I ask for an admin ruling on this, please. [[User:TaintedZebra|TaintedZebra]] ([[User talk:TaintedZebra|talk]]) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I ask for an admin ruling on this, please. [[User:TaintedZebra|TaintedZebra]] ([[User talk:TaintedZebra|talk]]) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
:I'm an admin, and I approve this message (Roux's, that is). After receiving a warning, concluding that the correct reaction is to continue edit-warring rather than to bring up your concerns with the source (and I note from reading the above that you seem to have a very dubious understanding of [[WP:RS]]; whether the source qualifies for an article under [[WP:N]] is totally irrelevant, though I make no comment on the source in this particular case) is a very questionable approach. GCF possibly should have initiated communication with you too - though really he did, by issuing warnings. GCF's done nothing wrong here. [[User:Steve Smith|Steve Smith]] ([[User talk:Steve Smith|talk]]) <small>(formerly Sarcasticidealist)</small> 03:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Darko Trifunović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a BLP, is yet again being repeatedly vandalised by a series of anonymous IP editors - this article has been discussed several times before on AN/I and the BLP noticeboard [1]. The IPs repeatedly post angry rants [2], blank the article [3] and replace the article with a canned resumé / curriculum vitae [4]. The individual responsible is almost certainly the subject himself, Darko Trifunovic(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), who has been blocked for periods of up to two weeks, has edited from IP addresses and socks, and has been warned numerous times for posting copyright violations, soapboxing, disruption etc. The article has been semi-protected several times but IP vandalism and disruption has resumed as soon as protection has lapsed. This situation has been going on for at least 18 months. Some kind of resolution is long overdue, frankly.
In the light of this continued disruption, I suggest that the discretionary sanctions in force on Balkans-related articles should be invoked. Specifically, I suggest:
an extended block of Darko Trifunovic (talk·contribs) for up to the year mandated by the discretionary sanctions;
I should add that I would not object at all to Darko Trifunovic (talk·contribs) being given an indefinite block. He is plainly not interested in contributing productively and has done almost no editing apart from disrupting "his" biography. Given the very lengthy catalogue of disruption that he has caused over a long period of time, I can't see him becoming a useful editor any time soon (or ever, for that matter). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see some edits by him of "himself", but they are a week old. Is there evidence the IPs are this guy, such as a checkuser? I dislike community bans on gut feeling.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been peripherally involved, in that I have blocked some socks and also suggested that the editor/subject contact the Office regarding allegations about the editing of "their" article (which either they have not done, or it was not sustained), and would back ChrisO's call for some resolution. I would, however, hesitate in locking up the article and throwing away the key - I have seen some serious allegations linked to sources that do not necessarily support the comments regarding the subject. I support linking the article to the ARBMAC provisions to ensure that the neutrality (derived from reliable sources, properly ascribed) is not compromised by any party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It's not a community ban - it's a request for the enforcement of discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. The IPs all trace to the same ISP, Serbia Broadband in Belgrade, where Trifunovic is based [5][6][7][8][9], and they all do the same sort of thing - replacing the article with Trifunovic's CV and posting rants in broken English. As I said, this has been going on for a long time - 18 months at least. In response to LessHeard's comments, semi-protection is needed to ensure that the article can be edited without being continually vandalised. It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that semi-protection would be "locking up the article and throwing away the key" - it would just mean that the endless vandalism from IPs would cease, which can only be a good thing. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(3x e/c) In response to ChrisO's prompting on my talk page, here are my thoughts:
The Darko Trifunovic article is in an inefinite state right now. Various editors trimmed and RS'ed the article into a state just above stub, but only into a state where it is verifiable, not IMO to where it is notable.
Darko (presumably) is mildly disruptive, but nothing that the multiple eyeballs already watching can't handle (as I just did). However the mild disruption does not violate BLP, in that it does not inject negative information. Thus I would be opposed to semi-protection or indefblocking of the Darko user themself.
User:Bosniak could possibly use a topic ban, since their contributions are rarely productive. Also, Darko's presumed lawyer and the supporting academic possibly located in NY State have been unhelpful.
The answer here, to me, is to finish the job and construct a proper article that deals properly with the subject. As it is, we have a single event where the subject is not necessarily a prime mover. Maybe so, but also maybe not. No matter how vile the viewpoints expressed, we need to obey BLP. We should either fix the article up properly (and I can't help much since I don't have access to EE sources) - or we should delete it. Franamax (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the incomplete task of rewriting the article needs to be finished - it seems to have stalled. With regard to the disruptive editor, WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions specifically provided for the sanctioning of editors who "fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process." I think it would be hard to argue that Trifunovic has adhered to any of those things. He has contributed absolutely nothing of value to Wikipedia and his continued involvement is not helping to improve the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that some evidence that the IPs are this guy are needed. Yes, I know, quack quack, but there are several peopele in Belgrade, at least ten or twelve, and no doubt a few of them write broken English.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Well, on the Purpose clause, the purpose is NPOV, which is not necessarily being satisfied here; the Decorum clause doesn't really apply, since Darko and all the sock/meat-puppets are quite polite; and Editorial process - well, when it's your own name, you find an injustice, nobody listens - wouldn't you walk around to every internet cafe in the city too? I'm not saying it's right, just that it's a reminder that we need to fix the article.
Even if you get an SPI that nails down a connection between DT and the IP editors, we generally block the puppets, not the master. I'd think that a final warning to the Darko user entity not to edit their named article page under any guise would suffice, with a reminder to raise specific concerns on the talk page of the article. If the resume is anonymously posted after the warning, sprot would be indicated, with around one month duration (it's not a high-traffic article). Same goes for the user and user-talk page.
Note that Trifunovic is not noticeably pushing the POV of "they raped and tortured people so it's OK that we raped and tortured people" here on the en:wiki. The issue from what I can see is to just clear up the BLP article. Franamax (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds reasonable, Franamax, though I'd be cautious about the final warning thing. Perhaps more along the lines of "Please work with us on the article talk page. If this is you, please cut it out, you aren't helping matters any."--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I'm surprised to see this individual still treated with this much mildness by some people here. As someone who has followed the issue from a distance for some time, I have to agree completely with ChrisO: the amount of long-term disruption the article has seen is mind-boggling. This guy is not here to correct BLP problems about his own article; his presence has been disruption-only for months. He should have been indef-banned long ago. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's called assuming good faith, not mildness, and demanding evidence before banning an editor. I still haven't seen any evidence these IPs are this editor except for being allegedly in the same city and language troubles. I suggest this thread be closed, this isn't going anywhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any real doubt that the IPs are the editor. I'll request a checkuser run on the IPs - in the meantime please keep the thread open so that I can update it as necessary. In the meantime, can we at least semi-protect the article so that the current run of disruption can be stopped? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the identity is plain obvious. Just compare the following edits:
Updated - the checkuser request is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darko Trifunovic. The pattern is indeed extremely obvious. The IPs are doing exactly the same thing that the Darko account and a previous sockpuppet have been doing for some time. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too have watched the Trifunović article and its Talk for some time. As I reverted one of the countless instances of vandalism by the the article's subject, I was notified of this discussion by ChrisO.
ChrisO and Fut.Perf are well up to speed with Darko Trifunovic (talk·contribs)'s persistent disruption. There have been numerous warnings. The fellow never complies. When his changes are reverted and his self-promotional propaganda removed, he switches to accusations of apartheidism and terrorism etc. It's clear from his repeated outbursts that if the article does not serve his personal agenda he will not hesitate to disrupt it and use it as a propaganda vehicle.
I tend towards liberal treatment of Wikimiscreants, but it was tried ad nauseam with Trifunović and it failed. ChrisO, in particular, has been patient and courteous in the extreme. It looks as thought the time has come for firm action such as he has suggested.
And it seems that Wehwalt may not be fully conversant with the article's history. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Writegeist (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism has resumed, this time from an apparent open proxy in Israel which is being used to repeatedly blank the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser has confirmed that Darko Trifunovic (talk·contribs) is responsible for the IP edits. In view of the lack of any interest here in dealing with an obvious case of disruptive sockpuppetry, I'm taking this issue over to WP:AE. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joining this discussion late; however, I'd like to respond to Franamax's point. I for one am aware that the article is woefully incomplete. There's a good bit more that can be added, with proper sourcing. However, I and most of the other main contributors to this article have been somewhat preoccupied by WP:ARBMAC2 and the associated naming debate. I have every intention of returning to this article when time permits. // Chris(complaints)•(contribs) 13:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also joining late - I have been dealing with this for years now, Darko had been extended good faith much longer than any other chronic abuser I am aware of. He's repeatedly been told not to do this with the article, and to bring concerns to the article talk page. Which he's done at times, and resulted in a significant reduction in critical content about him, but not a complete whitewash.
His ongoing disruption here was not acceptable. As CU confirmed the anons are really him - we have no reason to AGF anymore, we've proved bad faith engagement after repeatedly giving opportunities to engage within Wikipedia policy and plenty of assistance and openminded discussion. I support the indef. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just go on record here as saying that blocking the primary account is not a good idea. That account is currently making quite ham-fisted attempts to "vandalise" one single article - really now, spotting that is a highlight of my wiki-day. We're not at serious risk of damage here. The distributed attacks by IP's, acknowledged by the CU to be unblockable at this minor level of disruption are similarly a small concern. An inadequate article is replaced by a resume for a few minutes. So what? It's fixable, right?
The bigger issue is that we need to either finish the article or dispose of it. We need to occupy the higher ground. I'll help either way, but I'm devoid of resources to research the whole thing. We need someone to step up to the plate and get this resolved. Franamax (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the user seems to be American, they don't have the excuse that they're contributing from some politically sensitive region of the world and need additional protection. So far the "illegal" thing they've posted using this account is the name of a juvenile offender. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is in fact illegal to publish in Canada (the location of the crime), just so we're clear. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for God's sake. We on about this again? When will people understand that just because we can (legally) publish something it doesn't mean we should (morally and ethically)? And more to the point, when will Americans learn to understand how their free speech guarantee actually works? Ugh. → ROUX₪ 03:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Constitutional free speech and press largely has to do with the right to criticize the government. Unfortunately, some think free speech and press mean "no limitations". That ain't it. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 03:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm taking from the above is that my first instinct to indef block was the correct one. I shall make it so momentarily. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse that block you are about to make. Good call; this is clearly a multiple account situation, and this is also clearly NOT a legit use of a secondary account. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A checkuser would also be a good idea. Results don't need to be made public, but the user who is hiding their tracks needs a severe talking-to about why it's unacceptable. Frankly, I'd be happy if we changed the sock policy to "No socks, ever." Would make situations like this much more easy to deal with. → ROUX₪ 04:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The likely response of a checkuser request here would be "checkuser is not for fishing". I'd like to see it happen, but I'd be surprised if anybody would do it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which speaks to an enormous misunderstanding of what Checkuser is good for, alas. Not to mention is found nowhere in WMF policy. It should absolutely be used for fishing; the long delay between identifying socks and getting rid of them is silly. Pre-emptively finding them would only be a benefit to the project. → ROUX₪ 04:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You won't find it anywhere in WMF policy because it's a English Wikipedia-specific policy. "Fishing" requests, as they're called here, are permitted elsewhere. Hersfold(t/a/c) 04:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know; it's a silly policy. → ROUX₪ 05:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it because there's a shortage of checkusers? Seems like when even an accepted SPI is posted, it can take days for them to get back. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 05:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse check being run. Enigmamsg 04:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was drawn to this discussion in reviewing this user's request for unblock. I find this block preposterous. This user has not posted the real name of the minor defendant that is being discussed and has no apparent intention of doing so, despite what their user page states. But they have stated that they live in Canada, and that their main account is under their real name. They have done nothing but make two comments in the discussion. There are reasonable editors (admins, even) on both sides of the dispute, and if the user has had a bit of confusion between the principle of free speech in the US and Wikipedia's own version, I think that's forgivable. This is clearly an appropriate use of alternate accounts under WP:SOCK#LEGIT, as an alternate account for a controversial area. Mangojuicetalk 21:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user has posted the real name of the young offender, in his second edit. Besides that, by the account's own admission it is an alternate account devoted to the single purpose of taking an extreme stance on freedom of speech; if somebody wants to push such a stance, they should not receive the benefit of WP:SOCK#LEGIT to do so. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in the article. Two edits is not an extreme stance: I would like you to justify that these two edits constitute actual disruption rather than discussion. Mangojuicetalk 21:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of things: first, the account's gratuitous use of the young offender's name on the talk page, especially in conjunction with the posts on his user page, strongly suggest that he's here to make a WP:POINT. Second, I don't think it's helpful for Wikipedia to facilitate Canadians' violation of Canadian law (we're not responsible for enforcing it, obviously, but it strikes me as dubious to allow accounts whose sole purpose is to violate it). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked the account with the condition that it limit its activities to participating in this thread until the question is resolved. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Steve. I'd like the opportunity to speak on my own behalf. The question here is not whether the killer's name should be mentioned, or what the limits are to free speech. (For the record, I know free speech is not absolute, and that Wikipedia policy may differ from what's allowed in the outside world.) The question is whether I was being disruptive or violating any Wikipedia policies. WP:SOCK only bans secondary accounts used for "fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies." In fact, WP:SOCK also says it is acceptable to use a secondary account to avoid "real-world consequences from their involvement" in a controversial topic. In order to determine whether the block is appropriate, you have to divorce yourself from all of your thoughts and opinions about the Richardson family murders article and look at it strictly as a matter of Wikipedia policy. If you have a strong opinion about whether or not to mention the killer's name, you should address that on Talk:Richardson family murders, not in a blocking discussion.
As regards WP:POINT, the policy is "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." I did not mean to disrupt Wikipedia; I merely posted two comments on the talk page.
For my part, I promise not to mention the girl's first name on the talk page again until the issue of whether to mention her name in the article is decided. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) To add to that, everything about this account - from the user name to the quote on its user page (including the quotation marks around "illegal") to its unnecessary disclosure of young offenders' names on article talk pages suggests that it is a single purpose POV-pushing account. Single purpose POV-pushing accounts are made no more acceptable by the POV in question being about Wikipedia policy rather than about a real world subject. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. WP:POV deals with bias in articles. It has nothing to do with pressing a point of view about an article's contents on a talk page. That's the responsible thing to do -- to press one's case on a talk page rather than unilaterally editing an article. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POV isn't applicable here, which is why I didn't link to it. You're here to push for a change to how Wikipedia deals with voluntary self-censorship; that is your account's single purpose (and don't try arguing that you're not trying to change Wikipedia's policy so much as to change the content of individual Wikipedia articles; the descriptive nature of Wikipedia policy means that this is the same thing). Per WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY, "In particular, sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates." Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that the "internal project-related discussions" mentioned in WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY applies to all discussions on Wikipedia, even localized discussions on individual talk pages? That leads to a conclusion that secondary accounts cannot be involved in any disputes on Wikipedia. I don't think many people would come to that conclusion after reading WP:SOCK. Anyway, the point of the account is to contribute information that may get me in trouble in the real world, not to get into policy arguments. But being a responsible Wikipedia editor, I decided to have a discussion on the talk page rather than to unilaterally change the article. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all localized disputes are about Wikipedia's broader policy. Localized disputes about Wikipedia's approach to information that is illegal to publish in some jurisdictions, especially when pushed by an account who acknowledges that liberalizing Wikipedia's rules on such matters is its sole purpose, are de facto Wikipedia policy discussions. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The account was not created to "liberalize Wikipedia's rules on such matters." It was created to contribute information to the encyclopedia, like all constructive accounts. It so happens that was a dispute regarding the article, so I made my opinions known on the talk page first per WP:EP, like I should have done. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Participating in a discussion about a controversial issue in order to keep one's main account private is a perfectly reasonable thing for an alternate account to do as long as there's no disruption. I don't believe mentioning an already-public name of someone whose name is supposed to be kept secret constitutes disruption: in fact, I am far more concerned that the oversnsitivity being shown here will affect the debate on the issue. And Steve Smith's idea that this was somehow a Wikipedia-wide policy discussion is preposterous: no, this is really about this single article, and no one is proposing rewriting policy. That interpretation would have the effect of preventing any legitimate use of alternate accounts where policy is involved, which is basically all article editing when there is any contention at all. Mangojuicetalk 13:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. Including the names of murderers in an article about the murder hardly sounds like free speech absolutism to me, especially when a quick Google search shows several US-based reliable sources ( i.e. Discovery Channel's website ) which mention the name without reservation. I'm finding the reasons given for the block extremely underwhelming. I'm also seeing a contradiction in the arguments claiming this is an inappropriate use of a sock: One one side, some users want to take sensitivity to Canadian law into account in obscuring the names. But on the other side, editors are saying that the user is not contributing from a politically risky part of the world and therefore not a legitimate use of a sock. So which is it? It seems to me we're bending our own rules toward Canadian censorship standards while at the same time claiming Canada isn't repressive enough to allow the use of a sock. I highly doubt we would show the same deference to Iranian law. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that permanently unblocking me does not mean we're going to name the killer. That decision will be made on Talk:Richardson family murders. I can see it both ways, but the question here is whether I was violating Wikipedia policy, and I think it's clear that I was not. I wish I could go back to 2005 and not use my real name as my username so this wouldn't be an issue. But I promise that if permanently unblocked, I will change the username of my secondary account, change my secondary account's user page, abide by WP:SOCK#LEGIT, refrain from using the killer's name on Talk:Richardson family murders and only edit Richardson family murders in accordance with Wikipedia policies on consensus and dispute resolution. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was holding off in case more feedback comes in, but this is really all we could possibly hope for. I'm lifting the block completely; you are now free to rejoin the discussion. Mangojuicetalk 13:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using a secondary username doesn't seem likely to afford additional protection from a subpoena, in the (I think unlikely) event one did come about, but should be enough to keep you more anonymous when it comes to search engines. For what it's worth, I don't see any obvious shenanigans happening here, although I can understand why some users were concerned. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Final conclusion about Google hits
Resolved
In the recent AFD discussions, the problem of Google hits was really intriguing. In some discussions 80 google hits were considered as proofs of notability, in others, 300 google hits were judged meaningful; what about this.?,Rirunmot (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting. My understanding is that Wikipedia:GOOGLE#Notability dismisses the entire idea of establishing notability with hits, so I don't know why these arguments are still being used. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's because many who make such arguments do not care about or otherwise outright dismiss the notability guidelines. MuZemike 17:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skomorokh, how can anyone remember all of these arguments to avoid? Can anyone come up with a mnemonic? Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why remember when the Internet can remember everything for you? Skomorokh 04:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wrong place for this conversation - take it to the essay's talk page if you like/dislike what the essay says/doesn't say. Marking resolved, as there is nothing here to resolve. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Broy7 seems to be an obvious site abuser
User:Broy7 Has been warned twice already by me and refuses to respond or discuss. Numerous examples of blatant removal of material on dozens of articles. Deletes vast sections of articles and gives reasons like "poor grammar" or "bad English." The grammar and English on the page will be fine..........then what they leave of the article they mess it up with grammar errors and bad English on purpose. Unreal the nerve they have.
Constantly removes sourced and pertinent info from numerous pages, even entire sections of articles that are sourced and pertinent, citing "bad English" and "poor grammar," only to then leave a bare bones article, to which they then go through again and purposely put bad grammar and English on what is left of the page. Reverts back any restores of pages and reverts unlimited number of times, usually within an hour or less. If someone adds something new to an article this user works on or has worked on in the past, then within an hour, maybe less, the page will be reverted back. No matter what the add is, how pertinent it is, if it is updating an article, correcting an article, adding a source, whatever........it will be reverted back.
There are it seems in the dozens of articles now in a relatively short period of time that the user is doing this to. Most of them just include taking an article and deleting most info on it and leaving an edit summary like "greatly improved this article that was done so badly", or "fixed the terrible English in this article". Of course, there was no fixing or improving, just deleting of a whole lot of stuff and then purposely messing the English and grammar up. It seems that all articles relating to Lithuania Wikipedia project are what the user is targeting, at least for now anyway. If you try to talk to this user and explain about new material being added to a page that was a pertinent update or a source being added and that it should not be reverted back you get no response. You also get no response if you try to inform them of the 3 revert rule. This user is an abuser - one of the worst I have seen yet. I would not put this here lightly, but this user is certainly purposely trying to mess up articles. That is very obvious. This user might even be worse than Downwards. Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first few diffs of Broy7's that I reviewed seemed like good edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide us some links to this purported "problem behavior"? I checked out several of the edits and I do not see any obvious issues. Shereth 14:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user is clearly abusing the site. I told you what they are doing already. I am 100% sure that the site would ban this person permanently if they looked at the pattern of all their edits. Also it seems that this might be the same user as User:Downwards, one of the most notorious site abusers ever.--Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive editor Wikifan12345 possible sockpuppet for banned accounts
Wikifan12345 is a disruptive and tendentious editor who exclusively edits Israel/Palestine articles from a pro-Israel perspective. Full disclosure: I've had problems with him/her in Israeli Settlement but I've also noticed him causing problems in 1948 Palestinian exodus and Mohamed ElBaradei, the latter in which he has continually refused to accept a consensus against including a section about Israel. He pushed the issue to mediation and then refused to accept the outcome after the mediator told him to accept the consensus.
I noticed on his userpage ([18]) that he has listed 3 accounts under the heading R.I.P. (meaning rest in peace, one would assume). The 3 accounts are pro-Israel accounts (Malcolm Schosha, Tundrabuggy, Jayjg) that have been admonished for violating Wikipedia rules.
Tundrabuggy was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeting after they evaded detection for 10 months during a 1 year ban on their original account (Dajudem) that resulted from CAMERA fiasco.
Malcolm Schosha was blocked indefinitely after a number of virulent personal attacks against pro-Palestinian editors.
The fact that this user has created a memorial for a number of blocked users shows that he is not going to accept community standards, and that he regards Wikipedia purely as a battlefield rather than an encyclopedia.
This also raises the question of whether Wikifan12345 is a sockpuppet of one of these banned accounts or is a CAMERA meatpuppet.
Halfacanyon (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Halfacanyon, where has Jayjg been admonished for violating Wikipedia rules as stated above? --Tom(talk) 15:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here and here. There are also earlier arbitration cases, but those are the most recent. Halfacanyon (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if that is the same as violating rules, but got your drift, thanks, --Tom(talk) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan12345 is evidently not in the same time zone as any of the other three editors. It's usually a good idea to check such things before making public accusations. HansAdler 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For someone whose account has been active for one month, this looks like another tit-for-tat... seicer | talk | contribs 15:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone reaaaaaalllly learned Wikipedia quickly! ;-) (talk→BWilkins←track) 15:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But unlike Wikifan I'm not maintaining a memorial of sockpuppet accounts that have been banned on my user page. Now _that_ is quacking like a duck Halfacanyon (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, of course. IronDuke 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's "smartarsed" about saying I have nothing to hide? I removed it because I thought he may have been asking Wikifan due to the indenting. If he isn't then I stand by my comments. Halfacanyon (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond to this in a couple of hours. I am busy at the moment. this is too funny. : ) cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remarks by Seicer, BWilkins and IronDuke above are unclear, unhelpful and distracting. Please find a useful WP:-policy yourself. A user promoting CAMERA-banned user on the user-page cannot claim a pro-wikipedia-attitude. -DePiep (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could give less than a flying fuck about "CAMERA", Israel, or the original topic at hand. I'm curious as to why, an account that is only one month of age, is so well versed in our policies and prior incidents that his editing scope has been very narrowly defined to include only a handful of articles and an obsession over one particular editor. So, please take your POV ranting elsewhere because I have no claim, nor have I edited, in the realms that you noted above. seicer | talk | contribs 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, if you have nothing to add, you needn't feel you need to comment here. Seicer, a CU check might be useful to see which other account(s) Halfacanyon has, but the account itself is a disruptive, "bad hand" account, and should probably be blocked in any case. Your thoughts? IronDuke 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(editconflict see Wf12345 after this:)
re seicer: CAMERA was the topic. You changed the topic/sectiontitle (disruption). Then, writing "less than a flying fuck" is not civil. IronDuke: "nothing to add"?: if I cannot follow the talk here through deviation etc., I am perfectly entitled to ask for clearness etc. I was not commenting, I was asking for clarity. Please do your private fightings elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CAMERA was mentioned briefly (and quite unconvincingly) by the probable sock Halfacanyon; that you continue to raise that issue could be construed as you meatpuppeting for an abusive sock -- possibly himself a banned editor. I'm sure you don't want to be seen as doing that. And your request for clarity was, ironically, not particularly clear. If there's something about you didn't understand about what I wrote, I am happy to clarify. IronDuke 20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re IronDuke(out-of-chron!): briefly or whatever quality: it was in the original report, then seicer changes the topic/sectiontitle, and then he/she writes "I'm not interested" (in other words). I don't raise it, I return to it from seicers deviation. And I wrote yours remarks 'are unclear, unhelpful and distracting'. If not clear, you could have asked for an explanation. I assume you were well aware that the topic was moving. Finally, could you clarify your remark "I'm sure you don't want to be seen as doing that", because unspecified it could be read as threatening. Now we can go back to the subject: Wikifan12345 -DePiep (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seicer is an editor in good standing, Halfacanyon is an obvious disruptive sockpuppet. Whatever Seicer wants to do is, I'm sure, far closer to the interests of the project than Halfacanyon. Some of your remarks seem garbled, so I'm not quite sure how to respond to them. I think my remarks about the dangers of your being seen to meatpuppet for a disruptive editors are quite clear (and not at all threatening); indeed, an increasing number of (uninvolved) users seem to be of the opinion that you have things very, very wrong here. There's no shame in being wrong, only in continuing to be wrong when the truth becomes clear. I would back away from this, if I were you (NB: Not a threat, just good advice). IronDuke 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(non-sync) Why do you pick up his phone? -DePiep (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try again. I've been around here for over three years, as an administrator and as an editor, and anyone with a bit of experience can easily detect a meatpuppet and/or a disruptive sockpuppet. Since you apparently have issues comprehending what I am writing, let me make it clear: I have no issue with any of the articles mentioned, and have never edited any of the articles mentioned nor have any inclination to do so because it's something I could care less about. Therefore, my "flying fuck" comment is directed towards that, not any one individual, therefore it is not an uncivil remark. Unless you are truly offended by the word fuck. seicer | talk | contribs 20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re again seicer (a-chron). Three years or zero: I react to what I read, whatever your resume. - On first exchanges. If you can recognise or detect a puppet that well, you could have written that more clearly and less fuming. It really was getting into a tit-for-tat-for-tit, unreadable for a fresh reader like me. I need to point out that you first inserted a new sectiontitle, and then went off-original-topic. - Then reacting to me. Next, if you are not into a detail of the topic, you could have skipped that in your reaction (you could have left out your whole first sentence, at no cost and all gain). Finally, since you mention adminship, I find your line of talk and the change of topic, eh, disturbing in Wikipedia-sense. (You're the first admin I meet that writes "I'm not interested in your topic"). And after writing to me "your POV ranting" leaves for you the sweet invitation assuming my good faith. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent): Ok, I'm back. Are we going to close this? User:Halfacanyon has been very hostile from the moment I started editing Israeli settlements. He reverted every single one of my edits claiming I deleted sourced material and removed references. I tried to explain to him I simply removed duplicate references and told him to re-direct identical references in the future. He is also following me around in other articles I'm editing, such as 1948 Palestinian exodus . As far as sock-puppetry is concerned, I don't know what to say. I consider it a compliment for someone to accuse me of being an alias of User:Jayjg. I posted a brief wikietiquette alert following Half's mean accusations that I am a POV-pusher. I suggested Half and I go through dispute resolution to avoid edit warring but he has yet to respond. I posted a lengthy explanation for my edits at the settlement talk but that has gone no where. I would greatly an uninvolved and experienced admin/user weigh in on the discussion. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's all the same section. DePiep, I see you are concerned about my "memorial" of editors Malcolm, Tundra, and Jayjg. I thoroughly enjoyed collaborating with those users and whatever flaws they might have does not change my opinion of them. Plenty of pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian editors share respect for retired users, I am certainly not the first to do this. Everyone who edits the Israel/Palestinian articles harbor some kind of bias, but that is irrelevant. I provided a comparison of my edits and Half edits in the talk, I suggest you look at it. If you believe my rewrite screams Zionist propaganda let me know. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to W12345, he's definitely not Jayjg. There is nothing wrong with worshipping banned editors, and since WP promotes AGF, then an accusation of guilt by association is certainly 'bad faith on Halfacanyon's part. This whole disruption/sockpuppet double accusation is quite absurd when the real basis for this useless discussion is that Halfacanyon does not like a w12345s pro-Israel editing. --Shuki (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DiPiep, please stop trying to obfuscate things here. "I don't give a flying fuck about CAMERA" is actually quite important here - the articles or topics themselves are not the issue, so your posts seem to be the ones becoming disruptive. A "new" editor, who was the subject of a Wikiquette filing later filed a tit-for-tat ANI filing, accusing someone of being a sockpuppet, and it appears to be solely for the intent to discredit them. Anyone can easily tell that Wikifan is not any of his "heroes" as listed on his page. I fully expect that Halfacanyon is some with whom Wikifan has had past incidents, and this is their way of getting back. If anyone is a sock (or even meat), it's Halfacanyon. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re (a-chron) thank you for clarifying. Please accept my initial question: the posts by you three editors (now top of this subsection) were unclear for a fresh reader like me, indirectly and insider-only-like. Read like there is something invisible. I want to be able to understand Wikipedia, so I ask. (Question left: why not created a fully new section?). -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, not to be insulting, but WP:ANI may not be a good place for you to understand Wikipedia - it's a location where problems are brought in front of admins, so it's very full of insider-related discussion. It's not typically meant for "normal" editors. Indeed, by watching, you can learn a lot, but make sure not to comment unless you understand the process when complaints are lodged. However, let me answer the question: a complaint was lodged by User:Halfacanyon about User:Wikifan12345...turns out that Halfacanyon was apparently the real problem, so you make a subsection and continue the discussion. We often call this situation the "Plaxico effect", as Halfacanyon effectively shot himself in the foot here. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think this is a great place to (learn to) understand Wikipedia. It's not about the place (ANI). Remember I only named three editors here that were unclear etc to me (Seicer, BWilkins and IronDuke). Others, even in this section, were not adressed by me. This re "don't interfere, go away" I got is definitely not Wikipedia-like, whatever policy or guideline you may know. Don't ask me to backoff for not understanding. -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this might be out of line but I have a turbulent history with User:Jersay who was banned for sock-puppetry at List of terrorist incidents, 2009. As far as I know, his most recent sock is User:Pattywack. However, Half's posting style appears to be a lot more intelligent than Jersay's but I figured this was worth a mention anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's an old tit for tat thing (I love WP for actually relating to this behaviour). I'm now leaning towards Halfa being related to Special:Contributions/Ewawer. If so, very good separation of personalities, but some crossovers. Ewawer is a sex-lover, from Australia, Jewish and/or has an affinity for Christian issues with some pro-Arab edits. The Ewawer personality also has inconsistent edit interests. Halfa has also edited Christian pages, yet not entirely anti-Israel, maybe somewhat leftist anti-Zionist. --Shuki (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← OK, this has probably degenerated far enough. Halfacanyon (talk·contribs) is obviously not a new user, and I think that the general trend and consensus has been to tighten up a bit on the flood of agenda-driven socks on Israel/Palestine articles. Accordingly, I've blocked Halfacanyon indefinitely. I can't say with certainty which account is behind Halfacanyon, but whomever it is, they need to go back to using their main account to edit this controversial and sock-ridden area (assuming their main account has not already been sanctioned). I think a checkuser would be worthwhile to look for sleeper accounts, though probably of limited utility without a clear idea who the main account belongs to. Insofar as Wikifan12345 (talk·contribs) is concerned, nothing presented here as evidence here indicates any issue requiring urgent administrative action against him. MastCellTalk 21:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In reviewing Halfacanyon's unblock request, I feel that this sort of vague wave accusation of sockpuppetry is a poor way to go, but there is enough cause for suspicion that I think we need more disclosure from the user. That said, I've issued a strong warning about the general sanctions on Arab-Israel conflict articles. I would prefer to handle the situation that way. Mangojuicetalk 04:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I also believe Wikifan12345 is in some way connected to CAMERA and User:Tundrabuggy/User:Dajudem. The CAMERA accounts were uncovered in April 2008 in part thanks to work by ChrisO. On May 28, the person behind Dajudem, one of the CAMERA accounts, started editing as Tundrabuggy. She made a beeline for an article ChrisO was working on, Muhammad al-Durrah, and proceeded to cause trouble for him there. Ten days later, on June 7, Wikifan12345 was created, and similarly headed for articles ChrisO was active on, Muhammad al-Durrah and Pallywood.
Both accounts are extremely pro-Israel; both use poor sources, including blogs and partisan websites; and both make a habit of reverting anything they don't like. I've not looked carefully through the accounts yet, and wouldn't have posted this unless it was being mentioned already, but given that it is, the suspicion is worth adding here. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 05:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slim, that's very a inflammatory accusation and as an admin I expect you to back up your claims. If you think I'm some propaganda appendage of CAMERA, prove it. I've been involved in many subjects on wikipedia and a majority of my edits have been restricted to talk and collaboration discussions. Slim has been following me around to various articles, almost to the point of stalking. I suggest you file an ANI because I am truly tired of you inserting defaming language into discussions unabated. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been following you around, though if I had, it'd be perfectly justified, given your tendency to use random websites as sources in contentious history articles, where only academic historians can be used safely. In fact, I rather think it's you who may have been following me; your throwing yourself into the Nicholas Beale debate to oppose me (see the deleted talk page) was somewhat surprising. Regardless, I'm not going to argue with you. I've said what I think. I could be wrong, of course. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 06:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Random websites? Hardly. If you are referring to the Palestinian exodus, I provided 3 certified-academics. I do not have a history of relying on blogs or bogus sites to support information. I had a genuine interest in Nicholas Beale and has absolutely nothing to do with you. If you are going to dig through my edits 1 year ago, misconstrue conflicts with User:ChrisO (who is no longer an admin), imply I am a sock of Tundra/Dajudem and was party to the Wikipedia/CAMERA conspiracy, and then say you are "not going to argue" is nothing short of bizarre. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of you using an essay by a lecturer in social work posted on an Australian-Jewish website for some highly contentious material about the Palestinian exodus; and you edit warred to keep it in. When I asked you who the source was, you didn't at first know. There are plenty more examples like that. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 07:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained in the talk, Mendes is a published author having written several books on Israel, is a lecture at a major University in Australia, and is a member of notable Jewish magazines. You claimed he was neither of those things, and repeatedly asked "Who is he?" in talk. And no, I did not edit war to keep it in. You however were very adamant in ensuring the only sources in the lead were by Palestinian "historians", Nur-eldeen Masalha and Constantine Zureiq. Whatever, this still has nothing to do with me belonging to a CAMERA conspiracy. Care to elaborate? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Halfacanyon appears to be Unrelated to Tundrbuffy/Dajudem on a purely technical level. Thatcher 10:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was Wikifan12345 who was accused of possibly being Tundrabuggy/Dajudem. Wikifan said he had previous similar problems with Jersay and Pattywack, so Halfacanyon was possibly a sock of one of those. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To go back to Mangojuice's comment, I think that warning and restricting such accounts under the discretionary sanctions is a reasonable alternative approach. On the other hand, I haven't seen this solution scale very well; given the extremely limited number of admins active in these areas, and the din of the constant partisan chorus who attend any such discussion, agenda-driven SPA's and alternate accounts proliferate faster than they can be handled. My reading of recent ArbCom decisions was that these areas are afflicted with widespread problematic editing behavior, and that people who come here to improve the encyclopedia as a general reference work shouldn't have to deal with dozens of agenda-driven socks and SPA's, nor should it take a year-long process to deal with an editor who is clearly agenda-driven and abusive from the start (c.f. User:Tundrabuggy). I wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock if another admin feels strongly, though I think that setting some ground rules would be useful at a minimum.
Regarding Thatcher's note: as BWilkins points out, the link in question was between Wikifan12345 and Dajudem. I don't have sufficient information to assess the circumstantial strength of such a link, and I'm going to pass the baton to some other admin to look into it. I will say that the balance between encyclopedic content and agenda-driven advocacy in Special:Contributions/Wikifan12345 is hardly encouraging, but that alone doesn't inspire me to do anything at this juncture. MastCellTalk 20:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Israel/Palestinian articles are a breeding ground for activists. Virtually everyone belongs to one agenda or another, but that in itself is not against the rules. I personally find User:SlimVirgin's Palestinian advocacy at the expense of other voices to be extremely disturbing, and to accuse me of being part of the CAMERA wikipedia/propaganda fiasco is beyond uncivil, it's simply wrong. My contributions are varied and no I am not agenda driven - I keep in mind all wikipedia policy and yes disputes revolving content and biased language have occurred but my "agenda" is certainly no less threatening then say....User:Nableezy who is practically the polar-opposite of myself. : ) Anyways, this isn't my ANI, I'm not on trial. If you think I'm part of some conspiracy feel free to investigate. I would prefer people stop insuating I'm a propaganda machine and not follow through on their accusations. I was blocked twice just for calling a fellow editor antisemitic several months ago. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't play that game with me, Wikifan. No one familiar with my overall edits since 2004 could accuse me of Palestinian advocacy. What I see in your editing is a complete disregard of NPOV, V, and NOR—in fact, I doubt you've even glanced at them—and an attempt to make the Palestinian narrative disappear, rather than balancing it. I oppose that kind of editing wherever I see it, no matter which "side" it's coming from. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 02:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Play what game? My experience in editing with you has been rocky, you continually put roadblocks ahead of discussion and demand unnecessary rationales for suggestions beyond your agenda (typically pro-Palestinian). I'm totally okay with that because half of wikipedia operates on some similar level but it unacceptable and quite hypocritically for you to accuse me of being a SPA or propaganda machine when you don't even know me. From what I understand I'm not the only one who feels this way. If you actually knew my history you'd understand an overwhelming majority of my edits have been in talk and a fraction of article contributions are major expansions that would resemble an attempt to "make the Palestinian narrative disappear" as you so righteously put it. But thanks for the assessment, at least I know where you are coming from. :DWikifan12345 (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Threat of violence - Lancashire, England
I recently deleted some threats of violence from an article. In the past, I have simply deleted such edits and not taken any further action. In this case, however, it does not appear to be the typical schoolchild type threat - the threats are very specific in terms of named targets and place where they are employed. If there are any editors willing and able to make an appropriate report to local authorities in the area of Lancashire, England, please contact me. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ordinary telephone number, accessible internationally, for the police station at Thurnham Street, Lancaster, Lancashire, LA1 1YB, which covers the Lower Lune Valley area, is +44 1524 63333. Callers within the U.K. can also use 0845 1 25 35 45, of course. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If someone local could assist, that would be helpful. Otherwise, I'll make the international call. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a credible threat really; just moronic vandalism. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving / renaming entries
I am a comparatively new editor, and wanted to report (without names) an incident which I experienced. I'd appreciate if you advise if this practice is in line with Wikipedia's rules:
I posted an entry, which after some discussion was approved. It was posted under my original title. After that, one of admins posted another entry under the same title. He/she used Wikipedia administrator's rights to move my original entry to a different title he invented, and to name his/her article with title used originally by me. In result of this operation, the search for my original string in Wikipedia now leads to the new entry, not to my original article as before. The same happens in the Google search, creating confusion. The administrator explained his action as follows: "...moving to make way for clearly notable topic", which appears to me as a case of subjective judgement of prioritization, when a single administrator decided which entry is more notable, according to his/her personal tastes. However, I may be wrong. Please, tell me if this practice is acceptable in Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. --Witizen (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen[reply]
In the general case in which you frame the question, there is no single answer; it depends on the specifics of the situation. In this specific case, it appears they did not use their admin right to move the page, and any editor could have done that. It's a standard Bold editing decision. It seems pretty reasonable to me. If you disagree, start a discussion on the article talk page, or on the user talk page of the editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Especially considering that Wirtland was already redlinked from a National Register of Historic Places list, and Wirtland (micronation) wasn't linked from anywhere until you added it to the Micronations portal. I'd call this a good move, especially considering that Nyttend went out of his way to make sure your article remained findable from the original location.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. A hatnote at the actually notable Wirtland article seems more than generous. — Satori Son 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all answers, which are helpful indeed in understanding Wikipedia's approach. Though I still believe the "more notable"/"less notable" judging lacks measurability and objectiveness, I don't have any further questions or suggestions. Again, thanks and happy editing to all. Witizen (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen[reply]
I'm not sure what policy is regarding vandal IP edits in relation to FBI alerts, but should this edit be reported somewhere? ponyo (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Report it. Even if it isn't credible on its face it's still a threat against a state official and should be reported to the appropriate investigative body. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker) 17:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem doing so, but being from Canada I'm wondering what the best way to go about it would be? ponyo (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I improved the article greatly (well, forward it is). Since a few hours User:Jalapenos do exist is swamping the newly created section with weasel, fact, hih, fv templates. Since [one] I edited seriously three times to delete a bunch of his templates, and in the end he puts in more. Also: the article is in an AFD here, probably related userpolitics? Anyway, I feel an abuse of my good faith. Any advice? -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your last edit summary sounds like a challenge about edit-wars ... not good. Yes, a lot of the words in the article are weasel words. I expect that the article will be rightly deleted shortly, based on the current state of the AfD. (talk→BWilkins←track) 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the advice was asked into improving the article, and how to react to an editor adding 25 huh-like templates to a section. Editing and improving is allowed during AFD. Especially since the section involved is a serious argument for a keep. Do you really mean I could frustrate an other AFD by behaving like the editor? Further, I don't think it is a good idea that you advise me here while voting delete on the same article. -DePiep (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend then either allowing the valid templates where they belong, or remove the weasel words and unreferenced facts. My !vote to delete has nothing to do with the templates, but the notability of the subject matter. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know these things. (talk→BWilkins←track) 00:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Long enough to know? Sounds like you don't trust my question here. Anyway, you're invited to re-read the article, weigh the well-referenced new section (even now), and reconsider your vote. -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wipeout International Editions
We have taken great care to update the International Edition section of the Wipeout (2008 Game Show) page located at Wipeout_(2008_game_show). The section accurately lists all the international versions of the show. An unregistered user from the following IP address User talk:83.85.168.35 has added numerous countries that do not air Wipeout. They have engaged in an edit war and done this appx. 20 times. If you look at their TALK page they have been warned and blocked but they continue to add the countries without any reference or backup. All of the current countries include information about hosts, networks, etc. They are simply adding the name of a country with no information or backup. "MattMDK (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
...and the IP user has a fairly nice block history from this article. They just came off another last week. (talk→BWilkins←track) 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 29 has five seven successive nominations from a new user who's (alarmingly) called "TheGriefer", and I'm having trouble assuming good faith where he's concerned. Might these be disruptive nominations? Outside views would be welcome.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 00:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that Eckstasy, apparently dissatisfied with the AFD result, is now gathering "evidence" (presumably with which to harass me later). No comment on the irony that he's archiving an AFD debate, which exists ad infinitum in the proper namespace already... :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to Tothwolf specifically, while the discussion was heated...I don't see anything that would require administrator attention here, unless you can substantiate your claim of off-wiki harassment. The discussion with Eckstasy was also heated, but again, I don't see a need for admin intervention at this time. While I don't condone some of the things that were said, I would also note that the discussion was not helped by your accusation that the AfD was canvassed. Your presumption that the second link provided will be used to "harass" you later is a strong claim and an assumption of bad faith. Harassment is an incredibly strong term, I might add, and such accusations should not be thrown around lightly. In short, no action is needed at the moment, unless there is evidence that harassment is occurring. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That article got archived there for a reason, not to harass anyone. And as for off-wiki stuff, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia whatsoever. Seeing you posting this in the noticeboard, sadly made me come out with even more stuff. if anyone read, they would gather what this is about. Eckstasy (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tothwolf has harassed and caused drama in multiple articles he's had disagreements in. he has a COI in irc-related articles because he's a developer for a well-known IRC application, so he takes the articles very personally. he also is a regular on wiki's IRC, so expect him to canvas his IRC friends for help/support. good luck getting anything done with this uncivil harasser. Theserialcomma (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theserialcomma, I suggest you stop commenting on Tothwolf. You're on very thin ice because you've been hounding him. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker) 19:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is ANI, where patterns of behavior and abuse is discussed, so no, i won't stop reporting his patterns of abuse to the proper channels. i'm only on thin ice with an abusive admin (you) who is threatening to BAN me (not just block) for 'hounding' his irc buddy who canvassed an entire admin channel on irc for days before only you decided to step in and bother me. i've never been blocked before for any reason, and you've threatened to BAN me. you are the one hounding me, and tothwolf is the one with the pattern of abuse. i'm not intimidated by your threats. i am quite sure you'll block me, but i'm also quite sure that your block will be tenuous and it won't stick. so threaten away. i'm reporting abuse as i see it, whether it's tothwolf or anyone else Theserialcomma (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions history is evidence of stalking, and I've talked with other admins about it, who generally agree with my assessment that you're hounding Tothwolf. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker) 23:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not slander to say 'he looks like a..', that's just opinion. If he said 'he is a criminal on crack', that'd be defamation if it isn't true, but that's not what he said. StickyParkin 00:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defamation
Canvassing, stalking, and defamation all in one edit... many thanks to Eckstsy for proving my point, complete with a URL including what he "believes" to be my picture. Given all this is now in evidence, what's the resolution? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking? I beg your pardon. This is just getting ridiculous. I suggest you stop. Eckstasy (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Danras
I was cleaning up categories and ran across several articles created by Danras (talk·contribs). I am a bit concerned that most of his edits are creating/maintaining very poorly sourced BLPs like Dennis Dechaine and populating categories like Category:People convicted of murdering victims who were later found alive with articles that read more like the National Enquirer than any encyclopedia I've ever read. If it were one or two articles, I wouldn't be as concerned, but this appears to be a pattern of editing dating back to 2006 that has gone unnoticed as much of his editing appears to be in a walled garden of orphan criminal articles. MBisanztalk 02:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at some of these articles, none of them contains any references, but they are all about people who are long dead. Doesn't seem like a BLP panic to me yet, but I'm still digging through his contribs. ⟳ausa کui× 04:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain Dennis Dechaine and Robert Diaz are still living. I haven't done a complete audit, but it looks like at least half of his new articles are about living people. MBisanztalk 09:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, I haven't looked through all these articles but I think there are definitely problems with Butler and Yelder which seems to plagiarise Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University.
The Wikipedia article states without citing a source: "The remains allegedly were put into a sack and then thrown into the Alabama River."
Northwestern states: "The remains allegedly were put into a sack, which Louise and George threw into the Alabama River"
Wikipedia: "The children then admitted that they had fabricated the story, at the behest of a man who had a grievance against George. It was never explained why they also had implicated Louise, or why she had confessed."
Northwestern: "The children then admitted that they had fabricated the story, at the behest of a man who had a grievance against George. It was never explained why they also had implicated Louise, or why she had confessed."
WP: "Less than a week after sentencing, Topsy was discovered alive and well, and residing less than twenty miles away."
NW: Less than a week later, Topsy was discovered alive, well, and residing less than twenty miles away,
Center on Wrongful Convictions gives permission to "reprint, quote, or [p]ost on other web sites with appropriate attribution" but it's not really clear if the commercial aspects of Wp are acceptable and the WP article only refers to the Center on Wrongful article as an "external link" and not as a reference or source and doesn't credit any of the parts copied or clearly derived from their article. Sarah 12:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia: "Police leaked to other inmates that Yarris was a snitch, and he endured days of regular beatings and torture."
deathpenaltyinfo: "Police leaked to other inmates that Yarris was a snitch, and Yarris endured days of regular beatings and torture."
WP: "In an effort to save himself, he asked police what would happen if he had participated in the crime, but was not the murderer. The beatings stopped, and Yarris was charged with capital murder."
DPI: "In an effort to save himself, Yarris asked what would happen if he had participated in the crime but was not the murderer. The beatings stopped, and Yarris was charged with capital murder."
WP:"A fellow inmate made a deal with the DA and began exchanging false information about Yarris in exchange for conjugal visits and reduced sentencing."
DPI: "A fellow inmate made a deal with the D.A. and began exchanging false information about Yarris in exchange for conjugal visits and a reduced sentence."
WP: "This inmate became one of the few witnesses to testify against Yarris at trial."
DPI: "This inmate became one of the few witnesses to testify against Yarris at trial."
WP: "Yarris' alleged motive was that he was angry with his ex-girlfriend, and the victim allegedly looked like her. Yarris' blood type also happened to be among the 25% of the population that matched the actual perpetrator's blood type."
victimsofthestate.org: "Yarris' alleged motive was that he was angry with his ex-girlfriend, and the victim allegedly looked like her...Yarris shared this blood type along with 15% of the population. "
This material was in the original version posted by Danras [19]. Sarah 13:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't keep lifting out comparisons as this is quite clearly an extensive problem but Robert Diaz, particular the "Crimes" section is heavily copied from victimsofthestate.org. If User:Danras is the original author of any of this material (and looking further I've realised that is possible for some but I don't think all) he needs to verify this to OTRS and confirm permissions and he still needs to be able source the material. Posting slabs of material that is copied from other sources without explanation and which isn't written in an encyclopedic tone or from a NPOV and is unverifiable isn't acceptable. Sarah 13:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sarah--this is beyond unacceptable. I don't have time as of yet to help cull through them (ah, the joy of working nights), but we're definitely looking at a major, major copyvio/plagiarism problem here. I'm blocking this user indefinitely until he can come up with a really good explanation for his behavior. Can't be too harsh when dealing with copyright issues ... Blueboy96 14:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I didn't even think to check for copyvios/plagiarism problems. Looks like an open and shut case. ⟳ausa کui× 00:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Blueboy. I find it credible that User:Danras may be the copyright holder of the material at victimsofthestate.org but the material at Northwestern and at deathpenaltyinfo.org were written by entirely different people so even if he can release the victimsofthestate info there's still an extensive and serious plagiarism and copyright problem here, so I endorse your block as appropriate and necessary. And even if Danras owns the content at victimsofthestates, Wikipedia is not just a mirror of other sites and these articles blatantly violate WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:RS, and possibly WP:COI, so User:Danras really needs to adequately explain what he has been doing here. Sarah 00:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RedPenOfDoom
Resolved
– Advised all parties on their talk pages to resolve the content dispute on the relevant article discussion pages, and that attempts to adhere to policy do not usually constitute vandalism. Also directed users to WP:RFC and WP:CIVIL. Manning (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user is bothering me. I'm a fairly new user here and I'm sure that many of their edits to Ally Mcbeal related articles are vandalism. I've tried to respond in a friendly and helpful manner. Can anyone summon up the patience to read through the relevant talk pages on our accounts and do some sifting? I appreciate that I am making this harder by not really knowing what to do in this situation. Alaphent (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide diffs (links to the edits that you think are vandalistic)? RPOD's been around for a while, and I've always found him/her to be productive, though that doesn't automatically mean that you're wrong. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 02:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would if I knew how. I know I'm asking for quite a lot here, but do you think you could read our relevant talk pages and look at recent edit contributions. That isn't to say I don't want to learn what to do in a case such as this. Alaphent (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Alaphent is referring to his interactions with RedPenOfDoom on his talk page. Tiptoetytalk 03:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a sample diff - Ally McBeal diff. It seems there is a dispute about whether the minor characters get their own article page or not. There is a relevant discussion here. I think this is merely a content disagreement and can be resolved on the talk page. My opinion is that it all looks in good faith to me. Nothing on the Alaphent's talk page seems overly objectionable, except possibly the use of the term "fancruft". Manning (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the world of being an admin :-) (BTW - It's not too late to change your mind!) Am looking over it now. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK as far as I see it, much of this information seems to be casting an opinion about who will win the contest. If so, this is not really WP:CRYSTAL, this is actually WP:VANDAL. Can you confirm my interpretation? Manning (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, my opinion was that it could be classified as both. I had asked for a second opinion at AIV, but they declined stating that it wasn't vandalism. Thanks. Plastikspork (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well either way, I think you've been as patient as you need to be. I will commence with a 24 hour block. Let me know if you need any further action via my talk page. You've handled it well thus far IMHO. Manning (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the admin that declined at WP:AIV, I only note that I didn't deny that this could be vandalism. I only noted that the "quick glance" check did not show that it was simple vandalism of the type which could easily be dealt with at WP:AIV. This wasn't some kid inserting swear words into articles, and it was unclear, without considerable explanation and/or investigation, what was wrong with this users edits. I have no problem with a finding that this ended up being vandalism, but complex cases like this are generally hard for a process like WP:AIV to handle. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32 - Agreed and don't worry about it. All's well that ends well. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I also wasn't very clear when I asked at AIV. No worries. Plastikspork (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...whose only real activity is blanking the talk pages of the other two socks[21][22] and vandalizing Barack Obama with the same claim of losing his job because of Obama.[23][24][25]
No point going through the trouble of a sockpuppet report - this is WP:DUCK. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good, good. Thanks Bongwarrior and Jayron32. There's no block notice and I forgot to check the block log.[26] - Wikidemon (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding this...
//* Sysop decrier/detector (rights group displayer), version [0.2.0]
//Originally from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js
importScript('User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js');
...to your monobook.js will display usergroup(s) of the user at their user and talkpages, as well as if they are currently blocked. → ROUX₪ 06:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rick Astley Hoax push
Resolved
– Fully protected for 24 hours. MuZemike 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on board as well. Potential trouble-making due to this post. [27]. Manning (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it keeps up we might want to fully protect it. It's currently at semi, but a bunch of sleeper socks seem to be coming out to insert the hoax info. I don't have time to dig into this now as I'm going offline, but it likely would not hurt to indef block some or all of those accounts. It's entirely possible they're controlled by the same person (though some might also make legit contributions, I haven't checked). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a full protect is worth it. There has been no constructive edits made since June 9 so we're not interfering with anyone's work.Manning (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to report this user for using warnings in an invalid manner to try and stop me from making perfectly reasonable alterations to the article Bill Verna. I warned him to stop putting warnings on my page without discussing the matter at hand, but he insists on doing so even after the warning I gave him about it. It would appear that he does not understand how what he is doing is in any way wrong and he needs to be pulled into line on the matter. I consider his behaviour to be uncivil, but because he is using warning templates incorrectly I felt it would be better to report the matter here instead of going over to the Wikiquette area. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note. I am unable to revert his edits without violating WP:3RR. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you're removing cited information from the article. That is generally well worth issuing a warning. Are you claiming that the source does not exist or does not say what User:GaryColemanFan says it does? → ROUX₪ 06:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying the source can not be verified, and he has not properly cited it (no author of the published work for example). The fact that he has not discussed it - preferring to arbitrarily issue warnings first - is the reason why I brought this issue here. Discussion should take place first, shouldn't it? TaintedZebra (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed discussion should take place first... so where did you discuss with him your concerns about the sourcing? His warnings to you are entirely accurate. Can you explain why it's unverifiable? → ROUX₪ 06:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He wouldn't at first. That's the whole point. He went straight to the warnings without discussing the issue. It's unverifiable because the magazine he uses is not notable and could be nothing more than a local newsletter for all we know. This can't be confirmed or denied. I looked for it and I couldn't find any reference to it except in the Bill Verna article. So it is in violation of WP:V and WP:RS. I also previously mentioned his failure to provide an author, which would be needed for a source that is not online. Online of course an author would not be needed. I don't believe the warnings were justified at all. It was like shooting first and asking questions second. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is applied to articles, not sources. That something doesn't exist online doesn't mean it can't be used as a source; I certainly have many books the text of which doesn't appear online. As for shooting first and asking questions later.. you brought it up on the talkpage eight minutes before coming here. → ROUX₪ 06:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine being not notable means it fails WP:RS. And a magazine is not the same as a book. And just for your information on the chronology of events (off the top of my head) I went to the article's talk page after I warned him on his talk page, but before he stuck the latest warning on my talk page. It was that warning that caused me to come here because he had clearly ignored the warning on his talk page (which was informal - I did not use a template) and I assume he also ignored the article's talk page which would have been the explanation for the eight minutes. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of violations of 3RR, is recruiting someone else to make the third revert any different than doing it yourself? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not and I resent the accusation. The information GCF was providing was not within WP rules so it had to be removed and I couldn't do it because of WP:3RR. People have been asked to this before now so I see no difference in it. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A copy of the article has been provided to TaintedZebra, as requested. I believe that this makes the lack of an author a moot point. The verifiability has should also be cleared up, as the article states what I said it did. I am requesting, therefore, that the sourced information be re-added to the article. The content has since been removed by an editor who claimed that it violated a neutrality policy. Because I am not claiming that Verna was "appreciated and admired as a player throughout the world" but rather than he was described in those terms, I do not believe that this violates NPOV. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. The link only uses the magazine as a source for the statement. Now we would need to find if the link I was provided with actually fulfils WP:RS by itself. If it doesn't then it kills the magazine citation by default. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A source failing the notability guidelines does not mean it isn't reliable. Most of the law texts I use would fail the notability guidelines, because they don't have any third-party coverage. That doesn't mean, however, that they aren't reliable sources. To equate notability with reliability is incorrect. A source not passing WP:N should not lead to removal unless there are actual reasons to call its reliability into question. Ironholds (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This matter piqued my curiosity, so I had a look at this questioned source. (The article in dispute has been deleted, so I used my Supar Admin Powerz to look at the deleted page.) The magazine in question is called Ash Shuja, so I plugged the name into the worldcat.org search tool. The magazine popped up -- it's an Urdu-language publication, available at Cornell U, Columbia U libraries, & at the Library of Congress. (I would assume it's also available at some libraries outside the US, but this is what WorldCat tells us.) I'd say if the publication is listed in WorldCat -- or any other publicly accessible library catalog -- then it can be cited in a Wikipedia article. (Whether Ash Shuja is a reliable source, is a matter I'll leave to the talk page of the next article it is cited in.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that note, Llywrch. I guess it proves that the magazine wasn't a local newsletter, which does help GCF's case a little. However you have noted that it's not an English magazine, so the link that GCF provided gave an English translation of the remark he was trying to use from it. It blurs the accuracy somewhat given that there can be a misinterpretation of a foreign language statement. This places a question mark over verifiability.
With the article being deleted now, I thought it would be prudent to note that GCF has contacted the deleting admin, trying to contest the decision because of this ongoing content dispute. I want to point out that the reason I brought this to the attention of this page was because of GCF's arbitrary use of warning templates. The deletion of the article indicates (in my opinion) that his actions were wrong under WP rules. Besides - this concerned only one citation. There were many others, and consensus was that notability had not been established. I don't think this link would have made any difference. I consider that GCF's reverting of my removals to have been vandalism as he failed at that point to fulfil WP:BURDEN so my calling in for help to avoid a violation of WP:3RR was appropriate as previously explained. TaintedZebra (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many things wrong with the above paragraph I barely know where to begin. So let's start with the simplest: nothing wrong with him warning an editor who is removing sourced facts without any explanation or discussion. Nothing. Please take that on board. Second, it does not place a question mark over verifiability; English-language sources are preferred on Wikipedia, not required. Non-English is better than no reference. Please familiarise yourself with WP:V and WP:RS as they seem to be escaping you in general terms. And finally, ANI is not a substitute for Deletioni Review, so any comments on the validity or not of the deletion belong there. Any questions? → ROUX₪ 01:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Why is the arbitrary use of warning templates tolerated? HE was the vandal because under WP:BURDEN it was up to HIM to discuss it. I said all that was needed at the time in the edit summary - that it was not cited properly (and therefore it was NOT a sourced fact under WP rules for the record). The warning template was an over reaction and applied in an unacceptable manner. That is not a deletion review - that is a proper report to this page. The DRV is background material only. I ask once more for action on this matter, please. TaintedZebra (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no. You were removing sourced information. That is de factovandalism. It was indeed cited properly, so no. I may not be an admin, but to be perfectly blunt? The only person I see action being reasonable against is you. Should GaryColemanFan perhaps have tried to discuss with you? Sure, I guess. However--and this is the key point that you keep forgetting--you were removing sourced information without any discussion. You. Not him. And so he warned you. And you did it again. So he warned you again. Etc. Clearly 'all that needed to be said' wasn't said. Which is why you should have discussed it on the talkpage. To be even more blunt: he has done nothing wrong here. You have. Through misunderstanding, perhaps, but given that all through the above you don't appear to understand how sourcing works (claiming that WP:N applies, which it doesn't, claiming that sources must be in English, which they mustn't) it would appear that you need a refresher course in how Wikipedia works. I would suggest you start here and work your way through the pages linked in order to gain a better understanding of Wikipedia, particularly sourcing and verifiability. I'll be happy to answer questions for you about sourcing and verifiability at my talkpage, but I really don't see any admin taking any action over this. Or if one does, it is likely to be action that will inconvenience you. → ROUX₪ 03:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All warnings issued by GCF were illegal and therefore I had the right to ignore them. I was removing information that failed WP rules, and I strongly disagree that they were sourced correctly. You are applying the interpretation of sourced information way too broadly and you are therefore unable to assist with this any further. TaintedZebra (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ask for an admin ruling on this, please. TaintedZebra (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an admin, and I approve this message (Roux's, that is). After receiving a warning, concluding that the correct reaction is to continue edit-warring rather than to bring up your concerns with the source (and I note from reading the above that you seem to have a very dubious understanding of WP:RS; whether the source qualifies for an article under WP:N is totally irrelevant, though I make no comment on the source in this particular case) is a very questionable approach. GCF possibly should have initiated communication with you too - though really he did, by issuing warnings. GCF's done nothing wrong here. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This tendentious user was let off an indefinite block, and again he is adding unsourced information or information sourced to homemade youtube videos. Despite a talk page message, he continues to say it is up to me to prove that his video is a valid source, which it clearly is not. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Warned properly for 3RR. He does it again, someone can wack him with the banhammer. Ironholds (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reported to AIV after more warring. Ironholds (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest and support a community ban then. Let off an indef and comes back for more? Lets not give him a third chance if he's chosen to throw away the second. Ironholds (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently stumbled upon Nableezy (talk·contribs) a few times too many to my liking where he reverts me automatically and, many times, makes clear mistakes on top of bias and civility issues.
The most recent account included three times changing the meaning of the source in a time span of 10 hours.
[28] - Bell reported that "everyone has a tragedy, about executions they saw"
Source (Stewart Bell, "What happened at Jenin?", National Post, April 15, 2002) says: Ahmed Tibi, an Arab member of the Israeli Knesset, said ... "everyone has a tragedy, about executions they saw"
[29], [30] - first-hand accounts of massacres was scarce. One such example was
Source (Stewart Bell, "What happened at Jenin?", National Post, April 15, 2002) says: The lack of solid information has fuelled the rumour mill. A grocery store owner near Jenin spoke in a hushed voice about seeing ... Asked to elaborate, he declined ... When a National Post reporter inspected the truck, it contained not bodies but apples and other food and supplies for the troops.
Here's a link to the source (scroll down) - I have validated the source and can email an original copy to anyone interested.
My main concern here is that Nableezy is (a) confusing the project with a battlefield, where he requires explanations that the text is already biased in his favor to let go of accusations that others allow "just the one that fits the narrative of [their] liking",[31] and (b) that this conduct is spilling over into articles in a damaging manner where the sources don't even matter to him.
I noticed Nableezy was blocked recently for edit warring on another Israel-Palestinian related article but I haven't seen any warning/notice given in regards to to Final decision of the WP:ARBPIA.
Comment: Nableezy seems to insist that his edits were not erroneous and does not show recognition of the problem with his decorum (per "Your proclamations dont mean much to me"). I can't see this as something that should be ignored when occurring on a repeated basis. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a mountain out of a molehill. He appears to be arguing not over what the source says but he thinks that extraneous information like troops listening to Allanis Morrisette and whispering isn't necessary. I'd add that while his tone may not have been overly civil on the talk page, you are experienced enough to know that 'crying wolf' often escales rather than deflates tensions. If he tries to engage in comments about the editors and not the edits, just ignore that part of his comment or remind him that it is best if the argument focuses on the edits. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo Narson,
Its not as bad as the previous edits but with yet another edit -- "collaborators" are everywhere removed as "needless information"[32] -- Nableezy is misrepresenting the testimony 4 edits in a row.
And please show how I have "misrepresented the testimony" or is that uncanny ability to say others actions are sinister and improper without the slightest bit of evidence rearing its ugly head? Nableezy (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo Nableezy,
Its an improvement, sure, but he also said they were everywhere which seems quite germane to the quote. I believe you should, out of true good faith, revert this portion of the text back to its previous version. If you fix this and promise to stop reverting me on sight (try suggesting changes on talk maybe?), then I'd be happy to close this "review request". Fair enough?
p.s. where did the "and rumors were abundant" text go?[33]JaakobouChalk Talk 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC) add diff 15:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Last things first, we dont need to quote everything the source says, this is an encyclopedia and superlatives are not needed. I dont care about withdrawing your "community review", if others feel my behavior is improper I would welcome the critique. I am not reverting you on sight, so that isnt a problem. I think the current text is fine, so no I will not revert it back to your favored version. And about the narrative of your liking. You removedmultiple times from the references and notes section an answer by Erekat but left a direct question to him out of fear of inflating "Erekat apologetics/further propaganda". When you cut out the answer to a question but keep the question you are in fact promoting your favored narrative without any response. It is not a personal attack to say that, and I would hope you can see some mistakes in your actions and attempt to resolve them. Also, I asked an admin to notify me of the ARBPIA decision (any admin here who reads this feel free), so that shouldnt bother you anymore either. Nableezy (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nableezy,
Changing the article body 4 times - 3 of them to something not said in the cited source - and then making further edits which removes highly relevant text is not a great way of helping the project and collaborate with fellow editors.
As a side note I add that the rumor mill is clearly relevant and not something to be dismissed with "we dont need to quote everything the source says".
I am not going to respond again unless you can show what I changed that was not said in the cited source. Your proclamations dont mean much to me so I will not spend my time arguing with you unless you can actually show what I did. Bye, Nableezy (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet Investigations probably would've been a better place to put this but the socking seems to be so obvious that I don't think a CheckUser report is needed. The Borusmat socks User talk:Borusmat5 and User talk:Borusmat4 have both made unconstructive edits within minutes of each other in particular attacking the article Biscuit. I don't know how many socks there are or what they'll do next but I think this needs intervention.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking as clearly abusive socks, though it does not appear the main account is blocked at the moment. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender 11:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also preemptively blocked Borusmat2; was a vandalism only account last used several months ago.⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article The Art of Dying (Cashis album) was nominated for deletion on June 23, 2009. Approx. 4 hours later, user:Rikanatti removed the AfD notice without comment. The artist who did the album, Cashis, has an article that lists his manager as Rikanatti. The same user has also removed a WP:SPS tag from the article on Cashis a couple of times, despite the fact that the article relies heavily on SPS's. Normally I'd put this on the COI noticeboard, but given that the user is intentionally sabotaging the AfD process, I thought it was better to place it here. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll relist it so it can go the full 7 days.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I made the nominator aware as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a borderline G10? – ukexpat (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to the original poster's question depends on the answer to this one: "What encyclopedic purpose does that illustration serve?" Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image deleted for licensing issues (F3/F9). Black Kite 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, exactly, was the licensing issue? The image was a scaled down version of File:Barack Obama.jpg, a public domain image, with an X over it. There may be valid reasons to delete the image, but G10 and F3/F9 are not them. --auburnpilottalk 19:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should not have polemical content on user pages anyways. What is more the image is clearly anti-someone and the title of the image seems to agree with this theory. It exists solely to disparage its subject, G10. That is why 3 admins have deleted it as a G10 so far. Chillum 01:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A little background info - that image was created and uploaded by me for use in the following userbox: User:McJeff/Userboxes/NObama. It was speedy deleted almost precisely a year ago by admin User:Anetode for being used in a divisive userbox. I complained that it was being targeted when many anti-Bush userboxes were not, Anetode deleted some of those, then admin User:Orangemike, who had a userbox with some variation of "Bush is a war criminal", restored them. Unless I'm mistaken, there was never any formal discussion on whether the image was appropriate. The claim that it was deleted three times, I am pretty sure, is inaccurate.
I don't put that kind of stuff on my userpage anymore, but unlike my other "potentially divisive" political userboxes, this one was in use by several other editors, so I did not CSD-U1 it like I did the others. McJeff (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Baird (Canadian politician) BLP issue
Several days ago, there was a discussion about whether to include dubiously-sourced allegations of homosexuality in John Baird (Canadian politician). That discussion is now archived here. In that discussion, there was clear consensus i. not to include the allegations, and ii. to archive the discussion on its conclusion. Nfitz (talk·contribs) has been repeatedly de-archiving the conversation against consensus in an effort to continue pushing the view (which he's the only one to hold) that the allegations should be included. I would appreciate the eyes of an uninvolved admin or two in case a block becomes necessary. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:SteveSmith is grossly misrepresenting the situation. He has been selectively archiving the discussion, without including all the comments; at first I thought this was in error, but after I pointed it out, he didn't acknowledge or apologise. In addition I have absolutely no idea why only a portion of the discussion is being archived. I'm quite disturbed taht there seems to be an attempt to hide the discussion. User:SteveSmith is also misrepresenting the dubiousness of the sources reporting sexual preference. There have been two major publications thave have made reference to his sexual preference. Surely an open discussion about these sources should not be hidden any more than the discussion of whether he is a vegetarian or not! Nfitz (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not (and as a gay man I distinctly do not like it), revelation of a non-heteronormative sexual orientation in a public person (or indeed private figure; see gaybashing) can be detrimental to their public image and/or career. Ergo we must only include such statements when they can be reliably sourced. The two publications you mention are 1) NOW, a free Toronto weekly newspaper that is, I'll be charitable, not exactly known for their balanced nature (it is significantly leftist in the Canadian sense) or the depth and insight of their investigative reporting, 2) Frank, which is a satire/gossip/scandal magazine. Not exactly the pinnacle of reliable and responsible journalism, either of them. as a Torontonian I read NOW weekly (though I must have glossed over this article; I stick mainly to Savage Love, restaurant reviews, movies, etc, as NOW's political coverage often leaves much to be desired), and I would certainly not use them (or indeed Eye) as a reliable source for much more than confirming concert dates. So there's that for the sources.
As for the issue itself, with potential BLP violations we must hold to an even more rigorous level of sourcing than for any other facts, due to the very real consequences to the subjects in question. Archiving the discussion seems to be an excellent way to move on and get this information out of the eyes of the general public unless and until--this is the important part--it can be reliably sourced to the horse's mouth. → ROUX₪ 03:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lengthy thread on WT:RFA here. I considered an unblock pending community review but decided against it as Peter has not requested it and I couldn't reach Law as the blocking admin, so I'm just going to throw it up and see where it lands. Also, I will be pretty much out of touch for the next two days and it wouldn't be right to take an admin action and then be unavailable to discuss it. Best, --Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could have been communicated better but it's a fine block. It's a pretty straight line from someone wanting to destroy Wikipedia - laying out a plan - starting to act on it - getting banned/blocked. If Peter wants to walk the whole thing back, fine. But otherwise...RxS (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more bothered about the way it was done, in the middle of a discussion, it smacks of cowboy adminship to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also endorse the end result of a block. Considering that he called for wikipedia to be destroyed then tried to put it into action (however unlikely it was to succeed) a block to prevent disruption is justified, at least until Peter Damian retracts the threat and pledges not to intentionally disrupt or try to destroy wikipedia. Davewild (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was a ban from participating in RfAs ever considered, or would something of that nature require ArbCom or similar? Tarc (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The general conclusion was that we can't ban people from RFA because it leads to a "slippery slope" of what is/is not acceptable as a vote, and that since his disruptive edits were outside AN/I as well it wouldn't cover everything. Ironholds (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whose conclusion was that? And b'crats can certainly discount ppl who routinely post "oppose" with no reason except to make a point, they've done it before. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. Prevents disruption and the attempted "destruction" of en-wiki. Ironholds (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Wehwalt. Yet another fine example of a power-crazy admin gone berserk, just 'cos he can. And any other administrators who agree with this block are just as guilty as Law is. --MalleusFatuorum 15:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Guess I'm "guilty" then. Last I heard, accounts here aren't meant for projects to "destroy Wikipedia." Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Had any attempt been made to "destroy Wikipedia" your argument may at least have had some some semblance of credibility. --MalleusFatuorum 15:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) What project? No such project has been started. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like a straightforward call to gather others and do harm. Blocks are meant to protect the project from harm. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my post below about internet stalking and punishing here for what happens elsewhere, also, then this is a preventative block? Because I see no harm or disruption from Damien. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please answer the question: To What project do you refer? Please provide a link to the project here on Wikipedia which Damien started. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block. Overreaction much? He called (offwiki) for others (many of whom are banned trolls, the rest of whom aren't going to play) to "consistently vote against" all Rfas. Simple enough to ban him from Rfa, or discuss other options. He's hardly going to destroy Wikipedia with that petty gesture. Just make a note on the B'crat noticeboard that he's acting a little like Boothy and be done. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As was said at WT:RFA, Peter's efforts to destroy Wikipedia have much the same likelihood of success as Pinky and the Brain's efforts at world domination from their lab cage.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, exactly like Pinky and the Brain but without the catchy theme song. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite unlike the DougsTech incident in that Peter creates content. It is, however, similar in that he was blocked unilaterally at the tail end of an WT:RFA discussion for reasons asserted to be unrelated to the alleged disruption at RFA. The similar block of DougsTech was overturned. It's surprising a single vote and off-site thread kicked up so much dust and perhaps speaks to our proclivity to happily feed trolls at our dinner table. His Nietzsche-esque goal to destroy Wikipedia and create something better in his place smacks of tilting at windmills and he can be safely ignored. Nevertheless it is a good faith (if misguided and ill-advised) attempt to create something better. The block should probably be overturned as there will be less drama all-around. –xenotalk 15:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where is the on-wiki statement that he is attempting to destroy Wikipedia? All I see is him trying to reform RFA. Direct links to diffs onwiki of his threats would be nice. Or are we now blocking people for what they say offwiki? I have some names to submit... Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the only on-wiki copies of his threats have been posted by people other than PD. Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block It's not right to in the middle of a discussion about how to handle the situation. Since his vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceranthor 2 Peter Damian's edits were confined to improving the Nannette Streicher article and more importantly discussing his vote at WT:RfA. If he was serious about trying to bring down wikipedia, why didn't he vote in the other RfAs that were open at the same time as Cerantor's? Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find the application of a block in the absense of any on-wiki disruption to be disturbing. Are we really going to begin holding users accountable for what is said in other places on the internet? If a few baseless !votes at RFA are a blockable offense, then a whole slew of "per so-and-so" !voters had best brace themselves for the banhammer. This is silly. Shereth 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is precisely why I find the block less than appropriate. Shereth 15:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression we tried to avoid punishing people here for what they say elsewhere. Are we now internet stalkers and paranoid conspiracy theorists? I must have missed that memo. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very difficult to believe it was just one RFA, he produced the off-wiki statement including the plan to vote against all RFAs early on the 24 May June then soon aferwards opposed 6 RFAs within 7 minutes. Davewild (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In breach of which policy exactly? Would you be equally arguing in favour of a block if he'd supported six RfAs within 7 minutes? Somehow I doubt it, even though it's plainly evident that the real way to destroy wikipedia is to promote as many poor administrators as quickly as possible. --MalleusFatuorum 15:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone had made a threat to try and destroy wikipedia using any kind of plan beforehand (supporting or opposing RFAs)then I would certainly support preventing them by block if necessary. When someone has made a threat to disrupt wikipedia follow through on one point of that plan then I do not see how we can trust they will not implement the other parts of their plan such as point 4 - subtle vandalism. Is someone is willing to pledge to check every mainspace edit and the sources they are based on to ensure this is not happening? However if consensus is against the block then so be it. Davewild (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this threat made? What disruption has occurred? Again I state, this is a preventative block based on off-wiki commentary, on a site I might add where people routinely blow off steam and complain about Wikipedia to no effect at all here. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He linking to the statement while implementing the first point of it on an RFA. I don't see much difference between that and just making a copy on-wiki. I know people say all kinds of things off-site but it's when they actually start acting on them that I think we should respond. Davewild (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're against linking, and want to prevent that, or against opposing on Rfa's, and want to oppose that? I'm not seeing what damage the block is preventing. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These bold blocks never cease to amaze me. Why not simply bring this to ANI first, saying "I think this calls for a long term block or ban, what do we all think?" Then wait an hour or so, and if consensus for a block develops, then enforce it; if it doesn't, then you shouldn't be blocking. Imposing an indef block after a tendentious WT:RFA discussion that had come to no conclusion whatsoever is just a bad idea. I'm not arguing for or against a block of Damian in general, just saying that this was ill-advised (predictably so), and that the objections above demonstrate why. If you expect a block to possibly be controversial (as Law must have), then maybe you should start a discussion about it instead of doing it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose block At least for now. So far, all Peter is doing is opposing all RfAs. If he intends to destroy Wikipedia by that method while continuing to produce good content then let him. Letting him be unblocked and continue his tilting at windmills will result in more productive content than the reverse. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here and Peter's actions do still provide a net benefit. If he decides to destroy Wikipedia using an actually disruptive technique we can deal with that then. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block: What policy was violated in his off-Wiki comment to "consistently vote against" all RFAs? Topic ban him from a RFA if you must, but an indef block for such a comical gesture is a bit far. Do you really think that "consistently vot(ing) against" RFAs will really lead to WP's downfall? seicer | talk | contribs 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) (3x) Oppose block. Agree with Shereth. Off-wiki activity should not be reason for a block. We cannot block people for doing what they like on other websites, that's what they are perfectly allowed to do. We block them if and only if they disrupt Wikipedia itself with their editing. Peter Damian did not do so and as such, blocking him was certainly incorrect. No matter what one might think about his !vote at one single RFA, he has not behaved in any way that warrants a block. If he does do so, we can still block him but as long as he does not break any rules here, we cannot block him and have to deal with it another way. I prefer WP:DENY personally. Regards SoWhy 16:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that things like Peter's sockpuppet category were disposed of under the assumption that he would be leaving peacefully. If he has returned, it's time to re-evaluate his past "contributions" to the project. As far as I'm aware, this includes sockpuppeting extensively, being banned, trolling on his user talk page with retirement banners, trolling at RFA, and trolling with an Editor's Association or whatever. I'm all for second chances, but this one seems to be used up. I'm not sure the people opposing the block here are getting the full picture. (And if anyone can locate that category, I'd be much obliged. I can't find it anywhere.) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all fine with discussing a block first but here we are talking about a block done for incorrect reasons before taking time to consult the community about it. I think it's perfectly possible to oppose this block and still support a block after discussion for other reasons. Regards SoWhy 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could not agree more. This discussion regard this block. Please don't muddy the waters with general discussion. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. That's a bit too far. Not checking the right checkbox on form 12W-A is a reason to put on blinders? That's a bit extreme. The block summary may not be descriptive enough, but that isn't a reason to forego a discussion regarding the blocked user. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing whether Law's block was appropriate. As SoWhy stated, and I agreed, there is no problem discussing whether Damien should be blocked - but not by adding post hoc rationalizations to this block. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, my comments speak only to the present case. –xenotalk 16:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the Established Editors Association was trolling? 10/10 for assuming good faith there MZMcBride. It appeared to many people like a genuine attempt to improve wikipedia by increasing representation. Nev1 (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Folks supporting the block know that ArbCom unbanned User:Thekohser the other day, right? That's a pretty good indication that off-wiki posturing isn't really blockable. I can see the motivation behind the block and that's fine, but in the grand scheme of things, it would have been better to get some consensus first. Tony Fox(arf!) 16:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a provisional unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that people can blow hot air off-Wiki all they want, and we don't seem to have a basis in enforcement to do anything about it here. Nothing Damian has done since that comment has been earth-shattering; much like Kurt Weber and DougsTech, it's easily ignorable. Tony Fox(arf!) 16:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is very likely Peter Damian would be unblocked soon and that should be handled at least by admins unrelated to Wikipedia Review that has caused this wasteful dispute for everyone.-Caspian blue 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally the blocking admin would do that, and I have asked for that action on Law's talk page. There's a strong sentiment above (including from multiple admins) that this block was not good as enacted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse block, since we don't really need this kind of WP:SOAPBOXing going on. However, I would support a full unblock if he retracted his published desire to bring harm to the project. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you support preventative blocking, based on off-wiki activity. Just checking. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Not in any way, shape or form. However, I do support this one block based on the facts presented of this one case. I make no statements about general actions to be taken in the future, merely on this one situation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think KC is suggesting that this particular block, at least as implemented, seems to be a case of preventive blocking based on off-wiki activity. Personally I think that's an accurate interpretation—Damian said something off-wiki that people did not like (understandably) and then linked to it in an RfA vote. Nothing destructive has actually occurred, but the assumption was that it could. Alternatively, the block was solely for the off-wiki comment and was not trying to prevent anything, but I think this opposing here also clearly view that as problematic. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block per SoWhy above. If off-wiki comments are really a blocking offence, there are a fair few IRC logs and ED pages that make interesting reading. For the record, Peter has opposed 11 RFAs in his entire history on Wikipedia (and supported 3); for comparison, even a hardline "support by default unless there's a strong reason to oppose" editor such as User:Majorly has 64 RFA opposes. – iridescent 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those opposing the block because it's based on off-wiki comments, the bright line here is that off-wiki comments were followed up by on-wiki actions. No one is suggesting that comments made off-wiki are blockable. His on-wiki actions are plainly done in bad faith and are clearly pointy. RxS (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a violation of WP:POINT if the votes he made caused disruption. The votes themselves didn't dent the change of anyone running for RfA, and didn't harm wikipedia. What did cause disruption was people trying to get Peter Damian blocked or banned for opinion before he had violated policy. Denying his votes recognition would have been far more effect, but instead some people decided to make their own pointedremarks. Nev1 (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be clear to you, but what's clear to me is that this block was arbitrary, out of process, and not supported by consensus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 June 2009
and that "bright line" was opposing Rfa's. Wow. Now, opposing Rfa's is just too dang disruptive to have, I'm sure! /sarcasm. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will not be long given the current rate of "progress" before it's forbidden for anyone to oppose at any RfA. --MalleusFatuorum 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously not about merely opposing at RFA, strawman equiped rhetorical outrage aside, this is about threats and following through with those threats. RxS (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block Once you link to an off-wiki comment on-wiki they cease to be off-wiki. This person is basically describing to us how he is going to disrupt Wikipedia, of course we should prevent this with a block. I wonder if everyone opposing the block is aware of the full extent of the situation, several people have mentioned voting in RfAs when Peter also promised to do subtle vandalism and to attempt to demoralise vandal fighters. Please don't over simplify things. Chillum 16:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Peter really wanted to destroy wikipedia then his tactic ought to have been to support RfAs of plainly unsuitable candidates, not oppose them. That would be one sure way of chasing the regular editors away, as they get confronted by the abuse of administrative powers like this example. --MalleusFatuorum 16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Chillum. He linked his own comments here, that's not some paranoid stalkers trying to foist offwiki comments in an attempt to sabotage or discredit him. He did that himself. He's laid out his plan, I see no reason not to block preventatively. That's what we're supposed to block for. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Logic therefore dictates that you should immediately block yourself, to prevent the possibility of disruption caused by a potential mental breakdown. --MalleusFatuorum 16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(was responding to your original post, then got an ec) No, because we should assume good faith that you, me, or whoever isn't going to fly off the handle and attempt to destroy Wikipedia. But there's evidence to the contrary to the point that I can't assume good faith in Peter starting a thread and then linking it here. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block, basically per Nev, JoshuaZ, and Xeno; as the last outlines, a block is less reasonable here than it was for DougsTech, and inasmuch as I opposed our blocking DT, believing that single !votes at RfA are necessarily non-disruptive, I can't endorse this one. To be sure, if Peter does something more pernicious, we might revisit the issue, but for now we cannot rightly conclude that the net effect on the project of his continuing to edit should be negative. Joe (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break
Endorse block at this time. I would advocate the allowance of Peter to continue conversation on his talk page if he so desired. If we are not understanding his intent, then perhaps he can clarify. re: the items being said "off-wiki": Peter himself brought the link to WP and posted it in this post, so my perception is that he is effectivly saying it here. To add a bit of clarification to the matter, it appears to me that this editor has also edited under the following user names:
Peter Damian II(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) which was moved with this: 10:21, December 6, 2008 WJBscribe (talk | contribs | block) moved User talk:Peter Damian II to User talk:Peter Damian ? (Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Peter Damian II" to "Peter Damian") (revert)
Now my own personal view of what I've researched so far is that Peter was originally one of our most valuable and prolific contributors, but fell into disagreements with others. (perhaps over animal rights?). My view at this point is that his efforts are geared toward extracting revenge for the original ban, and his perception is one that WP needs to be "destroyed" in order to be "re-built". I'd suggest, that since our site and its content is liscensed under CC-BY-SA and GDFL, that it is not necessary to "destroy" our site, but that one may visit godaddy.com, purchase a domain name, and simply "build" the site he deems to be more worthy of encyclopedic content. I don't find an admission of intent to "destroy" to be the least bit encouraging. Full disclosure: I was not around for much of this (2003-2008), so I would welcome the input of editors, admins, and arbs who are more familiar with the details of history. I fully understand that there are likely missing pieces to this puzzle, and am willing to modify my opinions with more relevant input. — Ched : ? 16:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And now Peter, who is known to be opposed to the role of content-phobics in Wikipedia gets blocked during an on-going discussion by someone who got through RfA a month ago on a DYK/vandal-fighting ticket? Wow. HansAdler 17:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that the Nannette Steicher article appears to be a copy of the pre-existing German wikipedia article, not an original creation and no credit was made to the German authors or article by Peter Damian. I have added the Translated page template to the talk page which I think is sufficient for credit? Davewild (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...the place should be blown up and destroyed could be taken by some as a call to vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't quote what comes before it: [T]he majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and [...]. This could be understood by some to refer to themselves, which might lead them to overreact, sort of proving Peter's point. Not that I agree with Peter, but there are some problems with the most vocal part of our community and with the dynamics of discussions such as the one on the RfA talk page. HansAdler 17:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only because you brought it up, I did see it. I've found that kind of thing tends to say more about the writer than anyone else. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot one data point, he brought his off-wiki threat on-wiki RxS (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't forget it. I edited the time line to make it clearer where that happened. HansAdler 17:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block as administered. Controversial blocks should not occur in the middle of discussions without consensus. This should have beed discussed at ANI and consensus developed BEFORE pushing the block button.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After looking through the various block logs of the accounts, it appears that this is not just a matter of "opinion" or "Hyperbole". There are blocks for 3RR, abusing multiple accounts to avoid bans, block evasion, vandalism, parole violation, and dare I even mention the "incivility" item. Also, while the terms "lawyer", "legal", and other items mentioned in WP:NLT are not explicitly mentioned, this post certainly suggests an intent on building a "case" to present to those who would "fund" our efforts here. — Ched : ? 17:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just speaking to the last part of your comment, I think that is pretty clearly not a legal threat. It seems to be a threat to give a report to (presumably) large donors to Wikipedia—there's no mention whatsoever of going to court or anything like that. That diff is not edifying at all, but WP:NLT just does not come into play in my view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) and (out of sequence post) Understood, and agreed BTP; however, I think it does speak to the intent of the editor in question. I don't see the intent at this point to be constructive in any manner. In my eyes, it shows a clear intent to act upon the declaration of intent to "destroy". That is the primary item I think is most relevant in this particular thread. — Ched : ? 17:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, you believe that threatening to ask donors to pull future donations is a blockable offense? Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In and by itself, no. However, as an "item" in a list of intentions, to be used to an end result, Yes. (big picture view) — Ched : ? 18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The blocking policy is quite explicit. Which of those criteria justifies this block in your view? --MalleusFatuorum 18:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Common rationales for blocks, protection subsection, bullet 2: "making personal, professional or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site)". This is clearly a personal threat to Wikipedia, and the phrase "Including outside the Wikipedia site" has been a part of the policy since at least a year ago (I didn't look farther back than April 2008), and has been uncontested in all of that time. This may not be the NLT definition of a "Legal threat" but blocking policy also includes as blockable offenses "personal" and "professional" threats as well. Again, these two types of threats have been part of the policy since at least April 2008, and quite possibly much earlier. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The common rationales listed there are not all-inclusive. I think the background leading to this block (and speaking only of this editor) matches and meets all four goals listed at Wikipedia:BLOCK#Purpose_and_goal, along with the preventative (rather than punitive) goal of a block. If the likelihood of disruption wanes, the block can and should be lifted. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock This is awfully silly. He couldn't "destroy Wikipedia" even if he wanted to, and doesn't strike me as muddled enough to believe otherwise. Topic ban maybe, but that's not something to be decided on WT:RFA. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. Frankly, I find the "didn't happen here, can't do anything about it" argument completely unconvincing. The thread is written about this place, in a completely open, publicly-viewable forum. Personally, I don't even have any problem with a thread entitled "How to utterly destroy Wikipedia." I think that these things are good to discuss, as they provide insight into the biggest problems that face us and the road to destruction; (theoretically) they would enable us to change, address the issues and hopefully solve the problems (I admit, I'm an idealist). Discussion is good, criticism is good, but when the user actually starts implementing a plan to destroy WP and provides a direct link as form of explanation... come on. It doesn't really get much clearer that they are trying to "utterly destroy Wikipedia". Should we be good bureaucrats (in the RL sense of the word, naturally) and wait until he breaches Bylaw 13, Section 33(c) before we block him? Should we wait until he embarks upon point 4, the subtle vandalism? Oh but hang on, the thing about subtlety is that it’s just so damn... subtle. Or should we just say "urm, actually, we don't really want to be destroyed and we aren't going to let you try and do it here?" We have long passed the point of naiveté. To throw a WP-meme at you, there's AGF and then there’s plain old stupidity. – Toon 17:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose to Block - There is nothing in our policies or guidelines that suggest such a block is acceptable. This is Wikianarchy at its best and is a complete destruction of the values of our encyclopedia. This also supports drama mongering by those who called for the block, which happen to be the only ones causing problems. Those who support this block are not acting in any regard in Wikipedia's best interest. I am a blatant enemy of Peter Damian. Most people know that. I do not say these words lightly. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support block, after a lot of thought. Intentions are important. If someone adds mistyped gibberish to one of our pages, we politely revert it, and ask if we can help with translating. But if someone's goals are specifically to damage our project, even if the way they go about it doesn't seem too likely to succeed, that is still the very point of a preventative ban. Peter Damian should be encouraged to start his own, better project - almost all our work here is freely available under GFDL, so he can have it all to build from. He should be encouraged to criticize in a way we can use to improve our project. But we shouldn't welcome someone who comes straight out saying he intends to destroy us. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support block. It makes sense that people threatening to assassinate the president of the United States are arrested, especially if they have set out a specific plan to do so. This is essentially a parallel situation. Peter has publicly declared he is planning to destroy Wikipedia. He has even set out a numbered list of activities to achieve that goal, and has already acted on the first one. He is trying to destroy the encyclopedia, not just unintentionally causing disruption like Kmweber and DougsTech. I believe a block was necessary, and the current one was justified and should remain in place until/unless Peter promises to cease his quest to destroy Wikipedia. Timmeh 18:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nuanced opinion that cannot be reduced to a sound bite: expressing dislike of the site's response to controversial voting patterns at RFA. This is the third time in less than a year that conduct RFC has been circumvented in favor of multiple rounds of drama/ban discussion etc. That does not speak well for us, collectively, as a project. We have dispute resolution venues; it would be far better to use them. That said, PeterDamian was formerly community banned, and was allowed to return upon terms against which a portion of the community has procedural objections. There is no doubt that he can contribute encyclopedic content. Can he do so without also causing disruption that exceeds the considerable benefits of that content? Is he a net positive--and if not, can he be? These unanswered questions leave me unable to support or oppose the block. Requesting that if he does return, the matter proceed to an immediate conduct RfC. Durova273 featured contributions 18:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. Enough of the ridiculous drama already. We've got better things to spend our time on. The drama to content ratio, at this point, in my opinion, is not a net benefit. That said, I think throwing insults at the blocking admin is unnecessary. لennavecia 18:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block - user announces intention to disrupt Wikipedia. Links to announcement on wikipedia. Begins implementing an item from the list of disruption tactics. Any reason to believe he won't do the others? No. Ergo, block is preventing further disruption. → ROUX₪ 18:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block and WP:TROUT to those who oppose it. "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the face of an upraised knife" and second-guessing an administrator who takes decisive, preventative action in the face of a stated threat serves to undermine and disincentivize those who stand ready to defend Wikipedia against disruption. The only real question is whather an apology and retraction from the blockee would be acceptable and grounds for an unblock--I don't think it would be, given the fervency and intensity of the original statement, but on this score others might reasonably differ. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stated threat? Your post right there is more of a threat than anything put forth about Peter Damian. If anything, you should be indeffed on your own rationale. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone asked above why Law would block first, and seek consensus later. The answer is clear and can be found in this thread - by changing the status quo, he made unblocking the action that needs consensus instead of blocking. Others have asked why an off-wiki comment should spark on-wiki action. In addition to the reasons noted by others (bringing the issue on-wiki by quoting/linking and by taking action in support of his off-wiki "plan"), its been my opinion that while off-wiki behavior that is unrelated to Wikipedia is irrelevant for our purposes, off-wiki behavior that is directly related to Wikipedia often and necessarily plays a role in on-wiki enforcement (think Bedford, Nichalp, Thekohser, the many opposes based on WR participation, and many other instances). Even so, this block was hasty and premature. There is something to be said for extending folks like Peter extra rope - either you give them the opportunity climb up, or you ensure that when they hang themselves with it the end is definitive. Nathan T 19:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...by changing the status quo, he made unblocking the action that needs consensus instead of blocking." Well said, but of course that's precisely the problem. In a sense it was a smart move for someone who wanted Damian blocked, because now it is unblocking which is difficult, not blocking. But we are talking about an indefinite block for an editor who has contributed good content (and a lot of drama, obviously), and in that situation I think that is simply not how things should work. Incidentally I imagine a lot of the people here opposing the block are opposing primarily (or even solely) the process, not so much the idea that something needed to be done about Damian. One could easily argue that asking for consensus on this first could have resulted in a fairly quick solution backed by multiple editors. I think a simple rule for all admins before making a block should be to think, "Will this cause a shitstorm at ANI?" If the answer is yes (as it should have been for this) then post a comment on ANI (or wherever) instead of blocking, even if blocking benefits your position because you know it will be difficult to get consensus to undo it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock. Indefinite blocks for trolling are reserved for SPAs, which Peter Damian is not. There are other ways to deal with trolling, the best is to ignore it. Kusma (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when? Indef blocks are used for pattern disruption or to prevent incredibly likely further disruption. → ROUX₪ 19:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse If PD will just settle down and make useful edits to articles - which he certainly can and has done - then he would be welcome. If he insists on all this pointless attention-seeking drama - which alas he does - then he should be blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock So where we know where he is. Has socked in the past. Likely to do so again. Let's keep him on the radar. Does edit content well after all - and the fact that a stated aim of destroying Wikipedia doesn't seem to marry to actively improving it is clearly an indication of his - err.... issues. Pedro : Chat 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say that blocking Peter Damian for disruption has really, really, really passed un-noticed and not tied up lots of people in discussion and argument. Is there any reason why I shouldn't simply block the blocking admin - and everyone commenting here (including me) - for the disruption this action has taken? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Break
Oppose, and a great big "Wake up, people": Off wiki is off Wikipedia. We do not, have not, and will not allow people to go searching through the web looking for similar account names, or trying to tie identities to account names, or alleging similarities, or the like to try to "get" people. The rules and policies of Wikipedia apply here and only here. They apply nowhere else, and one reason that the "badsites" and the like exist is because of the exasperation people feel when they think they're getting ganged up on or watched for any misplaced word. This kind of block (and indefinite, too!) was for something off Wikipedia. Do you want people looking for your entire Internet history to try to find something to hang you with? Do you want people to look for similar account names and say they're you? Do you want to have to prove who you are so as to free yourself from every charge? Do you want to be at Fark and then get blocked here for saying a dirty word there? Don't be stupid, people. Additionally, this block, without warning, without discussion, without review (all of which are violations of policy), was indefinite. We don't do that to IP trolls. But a long time contributor like Peter Damian who obviously cares enough to be angry... yeah. This is doltish, and the people endorsing are either not thinking or hypocritical. Geogre (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that PD linked to it himself, and is fulfilling one of the items he himself listed. So this isn't some sort of witch-hunt trying to find information, it is information provided by the user. → ROUX₪ 20:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User makes threat off wiki to destroy it. User begins to carry out plan on Wikipedia, by mass opposing RFAs. Ergo, user is blocked for trying to destroy Wikipedia. I can't see what the issue is. User said they will destroy Wikipedia, user carries out plan, user is blocked. What else is there to it? I can't understand the opposition against a block for someone with such a blatant disregard for Wikipedia's well-being. It's like having a disease, but refusing to get the cure for it, despite the disease is actively destroying you. Complete madness. Majorlytalk 20:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's more than a little hyperbolic. "User said they will destroy Wikipedia, user carries out plan..." Really? Where and when did that happen? (sorry, but some RfA votes don't cut if for me). And Damian is "actively destroying" us? Really? I don't like his comments or his actions, and I'm quite open to serious sanctions (possibly including an indef block), but let's try to avoid blowing this out of all proportion, and let's respect the fact that there are a number of people opposed to the process by which this block was put into effect (i.e. in the context of an ongoing discussion in which there was no consensus for an indef block), and that that is a legitimate view to have. Thinking the block was smart and righteous is legitimate too, so let's just try to discuss calmly, to the extent that any discussion which started at WT:RFA and migrated to ANI can ever be calm. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that the blocking admin promptly ended his wikipedia day less than 20 minutes after his block, and has not yet responded to a single thing regarding the block. Hipocrite (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly believe that a one line oppose at RfAs that can easily be discounted by Crats chosen to decide such things could break Wikipedia? Gesh, Majorly. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a really stupid and unproductive block. Wikipedia is not the Tiananmen Square massacre ffs; legitimate criticism of the many faults in our governance (especially off site) needs to be cherished, not stifled or censored. --John (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking someone who is actively trying to destroy Wikipedia is now stupid and unproductive? What about all those vandals who are blocked? Majorlytalk 20:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think people are trying to answer the wrong question. Why not discuss how best to deal with Peter Damian? Whether or not this particular block was good will then become moot.
If someone says they are contributing in bad faith, I tend to believe them, regardless of whether they say it explicitly in a Wikipedia post or link to it offsite. It may be debated whether or not "destroying Wikipedia to fix Wikipedia" counts as acting in bad faith or a kind of "ends justify the means" meta-good-faith. Personally the only thing I think it safe to take from such a statement is the user's intent to disrupt; there is no guarantee that the chosen means will lead to the desired end.
That's a separate question, I think, from what's been going on at RFA. The 'crats assure us that contributions to RFA which are unrelated to the candidate will not affect the outcome, which makes possible the defence that Peter Damian's actions are harmless because futile. This is not the same as saying that such contributions are desirable in any way. The question is how to respond. Some at RFA argue that anything goes, that any user may say whatever they like, no matter how unfounded or indeed irrelevant, and that it is those who urge any reaction that are guilty of causing disruption. I worry that this tendency will lead to a trial-by-ordeal culture at RfA, where users intentionally behave like dicks just to see how the candidate responds. I'd like to see bureaucrats more actively indenting or striking RfA !votes that are clearly not appropriate and that will be ignored. This helps prevent the RfA being derailed and encourages future contributors to make sure their remarks are on-topic.
I don't have any strong opinions as to what should be done with Peter Damian. I am inclined to think that this block wasn't a very good idea, as implemented, but that doesn't answer the question of whether he should be indefinitely blocked, or perhaps community banned, or banned from RfA, or unblocked with or without an apology. Unless a consensus emerges that an alternative outcome is better than a block, or someone has a link to the blocking admin stating their intent to destroy Wikipedia by blocking its best content editors (this part is a joke), I don't think further action here is necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block – now if he took a dispute from on-wiki to off-wiki and started to engage in harassment, then I could see a block being justified. Otherwise, this is a baseless threat of, as mentioned above, the Pinky & the Brain mentality. MuZemike 20:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Far too many people are commenting without knowing the situation. Pretty much anyone who said something along the lines of "His voting at RfA is not a blockable offence" or saying "This was off-wiki" is just not reading the whole thread and is decreasing the signal to noise ratio in this discussion. This has to do with him announcing on-wiki his intentions to be disruptive and listing the precise means he intends to do it including announcing his intention of vandalism and demoralising the hard work of Wikipedians. Chillum 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block Nothing has happened yet except some RfA votes. Lots of users make big speeches about all the good they will do, and never do it and/or trash the place or only use the place to start their own personality cult or promote themselves. Statements of intent mean almost nothing unless backed up by edits. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 00:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2009-06-30T20:09:26 Geogre (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Peter Damian (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 minute (account creation blocked) (Feeding the Wikipedian trolls)
To anyone who is not aware Peter Damian has had the duration of block changed to 1 minute (some minutes ago now) by Geogre - User talk:Peter Damian#Blocked2 - is his explanation. Davewild (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the edit summary "Feeding the Wikipedian trolls". He then "voted" on this discussion, opposing the block and attacking several people he disagreed with in the process. Majorlytalk 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sad because Geogre doesn't seem to understand the issue. This was not about off-wiki comments but bringing off-wiki threats on-wiki. I wonder if he even read the background. RxS (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What an appallingly bad unblock (zero consensus for it) by someone who quite clearly doesn't understand--or doesn't care--what is actually going on. → ROUX₪ 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not advisable in my view given the above discussion, but then again neither was the original block given the lack of any discussion. Cries of "bad unblock!" routinely follow cries of "bad block!" (see above for the latter), and in fact we should probably even write some sort of essay about that pattern. The best thing to do is to avoid blocks that will result in drama (and perhaps even wheel warring) in the first place. I look forward to the re-block and then the re-unblock, and then the RFAR, all of which is completely unnecessary. Or we could just take Durova's advice above, end this conversation, and move the whole party to a user conduct RfC on Peter Damian, which probably should have been the path take in the first place. This ANI thread will likely not end well, which anyone could have guessed from the moment the block was implemented. It's rather sad and dumb and sad (and also dumb) all around, really. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great. First we have a very extensive discussion at WT:Requests for adminship#Peter Damian with no doubt plenty of admins watching it and some even participating. Then one newbie admin of the kind targeted by Peter apparently decides that there is not going to be a consensus to block him, so it's best to make use of the veto right against not blocking that every admin has. And goes to bed 20 minutes later. (I checked the time zone, at least that makes sense.) There are quite a few things here that are appalling. Geogre's actions is not one of them. HansAdler 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Now is a time for consensus rather than bold action." The same can be said for the brazen indefinite block that was placed earlier. Let's not wheel war over this; I suspect that anyone who would re-block could face possible sanctions. seicer | talk | contribs 20:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time this has happened. I hold Geogre responsible for any future disruption Peter causes due to this unblock. Any disruptive edits he makes now are troll food from Geogre. The very least Geogre could have done is ask Peter to promise not to be disruptive, I fear Peter will take this unblock as permission to do more of the same. Chillum 20:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh don't be silly. The block is at the very least controversial. Consensus is not clear; default is to unblock. It is too bad the blocking admin blocked, then promptly disappeared, but that's how it is. Block was against policy and very silly. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend reinstating the block. I'd do it, but Arbcom seems to feel that only the third admin in a row is wheel warring, not the second. Protonk (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, for the love of whatever deity or other being you care for, don't anyone reinstate the block. It just adds another layer of ridiculousness fo us to parse. And if someone does make the terrible mistake of doing that, please, for the love of whatever deity or other being you care for, don't anyone reinstate the un-block. Let's try to de-escalate this a bit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Please don't reinstate the block. Some will take Geogre's action as wheel warring, since there was no consensus either way here. However, a third admin action would straightforwardly be wheel warring, whatever mistakes editors may think have been made before. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, reply to Protonk) That's because that's when it is wheel warring. Admin actions must be undoable, in case of situations like this where a bad call or mistake was made. But re-doing it is warring. Its fairly simple, and its very clear. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re to Gwen: If anyone thinks Geogre was wheel warring, then point them to WP:WHEEL and explain why it wasn't. They're wrong, that's all, and you can help them understand it. Even Elonka got it after the third time I explained it to her. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre's unblock fit two of the Possible indications put forth at WP:WHEEL. Moreover, there was no consensus for an unblock and Geogre didn't discuss it with anyone beforehand. Some will take it as wheel warring. As I said though, a second undo (a reblock) would be wheel warring, wholly untowards and uncalled for, unless supported later by a consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly the first obvious reversal without discussion both violates BLOCK and brushes up against WHEEL. Edit warring in content confers a first mover advantage while dispute over admin actions confers a second mover advantage. And the result isn't pretty. Admin actions are supposed to be reversable but there is supposed to be deliberation (at least) and consensus (at best) before doing so. If the first block wasn't blatantly incorrect or made in bad faith the unblock should only be made after judicious consideration. But every time we have one of these clusterfucks (pick any one of your favorite "great content editor/doesn't get along well with others" block/unblock issues) drama escalates with the unblock and with the promise that there will almost always be an unblock, regardless of the foundations for the original block. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User conduct RfC?
In the interests of drama reduction, would someone initiate a conduct RfC? Let's regularize this situation and redirect it into productive venues. Peter Damian has much to offer. Clearly, he also has a bit to take on board. Let's move forward toward the most productive resolution. Durova273 featured contributions 20:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a capital idea. We need a couple of users who have tried (and failed) to resolve issues with Peter Damian in the past in order to even start an RFC (unless that's changed somehow). Or a couple of people could go to his talk page now and try to work something out, and failing that then proceed to start an RfC. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how RfC/U would work for the administrative actions involving "wheel wars" between Law and Geogre as well as the "off-wiki manifesto". ArbCom would be a right place for the whole fiasco.--Caspian blue 21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHEEL makes it clear that the Wheel doesn't start until someone reverses Geogre. Therefore, there is nothing worthy of ArbCom's attention, especially without an RFC on this. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what we really need is an extension to WP:WHEEL: Blocking an editor against predictable substantial opposition, during an ongoing discussion with no apparent consensus, is itself wheel-warring against the other admins who have decided not to block, and it needs to be treated as such. And we also need a clarification that the ever so popular controversial midnight blocks can be undone while the blocking admin is asleep. Blocking is Wikipedia's closest equivalent to violence. It has a great potential to alienate users. The "block before thinking" and "when in doubt, keep blocked" mentalities are simply not acceptable. HansAdler 21:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Case closed ... someone shall file an RFC if 2 people agree they tried to stop it. Drama over. Look elsewhere now. Nothing to see here. Oh look, a castle! (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a model :-/ Sensible undo of block with inadequate warning etc., if someone wants to formally warn PD he'll get a block if he proceeds with his fiendish plan to destroy WP then ok, but the time ain't ripe. . . dave souza, talk 21:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Left note for Peter
I've taken the step of actually leaving a comment/question for Peter on that editor's talk page. My suggestion is that he voluntarily avoid RfA (and it's talk page), and perhaps that would alleviate some of the concerns about his activities. I guess we'll see what he says. It's worth pointing out amidst all this drama that Peter Damian has not edited since being blocked, and therefore has said nothing about this affair whatsoever. Perhaps the next step is to wait for some sort of reply for him and proceed from there. In the interim perhaps we can all stop saying things for awhile. I'll start. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the other disruptive actions he has indicated he will engage in? Forests and trees, people. → ROUX₪ 21:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After posting a link to text saying effectively "I intend to damage Wikipedia by doing A, B, C, and D", it should be clear that carrying out any one of those actions will result in a block. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't that precisely what happened? And then for some reason he was unblocked... → ROUX₪ 21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth Peter Damian's reply to my suggestion was "thanks" along with a note that he was away on business for the time being. And to Roux above, my comment on his talk page is trying to address the on-wiki comment (at RfA) that started this brouhaha. I don't think I can do (or say) anything about something he might theoretically do because he posted about it somewhere off-wiki, and as SheffieldSteel says those kind of actions (such as vandalism) would clearly result in a block. If you want to argue that he should be blocked on the basis of the WR post go ahead, but that was not the consensus above, even from many of those who supported Law's block. I'm pretty sure I can see the forest from where I sit, and I think asking Peter a direct question is a lot more helpful in terms of resolving this than 95% of the things here, including my own previous comments. If you have alternative suggestions than by all means state them here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gnosisquest has been causing trouble at the highly controversial article on Aisha for many months now, and I'm about at my wits end. I'm afraid admin action may be needed. Gnosisquest is a single-purpose account whose edits have been almost entirely confined to adding apologetic material to this one article, and arguing about it on the talk page. His material is in my opinion very poorly sourced and inappropriate for such a controversial subject, and his edit warring, revert warring, and use of sock/meatpuppets led me to protect the article back in April. This protection was lifted in May on the understanding that he would utilize the talk page. Since then he has resumed editing the page in the same tendentious manner, adding and reverting his material back in despite lack of consensus on the talk page. He's asked for comment WikiProject Islam, but found no support, and he requested a 3rd opinion, but didn't get the answer he wanted. In spite of this, he proceeded to make this edit, which plagiarised the source, and then revert-warred it back twicemore in spite of several warnings about the plagiarism and TEND issues [40][41][42][43] Today, I saw that he's started engaging in CANVASSING[44][45], though admittedly in a more nuanced way than than the canvassing I asked him to stop some days ago. I don't see this problem getting any better. At this stage I think his edits have gotten disruptive to the point that a community article ban may be in order--Cúchullaint/c 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Involved admins making decisions at watchlist application
Resolved
– Nothing actionable here. –xenotalk 17:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing: good faith misunderstanding. Please take followup concerns to the relevant talk page. Durova273 featured contributions 17:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The involved issue is, of course, quite separate from the merits or otherwise of either the application to watchlist or the RFC itself. It appears that the actions of these three admins at the application need to be struck. Tony(talk) 16:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expressing my opinion is no way a conflict of interest or an abuse of admin rights. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to contradict, but in entrusting admins with the power to support or oppose applications to watchlist RFCs and other matters, the community expects you to act in an uninvolved way. Being uninvolved in admin actions is a clear and direct requirement of WP:ADMIN, and is implicit in the general expectations of admin behaviour in that policy. You are free to express your personal opinion at the RFC, but to hike straight over to the watchlist application and act in an administrative capacity, especially in such a way that reinforces your vote at the RFC, is a clear breach. I am surprised. Tony(talk) 17:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WHat? Explain to me how voting in two RFCs constitutes an abuse of admin powers. I am finding it hard to see a problem here?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)I'm confused here. What admin powers were abused? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec x 6 .. *grumble*) I don't see any COI problems here. To say that someone who has expressed an opinion in the RFC itself cannot express an opinion regarding its inclusion in the watchlist banner is somewhat absurd; furthermore, I do not see how simply chiming in as part of a discussion is the (ab)use of administrative privileges at all. Their input is equally valid in both discussions. Shereth 17:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that this was an admin role at the watchlist application page. Is it not? Tony(talk) 17:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing the admin role of actually editing the MediaWiki page itself and the "anyone role" of voicing an opinion at the talk page of the same. –xenotalk 17:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I resigned my adminship in April and I didn't oppose the RFC. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a conflict of interest to oppose an RFC and then go over and oppose its appearance on watchlist (or vice versa). --Laser brain(talk) 17:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC with below) How? Wouldn't the same conflict of interest exist from the other direction; under his own reasoning, wouldn't Tony1 be under the same set of conflicts since he proposed the RFC AND proposed its watchlist banner inclusion? I fail to see how the two situations are different! Seriously, there is no conflict here and no abuse! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. Why would it be? Algebraist 17:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ye gods, its being consistent in their views, that's all. No one violated COI concerns, and there was certainly no abuse of Admin tools. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<sarcasm>User:Tony1 has just as much of a COI as those 3 admins 2 admins and an editor. He proposed both, and therefore MUST be canvassing. Lets all make some drama over that. </sarcasm>Seddσntalk|WikimediaUK 17:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies: I screwed up. I was posting under the mistaken belief that these were admin actions. This section does not belong here. However, I'm still concerned at the way in which the watchlist application process can be doubled up by users who have just themselves voted in an RfC. It is a meta-issue for the watchlist page itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
– VegKilla has announced an extended Wikibreak. Nothing more to do/say here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two months ago I had a extended altercation with Vegkilla. I was extremely rude and inappropriate and very verbally abusive to him and admin. I recvd a few blocks for these behaviors. I did as my contribution show calm down and regret my behavior and apologized to all invovled. I recieved a last block in which I agreed not to contact that user again unless invited. Also there was a reccomendation to avoid pages with Vegkilla editing until I "reestablished my bona-fides" I have been accused of violating the terms of my unblock and unfairly warned in a situation that is clearly nothing but good faith. I would like uninvovled admin to please look at me and my contributions and clarify if my actions were incorrect and how to change them in the future. Also I will npot be posting the ani posting on Vegkillas page as to do so would invite more conflict, if someone could please help him out I would appreciate it. There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the admins who blocked HiaB for the earlier poor behaviour I would note that I feel that he has moved forward greatly over the last weeks, and has transformed himself into a good faith editor. I do not think that VegKilla's attitude is appropriate in referring to that previous instance over what may be considered a minor content dispute. I note that a couple of people have noted to VegKilla that his current responses are indicative of overreaction, but to date the only responses have been further references to the old instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The somments such as this is teh most bothering to me. I would invite Vegkilla to strike those accusations.
"I adamantly persist that this was blatant, repeated vandalism that HellinaBucket has already been warned about countless times. HellinaBucket was almost permanently blocked for making this exact edit to this exact article. The HellinaBucket account has been trying to make this edit to this article since the account was created. This article was protected to guard against this exact edit being made by anon ips, and further more, Hellina's edit summary of "changing verbage" was intentionally deceptive and is itself an act of vandalism, since it attempts to conceal the fact that the edit fundamentally changes the meaning of the first sentence of the article.VegKilla (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
HellinaBucket is a vandal. Unfortunately, ThaddeusB is not familiar with this issue. I directly oppose everything that ThaddeusB has said as being completely false and unwarranted (I specifically deny that Hellina's edit was a mistake and was not deliberate vandalism).VegKilla (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
"What I did accuse Hellina of, was of vandalism: making the same edit to the Operation Repo article that he has been trying to make since April. He has repeated this act of vandalism by removing words like "faux" or "scripted" from the article, and this is vandalism because it is introducing false information. I also accused Hellina of violating the agreement he made when he was making a plea to avoid a permanent block....
The concept of "assuming good faith" does not apply to this situation, because as I said earlier, this is not a new issue. This is an edit that Hellina has made to this article countless times, and has been warned and even blocked for persisting in this issue. Furthermore, Hellina's edit summary "changing verbage" is intentionally deceptive.
If Hellina wants to continue to vandalize Operation Repo, then he can start a new account, and (not knowing who he is) I'll start him out at a level 1 warning again. If Hellina wants to make helpful contributions to Operation Repo without introducing false information or using deceptive edit summaries, then he can (and does), because as you can see from the edit history, I don't even blink when he makes constructive contributions VegKilla (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)" There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved (with another non-admin, Neutralhomer, in the previous incident here when there seemed to be a shortage of admins (Saturday morning in the EU, the wee small hours of Saturday in the US). At the time I suppose I sided with VegKilla, since Hell in a Bucket's conduct was, as they acknowledge above, unseemly. Since then I've been following both VegKilla and Hell in a Bucket, and they appeared to have disengaged and generally become good members of the community. Unlike ThaddeusB I am familiar with the background to this; however, I do have to agree with ThaddeusB that VegKilla's allegation of vandalism is completely inappropriate. I'd view Hell in a Bucket's edit as good faith. I do not regard Hell in a Bucket as a vandal. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 18:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, here is the supposed vandalism edit: [46] and here is the very strongly worded warning it received: [47]. To me, this is clearly a content dispute and not at all vandalism. I take no position on the correctness of the edit, but I feel strongly that the threat it generated was way over-the-top.
VegKilla went on the accuse Hell in a Buck of "following his edits around," which I consider a serious accusation without basis. VegKilla has mostly only edited Operation Repo for the last month. He has made 15 edits to the article (mostly reverts) while Hell has made 6. It is pretty hard to stalk someone through a total of 1 page. Again, this is a content dispute not stalking.
I do understand that these two have had conflict in the past, however that does not excuse making threats of "permanently blocking" over a minor changing of the words. At worst, this is a slow moving edit war - and it takes two to edit war.
Additionally, VegKilla has been jumping straight to L4 warnings every time an IP vandalizes the page. He seems to think ever IP edit is really coming from Hell in a Bucket, which is highly unlikely IMO. I have advised him to step back from the article for a while, as he seems to have lost focus and is emotionally involved to an unhealthy level. I believe this is good advice and stand by it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For someone with "no familiarity" of the issues behind this incident, you seem to have summarised it nicely ;-) I agree entirely that this is a context dispute - heck, I agree with everything you've said. VegKilla needs to step back. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
VegKilla's objection is a change away from describing Operation Repo as a "faux reality show." As far as I know, that's not a genre name that is widely used by anyone. In my opinion, Hell in a Bucket's proposed change is not only not vandalism, but is a very reasonable edit. I've weighed in on the talk page regarding the genre discussion, and added the article to my watchlist- I'm conerned that User:VegKilla may have a slight case of WP:OWN. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the user is not going to review our thread and is "taking a long wikibreak". I would like to thank everyone who weighed in here and for the support for my turnaround. I do want it to be known that I hold my hand out in friendship to VegKilla, my actions before were completely inappropriate and I sincerely apoligize again for it to him. I hope you understand I am sincere and would love to reach a consensus with you at a later time of your choosing. There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add Jonathan King, the sometime pop-music figure/TV personality, to the list of people caught trying to own their own articles. In this case the subject had been extensively anon-posting, trying to massage the presention of his underage sex convictions, and to reinflate the article's previous (self?-)assessment of his former importance.
Um, does nobody see any contradiction in encouraging this sourt of thing while insisting on Wikipedia editors' god-given right to remain pseudonymous at all costs? If blatant POV pushing by I.P.s is becoming problematic, semi-protect the article. I thought we didn't out people here? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If career-long self-publicists like JK use Wikipedia this way, we should hang them out to dry. For WP's own self-defence. Jheald (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to propose a change to WP:OUTING, then, which currently says that "Posting another person's personal information...is harassment unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor."? If memory serves, there was a pretty high profile case in which a fellow was blocked for outing another career-long self-publicist (who was socking to boot). Something about some kind of tactic on financial markets... Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outing that an IP address is where it is, that anyone can see? Outing where Jonathon King is, when it's public information anyway? There is no outing here - just a COI issue that needs to be managed properly. Pedro : Chat 19:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revealing the person behind a set of edits without that person having voluntarily done so is outing. I don't believe that outing should be outlawed here, but it is, and as long as it is I have a real problem with article subjects being held to a higher standard than Wikipedia editors. There's nothing in WP:COI (which is advice to people considering editing under a COI, not some kind of hammer allowing us to ban people or disregard their views) that allows for outing. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Maybe we need to fix OUTING a bit. Pedro : Chat 19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That could be gamed. Further beans instructions available on request. HansAdler 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a perfect instance of WP:IAR when to not out them means the project is negatively affected, ie in this case used to spin a sad and ailing career back into existence by someone who is actively lying about who they are. --WebHamster 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that Wikipedia's treatment of article subjects editing their own articles tends to be less WP:IAR and more WP:SASTTTWATERIAZBTBATSU (Subject Article Subjects To Treatment That, When Applied To Editors, Results In A ZOMG Banned!" Tag Being Affixed To Someone's Userpage). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Context being everything of course. If an article's subject is sneaky and downright deceitful then they need to be outed and maybe even blocked. If they are willing to be dishonest about that then there's no way their edits can be considered to be reliable, it's pretty bloody obvious they aren't here for our benefit. I have to admit though that I am a little biased in this matter. For someone who is as well known as JC to have to take pictures of themselves to submit to something like WP is, in my humble view, somewhat sad and just adds to the bad taste. --WebHamster 21:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if somebody's not hear for the right reasons we can out them? Fine with me (seriously - that would actually be my preferred approach), but then we need to extend that to people other than article subjects, and we need to stop pretending that anonymity is sacrosanct here. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I mean about context and why WP:IAR seems to apply here. There should be no blanket ruling and each case should be on its own merits. WP:OUTING states that non-malicious outings should not result in a block. As I see it Little grape's outing is not malicious and was done purely as a means to protect the project from deceitful, and possibly harmful, editing. --WebHamster 23:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's impressive is that even having been busted, JK comes back and edits some more...
There are some examples, eg Peter Hitchens stands out for me, where article subjects engage on their article talk pages in an open and honest way, aware of COI issues, and their presence actually has a solidly beneficial effect. But posting anonymously from a hotel in Italy pretending to be somebody else seems a bit sad.
IMO the best way to prevent such activity is to make clear that people caught doing it will be named and shamed. As Durova said in a thread at WT:HA last year (00:33, 4 October 2008), manipulating Wikipedia can look like an attractive option, unless balanced by the PR risk that it can and will get out. Jheald (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not condoning the activities of article subjects who anonymously try to make their articles look more flattering (usually - in some cases I think it's justifiable), just as I'm not condoning the activities of Wikipedia editors who anonymously try to make articles less flattering on their subjects. I'm just not clear on how it's okay for one to be outed and the other not. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Griefing
Wikipedia:Griefing(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Obvious griefer/troll IP vandalization (IP:75.183.114.232), of Wikipedia:Griefing on June 30. Defaced the authors and placed obscene remarks on the essay, along with a message left on the talk page claiming to be from one "Lord Wulf". Definite IP bans needed. --Thecitrusking (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Similar report already declined on RFPP. If there are vandals that need to be blocked, AIV is thataway. Tan | 39 19:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pages like Wikipedia:Griefing should almost never be protected, precisely because they work so well as a honeypot for idiot vandals. Anyone who gets blocked because of "clever" vandalism like that is denied the opportunity to do something that would actually cause problems for us. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the sock. I went ahead and added the sock to the case page. In the future, you're welcome to add it to the pertaining investigation page. Icestorm815 • Talk 21:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userpage question
Resolved
Just a quick question - I reverted this blanking, as per WP:USER, "Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. (If you are concerned with privacy, you may not want to and are by no means required to emulate this." I haven't delved much into userspace applications, so wanted a second opinion. Tan | 39 20:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, it was a sock that is blocked, nothing to see here. Arbiter set me straight on my talk page. Tan | 39 20:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User keeps removing unreferenced refimprove tag
Regushee (talk·contribs) persists in removing fact, unreferenced and refimprove tags from a number of Subaru articles, despite efforts by two of use to explain to him/her that they should not be removed without addressing the underlying issues. See my talk page for the discussion. I now believe that this user is in breach of 3RR on at least two articles and because he/she just isn't getting the point it would be of benefit to get some administrator intervention to stop this disruptive behaviour. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
– Nothing for an admin to do with this. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to get rid of this now, it's hurting the encyclopedia:
It actively discriminates against a key part of the encyclopedic coverage of a fictional work.
It encourages the deletion or hacking down to a paragraph of sections with encyclopedic content (plot summaries) in articles. This plot summary will just have to be recreated later when the article gets longer, and in the meantime, we've ruined what most people have come to Wikipedia to find.
Plot summaries are encyclopedic content. Since when has encyclopedic content been part of what Wikipedia is not?
Other encyclopedias, such as Encyclopedia Brittanica, have articles all or primarily plot summary.
WP:NOT#PLOT might just work as a guideline, encouraging improvement. It is appallingly bad policy. Please help save Wikipedia. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help save Wikipedia? Hyperbolic much? The encyclopedic value of a particular work of fiction is how that work has been received in the world, the context in which it was produced, etc. A short plot summary allows for the salient points to be shown without devolving into fansite silliness. → ROUX₪ 20:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the WRONG PLACE for this comment. you want to go to the community improvement area to suggest removing a policy. no-one at WP:ANI can just remove a policy for you even if you tiouy are right that is thould be removed. Smith Jones (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to discuss PLOT. Protonk (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The injunction in WP:NOT#PLOT is not against plot summaries per se, but against plot-only articles. The underlying idea is to discourage articles that solely recapitulate a work's plot, in favor of encyclopedic articles that include at least some indication of a work's impact, reception, critical and commercial success, etc. Plot summaries are absolutely a key element of encyclopedic content; the policy says only that they shouldn't be the sole element. If this policy is being misapplied inappropriately, hand me a link to the article(s) in question and I'd be happy to take a look. MastCellTalk 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Tell that to every single citation of the policy ever. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore the problem is not the policy, which is sound and fosters creation of encyclopedic content. The problem is its application, which is well beyond the remit of this noticeboard. → ROUX₪ 21:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actuallty, it actively hurts encyclopedic content. Let's look at an article that several FA regulars were interested in, but which was re-deleted, citing NOT#PLOT. Plot of Les Misérables [[here - Completely invalid non-admin closure of an AfD, but, despite FA regulars wanting to improve it, NOT#PLOT was cited as a reason not to send it back to AFD, and we were told that it MIGHT be allowed if we did all the work first, with no guarantee that it wouldn't be deleted again. I'm sure that numerous other examples could be found, if dealing with utter fucking stupidity didn't upset me so much that I'd like to snap something in half. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, a wikibreak seems like a good idea. Anything important about the plot points should be tied to real-world context, critical reception, historical analysis, or all of the above. Simply recounting the plot is a bad thing. → ROUX₪ 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's completely wrong. We should describe the work itself. A basic description is important in its own right, irregardless of higher-level analysis. The higher-level information, such as analysis, requires a solid core of basic information, such as a good plot summary, in order to provide the context. Without this, the article is largely unreadable. .Hence, plot summaries and other things that the analysis build on are not, and should not be considered, subordinate to the analysis, since an article with very basic information that establishes notability plus a plot summary can stand on its own and provide a reasonable amount of information about the work, but an article with same very basic information and analysis is generally useless unless you know the plot already, because, by its very nature, analysis requires knowledge of the work being analysed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well um no, sorry. But again, this is not the correct venue for your quixotic campaign to encourage non-encyclopedic content and unsourcable fancruft. The correct place for that discussion is at VP or the policy talk page. Anyone uninvolved object to this being closed? → ROUX₪ 21:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i agere with you 1000% that WP:PLOT is abused to damage artices by mistake HOWEVER there is nothing that WP:ANI can do about this since it is not the right place to make corrections to broken polices Smith Jones (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that User:Allstarecho is using unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations of "stalking", "hounding", and "harrassment" to discourage me from participation in discussions. I am tired of the accusations and would like some admin action to put a stop to them. Per WP:NPA, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are "never acceptable".
On 19 June, in another ANI thread, Allstarecho accused me of "hounding" here and here. I asked Allstarecho to stop making accusations and invited him to follow up in an appropriate forum if he had genuine concerns about my behaviour. The same ANI thread also includes the perplexingly mysterious but clearly threatening comment"Disengage from me before my accusation escalates to a worse accusation".
On 28 June, Allstarecho again accused me of "wiki-stalking" here for participating in an MfD discussion. I reiterated that I was not wikistalking him and again asked him to stop making accusations and take it to an appropriate forum.
Today he removed comments of mine from a Village Pump with the edit summary "rmv that which has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion; feel free to post it somewhere appropriate, and thanks for the additional stalking/hounding/harassment".
Please do not respond to this thread with platitudes such as "just disengage from each other". Allstarecho has been involved in a large number of issues just in the past month - block for copyright violations; questionable unblocking for same; egregious ownership and COI issues at Equality Mississippi; insertion of a joke image into an article; similar unsubstantiated stalking allegations against User:Damiens.rf; and creation, re-creation, and re-re-creation of redirects from article space into his userspace. Forgive my bluntness, but there is no shortage of legitimate complaints based on Allstarecho's actions. I have already been run off Equality Mississippi and have ignored other issues that I would not otherwise have hesitated to tackle. Although some of my comments did not help the situation, I do not think I am the problem here. Please address these repeated personal attacks. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just the fact that you even posted this, speaks volumes as to your hounding/harassment. All one has to do, for evidence, is look at your contribs and see where you've been and they will find it's usually right behind me. That's stalking. Disengage indeed. Your comment I removed today from Village Pump, was indeed just that.. it had nothing whatsoever, not a single letter, space or equation, to do with that thread. It was nothing more than provocation. And that's all I'm going to say on this thread. -ALLST✰R▼echowuz here 21:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that bringing this here was an invitation for people to scrutinize my recent contributions. If someone feels that I have been wikistalking you, I'm sure they will say so. I'm here because I'm tired of the accusations and personal attacks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how useful this information will be to the reviewing admins but a look at the block pages of both editors shows that while Delicious Carbuncle has never been blocked, Allstarecho it seems has a very busy block page--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RFC used to harass
Mosedschurte and Yachtsman1 have opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas in an effort to harass and intimidate me from pursuing my plagiarism investigation against them. I have already made two reports on one incident and I am in the process of making a third, more detailed report showing multiple instances of plagiarism. This RfC against me violates just about every aspect of a user-conduct RfC: 1) It does not show with diffs that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute 2) This RfC was brought solely to harass or subdue me as, Mosedchurte and Yachtsman1 consider me their adversary 3) I have responded twice to these baseles allegations in a related incident report, however it is close to impossible to respond due to every single, cherry picked quote taken out of context, without overwhelming Wikipedia's servers 4) The entire user conduct RFC represents a dispute over article content, including a dispute over how best to follow the neutral point of view policy. Per the user conduct RfC guideline, this complaint belongs in an Article RfC. 5) Even though the process page clearly says that "an RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban", all three users are using the RfC to call for sanctions. 6) Yachtsman1, who has a documented history of making false allegations against me, is now using the RfC page to make bizarre, sockpuppet allegations. Could a neutral administrator look into this? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not willing to complete it, engage in constructive dispute resolution, and begin shouting that Viriditas is some random sockpuppet all the while demonstrating incivility and/or poor demeanor, then it stands that the user-conduct RFC is nothing more than blatant trolling at its best. seicer | talk | contribs 01:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, but I am uninvolved.
1) It appears that this RFC was filed correctly. Three editors, Mosedschurte, Wildhartlivie, and Yachtsman1 have commented on the RFC, one more than the two required. Users Mosedschurte and Wildhartlivie have both provided multiple difs although Yachtsman1 has not. It is perfectly valid to call an RFC regarding the general conduct of a user; as stated at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, the process is for discussing specific users who may have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
2) I won't comment on this because I am not familiar with the issue.
3) It would probably help if you posted a response at the RFC. Feel free to copy the information from the related incident report you mentioned. Don't worry about responding to every individual dif. Just pick the most important ones. Also be sure you include difs that demonstrate "good behavior" on your part to counter accusations more effectively. Also I strongly recommend you do not "attack" the other editors by giving difs of "bad behavior" on their part unless it specifically has to do with interactions with you. Digging up unrelated content to cast aspersion on another editor often looks bad.
4) It appears the three contributing editors are indeed focusing on conduct rather than on article content. I'm will have to disagree with your view that this RFC is a content related RFC.
5) I would suggest you ignore proposed solutions asking for a block or a ban because they won't get what they're asking for anyway from the RFC. The desired outcomes section is for "spelling out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus." You could leave a polite note on the RFC talk page pointing to the RFC guide to remind users that blocking or topic banning are impossible outcomes RFC.
6) Looking at the RFC for Uruk2008 as a comparison, it seems listing potential sockpuppets with good reasons seems acceptable. Assuming you aren't using a sockpuppet, I would ignore the sockpuppet allegation. It is relatively easy for an administrator to determine if the username in question is actually a sock using Checkuser. If you aren't using a sockpuppet, than the accusation will simply be baseless and won't hurt your arguments. If you are using a sock, then I would stop editing with it immediately, confirm it is a sock, and apologize. Sockpuppets are not looked well upon in these kinds of situations. Sifakatalk 02:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for a neutral administrator to take a look. This is a content dispute that is being turned into a conduct dispute by cherry picking content-related discourse out of their original context and twisted into something I never said or intended. At no time has anyone tried to resolve a conduct dispute because there simply isn't one, and the diffs don't substantiate any of the claims being made. I don't use sockpuppets and there is not the slightest bit of evidence supporting such a claim. The entire RfC is nonsense, and it was designed to harass and intimidate me and serves no other purpose. We do not bring RfCs against editors who have content of NPOV disputes, and that is what is being done. There is not one single diff in the entire RfC that supports any of the claims being made. Not one. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sifaka: Agree on all of 1-6. And, again, nothing at the RfCU is about any sort of content dispute. Also, in addition to numerous request across article talk pages and noticeboards, further requests to stop the campaign from spreading beyond one article were left by me on Viriditas' talk pages In addition to numerous requests on Talk pages, three days ago, I placed the following "here" and here.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On top of Viriditas providing with NO notice of this ANI section re me, the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas was opend at the request of Administrators and editors on this board, such as here, here and here. In addition to doing so at the request of admins and others, no one who reads the contents of the RfCU -- which include about as blatant WP:Wikihounding as one will see, would think that filing the RfCU was "harrassment." There is no particular content dispute at issue at the RfCU. I would honestly just hope that something happens to end the WP:Wikihounding, with this renewed ANI section -- YET ANOTHER part of the campaing -- going exactly the opposte direction, and I'm not even particularly concerned about getting any kind of block of Viriditas or "winning" an argument.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Block review - uninvolved admin request
William M. Connolley has blocked A.K.Nole for 24 hours for trolling. I think this is a bad block, and AKN has requested an unblock. However, as I am involved (see, e.g., my talk page), I am requesting an uninvolved editor to examine this. LadyofShalott 00:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I took a look at the situation which seems to be an editing disagreement between two users over technical descriptions in the article Butcher group. That article is beyond my comprehension, I'm afraid, so it's difficult to tell who has the better of the argument. However, it is somewhat disturbing that someone who seems to be willing to help out on such a technical subject is blocked for making apparently innocuous comments on talk pages, suggesting improvements or questioning the presentation in the article. Talk page comments are given much wider latitude for content and even nit-picking or even ignorance before it would be considered trolling, and for the mathematically-challenged the comments that seemed to earn the block didn't deserve that. However, I am not answering the unblock request, because in the context of this technical area the comments that look innocuous could be the equivalent of adding "But doesn't Newton's second law need to be repealed" to the ABBA talk page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If LadyofShalott or someone else who understands the underlying content debate could elaborate on it that would be useful. Like Carlos I don't know enough on the subject to understand what is going on, and anyway since I have recently (and in the past) taken a negative view of admin actions by WMC I'm probably not the person to undo one of his blocks. But this block does look very questionable on the face, if only for the fact that the explanation is so vague ("trolling") that I can't tell why exactly the editor was blocked. WMC asked A.K. Nole to "ponder the reasons for this" block, but I personally have no idea what those reasons are, since Nole simply seems to be in a content dispute with another editor (perhaps adding some questionable material as well, but apparently not since the warning). It appears that Nole was blocked for continuing to discuss an issue on their own talk page, though I could have missed something else. At the very least this is a problem because admins need to have an understanding of the rationale for a given block when considering an unblock. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also having trouble understanding the reason for this block. After reading over Talk:Butcher group, I was actually much more disturbed by Mathsci's behavior and comments than A.K. Nole's. --auburnpilottalk 00:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give everyone some more reading material until WMC shows up: I'm pretty sure this is related to the whole ChildofMidnight/MathSci tempest of a few days ago. I think CoM was doing something similar, on the same page, and was blocked. Just providing a little context, I just remember seeing the CoM thread, but I didn't read it, and I have absolutely no opinion on the underlying blocks of either CoM or AKN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came across the Butcher group article on new page patrol, one of many Articles I worked on that evening, and made a very reasonable copy-edit [48]. This was met with rude and hostile attacks on my talk page including accusations that I was stalking Mathsci. I tried to disengage and worked elsewhere, but Mathsci made an ANI report, where his behavior was criticized by many editors, and William Connelly inexplicably blocked me unilaterally without any shred of consensus. Most editors and admins noted that Mathsci's behavior was uncivil and unacceptable. The talk page of that article is clear about Mathsci's attitude and hostility to other editors working on "his" article. Connelly appears to support and encourage this rude, obnoxious and childish behavior and has made levying these inappropriate and bullying blocks a pattern. Together they are quite a team against anyone who dares edit an article against Mathsci's wishes. Mathsci also made this rude and uncalled for attack on my talk page [49] today after I politely suggested on A.K. Nole's talk page that the block should be reviewed [50]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CoM, might I respectfully suggest that you might not be the best person to comment on this/it might not be in your best interests to comment on this, lest it appear that you have some sort of vendetta going on? → ROUX₪ 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering ChildofMidnight has been mentioned below as possibly related to the situation, I'd say it's not only appropriate for COM to comment but expected. --auburnpilottalk 01:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Bigtimepeace said below, I was meaning the comment more for CoM's sake; he has enough opinion stacked against him that it would make sense for him to not give people the chance to manufacture more. → ROUX₪ 02:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would second what Roux said to some degree (just for CoM's sake), though in fairness (and here echoing AuburnPilot) Mathsci's comment to CoM was grossly uncivil. As such I have warned Matschi for that remark. Regardless of anything else going on here, saying "It seems that you are trying your hardest to be the most visible mathematical/theoretical physics troll on wikipedia" in response to a user talk page note simply suggesting that a block be reviewed is most definitely not on. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here's my take on the situation. Despite working in mathematics I don't really understand the contents of the article. I think that's relevant: I do at least know enough to tell that it's on advanced research mathematics, seems to be important to some areas of mathematics that are different than the ones I work on, and with more effort than I care to spend right now I think I could understand it. One of the people who has helped edit the article is a Fields medalist, so I am confident that it's of some importance and that someone who does understand it has taken it in hand. Anyway, A.K.Nole has been active on the talk page, asking very naive questions at a rate that could easily be annoying to the other people there who are trying to get some editing done. I can see two possible explanations: (1) they (I'm using the singular they because it's just too tedious to keep writing "he or she") are earnest and trying to understand the new article, have not yet been scared away by all the complicated math, do not realize how much they're in over their head, and are asking naive questions in the hope that getting the more expert editors there to answer them will cause the article to be rewritten in a less inaccessible way; or (2) they understand that there is little hope of getting the article to be truly accessible to a general audience and are just asking questions to be annoying. Per WP:AGF I'd lean towards the first explanation; Connolley seems to have taken the second instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec's...) Another article is involved: AKNole added some information from Butcher group to the stub, Minimal subtraction scheme, and Mathsci objected. I am unable to understand either why this would be appropriate or inappropriate, and declined to comment on the content dispute accordingly. At my suggestion, however, AKNole posted requests for help on the talk pages of the math and physics wikiprojects. Wm.M.C. deleted the whole conversation from the article talk page as trolling immediately after blocking Nole. LadyofShalott 01:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot follow the mathematics here either, however a look at the general pattern suggests this primarily a content dispute, with some suggestions from Mathsci that AKN lacks some understanding of the mathematical principles at work. I can't see anything that looks like obvious trolling, nor anything that would obviously warrant a 24 hour block. AKN hasn't made a direct edit to any relevant page since 0649, instead posting to various talk pages. I'm finding this block highly dubious. Exxolon (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue here, which was also apparently the case with the recent block of ChildofMidnight, is that Connolley seems to regularly make questionable blocks just before going offline for the evening. When the CoM block was questioned, Connolley twice removed a subsection title of a thread on ANI that included his name [51][52], chastised the editor who started the subsection in a somewhat patronizing way, and then peaced out (no doubt to bed) for 6 1/2 hours whilst his block of CoM was discussed on ANI (and where it was met with significant objection). These problematic blocks, and just as much WMC's response (or lack thereof) to criticism about them, seem to come up with remarkable frequency. It would be nice if an administrator for whom he has some respect, and I'm guessing that is not me, could bring this issue up with WMC on his talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to go back and thank my father for his random quizzes on obscure mathematical concepts! I'm by no means an expert, but I can at least understand the article and good god, most people would need a graduate degree to follow the lead. Anyways, I can't find any way in which I'd characterize AKN's comments as trolling - both her questions were on point and resulted in improvements; they show a general understanding of the subject which is more than we expect for most topics. Mathsci's objections there seems mostly to stem from the fact that he's being questioned at all and I believe in the second question, he completely misinterpreted the actual point in his hurry to be dismissive. How all this ended up in a block, I can't imagine - is there something here we're missing? Shellbabelfish 01:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you might be missing the relationship between Mathsci and WMC, birds of a feather. "Trolling" is one of the favorite block reasons for admins who have to make up a reason. I see no sign at all that AKN was seeking to inflame or outrage, which is what trolling would be, but, from another point of view, Mathsci was outraged and threatening AKN with being blocked, so doesn't that prove that AKN was doing something wrong? --Abd (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AKN's contributions here are absolutely trolling. AKN has only the most minimal understanding of this topic and no real interest in it, the only reason he got involved in this is to harass Mathsci following a disagreement at WP:FTN#A.K.Nole disputing fringe science involvement. It's a good block; we mustn't tolerate this sort of harassment. You should be aware that an early stage of the harassment was an attempt by AKN to imply that the user name "Mathsci" is a trademark infringement. He's just going after anything that he believes will annoy. Looie496 (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's useful info, and this remark in particular does not speak well for AKN. I'm not sure it rises to a blockable level (maybe it does), and the issue of a lack of a specific block rationale on WMC's part remains. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..so that sounds as if this was a culmination of AKN hounding Mathsci in various places - wasn't clear by the block notice or log, but if that's the case then the block is reasonable. Shellbabelfish 03:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the links in his post, he does have a valid point though, doesn't he? MathSci is the name of a published database. LadyofShalott 02:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And "Lady of Shalott" is the name of a copyrighted song. Having the same name as a database doesn't violate WP:U unless it's being used for promotional or deceptive purposes, and no one has made that suggestion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To speak in broad terms, trolling is not a desirable block rationale. Others who wish to review a block find it much more useful to encounter specific reasons and diffs that led to the decision to block. Also, the term has a tendency to be inflammatory. As a general practice, stating one's reasons and evidence is more persuasive than a summary conclusion. Durova273 featured contributions 02:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Worrying tendency?
This might not be directly relevant, but there could to be a pattern of WMC blocking editors for (mis)use of talk pages. Eyes needed to check the history of Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy and WMCs block of User:AncientObserver. Blocking users for editing talk pages, even if the discussion isn't really productive shouldn't be the norm - this has a very chilling effect. Exxolon (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should have more blocking of people for misusing talk pages. I can name any number of articles where there is a constant parade of ranting and raving about the topic with no real focus on improving the article itself. We're too tolerant of that stuff, and the flow of drivel gets in the way of -- what is it we're supposed to be here for? -- oh yes, building a reference work. Please see WP:TALK, especially Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior that is unacceptable which explicitly states Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia.Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with Boris on this topic. Discussion about content is one thing, and legitimate content discussions can (and do) become heated on occasion, But endless ranting about some obscure POV position goes on far too much. Examine Talk:Scientific_method for one such case. Manning (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we somehow make it clear that an edit such as this is probably the worst possible response to potential trolling? If the evaluation is accurate, the comment fails to make the situation better, and if it is inaccurate, it is extremely rude. I'm comfortable with blocking people for talk page abuse, if necessary, but saying "DNFTT" to someone is truly unproductive, juvenile behavior, which we should do our best to discourage. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our friend who persistently tries to insert unsourced information into this article about a convicted fraudster is back again, this time in the guise of 1primeeditor (talk·contribs). I reverted once, but it will take an admin to deal with this properly. Looie496 (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vegavairbob - ownership, consensus-stacking, disruption, etc.
Vegavairbob (talk·contribs) is quite passionate about the Chevrolet Vega automobile, and has contributed a great deal of high-quality material. However, he appears unwilling to participate according to community expectations:
Persistent ownership of Chevrolet Vega — he simply shoves aside most every attempt by any other editor to contribute to the article, often without so much as an edit summary, as evident in these sequential diffs [54][55] and in the article's history, he boasts that he wrote Chevrolet Vega, he complained to an admin that another editor touched his work, and he has tried to dictate what other editors may and may not contribute to "his" article and "his" work. Attempts (viz here, here, here, here, and here) to engage Vegavairbob in constructive, courteous discussion about editing coöperatively rather than combatively have all failed; he disregards them, dismisses them summarily, spits, or says OK and then continues with the ownership behaviour.
Persistently tendentious and disruptive pattern of making long series of many small edits. This effectively hampers (by dint of endless edit conflicts) other editors' ability to participate in discussion or contribute to articles. Examples are too numerous to provide diffs; pattern is clearly visible in his contrib history and in the history of Chevrolet Vega and other articles and discussions in which he participates. He has been asked politely to change this behaviour multiple times over a period of months by multiple editors — viz here, here, here, here, here, amongst others. These requests have gone wholly unheeded; once in awhile he says OK—and he thanked me with apparent sincerity for pointing him towards my quick guide to coöperating on Wikipedia— but he has shown no sign of changing this behaviour.
He seems to have the ear of one particular admin (search vegavairbob on Daniel J. Leivick's talk page) who appears to be trying to guide and mentor, though the difference between Vegavairbob's tone and approach when interacting with Leivick vs. interacting with others is troubling. I'm sort of at a loss here; we appear to have a willfully, doggedly disruptive, unduly belligerent article-owner here. I can certainly unwatch Chevrolet Vega if it will give some breathing space to help get this situation addressed, but I would not view that as a solution to the problem of an editor who exhibits no apparent interest or intent to coöperate in accord with Wikipedia community standards. —ScheinwerfermannT·C02:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I had all of my good faith edits reverted in one fell swoop -- correcting numerous mis-spellings, grammatical errors, manual-of-style errors, a lack of referencing or verifiability, and so forth, I decline to let it evolve into a larger issue because Vegavairbob had taken the time to rant against my edits without actually constructively engaging others on the article. A classic case of ownership and persistent disruption. The article had issues of organization, plagiarism or excessive quote farming, MOS and so on that I tagged and then explained myself on the corresponding talk page. That did work, but it took a very long time to have anything resolved and I haven't touched it since because it seems as if the issues that I brought forth before have only continued to fester. seicer | talk | contribs 02:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seicer - can you provide a diff for this event? Thanks - Manning (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My original edits consisted of what I stated above: copyediting, removing excessive quoting, reformatted headers per MOS, but this was wholesale reverted with no explanation. I deferred to tagging the article for issues --
Article tagging after I was wholesale reverted. I explained the rationale behind each of the taggings on the talk page. This was promptly reverted with the edit summary, "this article is a candidate for feature status."
He went complaining away at an administrator's talk page: User talk:Daniel J. Leivick#Vega article 2, stating that I should do "something useful." I did apologize that I was being bold and did a sweeping change of a damaged article that would have never passed Feature Article, let along "B" status, to at least bring it up to some coherent standard.
Good gravy. Out of morbid curiosity, how many of those are reverts of other editors? → ROUX₪ 02:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That I don't know, but I do know that there's a total of 6,059 total edits to the article from 196 different editors. As mentioned above, 5,200 of those are his. That's roughly 86%. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a revert that seems intriguing - seems to be introducing a distinct POV tone. Notice how at line 24 "Chevrolet cancelled the Vega after the 1977 model run." becomes "Without emotion, Chevrolet trimmed the car from its lineup after the 1977 model run". There are numerous other curious additions such as the death report of an engineer being changed from "killed in a plane crash" to "tragically killed in a plane crash". Manning (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scheinwerfermann...again
Hello-
First of all none of his edits that will help the article obtain FL status were reverted.
Second, I have contributed all the text and images. He has contributed some conversions, and minor grammer. The article was reviewed by Typ932 who I've been working with and have done everything he suggested. I DONT REVERT EDITS. I might tweak some, Why not. Nobody has contributed one referenced fact to the article. All that's ever done is as far as content goes is word substitution. I've got a 100 referenced facts in it. It's just that Scheinwerfermann is not easy to deal with and I have to spend a lot of time away from contributing when he gets involved on any level. I'm tired of the lecturing. I opened a title change for an article and he didn't like my comment so he wrote a whole page lecture on the article talk page. This guy is out of control. He is like an old watchdog waiting to lecture and police everyone. I can't stand it anymore. I have no problem working with others. check out my talk pages for the vega article and my talk page. As far as the the article title change for inline four i wasn't aware you couldn't contact others. I enjoy contributing content and images. my user page shows my contributions. quite a few since feb. This guy will scare away new contributors. Gentalman, Its been fun but maybe this is not for me. I've worked hard here as others would attest but this is not fun.Vegavairbob (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vegavairbob - We are trying to assess this issue fairly and evenly. If you could provide WP:DIFFs to support the above statements so we can review, it would make this case easier. Your extensive quality work on Chevrolet Vega is noted. Manning (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Unrelated to Tundrbuffy/Dajudem on a purely technical level. Thatcher 10:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Blizzocked as a sock of User:Biaswarrior. MuZemike 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
