. adding your book as a cite. Adding your website as an EL... — raekyt 05:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for those links to edits. You showed where my book links have been there for years. You started with a link that was there since 2009. Virtually nothing changed except minor. Further, if the link pointed to an old website, and now to a new website,that isn't the same as the implication you are suggesting. The only point is they were already there for years. Thank You for taking the time though. I appreciate your efforts. I think it just goes to prove what I have been saying is true. If I were at Wiki inserting links on numerous topics for years and years, that's entirely different. I would not like anyone to be left with that erroneous impression. I think you just helped clarify this. The links were already there. Thank you for your efforts. I believe they really will be helpful.Peace. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- It shows a long-term pattern of WP:PROMOTION. — raekyt 16:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for those links to edits. You showed where my book links have been there for years. You started with a link that was there since 2009. Virtually nothing changed except minor. Further, if the link pointed to an old website, and now to a new website,that isn't the same as the implication you are suggesting. The only point is they were already there for years. Thank You for taking the time though. I appreciate your efforts. I think it just goes to prove what I have been saying is true. If I were at Wiki inserting links on numerous topics for years and years, that's entirely different. I would not like anyone to be left with that erroneous impression. I think you just helped clarify this. The links were already there. Thank you for your efforts. I believe they really will be helpful.Peace. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban on anything related to Jesus. Nsk92 (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support broad topic ban on Jesus of Nazareth, including the life of Jesus, the lost years of Jesus, the historicity of Jesus, articles about people who study the topic, literature about the topic, and places linked to the fringe theories she relentlessly promotes, concurring with Binksternet that such a topic ban would probably amount to a ban of the editor from Wikipedia, as this topic is her only interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if we could change behavior with education, role-modelling open-mindedness, instead of power-trips and bans. Whatever. Banning is so much easier. 67.189.38.119 (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Time for decision? Has been on the board for close to 4 days now, and no major new revelations in the past day or so. A decision may be in order before it just gets archived away. History2007 (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
OVERKILL?*:::::::Ahhhh I see that History 2007 is here for the jugular. I think all you have proven is (1) Both myself and this topic have been here for years. (2) Especially since I got a domain with same name as the topic, this is now a clear COI,(and I agree) but does not prevent me from editing if I am not "self-promoting", nor is a ban on 'all things religious'-or-'jesus' or any of the recommended bans called for (see what Orange Mike recommended. Whew! How is all that relevant as I never edited any of those topics?) This is just plain over-reaction and over- kill, unjustified and uncalled for. (3.) Links to my web site and book were here for years- now suddenly removed whilst fictional books appear as Wiki reference(this has been another ongoing problem between editor DougWeller and myself for years) (4.) Conflicts are about content, not about self-promotion, and conflicts are always with the same Wiki editor.(just a reminder that the problem with accurate sourcing and my help updating the page arose during a death in family when I had to turn my attention away from sourcing for a few days. The Wiki editors knew that yet used that opportunity to delete everything valid and seek a ban) (5.)Note that since new editors have joined in helping improve and update the page, they are making contributions quite similar to what I suggested. (6) I am rarely here at Wiki, perhaps once a year or less. I do not go from page to page. Isn't a total ban on all topics a tad "overkill"? You have a nice day History2007. Please do not get over zealous about topics like rosary beads and fake relics, least not until you have all the facts. If you are unsure, please ask me. I'll be delighted to help you with history. You have a nice day, and please try to stay away from Craig's List. All the best, SueSuzanneOlsson (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Topic ban on articles related to Roza Bal and to Jesus. SuzanneOlsson seems to have a clear agenda that the she is pushing, that agenda has zero support under WP:RS and the user has been made aware of that on several occasions, but still continued.Jeppiz (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I do not have a "clear agenda". If that were true I would have been at Wiki on a regular basis pushing my views everywhere. I have never done that. My only concern has always been the lack of accuracy and true historical information on the Roza Bal page, which is an area I do claim some amount of expertise. To insinuate more is absolutely incorrect and misleading. Have a nice day. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the personal attacks, or the comment about crushes. There should be a conflict of interest warning about adding links to your own Web site. Has that warning been given since 2008? Strangesad (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, Strangesad, I did make a joke about DougWeller having a crush on me. I am guilty as charged. It shouldn't be taken out of context. Regarding the links to my web ages, they have been here since 2005. The problems (as I see it) is that I was under constant attack (by same editor for over 5 years) whilst at same time, that editor allowed self-published FICTION links. I strongly objected- and I feel that was within my rights since I was the one under attack, and since I repeatedly pointed out the double standard being used by "some" Wiki editors on that page. I dont think that editor and I will be exchanging Christmas cards this year. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: Please. Do you all see yourselves? This piling on is a ghastly example of overkill when a simple COI admonishment would do just as well. Ignocrates (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Template:Caught in the Act! I am very distressed. This was just posted at Wiki, and DougWeller-AKA-KillerChihuahua has been the one I have complained about for 5 years at Wiki, the one doing unfair and misleading edits here, the one who started the ban on me, and, as Killer Chihuahua enacted a week long ban on me. Based on this new information, I think this entire ban thing against me ought to be dropped. This is terribly significant and defines just what I've been up against. Click on this link for the page about this Administrator> [[128]] SuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, you have not provided any evidence for that accusation nor have I found any evidence for it elsewhere. Second, even if that were the case, it would not matter one bit. A great number of us have looked at your edits, and the answers here show that there is an almost unanimous consensus among many users that your edits have been disruptive. So far from the "this entire ban thing" being dropped, it should be closed and enforced, as that is the consensus view.Jeppiz (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Making accusations of sockpuppetry on two admins is very serious business. It has since been revdel'd by another admin so it's not clear who raised it and in any event throwing it into this topic ban proposal is a total red herring that tries to throw the discussion off. This "new information" as you call it has absolutely no bearing on the topic ban discussion as it was neither of them that raised the proposal in the first place. I've been sitting on the fence on this one but I'm afraid I'd have to support a topic ban as well as it is obvious that your closeness to the field has blinded you to what everyone has been telling you. As I have only made 1 comment here above but have otherwise never interacted with you nor edited these articles before, so I don't think anyone here has any issue with me saying that I'm totally uninvolved. Blackmane (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input, Blackmane, First, I have no idea how the one (or two) Administrators got accused of sock puppetry. I think it is relevant. Very.If an Administrator is misrepresenting himself/herself. I emphasize that since others have stepped in to edit the Roza Bal page, there have been no more problems. I am not and never have been trying to "push my views" about a "fringe theory". I have always been objecting to deliberately misleading-misguiding Wiki readers. I would have no problem with a ban on DougWeller- no more editing the Roza Bal page. The newcomers have been doing an awesome job- which just goes to show you I must not have been so "Wrong" after all. I dont mind staying away from the page now. I feel vindicated by other Wiki editors. These proposed bans are overkill. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- OH! I see that History 2007 is also now under fire. He is the "editor" who told me to go edit at Craig List and made other insinuations. Look guys, I have never been a problem at Wiki except on the one page, Roza bal, and always with the same editor, DougWeller. recently Killer Chihuahua and History 2007 made an appearance.. the same ones who are now under fire here at Wiki. This topic of a ban on me is so uncalled for, and such dramatic overkill. Now the very editors I complained about and had issues with are on the line. Not one, but THREE of them! History2007 was particularly off the wall when he made accusations about fake ancient relics and fake rosary beads. I stood up to him because I know how off the wall his remarks are/were. He was first to vote for a ban on me. Now he is under scrutiny by other WEiki editors for very same issues. I dont feel I am in the wrong here at all. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input, Blackmane, First, I have no idea how the one (or two) Administrators got accused of sock puppetry. I think it is relevant. Very.If an Administrator is misrepresenting himself/herself. I emphasize that since others have stepped in to edit the Roza Bal page, there have been no more problems. I am not and never have been trying to "push my views" about a "fringe theory". I have always been objecting to deliberately misleading-misguiding Wiki readers. I would have no problem with a ban on DougWeller- no more editing the Roza Bal page. The newcomers have been doing an awesome job- which just goes to show you I must not have been so "Wrong" after all. I dont mind staying away from the page now. I feel vindicated by other Wiki editors. These proposed bans are overkill. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, Suzanne Olsson, every edit you make here just reinforces my support for the topic ban. You seem to waste all your time complaining about other users, and that is hardly constructive. Neither DougWeller nor Killer Chihuahua is accused of anything, and your continuous repetition of that is not doing your case any good. The accusation against History2007 was thrown out as unfounded.Jeppiz (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Jeppiz, with all due respect sir, I just found it odd that the very issues that brought me here in the first place were also brought before Administrators. Whether Mr. DougWeller and History2007 were cleared of charges or not, I had not noticed. I was alarmed by the way the charges were worded because they reflected my own similar experiences. It seems inappropriate that you would turn those complaints around as though somehow they made me at fault. That is hardly the case! Anyways, I certainly don't want to annoy you nor other decent respectable editors here. That's not helpful. If I notice any more similar complaints against these two Administrator/Editors, , I promise I wont say another word about them here. You have a nice day. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose What the hell is wrong with all you trigger happy editors nowadays? The proposer has failed to even provide a diff and you are all piling on?? I looked at the talk page and Suzanne did not seem to have recently falen out of line. I'm losing hope in wikipedians. Pass a Method talk 19:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose How about a single diff showing a disruptive mainspace edit after SO's block expired? NE Ent 19:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- To answer your question: No, no one can, given that there have been no mainspace edits at all. However, if that question is being asked rhetorically as an indication of some type of rehabilitation I must beg to differ. A quick look at the user's talk page shows that as of a couple of days ago, statements such as "I am standing up for the truth... I am hoping at some point DougWeller will leave the Wiki pages ... he has done a lot of damage" are still being made in parallel to this ANI discussion. That does not look like a sign of a form of rehabilitation. I must say that Chihuahua's reading of the "set the record straight" situation still persists. Now why do I post this? Frankly because I am tired of the huge amounts of time eaten up by these situations. And frankly I do not know how users such as DougWeller tolerate all of these, and why they should have to continue to tolerate them at all after all this. Let me end by saying that the fact that things have been quiet for a few days and the lack of mainspace edits are no indication of the possibly suggested form of rehabilitation, for unless something is done, the user may participate in consensus discussions (e.g. see the section on relics again) and provide consensus impact which would otherwise not be there. I am sorry, I see no sign that anything is changing; or that it is likely to change at all. History2007 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: A solution was proposed on Suzanne Olsson's talk page by Ed Johnston here as follows:
Hello SuzanneOlsson. It's my guess that the blocking admin would lift your sanction if you would agree *not* to make any more edits to articles in areas where you have a conflict of interest. You would not edit any Wikipedia articles on topics where you have written any books or articles yourself or posted anything on your own website, www.rozabal.com. That would include anything about the lost years of Jesus or the topic of Jesus in the East. You could not create any new articles on people who have written about these topics. In particular you would have to avoid the following articles:
1. Unknown years of Jesus 2. Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam 3. Jesus bloodline 4. Nicolas Notovitch 5. Fida Hassnain 6. Roza Bal
You would not be able to edit these articles directly, but you could still post on their talk pages. You would agree to edit Wikipedia under only one single account, and not recruit anyone from off Wikipedia to edit these articles. You would agree to leave any questions about the scope of this restriction to the judgment of other editors at WP:COIN or any admin noticeboard. Let me know if you will make this agreement. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I encourage the consideration of this solution because 1) it is a voluntary recusal, 2) it is limited in scope to the 6 specific articles that constitute the COI problem, and 3) it is unlimited in duration. Problem solved without the imposition of a punitive topic ban. Ignocrates (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I also raised the prospect of a voluntary agreement being more productive (above) and took to SO's talk page to encourage just such a resolution. I think SO understands that whether such restrictions are imposed or accepted voluntarily, they would constitute a ban on editing the only articles in which she has any real interest. Either option would effectively end her editing here. Stalwart111 03:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- And to be clear, the original topic-ban proposal here simply called for EdJohnston's proposal to be formally imposed by the community. Stalwart111 03:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's a ban on editing certain articles, but would allow her to continue using the talk pages. I note that, when I made the proposal of a voluntary ban on her talk page, she rejected it. If you read her comments above, do you get any hint she has changed her mind? She said, "I dont feel I am in the wrong here at all." She still thinks that the people who oppose her edits like History2007 are "off the wall". Does that sound to you like acceptance of a voluntary restriction? EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think she will accept a voluntary recusal, which is limited in scope, if it means avoiding the alternative of an even broader topic ban. It is the rational choice. Ignocrates (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Are we talking about the same user? Have you looked at some of the commentary? And you think there would be some benefit to the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would object outright anything that either Dougweller or History 2007 say about a topic ban on me. In the comments section on several occasions, History2007 made erroneous statements and assumptions about Roza Bal. The implications for people in Kashmir and for Ahmaddis were/are dangerous and destructive. Among the comments Histroy200t made was his "assumption" that the Roza Bal story was a fiction in the minds of local shopkeepers, perpetuated to improve tourism, and the relics must be 12th-13th century fakes, with new fake relics to be expected soon. He ridiculed Professor Hassnain's mention of a crucifix type image craved in stone. I had to correct him about the historical use of crucifixes and prayer beads. Comments like this are a slap in the face not only to researchers but to millions of Ahmaddis who have bet their very souls on the accuracy of their research into Roza Bal tomb. We cannot have any Wiki editors going around inserting such kind of information into Wiki articles. It is misleading and outright dangerous. This past week in Kashmir have been hell. Riots, curfews, soldiers with guns outnumber civilians. Kashmiris access Wiki pages too, and such comments and deliberate obfuscation lead to trouble in their real world. I do stand up against this sort of thing at Wiki. I do stand up to editors like Dougweller and History2007. I dont need to be banned on this topic nor any other. (Others have never been the issue here anyway). Since other editors have taken notice and begun contributing to the Wiki 'RozaBal' page, most everything I was objecting to HAS now been changed by them. I feel vindicated and no need to continue editing here. I am grateful attention has been raised by others too. To extend a ban on me to such a wide range of topics in areas that I have clearly never even contributed to is neither fair nor right. Of course I will not agree to those. They have never even been an issue with me here. Some Wiki editors take on Wiki as though it was their "job" and they post themselves at the entry gates of certain pages they have affinity for, as Doug Weller did with the Roza Bal page since years ago, and "History2007" does same elsewhere. Such devotion and so many hours a day at Wiki is commendable. However, it does not make them smart, nor does it make them right. They err just like anyone else. History2007 scared me when he went on his rant about fake relics and crosses and fringe theories. That's not the kind of Wiki editing needed here. Further, it's outright dangerous for some who have to live with these relics and these ideas. It shows a true lack o sensitivity. To this day people are still fighting and dying over these issues. Discretion is best, but these editors have not exhibited any understanding outside their world as "Mall cops". I believe the edits at RozaBal have been deliberately slanted against certain people and their beliefs. I have pointed this out. Other Wiki editors have pointed this out. That's all this has been about. You cannot rehabilitate me nor other editors under such circumstances. The problem is not one of rehabilitation. This ruckus has attracted new people to edit the Roza Bal page, and they edited along the guidelines I recommended since years ago. Just think about it. What is the REAL issue? Editing? No, obviously not. Have a nice day. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Are we talking about the same user? Have you looked at some of the commentary? And you think there would be some benefit to the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think she will accept a voluntary recusal, which is limited in scope, if it means avoiding the alternative of an even broader topic ban. It is the rational choice. Ignocrates (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's a ban on editing certain articles, but would allow her to continue using the talk pages. I note that, when I made the proposal of a voluntary ban on her talk page, she rejected it. If you read her comments above, do you get any hint she has changed her mind? She said, "I dont feel I am in the wrong here at all." She still thinks that the people who oppose her edits like History2007 are "off the wall". Does that sound to you like acceptance of a voluntary restriction? EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reluctant support What could have been solved with a light slap on a wrist clearly needs to be more formal - and that's based on screeds like directly above. SO simply cannot accept critique when it surrounds their pet topic(s). SO's attempts to denounce and attack her critics paints a very interesting picture. Clearly, the only way forward is a topic ban for now. It is my hope that it does not take more in the near future (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I tried to insert this above but encountered difficulty. This is the Kashmir I know and lived in. This is Kashmir this past week. This is what I mean when I say people have to live with these topics every day as though they were life and death. Even a minor slant or predjudice in an article can be harmful. Kashmir Today
Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruption from a set of dynamic IP addresses.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What can be done about this IP editor. He is obviosuly a sockpuppet and is causing me a lot of trouble. He insists on leaving his changes in place before we discuss. He can't be banned, because he is using a dynamic IP address (a different address from Vodaphone appears to be allocated to him every time he logs on), yet he is threatening me with 3RR action.
- User:212.183.140.3 (12 February 2013 - 13:00 to 13:21)
- User:212.183.140.4 (16 February 2013 - 09:32 to 09:45)
- User:212.183.140.5 (11 February 2013 - 20:08 20:42)
- User:212.183.140.38 (13 February 2013 - 13:26 to 13:31)
- User:212.183.128.129 (13 February 2013 - 17:41 to 19:56)
- User:212.183.128.192 (15 February 2013 - 11:29 to 12:47)
- User:212.183.128.207 (12 February 2013 - 11:07 & 13 February 2013 - 16:20 to 16:38 & 15 February 2013 22:32 to 23:02)
- User:212.183.128.211 (13 February 2013 - 14:01 to 14:11)
- User:212.183.128.236 (15 February 2013 - 14:03 to 16:09)
- User:212.183.128.242 (14 February 2013 - 19:25 to 19:45)
BTW, I can't inform this editor that I have placed this message as he is an editor of No fixed abode. For the record, Vodaphone uses IP addresses 212.183.*.*, giving a potential of about 64,000 addresses. The above evidence suggests that Vodaphone uses addresses 212.183.140.* and 212.183.128.* for its mobile customers, giving 510 addresses. Martinvl (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Backstory is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DeFacto. Garamond Lethet
c 13:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Checkuser needed Interesting. Same address range being used in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hackneyhound. We need a checkuser to make sure that we can implement rangeblocks without causing too much collateral damage.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)- Unfortunately there is likely to be significant collateral damage. I made 10 random searches on the range in question, avoiding those that I know are associated with the editor in question. Every one of the hits showed editor activity. The one thing that I can think of is to declare that any edits to a range of IP addresses on articles of a specified category or categories are likely to be the work of a sockpuppet and may be deleted on sight. (In this case the categories would be "Category:SI units", "Category:Systems of units" and "Category:Motorways in England". Whoever undoes such work would paste a standard message on the user page. I know that this would be a new policy, but with increasing use of WiFi and I-phones, this is likely to become an increasing problem. Alternatively, this could be reported on the 3RR page and an administrator could give the agrieved editor permission to undo edits from the IP address range in a specified category as though they were sockpuppets. Martinvl (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- If the IP range is relatively narrow (i.e. blocks of /16) and is hitting articles where there is likely to be some consistent categories, this could possibly be dealt with via an Edit filter. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately there is likely to be significant collateral damage. I made 10 random searches on the range in question, avoiding those that I know are associated with the editor in question. Every one of the hits showed editor activity. The one thing that I can think of is to declare that any edits to a range of IP addresses on articles of a specified category or categories are likely to be the work of a sockpuppet and may be deleted on sight. (In this case the categories would be "Category:SI units", "Category:Systems of units" and "Category:Motorways in England". Whoever undoes such work would paste a standard message on the user page. I know that this would be a new policy, but with increasing use of WiFi and I-phones, this is likely to become an increasing problem. Alternatively, this could be reported on the 3RR page and an administrator could give the agrieved editor permission to undo edits from the IP address range in a specified category as though they were sockpuppets. Martinvl (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- @Martinvl: what exactly is the disruption that you allege here, because a cursory glance at recent edits made by some of the IPs you listed above doesn't reveal anything untoward, and using an ISP that randomly assigns IP addresses to customers from a whole range, even during one virtual session, cannot be described as such.
- Also, can you show evidence that 212.183 accounts have been used to disrupt articles from each of the categories "SI units", "Systems of units" and "Motorways in England" that you listed, because again, I see none.
- I am interested because I too often edit from a 212.183 account, and I am surprised that your complaint has been accepted without any supporting evidence. 212.183.128.241 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I believe 'Hackneyhound block evasion' is the issue at hand. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Or should that be Factocop? Joking aside, the Hackneyhound account is notorious for using Vodafone IPs as socks. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- The choice of material suggests that this is User:DeFacto, who has a history of disruption, pushing his own anti-metric point of view regardless of consensus. Martinvl (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- The other 212.183 editor asked for evidence of disruption at categories "SI units", "Systems of units" and "Motorways in England". I take it that you do not have any, or you would have presented it. You are wasting everyone's time with your smokescreen accusations, and your agenda is very transparent. Now put up or shut up. 212.183.140.48 (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Block evasion is disruption. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- DeFacto and Factocop... those names are very, very coincidental... and I don't believe in coincidences. They're using the same IPs, it seems, and have very, very similar names... Lukeno94 (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- The choice of material suggests that this is User:DeFacto, who has a history of disruption, pushing his own anti-metric point of view regardless of consensus. Martinvl (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I believe 'Hackneyhound block evasion' is the issue at hand. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Attempt to game the anti-edit-warring rules
Editor User:Martinvl, an editor with a history of edit warring (see his talkpage!) and with 2 edit warring blocks under his belt, and who has been accused of gaming the system before to push metrication into articles, particularly articles related to the Falkland Islands, now seems to have decided for himself that the opinions of IP editors are worthless. See his edit summary on this edit where he says "Undid revision ... Reinstated text as per consensus of registered editors." That is totally unacceptable.
This seems to be part of an organised campaign to push pro-metrication POV into this and other articles too (see International System of Units where is is under a 3RR warning), despite there not being reliable sources which support it. In Metric system he is trying to apply fake dates to CIA data and then use a USENET Newsgroup post to support his POV that the CIA is wrong. Can someone please remind him that consensus includes IP users and that WP:OR and WP:VER apply in all cases, even if he and another registered user disagree. 212.183.140.48 (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- As you are on a variable IP, that comment makes sense - it's impossible to tell whether a whole load of Vodafone IPs are one person without technical data or similar things. If you're a legitimate user with nothing to hide, why not start an account to get rid of the variable IP issue? For what it's worth, I agree with 2007 being correct, having looked at the information - it's the original date. It most definitely does not fall under WP:OR. Also, questions such as "How long have you been editing Wikipedia Martinvl?" are totally irrelevant to a discussion, and if you checked out his contributions, you could answer that yourself. Martinvl is not the only editor to disagree with you, and I see no editors directly supporting you. As far as I can see, it's you that started the edit war, not him. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe, in this case. But there are certainly issues in the way Martinvl deals with these situations and with the topic as a whole. I can think of several cases in my experience where his arguments and conduct have fallen very clearly the wrong side of WP:GAME, with the effect of inappropriately pushing articles to a more pro-metric position. An example would be a few months back when he insisted that geography is a science and therefore that we're not allowed to use miles (including in brackets) in any geographical context on any part of Wikipedia. Such an interpretation is only plausible based on a very selective reading of WP:UNITS, such as to override the clear intentions of that guideline. Kahastok talk 11:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Some responses:
- @Kahastok: This is a total misrepresentation of what I wrote and I demand a retraction. My text was I am surprised at User:Wee Curry Monster changing all the units of measure of geographical-related sections. Under WP:MOSNUM, science-related topics should use SI-only and since Geography is a science (see definition in Wikipedia article)the should, in theory, be using SI only. I am not goung to push that, all that I ask is that we use the units of measure as per the sources. Martinvl (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- @General: This edit is indicative that the editor in question has something to hide. Why else would he blank out the advice to editors who find th4emselves being harrassed from this address?
- Martinvl (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- That edit was probably nothing more than a legitimate clearing of messages meant for previous users of that IP. Dynamic IPs are allocated randomly, so messages go out of date very quickly. Clearing them is good practice in my book. I fear mischievous motives or poor judgement led to those accusatory comments. 212.183.140.59 (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Even if I accept everything you say, what you quote is a clear attempt to game the system. The statement:
- Under WP:MOSNUM, science-related topics should use SI-only and since Geography is a science... the should, in theory, be using SI only
- is false. And given quite how much time you've spent dealing with this topic, including in discussion at WT:MOSNUM it is inconceivable that you did not and do not know that it is false. It is a clear attempt to, in the words of WP:GAME, force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. And it is entirely typical of your editing style in the area of units of measure.
- Note, incidentally, that when Martin refers to "changing all the units of measure of geographical-related sections", this refers to a revert of Martin's original edit to metricate the article (which moved the article from a WP:UNITS-preferred style to a less favoured style). My view is that Martin should have long-since been topic banned from all units of measure related to the UK - or at least the Falklands - because his total inability to deal with the subject neutrally has caused enormous damage to our coverage of the topic. In the Falklands sphere, I think it's fair to suggest that the damage done has been worse than everything that we have seen from Anglo-Argentine disputes put together. Kahastok talk 14:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- This content battle belongs on WP:LAME. Just have both SI and imperial units there, that's a good compromise and should keep everyone happy. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note, incidentally, that when Martin refers to "changing all the units of measure of geographical-related sections", this refers to a revert of Martin's original edit to metricate the article (which moved the article from a WP:UNITS-preferred style to a less favoured style). My view is that Martin should have long-since been topic banned from all units of measure related to the UK - or at least the Falklands - because his total inability to deal with the subject neutrally has caused enormous damage to our coverage of the topic. In the Falklands sphere, I think it's fair to suggest that the damage done has been worse than everything that we have seen from Anglo-Argentine disputes put together. Kahastok talk 14:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, we have a consensus compromise that all editors (including Martin) signed up to. If Martin would leave it be there would be no problem.
- But my point isn't so much to bring up that dispute - I could have pointed out numerous other instances - it's to flag up the fact that this is an editor who routinely violates WP:GAME and it's unsurprising that he might have done so in this case. Kahastok talk 18:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I quite often cannot edit because a range of IPs from my mobile ISP provider have been blocked. Reconnecting a few times usually gives me a fresh IP. Thus, it's weird that range blocks are used. They don't prevent vandals; they do prevent good faith editors. 31.126.220.151 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you're a good-faith editor, with a clean past, why not create an account to sort out that issue? Lukeno94 (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removing sourced content
Hello,
I recently added two sections to the article Nabih Berri. User:Samar Layoun, who may also be User:MariaFrangieh, just deleted that information using two accounts. From what I understand, the same user is not allowed to use two accounts on one article, as if to make it look as two different people, and they're certainly not allowed to delete referenced information.
Thanks, Argo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argo333 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
That's called a sock-puppet. There's a separate place to file those concerns and have them investigated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPI Strangesad (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Jesus Resurrected (Unfortunately)
I am again being accused of vandalism for no good reason, and having edits reverted. I am curious about something. Is it likely impossible to have an objective, secular version of the Jesus article, because the article is closely watched by Christian editors whose passion (zealotry?) and number are high? At the moment, text has been added with 7 sources, and the editor who added seems to be admitting that he hasn't actually read the sources (not clear on that). The text consists of classifying certain arguments as argument from silence, although none of the sources seem to actually do that. Rather the editor in question (History2007) has researched the arguments (presumably, although it also seems he hasn't read the sources) and decided they are that type of argument. Isn't that OR?
Anyway, I am getting tired of this. History2007 also added a modern translation of a text from the year 1103, and tried to pass it off as a modern source [129]. I deleted that and he had a cow [130]. He doesn't seem to realize that Yifa is a translator, not an author, and the text in question is not about historical method and is almost 1000 years old. He is constantly adding sources he hasn't read.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#Disruptive_edit_to_introduction Humanpublic (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also, the editor from my previous complaint (with the impossible-to-remember name), Seb-something, stalked me to another Jesus related article and reverted me there as well. Humanpublic (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- The Talk does appear to be mildly tendentious. Either way, 'the' Church is shown itself to be perfectly capable of self-advertising over the last 2,000 years and needs no help from Editors... Basket Feudalist 16:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is a prime case of where the accuser should be the accused. Several users have already suggested that Humanpublic should be topic banned from articles related to Jesus. A look at the talk page (and the archives) shows Humanpublic's record. In the last 24 hours, Humanpublic has repeatedly deleted sourced content he doesn't like [131], [132], [133], [134], [135] in addition to deleting comments on talk pages [136]. Given all those deletions of sourced content, and with no consensus whatsoever, I'd say that there is "good reason" to accuse Humanpublic of vandalism, as three different editors have already done in the last hour [137], [138], [139]. When a fourth and a fifth editor suggest a topic ban [140] [141], I find it quite relevant as the edit history of Humanpublic shows that this is a WP:SPA for the purpose of imposing a POV at Jesus (and the related articles Christ myth theory and Argument from silence) [142]. Last but not least, the favorite accusation Humanpublic makes, that he is a secular editor facing "zealous Christians" is quite simply wrong. I do not believe in the Jesus of the gospels myself. Two of the best known critics of the "Christian Jesus" is the atheist professor Bart Ehrman and the Jewish professor Geza Vermes. We use both of them in the article; both of them state categorically that Jesus existed, as does all other scholars in the field regardless of their religion.Jeppiz (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleting your comment was an accident: big fingers, laptop keys. I restored it. It's actually the comment I was responding to. Humanpublic (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just because content carries a citation doesn't mean it's appropriate to put in an encyclopedia article. In at least one of the edits you list, Humanpublic is removing a "sourced" claim because he alleges that the source doesn't actually support the claim. In another he removes the claim because he argues that it's a non sequitur in the context of the article. In yet another he argues that the text is being used to support some synthesis. Provided his allegations are correct, these are all perfectly valid reasons for removing sourced text and are certainly not WP:IDONTLIKEIT as you claim. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, a source is not automatically a reliable one. Basket Feudalist 18:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yep. Have either of these editors discussed these arguments on the respective article talk pages? The "source doesn't support the claim" one in particular should be very easy to test, and the onus for doing so is on whoever added the content. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, a source is not automatically a reliable one. Basket Feudalist 18:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just because content carries a citation doesn't mean it's appropriate to put in an encyclopedia article. In at least one of the edits you list, Humanpublic is removing a "sourced" claim because he alleges that the source doesn't actually support the claim. In another he removes the claim because he argues that it's a non sequitur in the context of the article. In yet another he argues that the text is being used to support some synthesis. Provided his allegations are correct, these are all perfectly valid reasons for removing sourced text and are certainly not WP:IDONTLIKEIT as you claim. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- And congratulations on Psychonaut for hitting the nub there: Talk:Argument from silence was last edited... 7th April 2011...!!! Basket Feudalist 18:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- The OP here looks like a single-purpose account with an agenda. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Pscyhonaut and Basket, a source is not automatically suited. Then Humanpublic could perhaps assume good faith and discuss the issue at the talk page instead of edit warring over it? As for discussing, I already referred both to Humanpublics edit record [143] and to the talk page (including the archives, far too many diffs to make a list) where several users have pointed out for months that Humanpublic does not WP:HEAR arguments. As Basebnall Bugs states above, Humanpublic is a single-purpose account with an agenda, the agenda being to advance the fringe theory that Jesus never existed. There is not one professor in any relevant field, no matter if they are Christians, atheists or Jews, who support that fringe theory, making it WP:UNDUE. I agree when Humanpublic says the article Jesus should be a secular article, and that means respecting the academic expertise, especially when that expertise is unanimous. There are countless examples of where the secular view contradicts Christian beliefs (most scholars agree Jesus did not claim to be God or think he was God; most scholars think a number of accounts in the New Testament were forged; many scholars think Jesus was a religious Jew all his life; many scholars think Christianity was the invention of Paul decades after Jesus's death). We should take into account all such theories, and present different views on the many questions where there are different views. The topic of Jesus's existence quite simply isn't one of those questions. Since September 2012, Humanpublic has used the talkpage to challenge Jesus's existence. Since September 2012, Humanpublic has been asked to provide an academic source that doubts Jesus's existence. And since September 2012, Humanpublic has failed to provide a single source, instead he has just continued his crusade to impose this fringe theory on the article. That is the single purpose of his account, it is disruptive, and it makes working on the article a lot harder than it should be.Jeppiz (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Please stop saying I think Jesus never existed. I don't think I've ever said that, and I am agnostic on it. Humanpublic (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't it time for administrators to earn their paycheck? This is an admin forum. If I'd thought being a minority critic of a dominant religion was a road to progress, I would've stay on the Talk page. I thought administrators were going to carefully research the issues and provide neutral guidance and/or intervention. Isn't that what this page is for?
- For example. What is the point of the labor of providing the diffs and links to the dispute, if nobody researches the dispute. I did not merely assume History2007 didn't read the sources. He admitted he copied the sources and text wholesale from another article. This is the text in Christ myth theory:
Some arguments from silence go back to John Remsburg in 1909 who commented on the silence of Philo of Alexandria.[87] Remsburg stated that Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until the middle of the first century, but wrote nothing of the birth or death of Jesus.[88] Van Voorst points out that although Philo criticized the brutality of Pontius Pilate in Embassy to Gaius (c. 40 CE), he did not name Jesus as an example of Pilate's cruelty.[89] However, he adds that a possible explanation is that Philo never mentions Christians at all, so he had no need to mention their founder.[89] .... In general, an argument from silence cannot be definitive, however it is not a fallacy and generally is the correct inference. [93][94][95] In an overall context, scholars such as Errietta Bissa flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid.[96] Other scholars such as David Henige state that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.[97] Moreover, arguments from silence also apply in the other direction, in that in antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[98][99]
- And this is what he inserted into Jesus:
The argument from silence that that lack of sources indicates that Jesus did not exist goes back to John Remsburg in 1909 who commented on the silence of Philo of Alexandria.[258] Remsburg stated that Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until the middle of the first century, but wrote nothing of the birth or death of Jesus.[259] Van Voorst points out that although Philo criticized the brutality of Pontius Pilate in Embassy to Gaius (c. 40 CE), he did not name Jesus as an example of Pilate's cruelty.[260] However, he adds that a possible explanation is that Philo never mentions Christians at all, so he had no need to mention their founder.[260] In general, an argument from silence can not be definitive and may be questionable, given the circumstances in which it is made.[261][262] In an overall context, scholars such as Errietta Bissa flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid.[263] Other scholars such as David Henige state that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.[264] Moreover, arguments from silence also apply in the other direction, in that in antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[99][249]
- It is this, AND that he added 7 book-length academic sources in less than 20 minutes, AND that he refuses to answer a simple question about whether he read the sources AND that he (patronizingly) announces he has no obigation to quote what in the sources actually supports his edits that make me think he hasn't read the sources and is generally disruptive. What the Hell is my AGF violation? Is it a violation of AGF to ask an editor if he read a source? Is it a violation of AGF to ask an editor to provide the source text that supports his edits? I didn't quote all this text initially, because I assumed this forum is for careful research of disputes and diffs would suffice to inform people, not just popularity contests. Obviously I was wrong.
- If you're going to tell me this is the wrong place for content disputes, maybe you could tell me the right place. As far as I can tell, minority opinions can lose popularity contests on Talk pages, or they can lose them here, and that's how "dispute resolution" works. Who actually enforces the rules with some care and research and integrity???? Humanpublic (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Admins earn every dime they make.
I hope you're not suggesting that Admins are worth every dime they make 
Basket Feudalist 16:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- This forum is not for content disputes, you can try WP:DRN or WP:RFC.
- Wikipedia operates by consensus, so in some sense it is a popularity contest, but it's not a simple one. More like a weighted by ineffable coefficients popularity contest. NE Ent 16:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I will look at the links you gave, but if everything is a popularity contest, how is the encyclopedia going to be objective about Jesus?
- History2007 is now deleting the U. Mass history department as a source, saying the history dept. isn't reliable on historical methods. And, he is replacing it with a dictionary of foreign terms, which he admits he hasn't read (I am assuming nothing here--he stated he hasn't read it). [144], [145]. Humanpublic (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Humanpublic, you're vendetta against History2007 is starting to look silly. You suggested a topic ban on History2007 for no reason other than your personal suspicion he had not read a couple of books [146]. You started this thread to accuse History2007 of being a Christian zealot for not agreeing to implement your POV [147]. After History2007 mentioned his interest in Argument from silence, you went straight there to edit war with him [148]. These are all highly disruptive edits, and unfortunately very characteristic of your behavior here.Jeppiz (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Suggesting a topic ban for Humanpublic
* If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are NOT INVOLVED IN THE UNDERLYING DISPUTE'.[2] When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments. *In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a CONSENSUS OF UNINVOLVED EDITORS not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".[149]. Strangesad (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
In line with In ictu oculi [150] and ReformedArsenal [151], I suggest that Humanpublic be topic-banned from articles related to Jesus. As pointed out by Baseball Bugs [152], Humanpublic is "a single-purpose account with an agenda".
Since September, Humanpublic repeatedly engages in endless discussions on the talk page of Jesus to deny that Jesus existed. That was perfectly valid as first, but it has long since passed into disruptive behavior. As has been pointed out to Humanpublic time and time again by countless users, there is not one professor in any relevant field supporting that fringe theory, making it WP:UNDUE.Of course the article should be secular, and that means respecting the academic expertise, especially when that expertise is unanimous. There are countless examples of where the secular view contradicts Christian beliefs and we take into account all such theories, and present different views on the many questions where there are different views. The topic of Jesus's existence quite simply isn't one of those questions. Since September 2012, Humanpublic has used the talkpage to challenge Jesus's existence. Since September 2012, Humanpublic has been asked to provide an academic source that doubts Jesus's existence. And since September 2012, Humanpublic has failed to provide a single source, instead he has just continued his crusade to impose this fringe theory on the article. That is the single purpose of his account, it is disruptive, and it makes working on the article a lot harder than it should be. When a user just continues to challenge other users, refusing to WP:HEAR counter-arguments, never once bothering with a source but only to present his own opinions, it violates WP:NOTAFORUM. After five months of this, it certainly disrupts the article quite severly. A quick look at the talk page of Jesus is enough to see that most of the discussions are about Humanpublic, not about how to improve Jesus.Jeppiz (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
UPDATE In response to a surprising number of comments on the matter, I want to state right away that this nomination is based on Humanpublic being a disruptive user. I'm forced to add this since some people comment on completely irrelevant aspects. I did not nominate Humanpublic for doubting Jesus's existence, nor did I nominate him for mainly editing article related to Jesus. The nomination rests exclusively on the disruptive behavior by Humanpublic and nothing else.END OF UPDATE.
- Update Since I posted the request for a topic-ban for Humanpublic,
hesome user with an interest in the page appears to have launched a sockpuppet [153] with several highly disruptive edits [154], [155], [156], [157].Jeppiz (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
" Humanpublic repeatedly engages in endless discussions on the talk page of Jesus to deny that Jesus existed." Hmm, I don't think I have ever denied Jesus existed. Not sure. Humanpublic (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. We do not ban users just because they come to Wikipedia for a single purpose. We do ban them for being persistently uncooperative to the point of disruption, but I don't see that there have been sufficient prior attempts at dispute resolution. There was one 3RR report which seemingly didn't go anywhere, and for at least one of the issues Jeppiz is complaining about there was no attempt whatsoever to engage with the user on the article talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Please don't misrepresent what I wrote. I certainly did not suggest topic-banning Humanpublic for being here for a single purpose; I (like two other users today) suggested topic-banning him because he goes about that purpose in a highly disruptive way. He has singlehandedly turned the talk page about Jesus into a WP:FORUM where he refuses to WP:HEAR any counter arguments and continues to push a fringe-theory despite not having presented a single source for it. For five months. That is disruptive and detrimental to the article, and that is the reason a topic-ban is suggested.Jeppiz (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- How am I misrepresenting what you wrote? You said that he should be topic banned, and started off by noting that he was "a single-purpose account with an agenda". If this claim is not relevant to your proposal, then why did you mention it? Your argument also rests on the disruption he's caused, and my !vote addressed that issue as well. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Fair point. I guess the question is what we mean by disruption. Can a user by disruptive just on talk pages, or does it have to take edit warring over articles? Looking at the talk page of Jesus, I would say it's clear that the actions of Humanpublic disrupts work on the whole article. Anyone can at time pose irrelevant questions, but when the same user does it for five months, is informed about it by countless users, and still goes on and on in the same track, I think it's a disruption of WP:NOTAFORUM. I think it's clear to anyone having a look at Talk:Jesus that Humanpublic has succeeded in turning the page into a forum. If he had a valid point backed up by sources, it would be a content dispute and not a problem. When he spends months pushing a fringe theory without bothering with presenting even one source but only his personal opinions (and the same opinions over and over again), I do think it's disruptive and I have seen first-hand how he has stalled any work on the actual article. If you don't agree that such behavior is disruptive, I fully respect that view.Jeppiz (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Um, but Psychonaut never said they were disputing the behaviour could be disruptive, simply they felt insufficient attempts were made to at dispute resolution first. Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Fair point. I guess the question is what we mean by disruption. Can a user by disruptive just on talk pages, or does it have to take edit warring over articles? Looking at the talk page of Jesus, I would say it's clear that the actions of Humanpublic disrupts work on the whole article. Anyone can at time pose irrelevant questions, but when the same user does it for five months, is informed about it by countless users, and still goes on and on in the same track, I think it's a disruption of WP:NOTAFORUM. I think it's clear to anyone having a look at Talk:Jesus that Humanpublic has succeeded in turning the page into a forum. If he had a valid point backed up by sources, it would be a content dispute and not a problem. When he spends months pushing a fringe theory without bothering with presenting even one source but only his personal opinions (and the same opinions over and over again), I do think it's disruptive and I have seen first-hand how he has stalled any work on the actual article. If you don't agree that such behavior is disruptive, I fully respect that view.Jeppiz (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- How am I misrepresenting what you wrote? You said that he should be topic banned, and started off by noting that he was "a single-purpose account with an agenda". If this claim is not relevant to your proposal, then why did you mention it? Your argument also rests on the disruption he's caused, and my !vote addressed that issue as well. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Please don't misrepresent what I wrote. I certainly did not suggest topic-banning Humanpublic for being here for a single purpose; I (like two other users today) suggested topic-banning him because he goes about that purpose in a highly disruptive way. He has singlehandedly turned the talk page about Jesus into a WP:FORUM where he refuses to WP:HEAR any counter arguments and continues to push a fringe-theory despite not having presented a single source for it. For five months. That is disruptive and detrimental to the article, and that is the reason a topic-ban is suggested.Jeppiz (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Naw, we can handle the user w/o that. If it gets any worse, then yeah... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - There are some problems here, as I see it. On first glance (this is the first time I have looked at this article and talk page) I see why the issue has been brought here by parties on both sides of the fence. One thing I can't help notice on the talk page is the confrontational polemics of HiLo48, the subject of several correctional sanctions. But here's where it get complicated. Humanpublic and HiLo48 raise an interesting point in that the editing of the article appears to be POV material from those of the Christian faith, and call into question the sourcing of Jesus' existence. Highly controversial! But, is that a "disruption?" While I am unfamiliar with Humanpublic, HiLo48 often uses rhetoric that usually "stirs the pot." Yet, here again, there are some larger NPOV issues now on the line for this flagship Wikipedia article. I am unwilling to take a stand without further study of exactly what the stakes are. And I suggest others here do the same. Jusdafax 23:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- A good and balanced post. I am sure we all agree that the article should not be edited with a Christian POV. When Humanpublic and HiLo48 first made that point, I don't think anyone objected - nor do I object to it now. Quite the contrary, I welcome it. However, there is nothing "Christian" in stating that Jesus existed. It is an uncontroversial fact, supported by all scholars in the field who have published on the matter. Not by most scholar, but by all scholars. That makes that issue a fairly simple one, if we want to adhere to WP:RS. That is why people have asked Humanpublic and HiLo48 for sources, and have asked for sources for months. And that's why Humanpublic and HiLo48 have failed to produce any sources. In my view, that pretty much settles it. If all professors on the matter (including those who aren't Christian at all, even those who have been called anti-Christians) believe that Jesus existed, then the article should state so. And I do think that when somebone continues beating the same horse for five months, it is at least tedious, and if done excessively, also disruptive. So once again, there is nothing disruptive in challenging a Christian POV, there is nothing disruptive in presenting alternative theories if backed up with sources, and there's nothing disruptive in discussing any point of the article in good fait. But surely repeating the same fringe theory for five months when not able to find a single source can look disruptive?Jeppiz (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This is a fine spirit of collaboration: "get over yourself; I can revert whatever I want as long as there's good reason to do so. Further posts by you to my talkpage will be considered harassment and reverted as vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556"
I would love to not be an "spa". I registered on Wikipedia intending to edit literature articles. My interest in the Bible comes from a Bible as Literature class I took. I have added two sentences to the article Jesus. It is a purely factual edit, reliably sourced. It has nothing to do with any theory, fringe or otherwise. It is: "There’s no physical or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed, nor are there any writings from Jesus. There are no sources from the time Jesus is alleged to have lived that mention him. [256]" THat's it. It is reliably sourced, and only makes factual claims. In Talk, I've pointed out that there are no secular historians as sources, that sources mostly have a Christian background and/or write popular books, and that Christian popular books aren't objective about Jesus. That is not a fringe theory either. To me, it's just a concern about conflict of interest.
The result has been that my comments have been edit-warred off the Talk page, my attempts to preserve my comments have been called vandalism, I've been reported for "3RR" for not wanting active discussions archived, accused of disruption, been followed to another article by Seb for the sole purpose f reverting my edit, and been nominated to be banned from the articles.
If my edits to The House of Mirth [158] had the same response, I would appear to be a Edith Wharton "spa." This is not my only interest. It is my only controversial interest. People should quit attacking and belittling by the dozens at the mere suggestion that there could conflicts of interest, or the mere addition two sentences that are not pro-Jesus. If I didn't get bombarded by dozens of attacks and personal comments with every edit, I would be spending more time on other subjects. Humanpublic (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't pay detailed attention to this page, mainly since it's generalist and had a relatively stable equilibrium, but the Talk has been beeping like crazy on my watchlist recently, and so looked at the beeping. The Talk comment "support topic ban" was predictive - that's where this is going to end. One edit to an Edith Wharton page does not a non-SPA make, the much trumpeted edit to the Jesus article lead here changing reliable scholar Bart Ehrman's interview on Jesus-mythicists "There are no Roman sources from Jesus’ day that mention Jesus—again, true. Our only sources come decades later by biased individuals who believed in Jesus, and that they’re not trustworthy sources. Those are their negative arguments. I deal with all of those arguments. I lay them out as fairly as I can and then show why they’re not very good arguments, even though they sound really good. When you actually investigate them they’re actually not that strong." to User:Humanpublic "There are no sources from the time Jesus is alleged to have lived that mention him." (period) wouldn't of itself be a problem if acres of Talk page bytes hadn't been trying to explain to User:Humanpublic why that isn't good processing from source to high-profile article lead copy. Too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on Talk, too much of being an evangelist for the WP:TRUTH. The rest of the editors on that article (of whom I'm not one) deserve a couple of weeks' rest. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
He's a single-purpose account here to get The Truth out. His chosen topic doesn't really make a difference. It may not quite be time for a topic ban, but that's what will happen if he keeps on. Tom Harrison Talk 00:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support His editing in the area is disruptive. I would have opposed per the comments above; however, his back at you ban proposal below doesn't leave me confident that he intends to edit productively in the area. Ryan Vesey 00:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose unless somebody can produce DNA evidence of Jesus's existence. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- sigh The comment above is completely besides the point. Humanpublic is not reported for doubting Jesus's existence, he is reported for being disruptive. One can be right and be disruptive, and one can be wrong and still civil.Jeppiz (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Per Baseball Bugs, Humanpublic is an obvious WP: SPA who uses polemical tactics (example would be the purely retaliatory topic ban proposal below) to push his specific WP: POV. Given that incidents have arisen in the past, I think a bit of fresh air would do Humanpublic good, and would prevent further escalation of this controversial topic. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. There is a lot of manure flying around here. It's not just History2007's last 500 edits that are mostly Christian (and 100% Biblical). I went back 2000 edits. They are 99% Biblical. Then I went back to his first 500 on Wikipedia, 6 years ago. They are 99% Biblical. Who's the SPA??
- Kudos for the thought that "Whoever proposes a topic ban first, wins!!!!!" Banning the one who proposed second--he loses!!--is classy. Gee, I have a proposal. Let's have a level of intelligence that goes beyond 4th grade.
- I am shocked, shocked, that those who were absolutely certain about sock puppetry are the same as those who are absolutely certain about the SPA and absolutely certain that being 2nd with a ban proposal means "you lose" and absolutely certain nothing critical of Jesus belongs on Wikipedia. Nothing fishy there. Gotta love it. 67.189.38.119 (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- In response, I would like to say taht I have known History2007 for some time, and I have found that his own motives and behavior are more or less the same as mine. There are a number of other topics he would be possibly more interested in developing the content we have on, but he is very knowledgable of the topic of early Christianity, and is finding himself almost exclusively editing material on that basis for the purposes of ensuring that the content meets wikipedia guidelines and policies. And, yeah, I myself started with WikiProject Biography, and would personally prefer to be spending time on content regarding the smaller and less "glamorous" nations and regions of the world. If the IP is accusing History of putting wikipedia's good before his personal interests, I agree with that. If he is saying that is to be held against him, he is drawing conclusions based on no real knowledge of the subject whatsoever. We praise and thank people for working for the good of the project, we don't criticize them, or worse, seek to sanction them. Honestly, I tend to think that the IP's comment does not itself necessarily indicate an intelligence that goes even as high as the 4th grade level. John Carter (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support, as much for the WP:POINTy topic ban proposal below as for his poor behaviour on the Jesus article. I don't think Jesus existed; I'm certainly not going to try and insert that sort of POV (or anything similar) to the Jesus article: in fact, it's why I stay away from religious articles, apart from when attempt to sort out a content dispute. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose If the idea is that being an SPA justifies banning, then apply the principle equally. Based on the links above History2007 is more of an SPA than Humanpublic. I also had a similar experience with History2007: deleting my references, inserting his own, not really understanding the purpose of my references, and then not explaining what text in the book he cited he was actually using. I wouldn't support banning him either, but he did come off as condescending.Strangesad (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Additional comment: Any atheist trying to win a popularity contest must be young. Strangesad (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support at least a firm warning Humanpublic is disruptive; the arguments have been gone over time & again, and Jesus myth theory covers the material well. Time for him to edit on something else, if he is interested in doing so. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Policy forbids those actively involved. You not only edited the article, you edited HP's edit. You are involved. Strangesad (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Update a couple of violations of WP:NPA by Humanpublic, further underlining his disruptive behavior [159].Jeppiz (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, this request has very thin legs, the diffs provided does not justify a topic ban, at least not now, even if now Humanpublic will surely have extra-eyes on him. It would be obviously different if the sockpupping accusations did not resulted in a hole in the water. Cavarrone (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Strangesad. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Humanpublic is continuing personal attacks - calling one user "dishonest"[160] and another "a turd" [161]. I do not like to campaign to get people blocked or banned, but something needs to be done to stop Humanpublic's battleground behaviour, which appears to be escalating.Smeat75 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support based on habit of disruptive editing, although I would have reservations about making the ban indefinite. I would tend to support one of up to a year. If Humanpublic would rather be working on other content, as he said above, I think it is probably time that he does so. John Carter (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Policy forbids voting by those involved. You are arguing content on Talk:Jesus, you argued it here, and you are an active editor of closely related articles. Strangesad (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support a topic ban now. A few days ago I specifically came against a topic ban for this user, given no proper warning, and suggested a warning instead. But now, I see no other way. He continues to hold that policy is silly and he can insult other editors at will. And that is after multiple warnings. Think of it this way: this user has done 180 edits in 6 months and has been involved in more brouhahas than many users get involved in after 18,000 edits. This is not a good start and will just get worse if he is encouraged to go rampant and walk over policy at will. I think user:Der Kommisar's characterization of the situation as WP: NOTHERE (just below here) is valid. History2007 (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please follow the rules. You are not allowed to vote. Strangesad (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Somewhere, I thought I read that only uninvolved editors voted on bans. That would exclude you, if I remember right. Strangesad (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- 1 This is not a vote. #2 There is no policy or practice which states involved editors cannot participate in ban discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Somewhere, I thought I read that only uninvolved editors voted on bans. That would exclude you, if I remember right. Strangesad (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.[2] When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments.
- In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".[162]. Strangesad (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Involved parties may comment (no gag order), but given that it is "not a vote" at the close, their support will not be factored into the final decision. That is all. History2007 (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I also notice that Hmanpublic made the "turd" comment linked to above on in his user talk page after having been given a final warning regrding personal attacks in that same section of his talk page. I believe that there is probably sufficient cause for a short term block regarding that as well, and I do not see that such a block at this point would inhibit him from providing information regarding this proposed topic ban of him. John Carter (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sadly, as with many complaints brought here, this is really a content dispute. Humanpublic is a firm defier of the massive majority of conservative editors who tend to "own" the articles where he has upset people. He's a nuisance. He challenges mainstream thinking (like Jesus did). They want him silenced. It would be interesting to see what was left if every content related post was removed. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Sadly, the above comment seems to completely ignore much of the material presented here, by someone who himself has a rather obvious and longstanding record of engaging in disruptive edits and personal attacks, neither of which can even remotely be considered acceptable conduct even if there is a content dispute involved. I cannot see how calling someone a "turd" falls in the field "content dispute," for instance. The evidence is rather clear that Humanpuclic cannot abide by conduct guidelines regarding this subject, and we in general do not allow those who have difficulties adhering to guidelines to determine when and where they are applicable. John Carter (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agree Exactly. The fact that Humanpublic often challenges people does not excuse his disruptive behavior. In fact, it rather reinforces reasons for a block, being that most of these "challenges" are actually personal attacks and WP: TE behavior. Such !votes made by Humanpublic's supporters require a grain of salt when being read. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 03:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree completely that calling someone a turd isn't nice. If that was tackled on its own, all would be well, but again, just as with most threads begun against people with non-mainstream views, this has become a dumping ground for all the shit anyone has ever wanted to pour on the target. While there is any crap in this thread that shouldn't be here, the whole thing should fail. The behaviour of ALL those wanting to censure someone for poor behaviour MUST be better than the person they want to silence. Many posts here fail that test. The attack should fail. You need to show a better choice of friend. Being on the same side of a debate as you must never excuse bad behaviour. Condemn the bad behaviour of those on your side of the debate, and I will respect your position more. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- HiLo, with all due respect, your conduct itself is of such a nature that I very seriously doubt anyone actually actively wants or seeks your approval. You appear to be making a statement that if a person makes a single mistake, then the person who makes a thousand or more mistakes cannot be sanctioned unless the person making a single mistake is also sanctioned. That premise is illogical on the face of it. No one is perfect, and we do not expect them to be. But Humanpublic's behavior is not only imperfect, it seems to rarely if ever recently rise to acceptable level, and that refusal to engage in conduct of an acceptable nature is in and of itself grounds for sanctions. And, unfortunately, I think even the facts themselves disagree with you on this point. Around here, tbe mainstream view regarding Christianity, and Jesus in general, is more generally seen as being your own lack of belief, not the contrary. Also, there are policies and guidelines, like WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT which all should adhere to. And, honestly, if anyone were to hold you personally to your own position "if there is any crap .l.. that shouldn't be here, the whole thing should fail," I tend to think that "fail" is exactly what your own comments would do. John Carter (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree completely that calling someone a turd isn't nice. If that was tackled on its own, all would be well, but again, just as with most threads begun against people with non-mainstream views, this has become a dumping ground for all the shit anyone has ever wanted to pour on the target. While there is any crap in this thread that shouldn't be here, the whole thing should fail. The behaviour of ALL those wanting to censure someone for poor behaviour MUST be better than the person they want to silence. Many posts here fail that test. The attack should fail. You need to show a better choice of friend. Being on the same side of a debate as you must never excuse bad behaviour. Condemn the bad behaviour of those on your side of the debate, and I will respect your position more. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- John Carter's Talk page: "Around here I try to help out some of the religion based projects, particularly Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, where I am one of the coordinators...." John Carter, please give diffs of Humanpublic's disruption on Talk:Jesus. I see a single addition he has made to Jesus, which is factual, not a fringe theory, and sourced (and currently deleted). The "turd" comment is juvenile. It was made on his Talk page, in response to juvenile taunting by another editor. I see a lot people shooting themselves in the foot. Humanpublic isn't helping his cause. Your distorted drama-queening isn't helping yours. Strangesad (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- e/c And therein lies the difference between HiLo and Humanpubic. HiLo has also discussed many similar content issues, and presented arguments against myself in many cases, but he has been logical as far as I have seen, despite our wide differences in content. I have personally defended HiLo against attempts to even warn him, let alone block him, and I have made it clear to him on his talk page that in my view he is a good editor. These two editors have very similar views on content but dramatically different approaches to editing. Therein lies the difference between them. This is not a content issue. History2007 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- You nailed it; I'd often defend HiLo, but not Humanpublic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- e/c And therein lies the difference between HiLo and Humanpubic. HiLo has also discussed many similar content issues, and presented arguments against myself in many cases, but he has been logical as far as I have seen, despite our wide differences in content. I have personally defended HiLo against attempts to even warn him, let alone block him, and I have made it clear to him on his talk page that in my view he is a good editor. These two editors have very similar views on content but dramatically different approaches to editing. Therein lies the difference between them. This is not a content issue. History2007 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, thanks guys (the last two of you), but did you notice the completely off-topic, inflammatory bullshit thrown at me by John Carter three posts up? To make sure it gets seen, he said, about me, "your conduct itself is of such a nature that I very seriously doubt anyone actually actively wants or seeks your approval". It's precisely that sort of tangential, unverified crap that gets posted in these attack threads. So, where's the thread now to censure John Carter. And I'm not joking. So long as these threads are seen by so many, often the self proclaimed "good" Christians, to abuse and bad mouth others, with a seeming complete immunity from any consequences, the Wikipedia discipline process is an absolute disaster. And don't come back to me telling me to stay on topic. I will edit here to the best of my ability, totally objectively. Prejudiced editors like Carter above abuse and damage Wikipedia continuously, all with the goal of pushing their conservative religious POV, and never seem to get into trouble. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to start another thread, go ahead. I am ultimately here because Humanpublic dragged me here, not the other way around. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- HiLo, please calm down. There is no evil anti-Christian or anti-Atheist (whichever you belong to) cabal that John Carter leads. If there was such a group, rest assured they would be disbanded by the admins here. Making borderline WP: PAs and denouncing policy is a fast road to a block. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 05:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- And that's a silly comment too. You're the first person to use the word cabal here. I know that because I just searched for it to find this stuff in the Edit window. I am a member of no cabal, and you suggesting I am is surely unacceptable. I obviously made no suggestion that John Carter is a member of any cabal (since you're the only one to have used that word). So I don't know what nonsensical background there is to your post. I came here today to point out that this is a content dispute (IMHO). John Carter has smeared me with references to alleged sins elsewhere. I responded (maybe I shouldn't have) by pointing out that he was way out of line. Now I'm being told I'm the one making personal attacks! Don't you get it? It's the awfully nice Christian, John Carter, who just can't behave in a Christian way, who you should be criticising here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- HiLo, please calm down. There is no evil anti-Christian or anti-Atheist (whichever you belong to) cabal that John Carter leads. If there was such a group, rest assured they would be disbanded by the admins here. Making borderline WP: PAs and denouncing policy is a fast road to a block. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 05:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to start another thread, go ahead. I am ultimately here because Humanpublic dragged me here, not the other way around. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, thanks guys (the last two of you), but did you notice the completely off-topic, inflammatory bullshit thrown at me by John Carter three posts up? To make sure it gets seen, he said, about me, "your conduct itself is of such a nature that I very seriously doubt anyone actually actively wants or seeks your approval". It's precisely that sort of tangential, unverified crap that gets posted in these attack threads. So, where's the thread now to censure John Carter. And I'm not joking. So long as these threads are seen by so many, often the self proclaimed "good" Christians, to abuse and bad mouth others, with a seeming complete immunity from any consequences, the Wikipedia discipline process is an absolute disaster. And don't come back to me telling me to stay on topic. I will edit here to the best of my ability, totally objectively. Prejudiced editors like Carter above abuse and damage Wikipedia continuously, all with the goal of pushing their conservative religious POV, and never seem to get into trouble. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Probably I should not make a comment like this here, but cannot restrain myself - the repeated insinuations on this thread that anyone who supports the accuracy of a statement such as "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" must be a fundamentalist conservative Christian are ab-so-lute-ly ri-dic-u-lous.Smeat75 (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- A criticism of an alleged insinuation, with no names and no indication of where and when. What a pointless post. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Although i agree Humanpublic should be blocked for personal attacks, i have rarely seen a topic ban for an insult. Pass a Method talk 05:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the personal attacks he has made after warnings call for a short term block, as stated below. But the larger picture goes far beyond that issue: Here is a user with 180 edits, 20% to articles, i.e. 36 article edits. And there may be over 3,600 edits here dealing with the consequential turbulence. For every article edit made, there are 100 consequential edits that could have been put to better use. This is no way to develop an encyclopedia. Look at this user. She has written more DYK articles than anyone remembers (over 200 DYKs I think) and how much mayhem has she brought about? None at all. That is the kind of user who builds the encyclopedia, not one who starts this type of lengthy drama in 3 acts. Not to mention the counter-productive atmosphere created by the personal attacks. This is not a good start and can not continue in this way. History2007 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Bizarre actions by Strangesad
Strangesad, who opposes a topic-ban, has taken to striking out comments by several users who had expressed support for the topic ban. [163]. He claims it's because they are involved, which leads to two questions.
- 1. Is is true that no user who has had the slightest involvement can express their opinion?
- 2. If there is such a policy, how come Strangesad strikes out comments from only marginally involved users if they expressed support, but leaves intact comments from even heavily involved users if they agree with Strangesad and opposed?
This practice by Strangesad looks truly odd. Also a bit surprised to see him insert a comment at the very top, especially as it does not seem to say what he claims, that nobody can express an opinion if they have had any interaction with the topic [164]Jeppiz (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- technically Strangesad is correct that policy forbids those invokved from voting. What they failed to point out is it also forbids those uninvoled from voting. We do not vote for topic bans or most things on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. Apparently Strangesad doesn't. And the fact that he only took out comment he disagreed with shows a pretty clear bias. I undid his striking of other users' support as it's not justify by any policy.Jeppiz (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
User conduct, not content
I feel that this discussion has gotten sidetracked numerous times, and I just wanted to reiterate that AN/I is meant to focus on user conduct. Content disputes like the ones that has riddled this thread should go to WP: DRN. Frankly, the OP's conduct so far has been appalling: the extremely WP: POINTy topic ban proposal, WP: EDITWARring over his additions ([165], [166], [167]), WP: FORUMSHOPping ([168]), and not to mention WP: PAs made by User: Humanpublic ([169], [170], [171]) to top it off. This thread is starting smell strongly of WP: BOOMERANGs. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 21:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was about to post here regarding continued personal attacks, but you have already stated it. As I stated at the end of this page, the continued personal attacks by this user after multiple warnings by various editors (and his clear declaration on his talk page that he does not intend to stop insults because policy is silly) makes it impossible to continue interacting with him without suffering insults. This is enough. History2007 (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Since a significant number of people here approves of it, you will either have to put up or leave. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, I do not have to put up with it. I will not. WP:NPA is policy, and I expect it to be respected. Any administrator can issue a short term block here to stop these continued insults given the multiple warnings, else the WP:NPA policy will be declared invalid as a defacto standard. History2007 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Boomerang is right.... you complained I brought a content dispute here, and now that I've moved it to a dispute-resolution page, you complain that I am [FORUMSHOP] (is there anything anybody can do that can't criticized with an acronym?). I was repeatedly called a vandal for non-vandalism, and called extremely dishonest twice, and now that I've once said History2007 was "being dishonest" suddenly my behavior is "appalling" and I should be blocked. Seb snidely suggested I am self-important and told me never to post on his Talk page again, and then repeatedly antagonized me on my Talk page. History2007 copy and pasted a big pile of sources from one article to another without quoting any of them, and when I asked if he had read all of them and if he could quote them, I was attacked for violating another acronym (AGF). I have never reverted an edit to Jesus more than once, but now I am edit-warring.... I have about 500 edits, and have been editing 6 months, while History2007 has been editing 6 years with thousands of edits and almost all of them are about the Bible, but I'm an SPA (how many damn acronyms are there?). If you actually brought some integrity to your presence and criticised all sides equally, I might listen and learn to what you have to say. We seem to all agree this thread is going nowhere. Personally, I don't see how its content-dispute to expect editors to document that thier sources support what is claimed, but apparently I'm in the minority. Humanpublic (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am sorry, I am just very tired of the he is all Bible repetitious statement. I must have been looking for Heaven here, was super exhausted here and developed fatigue here. Again, you must stop focusing on editors and discuss content on talk pages and stop personal attacks. That is policy, as you have been told, many, many times now; yet continued to disregard it. History2007 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Per Smeat above, Humanpublic's WP: BATTLEGROUND mentality suggests he is WP: NOTHERE. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 22:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Is the worst thing that's been said here "You're being dishonest"? By many involved parties? I work in a middle-school. This has reminded me of work. Strangesad (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am sorry it does not work that way. User A says X, user B can then say Y = X+delta and it can quickly escalate to deep insults if any personal attacks are allowed. That is why there is a policy. History2007 (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
"Baron Master", probable sockpuppet of Humanpublic
| Checked. Unrelated. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I hope it's not bad faith, but I fear this edit may be related to the discussion of a topic ban for Humanpublic [172]. Humanpublic has spent days complaining about a Christian POV on Jesus and Christ myth theory, so when his disruptive actions are discussed here at ANI and a new user turns up to make his very first edit on Talk:Jesus to make a sarcastic complaint about Christian POV and follows up with Christ myth theory well, it's hard to be in good faith. Could I suggest a sock-puppet test on 'Baron Master'?Jeppiz (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment Obvious disruptive sock.--JOJ Hutton 01:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Topic Ban for History2007
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This editor is adding sources that he hasn't read:
- "History2007: Have you read the sources you added? Please provide the specific text you are citing, so other editors can assess it. Thank you. Humanpublic (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response.
- "Have you read the sources you added here, or not? I see the material I removed from Argument from silence was added by you. You used a 2007 translation of a text from the year 1103 as a source. You misquoted another book that was not reliable anyway--a book on trade in ancient Greece not a source on the general validity of a type of argument, and it didn't say what you said anyway. You don't seem to bother to actually research the sources you use.Humanpublic (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response.
- " Again, please tell us: 1) which of the sources you added have you actually read, if any, 2) what they actually say. Thanks. Humanpublic (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response.
- "Have you actually read the sources you cited?? Humanpublic (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response.
- "Please quote the texts you are citing. You made your edit less than 20 minutes after mine, and added seven sources. I find it hard to believe you carefully examined seven scholarly books in less than 20 minutes. Humanpublic (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response
He is adding sources from books, and mocking editors (me) who ask him to provide the text being used to support the claim. "Trust me that after writing 600 articles I know how to source. Trust me on that one per WP:AGF. I do not need to quote my source so you can assess it. Trust me on that, and read WP:RS about books being the best sources. ... History2007 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC) (See also: ""What nonsense. It is verifiable; if you want to verify it, get the books. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#Disruptive_edit_to_introduction
He adds sources without reading them--he admits he copied them from another article. He refuses to work cooperatively when asked to document that the source backs the claim. He is disruptive. Humanpublic (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question What offence do you feel History2007 has made, which policies do you think he has broken that you want to see him topic-banned? Is this a WP:POINT in reply to the discussion about you above?Jeppiz (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- "He adds sources without reading them." — you better prove that or retract the whole thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Judging from Talk before after edits it looks that History2007 was badgered into providing some copy to present a topic that Humanpublic demanded, and then Humanpublic didn't like it, could be wrong but that's what it looks like. In any case the above "Topic Ban for History2007" is a misdirected case of tit-for-tat. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, as this is mostly a content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - We do not issue topic bans based on content disputes. If History2007 has violated a specific policy or guideline, you haven't made it clear. I won't be validating this one with an oppose. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not based on the link "POINT" that you gave. I'm not frustrated with how a policy is being applied. I really think that anybody who persists in adding sources he hasn't read, and adding sources and refusing to document that they support the claims made, should be sanctioned in some way. I assume that breaks a rule, but can't point you to the "statute." As I said, this is the only controversy I've been involved in, so I don't know the ropes. Frankly, History2007 seems like an "spa" to me as well.His last 500 edits are all about Christianity [173]. Not true of me.... Humanpublic (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, he's made some Islam-related edits. But, 90% of his edits for the last 6 years are Bible-related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.38.119 (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not based on the link "POINT" that you gave. I'm not frustrated with how a policy is being applied. I really think that anybody who persists in adding sources he hasn't read, and adding sources and refusing to document that they support the claims made, should be sanctioned in some way. I assume that breaks a rule, but can't point you to the "statute." As I said, this is the only controversy I've been involved in, so I don't know the ropes. Frankly, History2007 seems like an "spa" to me as well.His last 500 edits are all about Christianity [173]. Not true of me.... Humanpublic (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose topic ban and support warning for Humanpublic for failing to AGF. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Support Topic Ban. Incidentally, there were many nasty remarks made to HumanPublic that I have personally witnessed Nashhinton (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- And were those "nasty remarks" made by History2007? If so, please provide diffs of History2007 making nasty remarks about Humanpublic. If not, what's the relevance?Jeppiz (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- The rule violation is OR, as I said initially. Analysing or researching an argument, and then classifying it as an argument from silence (or any other argument type), is OR. I assume there is a rule against adding sources you haven't actually read. I assume that there is a rule requiring editors to document that the sources support their claims. If those rules exist, then he is violating those rules.[174] Anyway, I'm off to other destinations for the rest of the day. Humanpublic (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT might be pertinent here, in particular the sentence which says, "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself." I am unconvinced that violation of this minor guideline is enough to warrant a topic ban (and a topic ban from which articles, exactly?), and this is still a pointless discussion. The SPA accusation should be supported with evidence or redacted, per WP:NPA. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- The rule violation is OR, as I said initially. Analysing or researching an argument, and then classifying it as an argument from silence (or any other argument type), is OR. I assume there is a rule against adding sources you haven't actually read. I assume that there is a rule requiring editors to document that the sources support their claims. If those rules exist, then he is violating those rules.[174] Anyway, I'm off to other destinations for the rest of the day. Humanpublic (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, and also support a warning for Humanpublic for failing to AGF and for not working out content disputes on the article talkpages instead of here. Heiro 00:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose a topic ban for History2007, a highly knowledgeable user who not only scrupulously observes wikipedia policy but patiently spells them out to every POV fringe theory pusher who appears on the pages under discussion. For this he gets called a "zealot" by Humanpublic [175], which in my opinion borders on a personal attack.Smeat75 (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose and warn Per LGR, Heiro and above discussions, topic ban has no merit and is purely proposed out of bad faith. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ridiculous. Humanpublic, you're actually talking yourself deeper into your hole, as you can now see the first support-!votes for your topic ban; if you continue down this road, there will be more people willing to ban you. You've been told before that it is policy that "verifiable" does not mean that people need to quote passages of text to you and present them to you as the gatekeeper. Read WP:SOURCEACCESS. Go get the books in question, open them at the indicated page, and read for yourself. Assuming that others haven't read them is about as offensive as assuming your request is based your own illiteracy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose History2007 is a good and alert editor, who's really keen at using reliable sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. This proposal violates either WP:POINT or WP:AGF or both, and inclines me to strike my !vote opposing the proposed topic ban of User:Humanpublic above. Both of you need to start resolving your content disputes, prefereably one at a time, and preferably without resort to blocks or topic bans. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Err... one of those "both" hasn't even commented here... just saying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- "You" means the two users proposing topic bans in this section. They most certainly have commented here. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- 'k. nevermind. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- "You" means the two users proposing topic bans in this section. They most certainly have commented here. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Err... one of those "both" hasn't even commented here... just saying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty funny. The funniest part was the multiple no response conclusions (in bold), just above. We have been telling this guy not to use arguments from silence, and then he just does that. Anyway, I went back and added some exact quotes. But this is a very simple concept, even pointed out to Gregory in Silver Blaze. I will add some more direct quotes to the other pages later. I will not be making any further comments here. History2007 (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:POINT and being one of the least thought-out topic ban proposals in the history of anything. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Purpose
Can somebody tell me what the purpose of this whole thing still is? Can we just close this or what's to be done? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- The purpose is to address the OP (Humanpublic) and his unacceptable behavior. As stated above, he has engaged in highly uncivil habits, however, multiple editors have repeatedly tried to sidetrack the discussion by asserting the incorrect belief that this is a content dispute (which it is not). The blatantly polemical refutations done by his supporter HiLo ([176]) have repeatedly constricted discussion (although they do not have much footing), and I fear they may exhibit the same behavior as Humanpublic. As for the topic ban, there seems to be no consensus, being that the editors have argued over content, not user conduct. However, if Humanpublic's uncivil manner escalates in the future, this will certainly provide insight on the situation. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 12:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Return of the Wikihounding Sock
I suspect that GeezerB is a sock of Plant's Strider, a troll who habitually followed I and another editor around the project, making inconsequential edits wherever we went. It has not yet escalated to that level with this account, but if you compare the edit summaries and the area of interest, I think it's pretty clear they're the same person. There are other things that led me to post here, but I won't be posting those per WP:BEANS. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- WP:SPI is thataway. And please provide some evidence. Not saying he is or isn't a sock, but the 'evidence' GabeMc sent to me was singularly unconvincing. Please bear in mind that just because someone is not a new editor, a sock is not the only other option. Also that having the effrontery to propose addding Miles Davis to WP:VITAL two weeks after GabeMc proposed adding Jimi Hendrix is not harrassment ans not evidence of socking. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- While there seem to be similar topics editing in, the edit summaries look similar, and he seems keen to get a few articles up to GA status, I'm loathe to comment any further without shutting up and showing you all a bunch of relevant diffs that I don't have. I do note that Plant's Strider's block has expired, as it was only a cool down from edit warring, and GeezerB doesn't seem to show actual evidence of edit warring. I'd discuss first before escalating it up to ANI. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what Gabe's email has to do with anything. I came here of my own volition, and specifically mentioned edit summaries, which Ritchie seems to have had no problem finding. I've had no trouble getting far less obvious socks blocked at ANI before, but if you prefer I contribute to the how-to-sock-and-get-away-with-it manual that SPI has become, that's done now. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Elen, I thought e-mails between users should be kept private. Per Wikipedia:Emailing users: "The contents of emails between users are private" and "Note that emails sent this way are private – they are sent as written, as a private communication between willing parties who have agreed to send and receive emails." (emphasis added) According to merriam-webster.com: "Private: 'intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class.'" Also, from Wikipedia:Personal security practices: "If you become stalked or harassed on Wikipedia via any information posted about you on-site, whether by you or anyone else, it is recommended that you report this discreetly via off-site means, such as email, to a trusted administrator ... which maintains a confidential email service." (emphasis added) I have never discussed this user on-wiki with anyone, so your revelation here of the confidential information exchanged during our private correspondence seems inappropriate at best. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- "There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence." NE Ent 21:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like a bit of a cherry-pick. WP:POSTEMAIL goes on to say: "In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki". (emphasis added) GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would hardly consider citing a diff as quoting a private email. The diff is, after all, public information. I asked you for some diffs, and one of the ones you gave that made you certain that GeezerB was (a) harassing you and (b) was a sock of Plant's Strider (who was also harassing you, and was a sock of Chowkat... except that he wasnt, see [[177]]), was that he had added Miles Davis to the list of Vital Articles a mere two weeks after you had added Jimi Hendrix. Not one of the diffs you provided appeared to me to be evidence of either harassment or socking. You regularly accuse other editors - not even other editors that you are in an active dispute with, just ones that make edits you don't like - of all being socks of each other. If you want to accuse people of harassing you or being socks, you must provide some realistic evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- 1) I never said GeezerB was harassing me, ever, you must have misunderstood something else I said. 2) Chowkat is now a proven sock/sockmaster, so what's your point about my accusing him of being such? Per: "just ones that make edits you don't like", wow, have you ever got this all wrong, and you also seem to be quite biased against me at this point, so you seem too WP:INVOLVED to be dealing with me. 3) No evidence is realistic to you, IMO. Why are you even a CU, why not let someone else do it who doesn't seem to resent it so much? 4) I wrongly thought our e-mails were confidential (see the above definition of private), if they weren't intended as such, I would have posted them to your talk page. 5) Per your comment: "If you want to accuse people of harassing you or being socks, you must provide some realistic evidence", 1) I never accused GeezerB on-wiki of anything, nor did I suggest or encourage Evan to open this AN/I thread (I actually wish he hadn't, IMO, we should have waited for more evidence, then went to SPI). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would hardly consider citing a diff as quoting a private email. The diff is, after all, public information. I asked you for some diffs, and one of the ones you gave that made you certain that GeezerB was (a) harassing you and (b) was a sock of Plant's Strider (who was also harassing you, and was a sock of Chowkat... except that he wasnt, see [[177]]), was that he had added Miles Davis to the list of Vital Articles a mere two weeks after you had added Jimi Hendrix. Not one of the diffs you provided appeared to me to be evidence of either harassment or socking. You regularly accuse other editors - not even other editors that you are in an active dispute with, just ones that make edits you don't like - of all being socks of each other. If you want to accuse people of harassing you or being socks, you must provide some realistic evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Contents" means the actual email, not a reference to the email. Although not directly applicable to this case, the concept behind "You should not post the email itself on the wiki without permission (although you can describe briefly in summary what it contains or shows)." elucidates this. NE Ent 03:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Another cherry-pick. You're quote is from WP:EMAILABUSE, which does not apply at all to good-faith e-mails. As far as the definition of "content": "the topics or matter treated in a written work ... the principal substance", which you seem to be using interchangeably here with "verbatim", or similar; I repeat: "the contents (subjects or topics) of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki." So, it would seem that in order for you to be correct, we would need to redefine "private" and "content". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, Gabe, but you're wrong. Your quote even says it: "the contents" should not be posted. As in, the direct words in the email. Simply stating that the email was not convincing is not a violation of that. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- To clarify, "Also that having the effrontery to propose addding Miles Davis to WP:VITAL two weeks after GabeMc proposed adding Jimi Hendrix is not harrassment ans not evidence of socking" is quite a specific example of nearly exactly what I said. Who goes to Vital Articles after just 4 days on Wikipedia and confronts my effort to broaden ethnicity and gender diversity in the list? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding email If you don't want the content of your email shared, don't send it to people you don't trust not to share it. They are under no obligation to keep your missives private. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Good suggestion. I did trust Elen, before she made my private statements public. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
GabeMc asks "Why are you even a CU, why not let someone else do it who doesn't seem to resent it so much?" What I resent is being asked to unearth private information about other editors without any basis in policy. At one time, an IP hopping troll on a cable provider made a considerable nuisance of themselves in the popular music area, including targetting GabeMc. Since then, Gabe and Evan have been convinced that significant numbers of editors, including long standing accounts as well as new accounts, are all this individual. In many cases, myself and other CUs have been asked to conduct userchecks on very little evidence. In this case, I have been asked to checkuser this individual when no policy is being violated. Even if he is Plant's Strider, the Plant's Strider account stopped editing before this account started. Users are entirely free to abandon one account and start another. No evidence of problematic editing or hounding has been presented so far, and I simply cannot justify poking around in this user's IP information on what is presented here and in the SPI. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I do apologise though to Gabe. Informants perhaps ought to be made more aware that allegations of socking based on diffs or editing pattern often end up being public - because the CU at the end of the day has to justify to the community and the WMF as to why they used the tools. If I had been aware that Evan was posting off his own bat, I wouldn't have mentioned Gabe, because he had dropped it with me by that point: looking at it now, I should have been less cross. The cable net troll was quite vile - I can see why he is suspicious of other users. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Elen, your above statement: "I simply cannot justify poking around in this user's IP information on what is presented here and in the SPI", seems to directly contradict this comment you made not long ago. Seems to me that you CU anyone you suspect, while telling others that they need to prove it first. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with Elen's use of the CU tool, you should probably take it up with the appropriate authority. Speculation on this type of crap is going to go nowhere on ANI, since Elen presumably can't defend herself by releasing details about CU checks publicly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- One of those where several have said "it's Foo", but the CU on the IP does not provide any evidence thereof. Often the most one can do is block the IP, sometimes it's not even worth that. I've checked one or two for Gabe, but I don't believe there is one editor behind all the accounts he has presented (personal opinion - he can always ask another checkuser to review the evidence), and in this particular case, even if it is the same editor, they are not breaking any rules, so I don't see how I could justify using the tool. Again, another CU may vary in their opinion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Per you above comment: "in this particular case, even if it is the same editor, they are not breaking any rules", how does this apply to Wikipedia:Gaming the system, which states: "Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia ... Gaming the system may include: Attempting to twist Wikipedia sanctions or processes to harass other editors." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- But you haven't provided any evidence of this. The Plant's Strider account isn't a sock of anyone else, and it was briefly blocked for edit warring and being a bit shirty. GeezerB hasnt even interacted with you, except that you took enormous exception to him nominating Miles Davis and Led Zeppelin as vital articles, as you felt it was a direct threat to your nomination of Jimi Hendrix. WP:FALSENEGATIVE - Checkusers cannot go on fishing expeditions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Per you above comment: "in this particular case, even if it is the same editor, they are not breaking any rules", how does this apply to Wikipedia:Gaming the system, which states: "Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia ... Gaming the system may include: Attempting to twist Wikipedia sanctions or processes to harass other editors." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- One of those where several have said "it's Foo", but the CU on the IP does not provide any evidence thereof. Often the most one can do is block the IP, sometimes it's not even worth that. I've checked one or two for Gabe, but I don't believe there is one editor behind all the accounts he has presented (personal opinion - he can always ask another checkuser to review the evidence), and in this particular case, even if it is the same editor, they are not breaking any rules, so I don't see how I could justify using the tool. Again, another CU may vary in their opinion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with Elen's use of the CU tool, you should probably take it up with the appropriate authority. Speculation on this type of crap is going to go nowhere on ANI, since Elen presumably can't defend herself by releasing details about CU checks publicly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Elen, your above statement: "I simply cannot justify poking around in this user's IP information on what is presented here and in the SPI", seems to directly contradict this comment you made not long ago. Seems to me that you CU anyone you suspect, while telling others that they need to prove it first. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Correction. Per your above comment: "The Plant's Strider account isn't a sock of anyone else", WP:FALSENEGATIVE states: "CheckUser cannot confirm with certainty that two accounts are not connected". Per "Checkusers cannot go on fishing expeditions", then what would you call this. Again, seems like you run CU at your own whims while telling others that they are always wrong. Also, can I respectfully request that you cease revealing information I e-mailed to you in confidence. Could you please do that for me? I told you that I thought it was confidential or I would have never told you anything via e-mail and would have posted it on your talk page. I can't take that mistake back now, but you could stop spilling beans out of spite. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Elen, if its proof of disruptive editing that you want then look here and here, despite this, which is yet another behaviour reminiscent of User:Plant's Strider. See here and here. Also, per Yeepsi this and this would seem to be pertinent to the case, which shows a behavioural similarity between PS and GB. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- So why are you and Yeepsi (who is Yeepsi - haven't seen him before. Must be a sock of yours.....see how easily it's done) so determined to prevent a harmless change to a citation system better suited to a situation where you are referencing multiple pages in the same book? Again, I'm not seeing disruption, I'm seeing doing something you and Evan don't like. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Matej1234
I am reporting User:Matej1234 for continued and persistent removal of the template:no footnotes against consensus and policy beyond repeated requests made to him via his talk page for him not to do so. Requests for him to cease this type of anti-encylopaedia building behaviour have been made by various editors:
But he continues to remove templates, for example with this recent edit, as well as unilaterally changing mdy formats to dmy, which he has also been asked to desist from doing on at least two occasions: first, second, as we can see by an edit he performed today. He does not provide edit summaries and rarely communicates on user talk pages, so I feel administrator intervention is a suitable next step in this case. Thanks, C679 11:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- You should have notified Matej1234 of this discussion. I have now done that. De728631 (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Um, Cloudz679 did notify Matej1234. GiantSnowman 14:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed that. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Um, Cloudz679 did notify Matej1234. GiantSnowman 14:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have issued the editor in question with a final warning - if they continue to remove valid maintenance tags without explanation I will block. GiantSnowman 14:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- On that note, this version would certainly not need any footnotes. Footnotes and inline references are required for contentious material or possibly negative additions to biographies of living persons. But referencing a stub of two sentences with footnotes would be overkill, so I don't see a problem with that particular edit by Matej. His lack of response to the warnings and requests to stop this type of editing though is in fact a problem. Matej should really consider if removing any maintenance templates from an article is justified. As to dmy vs mdy, this requires as well a case-by-case analysis of the article. WP:MOSDATE gives advice about using dates in articles with strong national ties to a topic and also about "retaining the existing format". Changing the date format of an article is not desirable unless the subject has strong national ties to either the UK or the US that would justify using the relevant local date format. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, could I get some attention to the subject new user/SPA currently doing wholesale deletions regardless of consensus and after gentle advice not to continue? Probably a sock, but unfortunately I am mobile and don't have the access I need to provide the evidence for that. The editwarring alone should be enough for an ARBMAC warning. Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- The comments are just so ridiculously over the top, it might just be my old community banned sockmaster buddy User:Oldhouse2012, or the other sockmaster that has been active on that page, User:Sinbad Barron. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Hilarious. Almost certainly a sock, and most definitely an exceptionally disruptive user. A checkuser and a ban would be in place.Jeppiz (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hm, Keithstanton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created today and is already surprisingly knowledgeable about our policies. Comments such as [178] (severe personal attack) and [179] (WP:BLP violation), as well as the general editing pattern of one-sided advocacy in the WP:ARBMAC area, leads me to believe that an indefinite block might be in order. Sandstein 13:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. Indef of this obvious SPA disruptive sock. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hm, Keithstanton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created today and is already surprisingly knowledgeable about our policies. Comments such as [178] (severe personal attack) and [179] (WP:BLP violation), as well as the general editing pattern of one-sided advocacy in the WP:ARBMAC area, leads me to believe that an indefinite block might be in order. Sandstein 13:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello eveyone. First I don't know the actual reason I have been summoned to this crazy discussion by Peacemaker, an editor I have the sincerest respect for and one with who I see eye to eye fully. I understand a few people are threatened that I'm both a new user and someone who is knowledgeable on wikipedia policy. Well I am, I always read the instructions before opening and wikipedia is no different. But let's be truthful, the policies I gave on the voting page to get Persecution of Serbs in Kosovo deleted were mentioned throughout the article anyway. That out the way, I am sorry if my wholesale removal from the article looked disruptive but I never set out to do it. It's just once I started I couldn't stop. for every decision to delete, I gave a summary descritpion and in the end, it left the page empty. OK, I could have left the LEDE but it would have been unsourced and saying nothing true. What I am trying to say is, that page should not have to go through wholesale removals but an admin desperately needs to step in and get it deleted, PLEASE delete it. It is a tool for Serb nationalists like User:Nado158, the biggest one going. He has the cheek to call User:Bobrayner a sock and call him Albanian when the facts are simple. Bob is just good hardworking and neutral editor with high end Balkans knowledge and he rightly points out that in Kosovo, the victims wee "not" Serb but non-Serb, and we all remember the vicious genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity which happened in Kosovo from 1990 to 1999 and I personally witnessed a lot of these as I was serving with KFOR so nobody can tell me differently. I am not a sockpuppet and don't want to be blocked, but please, once and for all, delete Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo, I cannot sit by and watch exploitment of Wikipedia by Serb nationalists who spread lies and use blogs for sources. Thankyou for reading. Keithstanton (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Keithstanton (with whom I have never interacted) seems highly disruptive. The warnings given to him seems to have had no effect, and he continues today with deleting sourced content at an alarming pace [180], [181], [182], [183], He never discusses these deletions on the talk pages, and while not involved in any Balkan topic myself, I find his arguments untenable. He deletes multiple sources, including many that fulfill the very highest standards of WP:RS, such as reports from OSCE. I cannot say if he is a sock or not, but he is clearly a disruptive user out to get the WP:TRUTH at all means, including deleting everything he does not like. He continues despite several warnings. Sock or not, he should not edit any article related to the Balkans.Jeppiz (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Concur with a cool-off block for an egregious violation of the normal editing process (WP:ARBMAC). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd hardly call articles from BBC, Reuters, various significant European newspapers blogs. Normally, I would think that someone who has experience or is an expert in a field that they're editing should be given some leeway, but not like this. The article does wander off from the main topic somewhat, at least in some of the versions I've seen, but there's nothing that isn't fixable without wholesale deletion of entire chunks of material. I'd almost call this a WP:COI and as Joy says above, edits in this area are covered by ARBMAC. Blackmane (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- at the very least, could we get a temporary topic ban in place? Then Keithstanton can show he can edit properly elsewhere first. These articles are hard enough to corral inside WP policy/guidelines without mass disruption. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
User refuses to NOINDEX their collection of WP:FAKEARTICLEs kept in their userspace
Portolanero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I ran across a collection of articles on medieval portolan charts being kept in this user's userspace here: User:Portolanero. At first I thought they were the users 'work in progress' destined to be mainspace contributions. However after closer examination I see they largely ignore Wikipedia core policies such as WP:OR, WP:SOAPBOX etc. and appear to fall under WP:FAKEARTICLE. At least one off-wiki site refers to the Portolanero user pages as a "personal research site"[184] .
My attempts to discuss the issue of NOINDEXING on their Talk page were not successful. The user has declared they "will not accept a NOINDEX". [185]
They have also reverted attempts to NOINDEX their userpages [186], [187]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like they are using Wikipedia as a free webhost. --ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- And being deliberately evasive when informed that the material they post here is intended to be modified by anyone. If any of their userspace articles are of any value to the project, in whole or in part, they should be moved to article space and cleaned up to remove the original research and editorializing. Those that aren't should be deleted. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- For everyone's convenience: list of subpages. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If they are indeed fake articles, I'd suggest taking them to WP:MFD. - SudoGhost 17:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've been meaning to do that for some time - this attitude convinces me it's the best option. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I readded the noindex to one article and wish you good luck with this editor. --Malerooster (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've been meaning to do that for some time - this attitude convinces me it's the best option. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This looks like a classic example of fake articles. Contrary to policies, and the user does not appear willing to discuss. The "articles" should be deleted.Jeppiz (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to know by user LuckyLouie Where is the group that can decide to enforce "noindex"? and take the discussion there. I considered my talkpage not appropriate. He suggested "miscellany for deletion" but now opened here. Is this here the formal place to discuss "noindex" or deletion of my pages? -- Portolanero (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, please go ahead.Jeppiz (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say your talk page would have been the place to notify you of the NOINDEX issue. This is a place to notify admins of problems that might require intervention, such as a user who apparently takes Wikipedia as his personal webhost in violation of WP:NOT and insists that his fake articles be indexed by search engines - to what purpose? The admins have the tools necessary to implement whatever the community decides is appropriate. The place to discuss deletion of your pages is WP:MFD, and it seems likely that your pages will end up there soon. Huon (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yup .. by the time it's come here, it's because you have failed to act as requested when it comes to policy-compliance ... in this case, NOINDEX. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)Is there ever a reason why userspace pages should be searchable outside WP? It seems to me that the whole namespace should automatically/unchangeably be __NOINDEX__. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- And talk pages - BLP alone should mandate that userspace and talkpages of articles and users should not be indexed. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
We just gonna yak about this all day or what? Here ya go: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Portolanero/subpages NE Ent 18:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I explained in 2011 at the "Portolan chart" talk page here the purpose of my pages:
- I'm a specialist on early portolan charts. "One of the world's greatest and most enduring mysteries" like the Washington Post wrote May 22, 2010. On my user page I created several subpages that explain and discuss a lot of issues around portolans. Unique rare images and graphics are presented. Some published for the first time. I came from the German language tradition of portolan research. That is more focused on the scientific or engineering aspects, on mathematic and cartometric analysis. It traditionally suggests a Roman or Greek time origin. The present English language tradition is less mathematical and suggests a sole medieval origin. My pages offer most English speakers for the first time the cartometric arguments about the portolans. Beginners should first read "What is unsolved about portolans? The Problem of the Portolan Charts". The pages are with lot of explanations and therefore not intended to be direct copied in the article space. Rather someone with interest on the subject and Wikipedia experience should decide what may be appropriate here. -- Portolanero (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to give interested WP and Google users a way to get information on the more science based Swiss/German school of portolan research. I did it on WP because I had the experience only here to find highly capable people who can handle such stuff and even may have new information. I wanted to support some WP articles and help to further advance the knowledge on this rarely known topic.
There are now not enough WP users aware of portolans that this could start yet. But I hope by Google to get people to work on the WP articles and my pages shall support it. I have good relations to people of English language school on portolans. They would rightly see it as an affront if a proponent of the Swiss/German school took over the English WP article. So I have to abstain on edits there.
Please take a look what unique material I spent for WP. All map images on my portolan pages are uploaded by me. There were never published elsewhere yet. This or this are just two images that cost a lot of money to create. So far the argument that I misused WP as cheap web hoster. -- Portolanero (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate that these pages took a lot of time and effort to create, but right away you come to the core of the issue - an editor's userpages are emphatically not the place "...to give WP and Google users a way to get information" on anything. If you intend to publish this material, great - good luck to you. But it can't be published on Wikipedia first. Look at it from the other side of things - if we accepted for publication whatever a user put onto his or her userpages, then anyone could post anything and then rely on it for articles or the like. Your material may well be accurate and informative, but other editors' may not be. That's why we require material published on Wikipedia to be backed by reliable sources - and that it be verifiable. We also require pages in the userspace to either be compliant with most policies or in forms and on subjects that could, with editing, be reasonably expected to comply at some point. However intricate and detailed, your original work is just that - original research - and it cannot be used on Wikipedia. I know that's not the answer you're looking for, but it is what it is. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- About 80% is from reliable book sources in English and German language and well referenced, so verifiable. The remainder is my "OR" and that by policy is allowed on userpages. The pages shall help to improve the WP article and that they can do. -- Portolanero (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- If the idea is to improve existing or future pages, then why would you not noindex the pages? We don't publish Original Research here, and not noindexing these pages does precisely that - which is why this came forward to ANI in the first place. If you want this material to be seen on Google and Bing and so forth, you need to find another website. If you intend it for our use in improving articles here, then you need to noindex the pages. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Couldn't all of this be ported over to Wikia? You could create your own site there, portolan.wikia.com or whatever you want to name it. Same or similar mediawiki, the conversion effort should be minimal. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Was just going to suggest that, or Wikkii. NE Ent 20:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- 1. Seems Portolanero has some WP:OWN which is weighing on his judgment about the appropriateness of the subpages. If he had been more cooperative about posting {{userdraft}} or {{noindex}} templates, especially after the need for them had been explained, he would not be in this discussion. (Such a simple solution was available, but he spurned it.) 2. This discussion may be moot in that a consensus seems to be developing that the subpages be deleted. 3. With these thoughts in mind, I suggest we close this discussion. IMO, there is no need to take administrative action as to Portolanero himself and the MfD will resolve the subpage issue. – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Was just going to suggest that, or Wikkii. NE Ent 20:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Consensus may be that the pages are inappropriate for our user namespace, but the world won't explode if we hold onto them until such point as Portolanero can get himself set up at Wikia, so long as that's what he's going to do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Similar content appears to be more coherently conveyed at User:Walrasiad/Maps - which was also being cited on the web as a "research site" and lacking any NOINDEX until moments ago. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I advise Portolano to make copies of the source code of all his articles in his hard disk. He can use Notepad, Microsoft Windows, OpenOffice or LibreOffice. This way he can restore them very easily in others wikis. If they get deleted, he will have to email an admin to get a copy of the source code. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Similar content appears to be more coherently conveyed at User:Walrasiad/Maps - which was also being cited on the web as a "research site" and lacking any NOINDEX until moments ago. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Consensus may be that the pages are inappropriate for our user namespace, but the world won't explode if we hold onto them until such point as Portolanero can get himself set up at Wikia, so long as that's what he's going to do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict):::I should add that Portolanero's idea of reliable sources is not one I share, and that at least some of his material is fringe. For instance, User:Portolanero/The Maps of King Arthur which is something that we'd never allow as an article. Dougweller (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- The whole debate came up after I asked Dougweller here why the book by Kare Prytz (Westward before Columbus, Oslo 1991) was not a reliable source. I got no reply. I personally confirmed Prytz claim there and recently found the two others mentioned in older scholarly books too. I suspect Dougweller only read the WP entry on Kare Prytz where his novels are mentioned. This book was no novel but had referenced and verifiable sources I used. I would like to know on what his "no RS" accusation is based.
- Further, by WP policy "Most community policies... will apply to your user space, just as elsewhere. (Purely content policies such as original research, neutral point of view etc., generally do not, unless the material is moved into mainspace.)" the mentioned "original research" should be no problem. My pages have only about 20% "OR" in total. All other is well referenced and verifiable. -- Portolanero (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keeping the articles in your userspace is not an option. You can keep them there while you're still improving them and making them suitable for inclusion, but in the long term, one of several things will happen:
- The articles will be moved to article namespace. They will be subject to edits by other editors and deletion if appropriate
- The articles will be moved to another site (wikia for example, per above), and deleted from wikipedia's servers
- The articles will be deleted, and not recreated anywhere on wikipedia unless they are suitable for inclusion
- Obviously option number three isn't very appealing, so it's your responsibility to work the articles up to our standards, or if you think it's impossible, then to move the articles to another site before they are deleted.
- You have expressed the belief that your userspace does not need to conform to content policies. This is not true. In general, user pages, talk pages, and subpages do not have to follow those rules, but when a subpage is an article draft, then it must work towards article standards and eventually be moved to mainspace, or risk deletion as a FAKEARTICLE.
- These are the facts. You can try to ignore them all you want, but it will only result in the deletion of your work, which isn't the best thing for anybody. Sincerely, Rutebega (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keeping the articles in your userspace is not an option. You can keep them there while you're still improving them and making them suitable for inclusion, but in the long term, one of several things will happen:
- Further, by WP policy "Most community policies... will apply to your user space, just as elsewhere. (Purely content policies such as original research, neutral point of view etc., generally do not, unless the material is moved into mainspace.)" the mentioned "original research" should be no problem. My pages have only about 20% "OR" in total. All other is well referenced and verifiable. -- Portolanero (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Portolanero, you cannot selective pick which policies to apply to your user page, none of us can. If one applies, then all of them must apply. Your subpages, as long as they exist in your userspace, may contain OR but then it runs afoul of WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:WEBHOST as you have been told before. Blackmane (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Fully agree with Thumperward's 10:38 comment .. (and others). — Ched : ? 15:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
User talk pages on Google
A quick Google search[188] found [189] and [190] and [191]. Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Section changed from Lv2 to Lv3 heading, relates to previous section.
|
|---|
|
- I somehow thought talk pages (but not userpages) weren't indexed by default? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, user talk pages aren't meant to be indexed, but search engines work in mysterious ways. Graham87 03:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a disallow for User_talk in the robot.txt file -- is there supposed to be one? NE Ent 12:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have any technical knowledge of this, but as an aside, I noted that Dougweller's talk page doesn't show up in search results, which I attribute to the fact that his userpage is noindexed. In short, my hypothesis is that talk pages are indexed only when their corresponding user pages are indexed, for reasons unknown. And clearly talk pages are not automatically noindexed. Whether they were ever meant to be I have no idea; I read an RFC about noindexing user and user talk pages, but it failed. —Rutebega (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- The only talk pages that I'm aware of that aren't indexed are BLP talk pages, since Template:BLP and Template:WikiProject Biography include the noindex magicword as part of the template. - SudoGhost 16:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:NOINDEX#Namespace_control says "On English Wikipedia the entire user talk: namespace is automatically noindexed via a software setting" NE Ent 17:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- The only talk pages that I'm aware of that aren't indexed are BLP talk pages, since Template:BLP and Template:WikiProject Biography include the noindex magicword as part of the template. - SudoGhost 16:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have any technical knowledge of this, but as an aside, I noted that Dougweller's talk page doesn't show up in search results, which I attribute to the fact that his userpage is noindexed. In short, my hypothesis is that talk pages are indexed only when their corresponding user pages are indexed, for reasons unknown. And clearly talk pages are not automatically noindexed. Whether they were ever meant to be I have no idea; I read an RFC about noindexing user and user talk pages, but it failed. —Rutebega (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a disallow for User_talk in the robot.txt file -- is there supposed to be one? NE Ent 12:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, user talk pages aren't meant to be indexed, but search engines work in mysterious ways. Graham87 03:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Backlog at RFPP
ResolvedBacklog at WP:RFPP and it's a big one, some 50 or so requests in need of attention. Mops to the ready, folks. tutterMouse (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh snap, here I was working on requested edits on semi-protected, of which there were 54 when I started. Things always get backed up at RFPP on the weekends. I will do some after I get back from the gym. -- Dianna (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Me and Mark are on it. The backlog is complicated however, because many is requests for unprotection, or turning unprotection to recent changes, something that a user needs to look why the page was protected in the first place. Secret account 21:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Dispute with JHunterJ
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm on an ongoing dispute with JHunterJ (talk · contribs) in the past because I still think of him as fanatic and arbitratry on everyone. Look at his past arguments with others in Talk:Big (film) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. This time, in Talk:The Boys in the Band#Requested move (2013), I'm trying to convince JHunterJ to re-consider his arguments on move proposal that I made. However, he thinks that I went too far because I mentioned his past activities, and I believe that he went too far on everybody, including one editor, especially in the past. He called my arguments poor and uses guidelines as a reason, and I found him too arbitrary. Also, I believe that he is mocking me because his comments imitate mine in that discussion. I don't know how things should have been settled earlier, but I can no longer handle issues with him alone anymore. I need assistance on helping dispute between two of us. I tried other pages, but I think this is the best way to go. --George Ho (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I asked him to apologize, but he wants me to apologize to him (not sure if it's also). Actually, he said, "Hysterical". Since I don't know what he meant, I feel that he is not going to apologize if I apologize to him first. Therefore, I'm reporting this here. --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Almost forgot: I wanted him to leave the discussion if he does not apologize. He struck me back by doing the same thing on me. --George Ho (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've dealt with JHunterJ in dozens of different disputes over many years, and I've never once found him to be a "fanatic" and/or "arbitrary on everyone". The first step to ending your dispute is to recognize your personal attacks and apologize to him. The second step is to grow up and to stop acting like a child. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- What about similar dispute in Talk:It's Great to Be Alive (disambiguation)? What if he doesn't want to apologize to me? --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also in Talk:All That Jazz (film)? Is apology too late? --George Ho (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- George, after looking at all of this, I'm wondering if you shouldn't be banned from move discussions. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is no policy requiring anybody to apologize, so don't demand one. You're free to apologize yourself though, when appropriate. It facilitates forgiveness. —Rutebega (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- What about Hunter's interpersonal relationships in Talk:Lovin' You and Talk:Season 2? Would they hurt my credibility? --George Ho (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also Talk:Firestarter (novel)? --George Ho (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I can find no personal attacks in any of the talk pages that you have linked to George. I would suggest that you drop the WP:STICK. On the other hand it is not to late for you to apologize to JHunterJ for your unfounded accusations. MarnetteD | Talk 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- George, after looking at all of this, I'm wondering if you shouldn't be banned from move discussions. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I did apologize to JHunterJ for accusing him of conflicting with another editor (if there is no such thing) and of lacking common sense. I did not apologize to him yet for accusing him of mocking people and stooping low, but I told him I will try. Hope it's not non-apology, is it? --George Ho (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Since there is nothing actionable here (and it looks like you are using this noticeboard to continue a dispute) I move to close this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Defining someone's arguments as poor is not a personal attack of any sort. It holds to "comment on content not the editor". He made good points in the discussion, your points weren't so good. Saying your argument is poor is calling a spade, a spade. You can't demand someone leave a discussion just because your feathers are ruffled. There's nothing more to be done here. Blackmane (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MezzoMezzo's continuous disruptive editing and highly biased editing behavior with a certain agenda
The case is related to User:MezzoMezzo.He is continuously using Wikipedia:Agenda_account just to promote his views and to prove his POV.He continuously fills the Barelvi Article with Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight criticism. He is just trying to prove his personal Point Wikipedia:POINT any how. He has edited Articles with Wikipedia:Tendentious editing,Wikipedia:Coatrack and Wikipedia:Fait accompli.
He is editing a numbers of Articles with Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing.His non constructive edits and his behavior have confirmed that he is good at arguing but is working for some agenda.He is using his account to promote his POV in many Articles of Islam. All this has led to edit warring and dispute on the Barelvi Article which was totally neutral and far from any dispute since a long time. His behavior and editing motives confirmed that He is working regularly to reduce the Importance of Sufi oriented Articles and Subjects while promoting blatant POV through his pages of likeness associated with Salafi or Wahabi.He is trying to control Wahabi and Ahle Hadees Pages.
- He uses Wiki:Policies and discussions just to change the character of various Articles.On the one hand he seems to be engaged in discussion in a very civil and objective manner but this all is done just to prove his Point.He can use wordingsit does NOT MATTER how many sources are provided to insert his POV.
- See here [192] he will always remove the content to which he does not like.
- See here[193] and
- here [194]
- here [195]
- Inserted a biased source here [196] and
- veiled criticism in the name of history section here [197] again
- here [198].
- This POV pushing based on single source [199] continued until a edit warring started with more than one users.
- Again Biased editing full of Non Neutral POV with a motive [200], *[201],[202]
- Blatant accusations [203],
- Trying to Prove Barelvi practice Un-Islamic see here [204]
- Again accusations [205]
- Blatant POV and lies [206]
- Editing to prove a Point [207]
- Removing the name of a movement on the basis of his personal likeness and dislikeness.[208]
- Inserting his POV [209]
- Big accusation supported by Non Neutral source [210]
- Again tampering [211]
- Again pushing Un verified and non neutral POV [212]
- Salafi-Removing a very Genuine template from the Article see here[213] and Protecting *blatant lies and POV here [214].
- Unsourced POV here [[215]]
- Nazim Al-Haqqani -He removed a lot of content here[[216]]
- Tawassul-Removing total neutral valid content according to his personal views here [217]inserting his POV here [218]
- Ibn Arabi He removed half of content in bad faith here
- Ya Muhammad here[219]
- He Suggested a Number of Article of Scholars of other movements Sufism
- for speedy deletion [220],
- [221],
- [222],
- [223],
- [224]
- Mohra shareef here
- Mohammad Qasim Sadiq here [225]
- This is continue since long:-In the Past he has
- He Proposed several Articles belonging to Sufism for Speedy Deletion See here [226]
- Now He has opened a Pandora Box by opening at least 10 headings on talk page in a single day[227].
- He is rushing to add his POV and disputed points in Barelvi Article.It is an attempt to rewrite the complete Barelvi Article from his point of view.
- He is doing this since long-[228]
- See a small example here [229] and here
- reverted by other editors [230].
- Continuously engaged in heated debates with various editors [231]
- Many editors in Past have noticed this fact that Salafis and Wahabi editors have tried to vandalize this Article Barelvi [232]
- This editing pattern has harassed many editors in the past and has forced them to leave editing specially from Barelvi Page.For Ex-User:Hassanfarooqi,User:MatthewVanitas with his efforts to improve the Article [233],User:Nkv and User:Coercorash. Many fears to edit a single line or wording on these Pages due to this monopoly.
- One can't remove blatant POV from Salafi Article due to Page control but you can find other pages are used as Soap Box by these editors.
- If this situation is not changed ,I will be forced to think to leave Wikipedia as an editor.This situation and behavior should be discontinued to make Wikipedia a platform free for all neutral editors.Msoamu (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is actually somewhat amusing for me. In a case like this, is a defense on my part even necessary? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Dear friends, sorry, but I cannot agree with Msoamu that MezzoMezzo is trying to change the tone / focus of whole articles according to his personal views or that he is trying to provoke other editors through his conduct. He tries hard to verify all his points with reliable evidence, he tries hard to maintain a neutral tone and he tries hard to explain his edits one-by-one. I do not agree with all of his edits, but I cannot conclude that he is a biased editor with an ulterior motive or a Salafi or Wahabi who is trying to undermine all other interpretations of Islam. By the way, the Barelvi page has not been "totally neutral" at any stage since I started watching it a few years ago. Indeed, it is unlikely that any page on any religious movement will be totally free of competing viewpoints (and corresponding edits). Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Great!I am witness to this editing Pattern and behavior of this particular editor MezzoMezzo who has history of inserting his bias in various articles.This is not about just a Barelvi article,much more than that.I request admins here to look deep into the motives of the editing of this editor which you will find is just pushing negative comments. Shabiha (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Any comments about the Barelvi article should be thrown away immediately. Since the article was unprotected, MezzoMezzo hasn't made a single edit, whilst I've made 4, Shabiha has made 1, GeorgeCustersSabre 1, and Mosamu 1 (which was reverted). I thought I'd sorted this dispute out, evidently not. MezzoMezzo has outlined every single proposed edit on the Barelvi talk page in its own subsection for discussion. This isn't the mark of a POV-pushing editor, whereas Msoamu has barely involved himself in the discussion (although, to be fair, Shabiha has been highly involved). By the way, they've found sources that show that not all Barelvis are terrorists, in a section about condemning the assassination of Salmaan Taseer. Also note that Shabiha has edited Mezzo's comments himself on a talk page, without any real reason, to try and make MezzoMezzo look like a POV-pusher: [234]. I can't speak for the other articles, and I'd hoped that all involved parties would sort them out one at a time, starting with Barelvi, but if anyone's guilty of POV-pushing, it's Msoamu and Shabiha. I think this should WP:BOOMERANG, especially as Msoamu was blocked for edit warring on this subject for constantly inserting his POV into articles. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- With regards to the Ibn Arabi allegation, I can verify that Msoamu is the one causing the problem, as all MezzoMezzo did was remove a massive chunk of unverified information (or verified only by primary sources, which aren't sufficient in this case; the information was highly non-neutral. Even with the edit, the article still needs major improvement. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- One major issue is that the majority of Msoamu's diffs are also very old, I believe, and yet being presented as if they're a recent issue... Lukeno94 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Great!I am witness to this editing Pattern and behavior of this particular editor MezzoMezzo who has history of inserting his bias in various articles.This is not about just a Barelvi article,much more than that.I request admins here to look deep into the motives of the editing of this editor which you will find is just pushing negative comments. Shabiha (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Dear friends, sorry, but I cannot agree with Msoamu that MezzoMezzo is trying to change the tone / focus of whole articles according to his personal views or that he is trying to provoke other editors through his conduct. He tries hard to verify all his points with reliable evidence, he tries hard to maintain a neutral tone and he tries hard to explain his edits one-by-one. I do not agree with all of his edits, but I cannot conclude that he is a biased editor with an ulterior motive or a Salafi or Wahabi who is trying to undermine all other interpretations of Islam. By the way, the Barelvi page has not been "totally neutral" at any stage since I started watching it a few years ago. Indeed, it is unlikely that any page on any religious movement will be totally free of competing viewpoints (and corresponding edits). Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have not discussed here just a single Article ′but continuous patterns and motives of him'.He is continuously engaged in proposing Sufi movement Articles for deletion.But he is facing failure in his attempts.Many editors have removed his Deletion Prod from various Sufi Articles see here [235] ,[236].Msoamu (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
See here
- Msoamu, a lot of your issue here is that you're presenting diffs from 2007 as if they're recent. They're not, and from mine, and other editor's, assessments of this dispute, you are by far the more disruptive. There are very few diffs you've presented that date from after your block for edit warring. I believe I requested that you'd stop trying to sully MezzoMezzo's name with half-baked accusations, sadly, you haven't. I can only see this being resolved by a WP:BOOMERANG and a topic and/or interaction ban being enforced on Msoamu, sadly. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Luken,Kindly read my above comments.There are major POV pushing and disruptive editing by MezzoMezzo with in a month.The time period from which he has started this years editing.I have given numbers of Pages and Articles as Proof which he has recommended for Deletion with in a month and reverted by various editors.All the Pages in past and in present he has recommended for deletion belong to Sufi movement ,for which he seems to have certain agenda.Even I have shown recent changes by him to reduce importance from various Articles so that later they can be suggested for Deletion.Most of the pages he has developed belong to Salafi movement which is in strong opposition of Sufi or Barelvi movement.This is not a case of half baked accusation or something else.Non salafi Islamic expert can easily identify his edits.He has been accused of doing this many times.
- I have brought this case here to examine his edits in depth and to seek comments on his editing pattern.Msoamu (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Your comments seem to suggest that sourcing doesn't matter a jot - if you disagree with an edit, it can have a thousand reliable sources backing it up, and still should be removed. That is totally incorrect, as are assertions that Mezzo has regularly gone against consensus - the opposite is true. Some of these complaints about AfDs are unfounded, as other editors have removed significant chunks of information (rightly or wrongly), and that is what Mezzo has based their arguments on. Also, you've confused speedy deletion and AfDs in your diffs - the two are very different. You also label things as "big accusations" when they're not, they're single sentences worded neutrally. Saying things like "Barelvis have begun mixing with Shi'ites more than before" is NOT an accusation, it's quite possibly a statement of fact (I don't know the source, so can't check), and it's blatantly absurd to claim that - I don't suppose you're anti-Shi'ite? In fact, you've even provided diffs here that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with MezzoMezzo - try this one: [237] as an example. You're so blinkered by either your dislike of MezzoMezzo, his (fairly neutral) views, or these movements themselves that you're making a boatload of unfounded accusations, based on a mixture of old, dodgy or downright incorrect evidence. For what it's worth, I'll provide my talk page assessment of this dispute here, from the 9th of February:
- Right, I'm not an admin, so I suggest you contact one of them about de-archiving the AN/I report, or more probably, how to proceed with a new one. The first AN/I diff is definitely a personal attack: "1.This is high time that Wikipedia should frame a policy to check and examine the role of various editors who have acted in a manner which is fit to be called a WikiJehadi."here is a clear attack. I would not consider the second one to be, merely Msoamu defending his position in an aggressive manner (which is similar, but not quite the same thing).here I'm not sure whether the third diff is a personal attack; it's borderline, but probably not.here He's accused you of a COI, not anything more. I was not convinced that there were any real attacks in the remaining 3 diffs. Below, I will state what I think of the editing on the articles:
- Barelvi. User:GorgeCustersSabre would appear to agree with you that Msoamu has removed less-positive content from the article:[238]. One thing you may not have realized is that way back in 2006 (!) Msoamu was warned about re-writing the article from his point of view by User:Firien:[239].
- Wahabi. User:Dawn Bard appears to agree that Msoamu is not being constructive, and has made poorly-sourced additions. A quick look at one of his edits would lead me to agree with this - providing a forum as a reference for a religious group being home to extremism is clearly not on.
- His talk page. I see you warned this user about this way back in 2007, so it's clear that this has been going on for a very long time between you two editors.
- Normally, I would suggest that you stepped back from the topic and left the edit war, particularly the Barelvi article. However, in this case, two separate editors agree with your contributions, and not Msoamu's, and some of Msoamu's additions are borderline vandalism. I would suggest you request full-protection for both articles for a short time, to prevent the edit war continuing, and that you write a new, better AN/I with the help of an admin - as Msoamu has been at this for nearly 7 years, it has to stop. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Msoamu, I suggest you look at your actions, apologize, and move on, and join the discussions, otherwise the ONLY way I can see this age-old problem is for you to be topic banned from editing anything to do with Islam, broadly construed, and an interaction ban with MezzoMezzo. You were flagged as being disruptive on these articles in 2006: this needs to stop. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Counter-claims
Msoamu and two editors with whom he sometimes collaborates have launched what I feel are a number of personal attacks on me in the past few days or so.
- In the case of User:Msoamu:
- In the case of User:Hassanfarooqi:
- Accused me of engaging in a "Salafi jihad" and turning Wikipedia into a "jihad ground" here.
- Called me an "anti-Sufi bigot" and accused me of engaging in a "Jihad against Sufism" and brining a jihad to Wikipedia here.
- Accused me of being an "anti-sufi wahhabi" and on a "jihad to wipe them (Sufis) all out" when creating this page.
- Note that Msoamu seems to be egging Hassanfarooqi on here.
- This user was also blocked in 2006, but for personal attacks rather than vandalism.
- In the case of User:Shabiha:
- Changed one of my comments on a talk page, seemingly to portray me as a POV-pusher, here.
- Accused me of supporting Salafist jihadism here. Yes, it's there. Look all the way down at the very last sentence in his edit.
- This user was blocked in 2007 for edit warring and personal attacks.
Especially troublesome are the accusations of me supposedly supporting holy war and violent extremism. I work for a reputable institution; should I ever be outed, such accusations can have personal ramifications for my family and I. I've tried both ignoring it and asking for it to stop, and multiple other users have tried reasoning with these three to no avail. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Frietjes going rogue?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Frietjes (talk · contribs) has changed {{sms}} into {{hs}} for a whole list [240]. When I noted on his talkpage he was being premature [241], I was deleted quickly [242]. But of course, there are alternatives and one should be open to talks [243]. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- see WP:BLANKING and I am not a he, but I'm used to the assumption. Frietjes (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict):Notified: [244] -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- [245] weird, Frietjes. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- it's weird that I am used to people assuming that I am male? okay, would you rather I said it was sexist to refer to me as male? or how about if I said that calling me stupid was an attack? let's try be civil here. Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- [245] weird, Frietjes. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
AGF, DePiep. —Rutebega (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)It is weird you [Frietjes] edited backward. In time. You could have written below.
- The point is you edited by premature conclusion. -DePiep (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Best to use singular they if referring to another editor.
- Best to set gender in Special:Preferences if one wants to other editors to know -- {{gender|Frietjes}} says 'she". NE Ent 03:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Other issues notwithstanding, I agree it is generally not a good idea to do these kinds of edits before the discussion is closed properly. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Salvidrim, so far you are the only one reacting to the point. I can add: even after a merge conclusion, these edits are not needed because Redirects are cheap. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Based on this thread and a few other randomly selected diffs from Special:Contributions/DePiep, he may not be competent enough in the English language to contribute to an English language encyclopedia. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- DePiep's tendency to personalise and dramatise minor disputes is not necessarily tied to his command of the English language. I'd hope that the former could be resolved amicably. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Dear trolls. I was not just hoping, but even trying, as the 2nd diff shows. It was met by the 3rd diff. -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Using they or xe as a singular pronoun, as advised here, is not English. We do not use that in the encyclopedia. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) The original warning was rude, IMO.
(tangent) Singular they is, indeed, English, and in wide use, per the article. I agree it has difficulties, but WP:MOSR § Gender-neutral language says that there has been no consensus on its use in WP articles, which certainly means its acceptable in the less formal nature of talk pages.
I felt the same way as Nathan Johnson when trying to understand DePiep's writing, particularly in this thread. However, competency might not be the issue. @DePiep: It seems like you sometimes construct sentences in an intentional effort to seem "clever", use words in less-common ways, or use not enough words to disambiguate your meaning; which is fun in certain limited circumstances, but not respectful of your audience when the goal is to communicate efficiently and effectively. JMO. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)- Troll feeding troll: circular trolling. -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) The original warning was rude, IMO.
- Using they or xe as a singular pronoun, as advised here, is not English. We do not use that in the encyclopedia. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Dear trolls. I was not just hoping, but even trying, as the 2nd diff shows. It was met by the 3rd diff. -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I sincerely doubt there's a "rogue editor" here. To be honest, even if Frietjes has jumped the gun, this AN/I seems completely over the top. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jumped the gun twice: 1. premature, 2. even when merged, no edit was needed (R is cheap). And to note: I started this ANI when Frietjes deleted my talk opening. -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with deleting a talk page comment - at least you know he's seen it. This ANI was still premature - if anything, it's a content dispute and therefore in the wrong place entirely. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jumped the gun twice: 1. premature, 2. even when merged, no edit was needed (R is cheap). And to note: I started this ANI when Frietjes deleted my talk opening. -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An IP keeps blanking the page of the John Laing plc article and inserting a cut and paste job from the company brochure. I have reverted it a couple of times but fear it is coming from the company marketing department. Dormskirk (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've added 9.38 kb of level 1 or equivalent warning templates to the user's talk page to cover the extent of policy violations. Now we wait for a response. —Rutebega (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- You probably shouldn't use that many warnings. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if that doesn't get a response, what will? Lukeno94 (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was warning overkill. GiantSnowman 09:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, but I also don't think level one templates, even in excess, constitute biting. He hasn't edited in nearly 24 hours, and if he does come back, hopefully the reading material alone will ensure the issue doesn't arise again. —Rutebega (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have semi-protected the article for 10 days. Let's wait and see if the promotional editing continues afterwards; I hope not. De728631 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks everyone for all your help. The IP has asked me for help on my talk page which is a good step forward. I have asked him / her for a list of errors and ommissions so I can help him / her expand the article. Dormskirk (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- You probably shouldn't use that many warnings. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Aggressive POV-pushing by UsmanullahPK
A new user, UsmanullahPK, is on a very active campaign in which he moves pages and deletes content without even discussing these controversial changes first [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251]. I first informed him in good faith, encouraging him to discuss changes of this kind before making them.[252] As he ignored the comment, I then warned him about this behavior. [253]. No reaction then either, several of the diffs above were made after both the information and the warning. Several of the page moves are controversial, and as seen in the diffs, he twice deleted all the content at the disambiguation page Musa.Jeppiz (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- You should have notified the user that you have opened this thread. I have done so for you just now. -- Dianna (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jeppiz did notify them almost an hour ago. Right now both Kww and I have given UsmanullahPK final warnings about copy and paste and regular moves. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- As said above, I did notify him right away [254].Jeppiz (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately he continues in exactly the same way, despite the information (first= and the warning (second) by myself, and the final warnings by CambridgeBayWeather andKww.[255], [256], [257].Jeppiz (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- My apologies, Jeppiz. I must have been looking at a cached version or something :/ -- Dianna (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Did you notice that UsmanullahPK has never made a talk page edit? He's been here since mid-December. -- Dianna (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the apology and don't worry about it, happens to us all sometimes. And yes, I noticed that he never comments. Unfortunately, he doesn't WP:HEAR either.Jeppiz (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment (edit conflict)Disruptively pushing a pro-Islamic POV is not acceptable, and is definitely a blockable offense. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I had to block him, the disruption was ongoing; he is doing damage. 48 hours to start; if we can't get him working with us instead of against us it will have to escalate. -- Dianna (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Their unblock request is in broken English. The photo on their user page shows they're quite young. In fact that userpage probly needs oversighting. Seb is over there right now trying to communicate with them. -- Dianna (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Seems the kid doesn't even understand what's happened to him just now, and with the limited language-skills, we might not even get to the point. That's probably why he never used talkpages. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. There is no indication that he speaks English apart from the most basic phrases. I'm quite sure his intentions weren't bad, but I cannot see him contributing to Wikipedia in the near future, at least not in English. That is not an accusation in any way, just a statement of facts. For the record, I could not have contributed in English at age 13 either, so he can of course become a very good contributor in the future if he learns English and is able to read the guidelines. For now, though, he will not be able to contribute.Jeppiz (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- You are probably right. I have sent an email to Oversight to get the private info off his user page. I've posted something at his talk page to try to help him get started on framing a better unblock request. If he doesn't show in the next 48 hours that he is able to edit / learn to edit, the block will have to go to indefinite. -- Dianna (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- We should find somebody to get this in Pashto. This could happen more often with Afghanistan getting wider internet-access. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- You are probably right. I have sent an email to Oversight to get the private info off his user page. I've posted something at his talk page to try to help him get started on framing a better unblock request. If he doesn't show in the next 48 hours that he is able to edit / learn to edit, the block will have to go to indefinite. -- Dianna (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. There is no indication that he speaks English apart from the most basic phrases. I'm quite sure his intentions weren't bad, but I cannot see him contributing to Wikipedia in the near future, at least not in English. That is not an accusation in any way, just a statement of facts. For the record, I could not have contributed in English at age 13 either, so he can of course become a very good contributor in the future if he learns English and is able to read the guidelines. For now, though, he will not be able to contribute.Jeppiz (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Seems the kid doesn't even understand what's happened to him just now, and with the limited language-skills, we might not even get to the point. That's probably why he never used talkpages. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately he continues in exactly the same way, despite the information (first= and the warning (second) by myself, and the final warnings by CambridgeBayWeather andKww.[255], [256], [257].Jeppiz (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- We normally draw the line at 13. I would put it higher, myself, but generally we delete user pages with identifying information for children under 13, but not for 13 and up.—Kww(talk) 02:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, Kevin. I thought it best to apply for oversight given their apparent naïvety, and the person who was on duty agreed with me and hid it all. -- Dianna (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I won't object. We'll all be back here in 48 hours, and we'll see what more needs to be done then.—Kww(talk) 04:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, Kevin. I thought it best to apply for oversight given their apparent naïvety, and the person who was on duty agreed with me and hid it all. -- Dianna (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- We normally draw the line at 13. I would put it higher, myself, but generally we delete user pages with identifying information for children under 13, but not for 13 and up.—Kww(talk) 02:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Copy-paste tracking
I investigated an new article, Short and long-term effects of alcohol, which included old tags. It is a copy-paste merge of Short-term effects of alcohol and Long-term effects of alcohol, along with some unidentified material. The details are probably moot since I nominated the article for deletion. Further investigation of edits by David Hedlund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reveals some troubling patterns. The combination of articles had been attempted before(Warning: many diffs are large pages). The new article was created after the same editing had been undone in another article by another editor for excessive size of the pasted-together material. Part of the bulk was 65K from Alcoholic beverage (diff). Sometimes the same material has been pasted into multiple articles (e.g. look for "477,200" in [258] & [259] & [260]. The repetition makes finding the originals difficult since text searches find the repetitions and the original text may have been removed from the article in which it was created.
A warning against copy-paste moves had been placed on the user talk page in the past, and since I warned against unattributed copy-paste, it has been done again, copying material from Long-term effects of alcohol. As some material has been moved multiple times, I'm not sure how deep the rabbit hole goes and lack the tools to sort out this mess. I'll try to figure out where to drop some {{CWW}} tags, but there is a lot of history to sort through, and I'm hoping that some admins or editors who might have experience with similar situations will be able to offer assistance or guidance.Novangelis (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The articles Short-term effects of alcohol and Short-term effects of alcohol have apparently been restored so the article Short and long-term effects of alcohol that I created by merging to two can now be deleted. The unidentified material were from the article Alcoholic beverage now moved to Alcohol and health and structured into Template:Psychoactive substance use. Thank you.David Hedlund 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like the editor has made good and reversed the residual copy-pastes. I can't be sure until the search engines have caught up. Under what conditions will attribution remarks be required (for example, articles where the material was not reversed promptly)? I'd like to finish clearing up this mess.Novangelis (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- To clarify for those who might be puzzled about what happened here. (And I writes as someone who is mostly puzzled about most everything.)
- Short and long-term effects of alcohol was speedily deleted under WP:G12 as as a copyright violation of Short-term effects of alcohol and other things.
- What the... ? How can copying Wikipedia's free content possibly be a copyright violation?
- It looks like the editor has made good and reversed the residual copy-pastes. I can't be sure until the search engines have caught up. Under what conditions will attribution remarks be required (for example, articles where the material was not reversed promptly)? I'd like to finish clearing up this mess.Novangelis (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, that's somewhat counter-intuitive. But Wikipedia's content is subject to copyright.
- To cut a long story short, copying info from an existing article into another one requires attribution of the copied content. It can be as simple as writing "copied content from [[article name]]; see that article's history for attribution" in the edit summary. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
- Hope this helps. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Errata: WP:G12 not WP:G11. Moreover, to confirm my account has not been compromised, "O for a Muse of fire", etc, etc. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Vance Thomas picture vandalism
Some guys uploaded some prank pictures to Vance Thomas and they keep switching his bio image over and over again. The pictures do not depict Thomas, but a doppelganger. Other pictures are just silly and making fun of Thomas. Can an admin have a look and fix this mess? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Page protected, the worst of the culprits warned, some improperly sourced stuff removed, the prank photos nominated for deletion on Commons. Did I miss anything? BencherliteTalk 11:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Creepy barnstars from User:Horrifico
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe this user is indefed for vandalism and sockpuppetry. They are are posting barnstars to several user's talk pages with the rather creepy message: "Welcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life!" Maybe their IP is blocked, but not their user account. - MrX 20:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure they're not blocked at present. This is odd behaviour, but it's not really harming anyone, and it's not "creepy", just plain weird. Don't really see any need for administrative action, other than to perhaps notify them that Wikipedia isn't a trolling site. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Welcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life!" is Horrifico's signature. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- According to this sockpuppetry investigation it seems likely that Horrifico is a sock of indef-blocked User:Raulseixas (or vice versa). Since Raulseixas was indef-blocked after Horrifico had his own indef-block lifted and since, at the time Raulseixas was blocked, the connection between him and Horrifico was not established, it might be argued that Horrifico too should be indef-blocked, though he currently indeed is not. Huon (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am not rauleseixas though. I am NOT RAULSEIXAS.... I didn't know the rules, I have ADHD, PDD-NOS, OCPD, and Sensory Integration Disorder. I have a hard time controling myself. He, however, has no disorders and knows the rules. The only person I was ever affillated with is Satipo, and that was because I was immature. This IP address belongs to a group of public library computers with the same IP address. Anybody can register an account there and vandalize a page, and I suffer for it. My days of vandalism are done. If he comes to that public library or somebody who is a random person decides to mock Raulseixas and create a fake account or he decides to use another IP address that is public and get somebody else banned, I get the blame because I come to the library frequently. The checkuser in this case isn't accurate, it is not available in this situation. --Welcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life! (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is going to sound harsh, and I apologize in advance, but if you cannot control yourself at all, which appears to be the case, you may be better off elsewhere. Misbehaving on Wikipedia will only bring extra problems for yourself, and you probably wouldn't be able to cope with that. I'm not going to comment on the SPI stuff, I've not looked at it. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not therapy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- But I am not Raulseixas. I can control myself now. I am not Raulseixas though. --Welcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life! (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just stop with the barnstars, okay? NE Ent 22:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- The SPI is seven days old and not particularly relevant to the issue of the Barnstars.NE Ent 22:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am not rauleseixas though. I am NOT RAULSEIXAS.... I didn't know the rules, I have ADHD, PDD-NOS, OCPD, and Sensory Integration Disorder. I have a hard time controling myself. He, however, has no disorders and knows the rules. The only person I was ever affillated with is Satipo, and that was because I was immature. This IP address belongs to a group of public library computers with the same IP address. Anybody can register an account there and vandalize a page, and I suffer for it. My days of vandalism are done. If he comes to that public library or somebody who is a random person decides to mock Raulseixas and create a fake account or he decides to use another IP address that is public and get somebody else banned, I get the blame because I come to the library frequently. The checkuser in this case isn't accurate, it is not available in this situation. --Welcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life! (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize if I've overreacted, and perhaps Horrifico is just not very mature, but as Beyond My Ken pointed out, this is not therapy and if Horrifico can't control their impulses, they should be shown the door. - MrX 22:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- According to this sockpuppetry investigation it seems likely that Horrifico is a sock of indef-blocked User:Raulseixas (or vice versa). Since Raulseixas was indef-blocked after Horrifico had his own indef-block lifted and since, at the time Raulseixas was blocked, the connection between him and Horrifico was not established, it might be argued that Horrifico too should be indef-blocked, though he currently indeed is not. Huon (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I just double checked, and it is unambiguously
Confirmed from both a technical standpoint and from a behavioral look that the following accounts are one and the same:
- Horrifico (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Ralew (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Raueseixas1234567890 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Gajikgfadgklgahkag (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- It's very unlikely that Horrifico is Raulseixas, rather, this appears to be an impersonation attempt. Since Ralew was created after his warning for doing this kind of stuff, I have indeffed Horrifico. T. Canens (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Phillip Sheppard and Francesca Hogi
The contributions of an IP editor [261] show speedy deletion tags to both Phillip Sheppard and Francesca Hogi. I reverted one of these edits saying in an edit summary that I believed the material on the page meant that she met suitable standards], User:Phil Bridger reverted the other because of the indication of importance/significance. Note that I did not create the Francecsa page nor did Phil Bridger create the Phillip page. Soon afterwards, a similar IP Adress redirected the pages to Survivor: Caramoan. I reverted again stating in the edit summary that I didn't see any discussion on a talk page or elsewhere a concensus to redirect the article. I asked the editor if they could provide an edit summary or otherwise explain why they were making these edits. They undid my reverts and offering no edit summary, so I notified them that I would bring it here for outside opinions as this should be resolved rather than turned into an edit war. They have edited the Caramoan article implying that the castaways are "non-notable", finally in an edit summary, and maybe they are, but they haven't explained why they don't merit their own articles. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm mistaken. Either way, there is no need to make an edit war out of this so I'd like this matter resolved.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- There may be a legitimate claim about the notability of these people, but that should be settled at WP:AFD, as both speedy deletion and redirection have been challenged. If the IP continues to redirect or add speedy templates after this, post here and someone can protect the pages. Or if this thread has already been archived by then, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP. Hope this helps. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Archetypex07 (talk · contribs) is an editor with a very limited understanding of Wikipedia and a very obvious nationalistic agenda. The editor has been edit warring on this article in order to keep their unsourced and completely erronous version of the etymology of the word which they introduced back in June 2012. The editor has engaged in discussion on the talk page, but each and everytime it has involved some heavy refactoring of previous comments: 1, 2, 3, 4. The comments themselves are largely incoherent, chauvinistic and in general bad faith, and reveals a complete lack of acknowledgement of basic principles of Wikipedia like WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability and WP:AGF. The editor seems to be a textbook example of WP:NOTHERE, and obviously sees Wikipedia as a battleground for some kind of race war.
My recommendation would be that Archetypex07 is indeffed as being an obvious negative asset to the project. But I am open to suggestions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I notified the editor of this discussion, this was their response. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pity nobody has warned Archetypex07 before about 3RR on his page (I just did), or he would certainly be blocked for edit warring by now. Going straight to indef for a user with a previously clean block log may be a little headlong, though I do see it may come to that. Mathsci just removed A's post to this thread, understandably, I suppose, but on the other hand the post was quite illustrative of the problem.
Please only remove vandalism on this board, Mathsci — not attempts to discuss, however misguided.Bishonen | talk 23:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC). Adding: I do agree that A's change of the section title was in fact vandalism. Bishonen | talk 23:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC).- He made those changes twice and two different editors reverted them. Changing the title and adding various personal attacks just afterwards was disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- It certainly was. That's why I thought it illustrative. Bishonen | talk 23:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC).
- He made those changes twice and two different editors reverted them. Changing the title and adding various personal attacks just afterwards was disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pity nobody has warned Archetypex07 before about 3RR on his page (I just did), or he would certainly be blocked for edit warring by now. Going straight to indef for a user with a previously clean block log may be a little headlong, though I do see it may come to that. Mathsci just removed A's post to this thread, understandably, I suppose, but on the other hand the post was quite illustrative of the problem.
- (edit conflict) I've blocked Archetypex07 for 24 hours for edit-warring and disruptive editing. The repeated reverts, attacks on other editors, and allegations of collusion for anyone who disagreed with them needed to stop. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Refactoring is a perfectly valid reason for reverting.And I did in fact warn the user about 3RR previously. Remember that it is always useful to check the history of a talk page, especially when it concerns users that are prone to deleting notices. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)- What bad thing has occurred because the first 3rr warning was overlooked? NE Ent 00:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Based on this right after his request for unblock was declined, I extended the block indefinitely. Single purpose account clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead promote some kind of radical race agenda. Secret account 06:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Macauthor is being a pain in the patuckus
I allege that at Talk:Jung_Myung_Seok#Protection_about_to_expire Macarthur is going beyond mere ignorance of Wikipedia policy and is actively ignoring parts of a discussion he doesn't like and distorting policy so that he can go on doing his favorite thing, that is, inserting long quotations in the biography of a cult leader from websites linked to the cult (providence-trial.com) and removing very important material he dislikes, cited to dozens of good references. He is simply whitewashing the article in favor of a convicted rapist who spent 9 years on the run from multiple national police organizations, and I recommend he be banned from editing this article and the related one about the cult Providence. Shii (tock) 22:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- By the way I am pretty much at my limit for dealing with someone with this much bad faith. Endless references have been provided by me and others, and he replies basically pretending that he hasn't seen them and that the article should stay the way he wants it, while admins stand watch and do nothing. Shii (tock) 22:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that Macauthor's edits here do not seem to serve the purpose of improving the article. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Blocked Macauthor 48 hours for rather blatant tendentious editing, especially for continuing to insert clearly tendentious material in the article just after a protection (also caused by his edit-warring) expired a couple of days ago. Blocks should escalate quickly if he continues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help. Again, I invite any admin with spare time to keep a close eye on this discussion and confirm for themselves what this guy is doing. Shii (tock) 01:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
User:Dwid hellion has a long-term history of blanking the majority of the content from the article Integrity (band) dating back to 2007.[262][263][264][265][266][267] This user's name (Dwid is the name of the band's vocalist) and most recent edit ("The band does not wish to be featured nor misrepresented on this website.") suggests a strong conflict of interest. His talk page is full of warnings for this issue dating back to 2009, but I do not see any further action on the matter. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've reverted and blocked for 36 hours for disruption. Perhaps the article can be made a bit more palatable in the meantime--the best defense against such persistent blanking is to improve the article so there's something decent to revert back to. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
User:Nikola Smolenski
User:Nikola Smolenski has been reverting several of my contributions. Has made no attempt to engage in discussion prior to this until I did. Claims I am "massively deleting information from articles without any reason", when in fact I am editing the layout and condensing/summarizing the information of the article without actually affecting the quality of the information itself, and stating my reasoning for it. Any information I do happen to remove is done so if a) it is unsourced and/or b) it is irrelevant or non-notable to the main nature of the article(s), the majority of which are either completely unsourced or lacking sufficient sources to verify content. Please advise. Buttons (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- No comment on the source deletion, but given the personal attacks that Buttons has made on Nikola (accusing her of having a personal vendetta, calling her childish and telling her to "grow up", calling her a liar and a hypocrite) leads me to believe that a WP: BOOMERANG lurks around the corner. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Granted that was unnecessary, however the pattern is pretty clear. Buttons (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Buttons is the only Wikipedian I have ever seen who has more red than green in his edits. His "condensing" IMO makes articles more difficult to read without adding any value. Furthermore when he removes content, he doesn't leave any explanation for his edits, so it is not possible to know whether he removed the content because he believed it is irrelevant or incorrect. I admit that there might be the possibility that I went overboard, but I do believe that his edits were detrimental in general. Examples:
- Here he removes the infobox without any explanation; he rewrote the article so that it states that Yugoimport is a weapon manufacturer, while in fact it is an agency, and to my knowledge it doesn't have any manufacturing capabilities on its own, and furthermore this is written in the very reference that he has used; and all of this with the comment "Clean up".
- Here he removed Cyrillic spelling of the company(?); removed referenced fact that the company is the largest in Serbia by the number of employees, which is obviously relevant; removed referenced fact about plans to build a solar power plant which I believe is relevant; all of this with edit comment "No relation to company"(??).
- Here he merged sections about flags despite the fact that the flags are a century apart and completely graphically unrelated; removed flag images from paragraphs that describe them, making the text more difficult to follow; reworded the text so that it is very terse and IMO difficult to read; removed some relevant information again without any explanation; merged references to specific articles of a law into a less precize single reference to the entire law... Nikola (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Blocked IP slinging insults, will be unblocked to disrupt further tomorrow
ResolvedThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
91.145.38.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 91.145.38.53 was blocked yesterday for disruptive editing on Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories. His posts have gotten increasingly hostile, and he's now using his talk page (while blocked) to insult other editors. "you retarded pedophile look-alike dipshit", "F U C K YOU WIKIPEDIA ADMINS", "Go fuck yourself your pathetic censorship dictator wannabe", etc.
The insults should be removed (since one was levied against me, I'd prefer not to do it myself), but more importantly, I see no reason to suspect that this behavior won't continue after the user is auto unblocked tomorrow. EdJohnston performed the initial block, and I contacted him on his talk page first, but it looks like he's out for the night. If someone uninvolved could step in, that would be great. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 00:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reblocked with talk page access disabled. Insults removed, unless I missed some. Tom Harrison Talk 01:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:KuhnstylePro and persistent creation of WP:HOAX articles
Over the past year, this user seems to have made a large number of what appear to be WP:HOAX, or at the very least, extremely speculative articles, most of which seem to have been speedy deleted or AFD'd, judging by his talk page. The user has been warned numerous times about this kind of behavior. Outside of editing in the mainspace, the user seems to spend a lot of time creating elaborate speculative articles about nonexistent future products/media in his userspace (User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/A Hero's Guide to Deadly Dragons, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Holy Cartoon!, User:KuhnstylePro/iMoonTelevision, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Wendy Wu: Year of the Dragon, User:KuhnstylePro/Disney Channel All Star House Party, User:KuhnstylePro/The Star Wars Show, User:KuhnstylePro/Drawn to Life: Boneheads Edition, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Kinect Q, User:KuhnstylePro/Xbox Portable, and many more), a hobby which represents over 40% of his edits. I'm a little bit at a loss for what to do with someone like this. He has been blocked in the past for disruptive editing. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well. Bushranger nominated a bunch of them for speedy deletion, and I deleted those and some others. I hope the ranger will come by here and give their opinion--given that they were blocked before, for the same thing, I'd say block indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Never mind! Drmies (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- And a ninja-block strikes! It's clear he's not here to build an encyclopedia, so an indef has been applied. If he wants to be unblocked he'd better provide very strong assurances he understands what Wikipedia is actually for. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- ...looking further into this, it looks like a truly massive hoax has been perpetrated here, focusing around "Boneheads (TV series)". - The Bushranger One ping only 05:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- So, what criteria would User:KuhnstylePro/Super Bowl XLVII fall under? Since the game does exist, but essentially, the "hoax" is the entertainment section, since Beyonce performed the show, not Maroon 5/Selena Gomez. ZappaOMati 05:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I saw that one and thought about MfDing it. Is there content worth saving? If no, it's a test page (at best). I just deleted one (forgot which one) that was copied from mainspace in October and then worked on some; I deleted that under "Housekeeping" as an unattributed copy paste job from the article. I urge other editors to go through their subpages and delete/nominate as they see fit: after a dozen or more I need something else to look at. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think so, since I'm pretty sure all but the entertainment section has been in the main page before the game kicked off, so CSDing it as a test page would work; I'd do it myself, but I have to hit the hay now. ZappaOMati 05:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I just deleted it as a BLP violation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think so, since I'm pretty sure all but the entertainment section has been in the main page before the game kicked off, so CSDing it as a test page would work; I'd do it myself, but I have to hit the hay now. ZappaOMati 05:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I saw that one and thought about MfDing it. Is there content worth saving? If no, it's a test page (at best). I just deleted one (forgot which one) that was copied from mainspace in October and then worked on some; I deleted that under "Housekeeping" as an unattributed copy paste job from the article. I urge other editors to go through their subpages and delete/nominate as they see fit: after a dozen or more I need something else to look at. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- So, what criteria would User:KuhnstylePro/Super Bowl XLVII fall under? Since the game does exist, but essentially, the "hoax" is the entertainment section, since Beyonce performed the show, not Maroon 5/Selena Gomez. ZappaOMati 05:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- ...looking further into this, it looks like a truly massive hoax has been perpetrated here, focusing around "Boneheads (TV series)". - The Bushranger One ping only 05:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- And a ninja-block strikes! It's clear he's not here to build an encyclopedia, so an indef has been applied. If he wants to be unblocked he'd better provide very strong assurances he understands what Wikipedia is actually for. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boneheads (TV series). Read it and weep, for we - and apparently a large chunk of the Internet, judging by the Google hits - but lack of reliable Google hits or Google News hits - have been had but good. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism IP
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FYI — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.242.141.26 looks like a vandalism IP. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
That IP is barely active, one edit today, was a hidden can't see comment. WP:AIV exists for a reason, no need to block for now. Secret account 03:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Civility and not bureaucracy exist for better reasons. It's preferable to simply say "Please use X in the future," where X is AIV, 3rr, uaa, etc. NE Ent 03:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Danjel's misuse of active versus retired status etc
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some prior discussions about User:Danjel at:
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Role account used by User:Danjel
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Short term block proposal: User:Danjel
- Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC on shared accounts for use by minors (still ongoing)
Of great concern is User:Danjel's misuse of the {{retired}} template, see his user page at User:Danjel, as well as his flouting of WP:NOSHARING see Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC on shared accounts for use by minors. While he opened an RFC against another user at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche on January 15, 2013 that has still not been closed. In spite of placing the "retired" template on his user and talk pages [268] on February 16, 2013, yet nevertheless he has kept up making comments as he sees fit utterly confusing other editors. This abuse of the "retired" template is causing confusion and is a violation of WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT as Danjel flits in and out of discussions as he sees fit, violating WP:AGF [269]; violating WP:VANDAL [270] and where his illegal deletion is rightfully reverted by another editor [271], where he is called on his abuse and misuse of the "retired" template that even allows him to avoid censure for his mounting violations, especially of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND that amounts to game of smoke and mirrors, while a RFC that he launched remains open and he acts either "retired" and "active" at the same time making it impossible to communicate with him or to take hims seriously at all. Admins are requested to intervene and either block him or ensure that he makes it known that he is as active as any other editor who is busy with other things and if he is truly "retired" not to misuse the {{retired}} template as a tool in his ongoing battles with eitors who do not share his WP:POV. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- The user has been notified, see User talk:Danjel#ANI. IZAK (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Couple of points: 1) It looks like several people have commented on the Epeefleche RfC, so I don't think Danjel's retirement is grounds to close it. 2) He's made a grand total of four edits since placing the retirement templates. 3) I'm not aware that being nominally "retired" forbids you from editing; where is the rule that states this? Reyk YO! 03:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Iuno... I don't think there's a rule or policy on this. You can make up a box saying you're the Emperor of Mongolia or whatnhot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed if this was just some innocuous case then hey no big deal, but this is taking place in the context of some pretty serious differences of opinion where Danjel has and is facing major criticism in other situations, as well as still maintaning a RFC against another user, and all of a sudden hey presto, now you see him, now you don't. Either he stands still and we can all be on the same page, or we tell him that no one can keep up with a user that's acting like an "invisible man" where in effect he is creating and very craftily violating WP:SOCK within using or not using his own user name that becomes either "retired" or "active" as he tries to evade criticism. There was stuff on his original user page that he requested be blanked (his user page history is gone, now [272] that he's plonked down the "retired" template in effect destroyed an important record that relates to his admitted violations of WP:SHARE and WP:ROLE), now he has resorted to being "retired" but now his strategy is that he flits in and out to make attacks and edits. It's started and needs to be nipped in the bud. IZAK (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if he says he's retired, close all threads he's started. Easy, no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed if this was just some innocuous case then hey no big deal, but this is taking place in the context of some pretty serious differences of opinion where Danjel has and is facing major criticism in other situations, as well as still maintaning a RFC against another user, and all of a sudden hey presto, now you see him, now you don't. Either he stands still and we can all be on the same page, or we tell him that no one can keep up with a user that's acting like an "invisible man" where in effect he is creating and very craftily violating WP:SOCK within using or not using his own user name that becomes either "retired" or "active" as he tries to evade criticism. There was stuff on his original user page that he requested be blanked (his user page history is gone, now [272] that he's plonked down the "retired" template in effect destroyed an important record that relates to his admitted violations of WP:SHARE and WP:ROLE), now he has resorted to being "retired" but now his strategy is that he flits in and out to make attacks and edits. It's started and needs to be nipped in the bud. IZAK (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Another point of concern here is that a closing sysop at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche (the RFC that Danjel started a month before he "retired"), should NOT reach the conclusion, that since Danjel has retired, there is no longer any concern about his behavior as cited above. Danjel can easily come back the day after the close of the RfC or vanish and reappear as someone else. Retirement means zero in this context. The RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche needs a close that is as strong as if Danjel were still active, and the closing admin should be fully justified in closing and should not have a reason to say "no reason to boomerang and no reason to interaction ban him, as he is retired". That would be handing Danjel a "victory and prize for his maneuverings that may happen. Thus, the RFC should be ended forthwith because consensus is clear, and the RFC has continued for over a month. The nominator Danjel as of a few days ago is no longer active on WP, but of course he can "un-retire" tomorrow, therefore the consensus for either a full block or at least an interaction ban on him interacting with User Epeefleche (talk · contribs) is absolutely necessary. IZAK (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC).
- Well... I think you misunderstand the power of RfCs... banning and other sanctions are usually not the outcome. As far as I know, somebody writes a summary for future reference, and then it goes to ArbCom or some other board... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I know full well that RFCs do not lead to bannings. That is not what the concern is here. The concern is about violations by User Danejel (talk · contribs) of WP:SHARE; WP:ROLE; WP:SOCK and now of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT and undermining the enire fabric of WP:CONSENSUS, and how would anyone "classify" misuse of the {{retired}} template to avoid sanctions and zig and zag without facing the consequences. Either he is here or he is not. Either he is with us or he is not. Either he is a normal editor or he is not. This is obviously a grey zone that the offending user is attempting to leverage to his own advantage in his disputes, actually it's more like a vendetta against another user. There is an over-all pattern that's causing havoc any time this user enters the fray. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say the best course of action is to wait for the RfC to be closed, then come back here when problems continue. You've made your point here and it's on record. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I know full well that RFCs do not lead to bannings. That is not what the concern is here. The concern is about violations by User Danejel (talk · contribs) of WP:SHARE; WP:ROLE; WP:SOCK and now of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT and undermining the enire fabric of WP:CONSENSUS, and how would anyone "classify" misuse of the {{retired}} template to avoid sanctions and zig and zag without facing the consequences. Either he is here or he is not. Either he is with us or he is not. Either he is a normal editor or he is not. This is obviously a grey zone that the offending user is attempting to leverage to his own advantage in his disputes, actually it's more like a vendetta against another user. There is an over-all pattern that's causing havoc any time this user enters the fray. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- User: Nishidani has the retired or semi-retired template on his user page for years and edits on a daily basis. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, User Nishidani (talk · contribs) is more honest and uses the {{semi-retired}} template and it quite accurately states "This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.". IZAK (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
IZAK: you're getting so shrill that you can't even spell my name. While you've said that I'm in breach of every policy and guideline up to and including WP:KITCHENSINK, you're yet to actually provide any evidence of it. So I'll respond to the actual substantive ones:
- Your contention that I was using User:MrJuddsStudents as a form of meatpuppetry is and was completely unfounded. There is absolutely no basis for your complaint. It was raised by one of your allies as a means of harassment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive244#Violation_of_WP:NOSHARE, at which the result was that there was nothing wrong happening, that this was likely an area where WP:IAR should apply, and that we should all wait for the RFC (which you've linked above).
- No, I'm not avoiding sanctions. In fact, every single time you and other friends of Epeefleche has raised the possibilities of sanctions, there has either been no result and ignored as wikidrama, or it has been turned down because there's no substance to your complaints.
- Yep, I'm retired. It's exactly this sort of wikidrama bullshit that has made me decide to look elsewhere. Presumably you'd prefer if I edited as an IP? It's been pointed out above that there is no policy that says that I can't edit while "retired", and, yet... You still continue.
- Yep, I've also had my userpage, and all the subpages under my username deleted. Again, show me where the policy is that says that I can't?
- As for battleground, I'm not the one talking about blocks and bans and "victor[ies] and prize[s]". But I suppose it all serves the greater good of avoiding any criticism whatsoever.
As for you... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- This thread doesn't belong here. So what that Danjel has a retired template on his talk page, and has made a small number of edits since he placed it there? You can announce your retirement, stay for a bit to tie up any loose ends, and even retired people occasionally pop back into their old jobs to help out once in a while. Suggest either WP:BOOMERANG or just closing this trolling thread. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:IZAK and WP:POLEMIC
I believe that this ANI thread arose because I had the gall to point out that:
- User_talk:IZAK#No_good_deed_goes_unpunished;
- User_talk:IZAK#List_of_recent_discussions_concerning_me_where_I_was_not_informed; and especially
- User_talk:IZAK#People_who_live_in_glass_houses (against User:Bob K31416
...are against the policy WP:POLEMIC and should be removed. I asked at User_talk:IZAK#WP:POLEMIC, and you responded with your wikidrama rubbish there, and then here (and I note that you've brought your friends).
It certainly seems that you're not going to remove the content on your talkpages attacking other users on your own, so I'd like to ask that an admin do it for you. Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Danjel, now you are here, can't keep up, but as I quite clearly indicated to you, those are not "attack pages" they are a record of official accusations, including a false libel where I was subjected to a "check user" that was quickly deleted, for no reason other than that record stood agisnt you and your friend Bob. Let me repeat what I have stated at my talk page: ...this is just a record on my own talk page of recent events that concern me, and about the various discussions that concerned me that I wasn't even informed about, that I have created a record of for the record. I could have lodged some pretty serious complaints against Bob for not informing me, but I did not wish to engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND that you seem to delight in. Stop it! In addition to that, in the course of researching the above lack of basic WP:WIKIQUETTE of informing a user about a discussion that concerns him (me) I also put forth for the record some serious instances where Bob's arguments trying to find support for his WP:POV are rejected by some pretty serious editors including Jimbo Wales. IZAK (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- An official record of accusations, for example your recording that Bob has once been wrongly accused of sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bob_K31416; by the way, the difference in the way Bob responded and how you have responded... STUNNING). Sounds like "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" (WP:POLEMIC) to me, which hasn't been used in any dispute resolution process in a "timely manner" since you posted it two weeks ago. But, by all means, continue arguing that what you are doing is not WP:BATTLEGROUND. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Danjel, Thanks for bringing this to my attention, but this activity is an example of the dark side of Wikipedia that isn't productive and is best avoided IMO. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- An official record of accusations, for example your recording that Bob has once been wrongly accused of sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bob_K31416; by the way, the difference in the way Bob responded and how you have responded... STUNNING). Sounds like "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" (WP:POLEMIC) to me, which hasn't been used in any dispute resolution process in a "timely manner" since you posted it two weeks ago. But, by all means, continue arguing that what you are doing is not WP:BATTLEGROUND. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
ResolvedPaged is nuked! Please somebody look into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.41.212.2 (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- No. The page never existed under that spelling. Is there an alternate spelling? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about? It's right there. Since 2009. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Err no? Garbage (the whole page ) appears here. Im using a server from japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.41.212.2 (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, must be something else then. Page exits. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- They changed the spelling. And the page looks fine here where the temperature is −41 °C (−42 °F) CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, must be something else then. Page exits. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Err no? Garbage (the whole page ) appears here. Im using a server from japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.41.212.2 (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response Choyoo and Cambridgebay. However, it is still garbage(See below). I am accessing from a server in Japan. This is what appears:�����}k�$�q�g��H61�Yj�=�ޝ&fg�E�.�ffI�v�FvUvw�TW��1����J4��d���,?�N��w�aQ�%�([����ᾭ���:����?\Ddf�{�g�A�({�:����������^�y{���{7�(���K�����3ܬ���L�߬ء_a�̓`�bؖpª�> *X\p���Vh������&;�?��Uٻ֑� ��K,� 6��`�1���Rx��X���#��"ܬ�?�Y]����p�XlV���>�]��uBc�r���nX��jN��UͶ�#� {���P���E��S����g[��-ש?�N�.� ��������V�<>� #_ 6+�I�rL��捼7dI5Ҟ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.41.212.2 (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think the most likely explanation is that you are affected by some kind of filtering. Maybe related to Chinese censorship? If you try this link] (without saving!), maybe you can read the wiki source code of the page. Hans Adler 09:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm also accessing from Japan, I bet the user's browser is at fault. Look up mojibake. Shii (tock) 10:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Looks fine to me too, and I'm accessing this from Japan. Maybe you managed to change the character encoding somehow? Try changing it to UTF-8 and see what happens. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Standard browser configuration issue - not set to correct encoding, or missing certain fonts. Not much we can do from this end, as it's not an admin issue (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Uh, its fine now from a server in the ,Philippines. I'm the same guy above(annonymous.) The server I was accessing from is based in Japan. Well, thanks for your action and response Shii, Hans Adler, Bwilkins , Mr Strandivarius and others. --Jondel (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- This was a caching issue caused by the recent rash of template vandalism. IPs were being shown the older, vandalized revisions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Something's going on and I can't fix it
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ResolvedPlease see here ASAP. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Was a problem with Template:Cite WS. Taken care of by Metropolitan90. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another DeFacto sock, quick block required
For context, see WP:ANI#Disruption from a set of dynamic IP addresses. and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto. The editor is active right now and I am getting tired of following them with rollback. Hans Adler 09:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
User 2005, repeated personal attacks
I have asked User:2005 five times in the last few days to stop making personal attacks against me, to discuss content and not people and to conduct himself in a respectful manner and he continues to lash out at me and try to bully me. I ask that he be blocked until he can conduct himself appropriately and in keeping with Wikipedia rules. Please note this user has a long history of this kind of behavior with many editors and is notorious for treating new editors badly and driving them off. Wikipedia shouldn't allow this kind of treatment, regardless of how one may feel about content or another editor.
Diffs: see rude edit summaries: [273] and just a sampling of his latest insults [274] [275] DegenFarang (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see some abrubtness and frustration, but no personal attacks in 2005's edits. I also note that you've filed a (seemingly equally baseless) complaint against another user at AN. Just because people disagree - strongly - with your editing does not mean that they are either hounding or attacking you, and since you seem to be having similar problems with multiple users you might want to take a step back and consider that you may, in fact, be in the wrong. Yunshui 雲水 10:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any comment violating WP:NPA.Jeppiz (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- If I had to point towards the most aggressive user in Talk:Steve Badger (poker player), it would be DegenFarang, to be honest (examples here, here). Watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Having already observed many disputes by DegenFarang before, I can say that he's the main antagonistic factor in all of them and seems to target 2005 whenever possible. I might agree with some of his edits but it's difficult to act on them due to aggressive defenses. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- If I had to point towards the most aggressive user in Talk:Steve Badger (poker player), it would be DegenFarang, to be honest (examples here, here). Watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Woo-ton-woo is clearly a sockpuppet of DeFacto
A new user User:Woo-ton-woo is clearly a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto, but as the SPI on DeFacto is still open, would someone please shut this account down as he is hitting a large number of artciles. A quick read of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Measurement#Potenetial copyright problem on several articles will show that he is out to cause trouble. The IP accounts [212.183.140.*] and [212.183.128.*] have been blocked, but DeFacto appears to have created this new sockpuppet account. His choice of articles being editged as well as This message is shouting "WP:QUACK".
This is in addition to Hans Adler's earlier request. Martinvl (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is a legitimate (sacrificial) alternate account created under the "privacy" option of WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Created to advise those in WP:MEASURE to take note of the copyvio highlighted by an IP user, and hidden and denied by some. Nothing more. Woo-ton-woo (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is clearly no copyvio, you are clearly the same person as the IP, and the IP is clearly identical with the indefinitely blocked User:DeFacto. Now can someone please block this clown? Shouldn't there be admins monitoring this page? Hans Adler 11:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Bsadowski1 has just done the necessary. Yunshui 雲水 11:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yup! Bsadowski1, thanks! Hans Adler 11:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've done a mass rollback on the contribs. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. The edits on the various IP pages actually looked slightly helpful to me, but it really doesn't matter. Hans Adler 11:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've done a mass rollback on the contribs. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yup! Bsadowski1, thanks! Hans Adler 11:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Bsadowski1 has just done the necessary. Yunshui 雲水 11:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is clearly no copyvio, you are clearly the same person as the IP, and the IP is clearly identical with the indefinitely blocked User:DeFacto. Now can someone please block this clown? Shouldn't there be admins monitoring this page? Hans Adler 11:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Need a fast block
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MikeIsRight12 (talk · contribs) created an account, and then immediately set in to reverting edits I made across a wide range of articles. The user then started reverting random edits by Little green rosetta (talk · contribs). Given the intersection, I'm 99% certain this is Ysfan (talk · contribs), a user I indef'd after disruption on Ys (series), who had also had run-ins with LGR. I've had to block two Ysfan socks already in the past 3 days. I almost blocked myself, but since it's technically my real edits being reverted, I figure someone else should do the honors. But while we're here, if anyone would like to weigh in whether or not I could block in this case, it might help, as I doubt that this person is actually done. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've blocked indef. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Good, especially since the stress almost caused Q to block themself, which would be quite embarrassing, I'd think. NE Ent 12:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.