Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
| Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
|---|
|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
Mister Flash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring for quite some time now over whether and how a great number of articles should use the term British Isles. That article is subject to a 1RR restriction, there is a taskforce at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples, and I am not sure if this is related to and subject to the sanctions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. Many of these articles are watched by very few people, or the regular editors do not feel like getting involved with a highly contentious minor point (example: the recent edit war at FWA Footballer of the Year received no comment from editors not involved in this wide-ranging terminology dispute). It is certainly possible that wider editing restrictions may be called for regarding this dispute, but I think a restriction on Mister Flash would go a long way towards reducing British Isles terminology related disruption. I would like to propose that they be placed on a 1RR restriction and be required to gain firm consensus at the relevant talkpage or the taskforce page before making any edit regarding whether and how any article should describe this particular geographic and geopolitical region. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- As one of the editors involved in setting up the task force some intervention would be appreciated. There have been long standing edit wars over this, and consolidating all the debates in one place started to get some structure in place. However Mister Flash has an auto-revert approach on any change that does not involve the use of the BI term, regardless of the level of consensus. S/he seems to be a single purpose account. A brief review of the Task Force will show that while several editors are being even handed, their work is being disrupted by a failure to accept consensus and a consistent refusal to engage in discussion. There is a 1RR restriction already in place so I don't think that is the solution to be honest. We need something that prevents simple say-saying on every task force discussion--Snowded TALK 20:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- The articles-in-question, should be covered by the Troubles Enforcement ruling of 1RR (if they are not). GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the opportunity to state my case in this matter. First let me brief you on some historical aspects. From some time about early 2008 User:HighKing has waged a campaign against the term British Isles. I will not comment on his motives, but I merely draw your attention to the facts. Initially the removals were carried out en-masse, with perhaps dozens of removals in a single editing session. I estimate that in the three-year period of this activity a minimum of 500 removals have occurred. During his campaign HighKing has been assisted by numerous other users, principally User:Crispness (possibly now editing under a "clean start" as User:Þjóðólfr) and User:Snowded. HighKing's activities have spilled out across Wikipedia and have resulted in many edit wars, confrontations and violations of policy, involving everyone concerned. His work continues. Only two days ago a further two deletions were carried out, each of which featured the usual trademark of an edit summary not adequately describing what was happening. I came across HighKing in late 2008 and found myself objecting strongly to his edits. I tend to revert his edits because, in my opinion, the vast majority of them are not justified. Rarely is the term British Isles being used incorrectly. If it ever is, then I don't object to its removal. When removals are challenged, a variety of tactics are used to try and overcome the objections. All the tactics employed amount to variations on gaming the system, with wikilawyering and policy shopping being foremost amongst them. Take the recent example of Five Peaks Challenge - the edits which have caused the reporting of this incident: HighKing first tried to claim the subject was not notable, when that failed he went for a merge, and this was followed by claims that the references (references to support an axiom, I might add) were inadequate. This latter tactic is a favourite of the anti-British Isles community; place a cite tag on an obvious fact and when no references are forthcoming, delete the term. So to my part in this: I object to the policy of British Isles removals for what I consider to be political reasons, hence my numerous reversions of the edits of HighKing and others. I would be very happy never to edit another BI-related article (specifically involving addition or removal of the term) provided a similar restriction was placed on other users involved in this dispute. In his comments on this matter, User:Snowded would have you believe that I am 100% at fault and that he, HighKing and others have no case to answer. Such an assertion could not be farther from the truth. These users are at least as culpable as me in this matter. Remember that the root cause of this entire debacle is one single, solitary user - HighKing. If he stopped systematically trying to remove British Isles from Wikipedia we would not now be having this debate. So to summarise; I will accept a community sanction not to add or remove British Isles provided that sanction is also applied to the other users whose identities I have noted here. Mister Flash (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- If my suggestion is adopted, then both sides will be restricted to 1RR on the articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- It won't work, GD. The BI removals would continue. Mister Flash (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- What would you suggest? GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- See above! A ban on all deletion and removals of British Isles by listed editors. Mister Flash (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Howabout a ban on all deletion/additions of British Isles for all editors on Wikipedia? I could accept that condition. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Cailil, am I missing something here, or did you refer to me as "being a single purpose, disruptive, wikihounding, edit warring, politically driven account", and then go on to admonish User:LevenBoy for saying that User:Snowded "has us believe that he's whiter than white"? Quite frankly I'm astounded, but I'll let it pass. On the subject of my user page, which you don't like, would you care to assess this one then?. Please note that I do not edit politically. I try to revert the political edits of others. Your suggestion of a site ban for me is completely over the top. I've already agreed to refrain from editing British Isles related articles if others will do the same. What more do you want? The Special Examples page is worthless. It was set up by HighKing because he was forced to do it. He objects to it, and has now stopped using it. It is flawed: it only attracts HK's supporters and those seeking to limit his edits. Other article editors are largely unaware of it. It is no substitute for the article talk pages. As User:LevenBoy states below, this problem will not go away until all concerned agree to stop removing, or indeed inserting, British Isles. You note below that this thread is not about HighKing. Would you object if I expanded it so that it was - adjust title etc and put a notice on his Talk page. Mister Flash (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Flash I don't think you get it. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Your contributions (listed below): inserting unsourced material, removing sourced material, edit warring and wikihounding are not vague conjecture (as LevenBoy's remark about Snoweded was), they are a matter of record. If I said somebody was a pov-pusher but then gave no evidence that'd be a problem. But I've examined your edits and shown the issue.
Yes I would have a problem with you adding HK to this since you've been wikihounding him. Please leave it to uninvolved editors and admins. If there is a substantive concern a WP:RFCU should be opened. Also since you've made no attempted to resolve the dispute between yourself and HK this is the wrong forum to begin dispute resolution.
I agree the Task Force should be examined but I believe that should be left to the community. Also just out of courtesy you should reply to people in the thread that they posted--Cailil talk 22:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)- Sorry. Where didn't I do that? I generally try to keep the dialogue flowing, but it's not easy here. You really should look at some of the edits in more detail before saying they are inserting unsourced material etc. On the face of it, that may be true, but as I've said elsewhere, the issue of sources and the use of British Isles is just one example of gaming the system, but it's not immediately apparent how that gaming is taking place. See Talk:FWA Footballer of the Year for a classic example of this. You'll also note that on that talk page I did request outside involvement, as I have done in many cases. I add this point just to defend myself against the current accusations. Mister Flash (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Flash I don't think you get it. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Your contributions (listed below): inserting unsourced material, removing sourced material, edit warring and wikihounding are not vague conjecture (as LevenBoy's remark about Snoweded was), they are a matter of record. If I said somebody was a pov-pusher but then gave no evidence that'd be a problem. But I've examined your edits and shown the issue.
- Cailil, am I missing something here, or did you refer to me as "being a single purpose, disruptive, wikihounding, edit warring, politically driven account", and then go on to admonish User:LevenBoy for saying that User:Snowded "has us believe that he's whiter than white"? Quite frankly I'm astounded, but I'll let it pass. On the subject of my user page, which you don't like, would you care to assess this one then?. Please note that I do not edit politically. I try to revert the political edits of others. Your suggestion of a site ban for me is completely over the top. I've already agreed to refrain from editing British Isles related articles if others will do the same. What more do you want? The Special Examples page is worthless. It was set up by HighKing because he was forced to do it. He objects to it, and has now stopped using it. It is flawed: it only attracts HK's supporters and those seeking to limit his edits. Other article editors are largely unaware of it. It is no substitute for the article talk pages. As User:LevenBoy states below, this problem will not go away until all concerned agree to stop removing, or indeed inserting, British Isles. You note below that this thread is not about HighKing. Would you object if I expanded it so that it was - adjust title etc and put a notice on his Talk page. Mister Flash (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Howabout a ban on all deletion/additions of British Isles for all editors on Wikipedia? I could accept that condition. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- See above! A ban on all deletion and removals of British Isles by listed editors. Mister Flash (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- What would you suggest? GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- It won't work, GD. The BI removals would continue. Mister Flash (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- If my suggestion is adopted, then both sides will be restricted to 1RR on the articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the opportunity to state my case in this matter. First let me brief you on some historical aspects. From some time about early 2008 User:HighKing has waged a campaign against the term British Isles. I will not comment on his motives, but I merely draw your attention to the facts. Initially the removals were carried out en-masse, with perhaps dozens of removals in a single editing session. I estimate that in the three-year period of this activity a minimum of 500 removals have occurred. During his campaign HighKing has been assisted by numerous other users, principally User:Crispness (possibly now editing under a "clean start" as User:Þjóðólfr) and User:Snowded. HighKing's activities have spilled out across Wikipedia and have resulted in many edit wars, confrontations and violations of policy, involving everyone concerned. His work continues. Only two days ago a further two deletions were carried out, each of which featured the usual trademark of an edit summary not adequately describing what was happening. I came across HighKing in late 2008 and found myself objecting strongly to his edits. I tend to revert his edits because, in my opinion, the vast majority of them are not justified. Rarely is the term British Isles being used incorrectly. If it ever is, then I don't object to its removal. When removals are challenged, a variety of tactics are used to try and overcome the objections. All the tactics employed amount to variations on gaming the system, with wikilawyering and policy shopping being foremost amongst them. Take the recent example of Five Peaks Challenge - the edits which have caused the reporting of this incident: HighKing first tried to claim the subject was not notable, when that failed he went for a merge, and this was followed by claims that the references (references to support an axiom, I might add) were inadequate. This latter tactic is a favourite of the anti-British Isles community; place a cite tag on an obvious fact and when no references are forthcoming, delete the term. So to my part in this: I object to the policy of British Isles removals for what I consider to be political reasons, hence my numerous reversions of the edits of HighKing and others. I would be very happy never to edit another BI-related article (specifically involving addition or removal of the term) provided a similar restriction was placed on other users involved in this dispute. In his comments on this matter, User:Snowded would have you believe that I am 100% at fault and that he, HighKing and others have no case to answer. Such an assertion could not be farther from the truth. These users are at least as culpable as me in this matter. Remember that the root cause of this entire debacle is one single, solitary user - HighKing. If he stopped systematically trying to remove British Isles from Wikipedia we would not now be having this debate. So to summarise; I will accept a community sanction not to add or remove British Isles provided that sanction is also applied to the other users whose identities I have noted here. Mister Flash (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- The articles-in-question, should be covered by the Troubles Enforcement ruling of 1RR (if they are not). GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Outside view
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
First no this isn't covered by the Troubles ArbCom ruling or any other ruling to my knowledge because the article sin question aren't about nationalism - but these editors are adding ideological references within them. As an outside viewer and uninvolved sysop I'd say it's pretty clear that 2/0's and Snowded's assessments bear out.
I'd block Mister Flash myself as an obvious Single Purpose Account but for the fact that it might look bad, being that I'm Irish. Nevertheless, I'm not saying editors who disagree with Flash are right or innocent of treating the site as a battleground. What follows is a brief investigation of this issue.
The FWA_Footballer_of_the_Year edit-war is indicative[1][2][3][4][5] - if this wording is a notable point it should be verifiable. In this single case it's clear that Flash reinstated an unsourced footnote for reasons other than WP:V, WP:NPOV and contrary to WP:NOR. On top of that the user's own user page is highly politicized and openly hostile to the Task force. I believe it contravenes WP:USER, in that it is deliberately inflammatory (in the manner it links to the task force) and polemical (Scottish independence etc).
Below is a review of problematic, politically motivated, edit-warring and/or wikihounding edits made by Mister Flash in some of his top 10 articles[6]
- FWA_Footballer_of_the_Year (diffs above)
- Tin_whistle[7][8][9][10] And Flash's first edit to thois article is in response to High King's[11]
- Cochrane[12]
- Neopaganism[13][14] Interestingly He'd never edited here until High King did[15]
- 1960_in_rail_transport [16][17][18][19][20] Flash starts editting here immediately after High King[21]
- Henry_John_Elwes [22][23][24][25][26]. Once more Flash appears on this page after HighKing edits it[27]
- Sarum_Rite[28][29][30][31][32]. Again Mister Flash turns up here for the first time in order to revert HighKing[33].
In summary, it is clear that Mister Flash is not alone in tendentious and disruptive behaviour. A number of edits by User:HighKing and User:Þjóðólfr are equally problematic.
In terms of sanctions, HighKing has contributed positively to the project but seems overly focused on this issue([34]). It is also clear that Þjóðólfr and HighKing have edit warred with Mister Flash. It also seems that Þjóðólfr and Mister Flash engaged in wikihounding (Þjóðólfr of Flash; and Flash of HighKing).
For this reason I move that Þjóðólfr should be topic banned from British Isles naming dispute topics for 6 months and placed on a 1RR restriction; that HighKing should be placed on a 1RR restriction in all articles. It might also be worthwhile considering a 6 month topic ban from British Isles naming dispute topics for HighKing, but his presence on the task force (and therefore willingness to dialogue) gives me hope. That said it might be worth investigating both of them a little further.
Mister Flash being a single purpose, disruptive, wikihounding, edit warring, politically driven account should be site banned. Wikipedia is not a battleground and unless or until Mister Flash can commit themselves to the core policies and standards of editing on this site they should be prevented from disrupting it further--Cailil talk 02:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- In my experience, the only thing the special examples page has managed to do is introduce totally innaccurate, and borderline nonsense, information to articles, which other people have to clean up after the event. It quite evidently only exists to push a POV, 90% of cases presented are fine, it's the other 10% you need to watch to see how bad it is at coming up with an informed and accurate solution to this apparent 'problem' of mentioning the verboten phrase. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hence my call for further investigation and a potential topic ban for HighKing--Cailil talk 16:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- HighKing was problematic, but then fully participated in the task force and accepted the agreements reached there (albeit with frustration at times). However the functioning of the task group has been badly damaged by the actions of MisterFlash (occasionally with other support) who has either edit warred against consensus, or indulged in delaying tactics (look the discussions on Sarum Rite for an example). Attempts by myself and others to create some order through the task force have either being met by a total lack of cooperation or downright abuse. We could do with admin support there. I support the proposal by Cailil although I think it is harsh on Þjóðólfr who in general has responded to Flash and has not initiated any change where agreement has not first been established at the task force.--Snowded TALK 06:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- For all those above that are buying into the "HighKing was problematic" statement - can you please provide diffs? From my point of view, this inaccurate view is a victory for the editors that we are discussing. By calling my edits political, part of a campaign, etc, it seems that many editors slowly but surely start to believe this. The task force has been up and running since last September, and before that each and every one of my edits was discussed on the relevant Talk page. I've always attempted to the best of my ability to edit within the policies, to provide references, and to engage in discussions. Labelling this behaviour as "problematic" is very unfair and inaccurate. It may be unpopular with some editors, but that should not be mistaken for my acting in good faith, in a collaborative apolitical fashion. Cailil's suggestion above that I am placed on a 1RR restriction for *all* articles is similarly misplaced and without foundation, and I'm shocked and disappointed that he would not examine my behaviour a little closer. Placing my behaviour in the same basket as that of Mister Flash et al is wildly inaccurate and unfair. --HighKing (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- HighKing was problematic, but then fully participated in the task force and accepted the agreements reached there (albeit with frustration at times). However the functioning of the task group has been badly damaged by the actions of MisterFlash (occasionally with other support) who has either edit warred against consensus, or indulged in delaying tactics (look the discussions on Sarum Rite for an example). Attempts by myself and others to create some order through the task force have either being met by a total lack of cooperation or downright abuse. We could do with admin support there. I support the proposal by Cailil although I think it is harsh on Þjóðólfr who in general has responded to Flash and has not initiated any change where agreement has not first been established at the task force.--Snowded TALK 06:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hence my call for further investigation and a potential topic ban for HighKing--Cailil talk 16:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
HK, the very fact that your account was involved in an edit-war anywhere is problematic. The fact that this occurred multiple times at multiple articles only serves to make it worse. Secondly extending the British Isles naming dispute to articles not about the dispute is an issue[35][36][37] (these diffs are listed above). Yes Flash followed you to these articles but frankly, it takes two to tango (or in this case 3). BTW, no you are not being lumped in with Flash, you are not a single purpose account. Also I'm not convinced you should be topic banned but the edit-warring speaks for itself--Cailil talk 21:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Cailil, thank you for clarifying that my behaviour is not being lumped in with Flash - that's important to me. While I reckon that this probably isn't the correct forum to discuss individual articles, I don't understand what you mean by "extending the British Isles naming dispute to articles not about the dispute". The editing and Task Force is not about the BI naming dispute. The British Isles is a legitimate and correct name for the group of islands. I've no problems whatsoever with that. But your comment illustrates how easy it is to see *any* edit involving British Isles as somehow being caught up with Irish Nationalism, whereas my edits are concerned with accuracy (and this I've also stated before). The edits in question are where the term was (arguably) used incorrectly. Rather than debate here we can continue this particular discussion elsewhere - perhaps at the Task Force page. --HighKing (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- For further reference please see this link [38] (HighKing was Bardcom) and this one [39]. Mister Flash (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Mister Flash stop. Adding an old RfCU that went nowhere about HK and adding the AE that most admins are (and certainly the one who opened this section is) more than aware of, only goes further to show that you are wikihounding HK. Then emboldening that post only makes it worse.[40][41] You will not get another warning for wikihounding. You're being formally advised to disengage from HighKing and the British Isles naming dispute and User:HighKing--Cailil talk 21:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Cailil, I sincerely suggest you move on, before you start abusing your powers as an admin. I bolded it because it was in danger of being lost in a section that's being edited in several locations. As for the content of those references, they are as relevant today as they were when they were current. They provide background information to this dispute, a dispute which for some reason you fail to acknowledge as being the root cuase of the current debate - and you have yet to answer my question about extending this section. It seems that many admins have tackled this issue over the last three years and all have given up on it, so it doesn't bode well for you. Suggesting that I'm wikihounding HK as a result of my referring to relevant archives is laughable, as is warning me to disengage from the BI naming dispute - it's what this thread is all about for heavens sake! Mister Flash (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Mister Flash stop. Adding an old RfCU that went nowhere about HK and adding the AE that most admins are (and certainly the one who opened this section is) more than aware of, only goes further to show that you are wikihounding HK. Then emboldening that post only makes it worse.[40][41] You will not get another warning for wikihounding. You're being formally advised to disengage from HighKing and the British Isles naming dispute and User:HighKing--Cailil talk 21:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Inside view
I've previously been involved in this dispute but I've largely given up on it now. In fact, it's driven me away from Wikipedia to a certain degree. It seems that Cailil has not quite grasped the underlying issues concerned with HighKing and his edits. As many editors have noted, HK's edits are political in nature. He has an agenda and is using Wikipedia to promote it. It is his actions that are the ultimate source of the problems we encounter. Ask yourselves this question - If Mister Flash is site banned (a wholly disproportionate response) will the problem go away? Then ask this question - If HK is site banned (or topic banned) will the problem go away? I suggest the answer to the first question is 'No', because others would simply take up the reins. I also suggest that the answer to the second question is 'Yes'. It's very noticeable that when HK is not editing, no-one else is bothered about the SE page and there are no British Isles issues. Only when he re-starts does the problem crop up again. To me the solution to this intractable problem is simple - topic ban all concerned. Everyone involved in this has a case to answer, including Snowded who would have us believe he is whiter than white. No need for site-wide bans. Editors such as Mister Flash would simply melt away into background if a topic ban was in place. His editing is pretty much SPA so he'd move on elsewhere, and perhaps HK would as well. LevenBoy (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- With respect to your points LevenBoy. First this thread is not about HighKing (hence my call for further investigation) but it is clear from his history that he edits other topics and is not a single purpose account. Second, please don't cast aspersions about other editors as you have about User:Snowded. Third, Mister Flash has, as can be seen by examining his contrib history used Wikipedia as a battleground. Fourth your points would be more convincing if you could provide diffs as evidence.
Over all I do see that groups of users are bringing political disputes to pages that have nothing to do with that dispute. Which is a) getting around the Troubles RfAR ruling, b) creating ideologically driven edit-wars and c) which is not limited to Mister Flash. However this thread is about Mister Flash - and frankly it would outside the remit of this forum to go through and unpick the complex of issues that users have with the Special Examples Task Force. That would require an RfAR which you are free to file. The other option and a suggestion that might be more useful to the community would be an extension of the Troubles AE ruling to the 'British Isles naming dispute' topic (widely construed). This would allow for discretionary sanctions on anyone edit-warring, etc, relating to the term 'British Isles'. To implement such an extension a request to ArbCom would be required. But IMHO it would make a lot of sense--Cailil talk 15:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)- Extent the AE Troubles ruling over the BI naming dispute. It can easily be assumed that there's some Irish nationalism & British unionism behind the disputes. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- The two are completely separate issues. You might just as well extend the Troubles ruling over the Macedonian naming dispute. Mister Flash (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Extent the AE Troubles ruling over the BI naming dispute. It can easily be assumed that there's some Irish nationalism & British unionism behind the disputes. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent)I've only just seen this now. I hadn't been informed of this discussion. I arrived here as I was about to make a complaint about Mister Flash concerning this edit on St. Peter's Church, St. George's and Strumpshaw Fen RSPB reserve. Despite his untrue assertion that I was forced to create the Specific Examples page, the truth is that and I voluntarily set it up despite my misgivings about censorship - and in part because I had a good idea that it would end in disruption by a very small number of editors. Despite several warnings about civility, editing without following policy guidelines regarding references, and constantly branding any attempt to even discuss usage of British Isles as "political", his behaviour is not collaborative and he constantly edit-wars against consensus. He was warned in the past to not revert referenced material, but the two recent examples above clearly show that he openly ignores policy and admins. The Task Force has ground to a halt because of his behaviour and stone-walling. Examining his edits clearly shows he wikihounds my edits, and reverts without references or discussions. He takes the opportunity in his edit summaries, on every occasion, to label the edits as political or to unfairly cast any editors motives. In short, this is exactly the type of editor that we simply don't want on this project. He has recently been blocked for edit-warring, but his recent reverts demonstrate that he will simply continue to revert without reason in the future. --HighKing (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- To clarify the purpose of the task force just now. Its sole purpose is to limit, and ideally eliminate, usage of the term British Isles throughout Wikipedia; straight up. Mister Flash (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- We have good and bad uses of the term SirFozzie, what we want to stop is edit wars. HighKing has (to his credit) after a long period of removing the term wherever he could find it, being prepared to use the task force page. However Mr Flash with some others (LevenBoy being another) have with the very very occasional exception simply said no to any change regardless of the evidence. At one point I suggested a protocol which in a modified form would I think work. However any attempt to be even handed just results in the sort of accusations you can see above. Mister Flash's view of the purpose of the Taskforce is not supported by any examination of the cases there. Any examination of the edit history on the task force page, or on the articles will show that we have a single purpose editor who auto-reverts, makes accusations against other editors and actively seeks to prevent consensus on contentious issues. I've been prepared to spend time on the task force, looking at each issue as have a small number of other editors with experience of the BI issue. I can see some guidelines starting to emerge. However it is a thankless task when all attempts are subject to disruption and accusations. Per the proposed protocol, enforcing use of the task force and some dispute resolution process could work with community support. --Snowded TALK 07:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- While observation does bare this Snowded, from an outside perspective it is only proper that we handle this dispute neutrally. HK and Þjóðólfr edit warred with Mister Flash. Yes there are other, more serious, issues with Mister Flash's on site activity but revert wrring is a serious matter and needs to be seen as such by those who engage in it.
While I think there are positive aspects to your protocol I don't see it as a positive step for the project. We have the BI SE task force itself, WP:CSB for countering systemic bias, WP:WQA, WP:AN3, WP:AN, WP:RFP for policy issues and admin intervention and the ArbCom enforcement policies for the troubles rfar - which dealt with a similar (but not the same) naming dispute. We don't need a special group for this dispute.
In short we have policies for behaviour and content already. If certain volunteers can't follow the rules then we will prevent them from disrupting others who will. Simple as that--Cailil talk 09:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)- Please point out where I edit warred with Flash - that's twice you've made that accusation. I believe you'll find that Flash was editting against concensus. You use 3 examples above, none of which can be regarded by any stretch as edit warring. And BTW, you must also take into account that for some of this time, BlackKite had ruled that no editor could revert a good edit especially if it involved references, which Flash continues to do on a regular basis. Many of my reverts were valid, and I made sure I didn't start an edit war. If you check the articles in question, you'll find other editors did far more reverting of Flash that I did. Sure, on occassion I have become frustrated with his behaviour, but I have never breached policy, or even warned or blocked for edit warring. Do not make the mistake of grouping me with disruptive editors. This is another example of an exaggerated and unfounded allegation, borne from the severe breaches of WP:CIVIL that accompany most of my edits. I'm no martyr, but please please please take the time to examine my behaviour (especially in the context of the very severe bullying, namecalling, and name blackening I have been subjected to over the past number of years), and if there's problems, provide diffs. I believe you'll conclude that my behaviour has not crossed any line or breached any policy. --HighKing (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh the Irony: Had the propper action been taken in the first place, perhaps there would have been no need to Shoot the messenger again!! for the same misdemeanor. Þjóðólfr (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- While observation does bare this Snowded, from an outside perspective it is only proper that we handle this dispute neutrally. HK and Þjóðólfr edit warred with Mister Flash. Yes there are other, more serious, issues with Mister Flash's on site activity but revert wrring is a serious matter and needs to be seen as such by those who engage in it.
- We have good and bad uses of the term SirFozzie, what we want to stop is edit wars. HighKing has (to his credit) after a long period of removing the term wherever he could find it, being prepared to use the task force page. However Mr Flash with some others (LevenBoy being another) have with the very very occasional exception simply said no to any change regardless of the evidence. At one point I suggested a protocol which in a modified form would I think work. However any attempt to be even handed just results in the sort of accusations you can see above. Mister Flash's view of the purpose of the Taskforce is not supported by any examination of the cases there. Any examination of the edit history on the task force page, or on the articles will show that we have a single purpose editor who auto-reverts, makes accusations against other editors and actively seeks to prevent consensus on contentious issues. I've been prepared to spend time on the task force, looking at each issue as have a small number of other editors with experience of the BI issue. I can see some guidelines starting to emerge. However it is a thankless task when all attempts are subject to disruption and accusations. Per the proposed protocol, enforcing use of the task force and some dispute resolution process could work with community support. --Snowded TALK 07:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to see diffs for the alleged "long period of removing the term wherever he (HighKing) could find it". As far as I can see, it is an unfairly-repeated exaggeration at its very best, and a real slur on a committed editor at worst. He began a bit rashly as Bardcom (a long time ago now, and I was one of those who called him up on being too 'prissy' in his reactions to some simply concerned requests, and I reverted any BI changes I disagreed with), but this repeated exaggeration of HK being a "extremist" editor is totally unfounded as far as I can see. Nobody saying it is proving it - it's just all words.
- The term "British Isles" was incorrectly-used all over Wikipedia, and Bardcom/HighKing had every right to go from article to article addressing it. He has always listened to article-related criticism, and avoided uses of the term which are obviously correct. Very occasionally he copy-edits away from a 'fair' use of the term (ie when various descriptive routes can easily be taken) - but again that is simply an editing right. As HighKing (perhaps a name to start afresh with) he has stood behind every form of BI-related taksforce, when others have shunned them for various reasons.
- In between there have often been people around who have insisted that the term 'British Isles' should be used widely and without censor - a situation which will never suit Wikipedia, or kind of consistent dictionary or encylcopedia.
- If HighKing gets a topic ban I will take this to he top and shine a light on everyone involved. I'm tired of seeing the actual workers get the eventual heavy blows on Wikipedia. There is no sense in it at all. And I am not 'anti' the term British Isles, I'm very much a 'British' editor. Terms like British Isles are simply problematic. "British Isles" is both inherently potentially-misleading, and has different definitions on the actual islands it covers, and regarding its mixed cultural/political/geographical usage too. The only way Wikipedia is going to deal with those inherent problems is via the kind of Style and terminology Guidelines that every other serious encyclopedia adheres to in these situations.
- Until that guideline happens, topic-banning or unduly restricting any editors for reverting each other (eg punishing them outside of simple 3RR or Civility) would be punishing them for Wikipedia's own clear failings. The guideline will happen eventually (I'll be back on it soon myself), and until they are completed we need to stick to the Specific Examples page and 3RR. After we have those guidelines, admin will be much clearer about how to address any situations that could flare up (and these would be minimised anyway), and the future will be a lot less fractious, and actually quite-easily managed. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Matt do you think as an Irishman I am unaware of the misuse of the term 'British Isles'? I agree with your points re the term except that we do already have a standard here on wp - verifiability. If a source uses a term we use it. If a source uses another term we use that. It's really very simple. Secondly, I am not out to blacken HK's name, but you should be arware that in cases of revert warring blocking "both sides" is a common and oft justified result. It takes two to tango. And if outsiders see a long term pattern of problems then that needs to be addressed. I am convinced that HK should be placed on a 1RR but that's all. Others have stated that we should consider a topic ban- I agree that the community should consider that but I'm not in favour of it.
Also please note that threatening people who have come in to resolve an editwar with 'scrutiny' is not compatible with WP:CIVIL. But please feel free to bring this to ArbCom by all means. I remain convinced that the community can sort this out and I believe that theArbs would see it that way too--Cailil talk 17:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)- Cailil, if you consider that the term British Isles is "misused" (in Wikipedia?) then you really should consider recusal from this debate. Yes, the term is used in error, though not often, but I have yet to see anywhere in Wikipedia where it's being misused - a word that implies abuse. Mister Flash (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Matt do you think as an Irishman I am unaware of the misuse of the term 'British Isles'? I agree with your points re the term except that we do already have a standard here on wp - verifiability. If a source uses a term we use it. If a source uses another term we use that. It's really very simple. Secondly, I am not out to blacken HK's name, but you should be arware that in cases of revert warring blocking "both sides" is a common and oft justified result. It takes two to tango. And if outsiders see a long term pattern of problems then that needs to be addressed. I am convinced that HK should be placed on a 1RR but that's all. Others have stated that we should consider a topic ban- I agree that the community should consider that but I'm not in favour of it.
- People do seem to forget the amount of unquestionably good work HK has done - the work we'd all (even if reluctantly) agree was clearly beneficial to Wikipedia. Who wants a term used incorrectly? When he first addressed BI it was misused (used incorrectly, whatever) a lot. Less so now, obviously. IMO, to go up to 3RR to include "British Isles" in places where it could be extra-ambiguous, not greatly needed, and liable to cause offence, is not clever at all. There are simply other terms we can use. I think it sould be the term for geographical/archipelago use, and a guideline should state this. I know you've put it in places - if it is in a 'political' use, I'd like that to change via a guideline. Muliti-meaning terms need to be handled properly, per other encyclopdia's like Britannica. The main thing is that the term does not get outlawed. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Someone would have to attempt the 1RR before I'd bother Arbcom, obviously. Are you saying you don't think the Arbs would support a BI guideline? I would have to disagree on that.
- Regarding my comment on "shining a light" (hardly a real civility infringement surely?) - I didn't mean "everyone" literally. What I meant is that I won't stand back and let HighKing be punished unfairly alone (or even along with Mister Flash). I won't accept such injustice, and opening up other's edits on BI should be enough to stop things from developing. You (and those who support such punitive actions) do need to see how strongly I feel about dishing out 1RR's and topic bans - because I won't be alone on this, especially regarding an editor with a law-abiding background like HighKing's. I'd like to know how you can be so "convinced" that HK should be on 1RR? What is your justification for what is in my eyes a very very very serious act? Editors are not make of clay - you cannot just mould them into shape to solve an external problem when they haven't done anything wrong. And who says he should have a actual topic ban?! I would see that as nothing less than a human rights infringement - he has done nothing to deserve that at all. Was it actually an uninvolved person, or just someone who counter-edits him on BI? Editors are real people who invest hours of their life to Wikipedia - they have to be treated with human respect.
- Do you actually have compelling diffs where HighKing has failed to be a civil and law abiding editor? How many times has he been blocked or warned for civility? This would need to be shown.
- IMO, to give HighKing 1RR is simply to use an iron fist on a committed editor, to paper over a crack that will only grow. So why is it even being suggested? Imo it is ultimately down to a problem that scars Wikipedia throughout: the single-minded faith in the verifiability rule. X says Y so the resultant Z is the truth for this sentence. Once you establish the 'truth' you can take it anywhere. It is a philosophical nightmare. Single-minded faith in V is the single worst enemy of Wikipedia, and this very AN page is full of examples of it. Some people think that can simply cripple the annoying editors, and then V will win out and save the day again: in fact V is abused evey day and every where. Would you allow every permutation of meaning of "British Isles", simply because there is a "verified source" for each meaning? Perhaps two different meanings in the very same article? Why not? And what if someone just wants to use "British Isles" as a descriptive term without a source being needed? Verification is as much a curse as it is a benefit - it must always be used with caution and a starting point only. One day Policy will properly reflect that, instead of being so utterly flimsy on the matter. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Matt regarding the suggested 1RR do you understand WP:EDITWAR? Secondly in regard to your discussion of sources do you understand WP:NOR and how it works with WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE)?
We do not need a new policy wikipedia about terminology whether it has to do with the use of 'British Isles' or 'French Polynesia'. We have polices and standards. Wikipedia is not here to correct the wrongs and/or the perceived wrongs of the world. We reflect reliable sources about notable subjects in a neutral manner, full stop.--Cailil talk 22:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)- Why are you asking if I understand core policy like Edit warring, No Point of View, No Original Research, and Undue Weight? There is 'WP' somewhere on doing that to an experienced editor: it's not considered particularly polite to frame it like that. WP:Verify stops at the first line for people who want to get their point in at all costs - any long-standing copy editor will tell you that. V is a bugger to challenge, despite red flag (the best part of weight). When we know that V is so challenged, why rely on it to save us after we find ourselves in a position where someone like yourself wants to force 1RR on a decent editor? Just because V should work? It's just not logical.
- Matt regarding the suggested 1RR do you understand WP:EDITWAR? Secondly in regard to your discussion of sources do you understand WP:NOR and how it works with WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE)?
- IMO, to give HighKing 1RR is simply to use an iron fist on a committed editor, to paper over a crack that will only grow. So why is it even being suggested? Imo it is ultimately down to a problem that scars Wikipedia throughout: the single-minded faith in the verifiability rule. X says Y so the resultant Z is the truth for this sentence. Once you establish the 'truth' you can take it anywhere. It is a philosophical nightmare. Single-minded faith in V is the single worst enemy of Wikipedia, and this very AN page is full of examples of it. Some people think that can simply cripple the annoying editors, and then V will win out and save the day again: in fact V is abused evey day and every where. Would you allow every permutation of meaning of "British Isles", simply because there is a "verified source" for each meaning? Perhaps two different meanings in the very same article? Why not? And what if someone just wants to use "British Isles" as a descriptive term without a source being needed? Verification is as much a curse as it is a benefit - it must always be used with caution and a starting point only. One day Policy will properly reflect that, instead of being so utterly flimsy on the matter. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a great many guidelines in MOS - one more on using "British Isles" will not hurt anyone. Wikipedia does need it I'm afraid. V is not a "Full stop" for me. Wikipedia was designed to empower people, not mislead them - we must never forget that amongst all the 'WP'. Despite the cries of "no no we must NOT right wrongs!!!". Simply expecting accuracy should not be seen as a partisan thing. Most of the problems, sins and failings of Wikipedia effectively hide behind (or stem from) the inadequacies of policy. Or else why are they there? And why would you be suggesting 1RR on someone such as HighKing?
- 1RR is not in WP:EDITWAR, nor is it in policy anywhere: you want to do it because policy has failed. HighKing hasn't failed anything. Simply re-trying different copy or reverting someone happens all the time - it's how WIkipedia improves. It is NOT edit warring, unless there is bad intent and a failure to discuss, or it gets to 3RR. All per WP:EDITWAR. Effectively it's another ambiguity, as almost all reverting/replacing could be called edit warring (and probably has at some point). The question is - do we use are heads over difficult matters and look at guidelines, or just focus solely on V, quote downwards, then punish when things go wrong? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Matt, I apologize if I came across as antagonistic towards you. But you seem to missing the core point I'm making about how casual, wholesale reverting is a problem. Edit wars, be they fast or slow, degrade our articles' histories. There is rarely one user involved in an edit war and when 'all sides' have been educated, warned, blocked, restricted etc we must take action to prevent article's histories or parts there of being rendered useless.
I disagree with you as regards the MOS, but that's my view. If you want to propose it at the MOS go ahead. I don't see a need for it, as WP:UNDUE and WP:V should cover it, but I respect your view - perhaps others will be more supportive. Also, and just FYI, 1RR is spelled out here--Cailil talk 01:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)- Those battles (they pop up from time to time) end up being a stage in the current process - I've seen the flurries happen (people may push 3RR, but they are seeing who if anyone comes to support, which can happen of course), and then they focus on the SE page, and then a solution is found (sometimes this is all smooth, other times its more protracted). It's the various 'words' said in between from some parties which is the most disappointing aspect imo (HK has taken things on the SE page admin would look at on article talk). But it's just the way it goes - the term is a real problem on Wikpiedia. A guideline has actually been worked on, on and off, for a long time. It has a couple of major issues to iron out (and the current version is a bit convoluted), but I'm certain that eventually something will be proposed. There is strong support both for and against having one. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Matt, I apologize if I came across as antagonistic towards you. But you seem to missing the core point I'm making about how casual, wholesale reverting is a problem. Edit wars, be they fast or slow, degrade our articles' histories. There is rarely one user involved in an edit war and when 'all sides' have been educated, warned, blocked, restricted etc we must take action to prevent article's histories or parts there of being rendered useless.
- 1RR is not in WP:EDITWAR, nor is it in policy anywhere: you want to do it because policy has failed. HighKing hasn't failed anything. Simply re-trying different copy or reverting someone happens all the time - it's how WIkipedia improves. It is NOT edit warring, unless there is bad intent and a failure to discuss, or it gets to 3RR. All per WP:EDITWAR. Effectively it's another ambiguity, as almost all reverting/replacing could be called edit warring (and probably has at some point). The question is - do we use are heads over difficult matters and look at guidelines, or just focus solely on V, quote downwards, then punish when things go wrong? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Sanctions
As discussed above: it is proposed that Mister Flash is either topic banned from the British Isles naming topic dispute (widely construed) and restricted from all contact and communication with User:HighKing or User:Þjóðólfr, or site banned.
That User:HighKing is either placed on revert restriction (1RR) or topic banned from the British Isles naming topic dispute (widely construed). Either sanction would come with him being [and] restricted from all contact and communication with User:Mister Flash. And that User:Þjóðólfr is either placed on revert restriction (1RR) and/or topic banned from the British Isles naming topic dispute (widely construed). Either sanction would come with him being restricted from all contact and communication with User:Mister Flash.
I would suggest considering his perfromance here that if Mister Flash is not site banned that he is additionally placed on civity parole--Cailil talk 09:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I asked above, and I'll ask again. This is about Flash. Are we extending it to include me and User:Þjóðólfr? You've provided no basis for calling for a topic ban or 1RR for my behaviour. It's also noteworthy that other editors involved in the Task Force have not backed up woolly allegations against me, yet you are continuing to try to push through a punishment. This doesn't reflect well on the project, or on the due diligence we'd expect from elected admins. --HighKing (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- HK, both you and Þjóðólfr edit warred with Mister Flash. He didn't do that alone and both you and Þjóðólfr seem to have missed the point about how serious edit-warring is taken. But I am not seeking to puinish you this is a preventative measure until you can demonstrate that you understand what you were doing wrong. Also please bear in mind 3 sysops have posted here - we're all looking for further input this section gives the community a choice of sanctions and a space to voice their opinions. I've stated above that both myself and Sir Fozzie think we should examine the possibility of wider sanctions rather than just for Mister Flash and that both of us are not sure whether you should be topic banned. I personally don't think so but I do think the wider community should be consulted. Please be clear this is for the edit warring with Mister Flash that is shown above in the diffs I found. His behaviour has been duly noted--Cailil talk 17:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry Cailil, I have been in general agreement with you so far. However HighKing has been prepared to submit to the discipline of proposing changes at the task force rather than making them directly. He has also abided by the decisions there, something which is not the case with Mister Flash. I suggest a better approach would be to enforce use of the task force, with a ban on any aware editor (in practice that is all those engaged), making any changes prior to agreement there. You could make that more specific to editors who have edit warred, ie preventing them from making the changes. --Snowded TALK 18:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Snowded there is nothing to prevent you from formulating a remedy for HK along these lines for community discussion. That is all I've done above (and BTW I was asking outsiders for input as User:2over0 was). However, your suggestion seems like something the community might consider reasonable. I prefer sanctions to be cleaner - from experience that's what works. But there's always a first time--Cailil talk 23:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Which is pretty much the practice the Task Force asked editors to abide by. With minor exceptions, it worked pretty well to a point. Twas the lack of enforcement that made it difficult to continue at times. (Leaving aside the constant abuse, the editing against consensus, the lack of engagement, etc.) If the Task Force had more discussion with the idea of creating guidelines and more editors submitted examples I think this might work. I'd certainly sign up to it (on the basis that the original rules regarding civility and no stonewalling are *strictly* enforced). --HighKing (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Snowded there is nothing to prevent you from formulating a remedy for HK along these lines for community discussion. That is all I've done above (and BTW I was asking outsiders for input as User:2over0 was). However, your suggestion seems like something the community might consider reasonable. I prefer sanctions to be cleaner - from experience that's what works. But there's always a first time--Cailil talk 23:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- We musn't forget that the Specific Examples page in the taskforce was optional for HighKing and everyone involved. My understanding was that HK readily volunteered to it, as he has with all of the taskforce since it started. There is no law on Wikipedia to say people cannot edit the term "British Isles" without opening a discussion first. The real sense in the SE page was that it got debate away from the article talk pages, saving them from being locked for the duration of the debate (like at River Shannon when Tharkuncoll was involved, just before the taskforce started). I can't see how Wikipedia can actually manage forcing people to use something like the SE page though, even if it was the right approach. For me the guideline is the only solution. Until then though, we should encourage each other to stick with the SE page, and I'll try and look it more myself too. The more people who weigh in, the more effective it is. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry Cailil, I have been in general agreement with you so far. However HighKing has been prepared to submit to the discipline of proposing changes at the task force rather than making them directly. He has also abided by the decisions there, something which is not the case with Mister Flash. I suggest a better approach would be to enforce use of the task force, with a ban on any aware editor (in practice that is all those engaged), making any changes prior to agreement there. You could make that more specific to editors who have edit warred, ie preventing them from making the changes. --Snowded TALK 18:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- HK, both you and Þjóðólfr edit warred with Mister Flash. He didn't do that alone and both you and Þjóðólfr seem to have missed the point about how serious edit-warring is taken. But I am not seeking to puinish you this is a preventative measure until you can demonstrate that you understand what you were doing wrong. Also please bear in mind 3 sysops have posted here - we're all looking for further input this section gives the community a choice of sanctions and a space to voice their opinions. I've stated above that both myself and Sir Fozzie think we should examine the possibility of wider sanctions rather than just for Mister Flash and that both of us are not sure whether you should be topic banned. I personally don't think so but I do think the wider community should be consulted. Please be clear this is for the edit warring with Mister Flash that is shown above in the diffs I found. His behaviour has been duly noted--Cailil talk 17:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just to restate what I said above - the diffs you found do *not* show me edit warring with Flash. --HighKing (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- You also state above that you are not setting out to "blacken" my name. But in actual fact, that's what appears to be happening. You say it takes two to tango, but in this case you'll find that Flash edited against consensus on the Task Force and several editors reverted his persistent edit warring. Why pick me out - I wouldn't even be counted as the editor that has reverted his edits the most, or even the 2nd or 3rd most. Just because Flash has been levelling his guns at me for an extended period of time does *not* mean that you should apply sanctions to me. You should not even suggest it! Because less diligent admins and readers will just pick up and say "Oh, but there must have been something in it. No smoke without fire, etc". Please. Please. Please. Listen to the other editors that have worked on the Task Force. Or that I've "disagreed" with in the past. Look at my edit history - especially in the context of the abuse I've been the target of. And stop trying to, intentionally or not, lump my editing and behaviour alongside that of Flash. That is wrong and unfair. --HighKing (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- HK I am not out to blacken your name. And on an extend review of multiple pages (which I'll post here in about an hour) I've decided to alter my position. I've striken my suggestion that you should be topic banned. I however do believe the rest of eth community should *look* at your revert pattern and I suggest a 1RR for 6 months. An alternative would be a voluntary revert cap on your BI reverts per page (rather than per day). On review this is not much different to your actual practice. And if there's a problem with reverts out of order bring it to ANI or to my attention or another admin if I'm not around. I would be satisfied with that - as long as the community is. My view of Þjóðólfr and Mister Flash has not improved. And extended review of edit patterns shows Flash wikihounding you and Þjóðólfr following and revert warring with him. That's a serious issue--Cailil talk 23:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- OK, peace. I accept you aren't out to blacken my name on purpose, but from experience I've seen that once someone calls you a duck (and especially an admin, and most especially here), you're a duck. Thanks though for reviewing my edits. You'd be surprised how many times my behaviour is made to fit the accusations. You'll no doubt have seen that a lot of different things have been tried in the past, including 1RR. I've no problem with attempts to try to limit disruption and I've always agreed and adhered to the community processes. But also note that a sanction pointed at me will be seen as a punishment for a breach of policy or rules, and this is how other editors and admins will view it. Context is often forgotten. Singling me out in this way would beg the question as to why? Other editors who have worked with me (and not always agreed with me) on this topic are saying to you that I'm not disruptive, I engage, I remain civil, etc. This started off talking about Flash's behaviour, and he neatly tried to turn it into a content dispute, or that he was merely retaliating to provocation. This isn't true, and I believe Þjóðólfr grew frustrated and took action on occasion when he couldn't understand why Flash could edit against consensus, revert without discussion, revert while removing references, etc, and all without any sanction. I've also pointed this out in the past to admins such as BlackKite but he retired and I would guess partially because he was fed up with behaviour such as we've seen from Flash. I'll back off this discussion now, since I'm happy that you've reviewed, etc. --HighKing (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- HK I am not out to blacken your name. And on an extend review of multiple pages (which I'll post here in about an hour) I've decided to alter my position. I've striken my suggestion that you should be topic banned. I however do believe the rest of eth community should *look* at your revert pattern and I suggest a 1RR for 6 months. An alternative would be a voluntary revert cap on your BI reverts per page (rather than per day). On review this is not much different to your actual practice. And if there's a problem with reverts out of order bring it to ANI or to my attention or another admin if I'm not around. I would be satisfied with that - as long as the community is. My view of Þjóðólfr and Mister Flash has not improved. And extended review of edit patterns shows Flash wikihounding you and Þjóðólfr following and revert warring with him. That's a serious issue--Cailil talk 23:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
HK, let's cut to the quick; if you'll volunteer not to junk British Isles from Wikipedia again (unless its use is absolutely in error) I will never revert your edits, I will never add British Isles under any cicumstances and I won't engage in any activity that others might construe as wikihounding. Whilst I am the subject of this thread, your actions are instrumental in the debate, so it's only natural that they are also being highlighted. Do we have an agreement? Surely it's not a lot to ask that you don't remove British Isles? Oh yes, and I acknowledge that many of my posts directed at you have been over the top and uncalled for, and for them I apologise now.Mister Flash (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)- Mister Flash, you're very much mistaken if you believe this is solely about you and me. Nor is it about "British Isles". This is about your behaviour within this project since you started. Now that your behaviour is put under a microscope and editors and admins are discussing serious sanctions, you offer a belated apology to me (under duress). I'd like to accept the apology, but I've no reason to believe it is genuine or made in good faith. I'm sure others wouldn't be foolish enough to either. BTW, it doesn't help by starting with calling for me to "volunteer not to junk British Isles from Wikipedia" and trying to associate your behaviour with mine or trying to make you that somehow I have caused you to behave in this way. I do not bait you, or wikihound you. Your proposal is also transparent since your stated aim is to prevent any editor from discussing any article in any way which might result in the article being rewritten and the term "British Isles" being removed. Thankfully it seems you caught the attention of an admin who decided enough was enough. --HighKing (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Gentlemen disengage from one another please--Caililtalk 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why, and why now? I thought they are supposed to talk? I don't get all this, but I'm very concerned about it. I'm really worried about big heavy power moves on the horizon as I've invested a lot of time in BI. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Stage one of dispute resolution: stay cool and disengage (that doesn't mean don't talk ever again - just the equivalent of "break it up"). This page isn't for personalized statements--Cailil talk 01:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by "heavy power moves". I've stated clear what I'm suggesting. Community sanctions - that's it. I believe that will solve the problem without the need for anything more. drop me a talk page line if you're worried about something specific--Cailil talk 01:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm just worried that a big ruling of some kind will come and essentially make the guideline harder to achieve. The taskforce and SE page were needed and positive ideas, but the guideline is the only thing a this stage that is actually a 'positive' thing (in itself), and the only thing I can envisage working.Matt Lewis (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why, and why now? I thought they are supposed to talk? I don't get all this, but I'm very concerned about it. I'm really worried about big heavy power moves on the horizon as I've invested a lot of time in BI. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Gentlemen disengage from one another please--Caililtalk 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Mister Flash, you're very much mistaken if you believe this is solely about you and me. Nor is it about "British Isles". This is about your behaviour within this project since you started. Now that your behaviour is put under a microscope and editors and admins are discussing serious sanctions, you offer a belated apology to me (under duress). I'd like to accept the apology, but I've no reason to believe it is genuine or made in good faith. I'm sure others wouldn't be foolish enough to either. BTW, it doesn't help by starting with calling for me to "volunteer not to junk British Isles from Wikipedia" and trying to associate your behaviour with mine or trying to make you that somehow I have caused you to behave in this way. I do not bait you, or wikihound you. Your proposal is also transparent since your stated aim is to prevent any editor from discussing any article in any way which might result in the article being rewritten and the term "British Isles" being removed. Thankfully it seems you caught the attention of an admin who decided enough was enough. --HighKing (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Well I did try for an agreement, so carry on; topic ban, site ban, whatever. It makes no difference. This will not end here. The British Isles removals will no doubt carry on, and with a renewed vigor, since it seems they are being endorsed. I predict a never ending dispute, after all, it's been going on for at least two years already. The opportunity is here, now, to put an end to it, but the deletionists are reserving their right to continue unrestricted; the opportunity appears to be fading away. Mister Flash (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a place for silly deals. You should be careful here that speaking for others doesn't make you look like you run more than one account. When the taskforce started Mister Flash wasn't around, remember. And framing two years in terms of being "therefore never ending" looks iffy too. What about before then? HighKing actually advocates a guideline, so things would surely end with that for him. 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not a good idea to misrepresent other editors Mister Flash - that's the 2nd time you've misrepresented me in 24 hours. For the record nobody is endorsing any content issue. This is about behaviour; edit-warring specifically. And as I've said feel free to others open an RfAr. But the community should be able to handle this--Cailil talk 00:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not misrepresenting you or any other editor. Stroll on! Is my phraseology so difficult to understand? It's the process that is currently ensuing that I'm commenting on, not you. Mister Flash (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent)Shouldn't someone tell Þjóðólfr seeing as there's discussions about banning him? It's more than a little concerning that this ANI, originally set up to discuss Mister Flash's behaviour, has been expanded beyond the original scope, and that the editors being discussed haven't been officially notified. --HighKing (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- He was advised if you check his talk page, but has deleted it along with other material --Snowded TALK 13:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
For outside input sanctions re: Mister Flash
As above it is suggest that that Mister Flash is either topic banned from the British Isles naming topic dispute (widely construed) and restricted from all contact and communication with User:HighKing and User:Þjóðólfr, or site banned. That User:Þjóðólfr is placed on revert restriction (1RR) and/or topic banned from the British Isles naming topic dispute (widely construed). Either sanction would come with him being restricted from all contact and communication with User:Mister Flash. If User:HighKing is willing to voluntarily cap his reverts I would be satisfied with that. But please refer above for other suggestions.
Note to users related to or involved with the dispute please post in the above section entitled 'sanctions'--Cailil talk 00:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
For evidence see:
British Isles naming dispute edit war to Feb 2010
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| padding | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Report in relation to a long running edit war concerning the use of the term 'British Isles' in wikipedia.
Mister Flash is revert warring with High King while wikihounding him. User:Þjóðólfr has revert warred with Mister Flash while wikihounding him. HighKing has on occasion used the revert function to restore his preferred version of a page.
As the listing of diffs would be exhausting. What is presented below are the revision histories of some of the articles involved in the dispute. The list is broken into 3 sections: current, ended December 2009-January 2010, and ended before December 2009. The most relevant sections are the first two. The other shows context. Current
Ended before December 2009
|
- Thank you for compiling this, Cailil. I think that the interaction bans are definitely in order. Additionally, I think I could get behind the proposed topic ban for Mister Flash and a 1RR revert restriction for Þjóðólfr in this topic area (so far as I am aware there is no need to restrict their behaviour elsewhere in the project). If disruption continues in other areas, sanctions may be extended. I see a smattering of worrisome edits from HighKing (e.g. [53], [54]), but nothing in the last few months that rises to the level of disruption; I think that a friendly informal warning to tread carefully in articles related to nationalism will suffice. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
HighKing has undertaken to cap his revertions and user:Þjóðólfr has been blocked for
ban evasion sockpuppetry and harassment, unrelated to this topic--Cailil talk 03:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Eh? What? To what are you referring? I don't recall undertaking anything since I don't believe I have any need to at this point. --HighKing (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Must have read you wrong. What I said above I will reiterate - if you volunteer to limit your reverts to 1 per page in relation to the BI topic (basically the same as Snowded's don't revert a revert) I'm happy. This is basically what you're doing anyway but if it's stated clearly I see no need for sanctions of any kind--Cailil talk 17:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
modified proposal
Per the invitation above, a modified proposal based on engagement with this issue over a couple of years now. I've got the scars ....
- Mister Flash topic banned from British Isles naming dispute (widely construed) per above for a period of three months
- Do not revert a revert restriction for this topic area (better than a 1RR) for all editors once informed (similar to Troubles)
- HighKing required to continue recent practice of posting proposed changes to working group first and not making changes to articles without confirmed consensus on each change. If this is broken then progressive topic bans follow
- Strong enforcement of civility on working group pages
- Clear statement that the working group is there to use cases to create some simple rules (per Matt's comments) over the next few months)
Ideally some admin involvement on the working group would help. I'm happy to maintain the pages and draw in admin support if needed, but also happy if someone else takes it on. --Snowded TALK 12:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be against forcing passers-by to work under 1RR just because they edit around the term 'British isles' once or twice. It runs contrary to WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, WP:AGF and is iffy as regards WP:CREEP. Also the Troubles RfAr enforcement can only be extended by ArbCom and if you want that you need to suggest it to them--Cailil talk 04:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well the rule has been put in place already by BlackKite and enforced for a period, it helped stop the edit wars. Also note that I said "once informed" which is only going to happen if the change is controversial, in which case it needs to go to the working group anyway. --Snowded TALK 05:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be against forcing passers-by to work under 1RR just because they edit around the term 'British isles' once or twice. It runs contrary to WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, WP:AGF and is iffy as regards WP:CREEP. Also the Troubles RfAr enforcement can only be extended by ArbCom and if you want that you need to suggest it to them--Cailil talk 04:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've more scars than you. Based on what appears to work, and what doesn't, I'd modify the proposal as follows:
- Mister Flash site banned until such time as he agrees to adhere to the basic WP policies that all editors are expected to accept.
- "Rules of Participation" are published. The rules will be clearly laid out and unambiguous, and be restricted to civility and processes of collaboration and how to reach consensus, as well as a statement outlining the objective of the creation of usage guidelines. Rules are likely to contain the following:
- No addition or deletion of the term British Isles to articles without consensus of the Task Force
- Strong enforcement of civility. Breaches result in an escalating series of blocks. Breaches are likely to include any comments relating to an editor, and not relating to the content or article at hand.
- Editors must argee to the rules in order to participate. Activity by a notified editor who does not sign up to the rules may result in a progressive series of sanctions.
- --HighKing (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- HK even I think this is too complex a solution. It's really unworkable and contrary to WP:BOLD and WP:BRD to force uninvolved users to work in a 1RR arrangement. Secondly there's a huge WP:CREEP issue - this isn't a bureaucracy. The task force doesn't control the BI topic. Sanctions and article parole remedies need to be clean and clear. That way they run into the least conflict with WP:IAR and WP:AGF for those uninvolved. Snowded's solution of strict enforcement of WP:CIVIL at the task force is much more workable--Cailil talk 04:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's not really that complex - the most complex element is the 1RR. The other rules are a heightened civility policy enforcement since the task force has been plagued by a small number of editors who refuse to address content issues and simple comment on editors instead. This has to stop. And the final "rule" is to prevent editors refusing to work within the Task Force and decide to run solo. I'm happy to drop that restriction. There's very little between Snowded and my proposals. As Snowded stated, the "no revert of a revert" restriction appears to prevent many of the types of edit wars we've seen. It was only after Black Kite retired that we say a return to this behaviour due to a lack of enforcement (and some admins disagree with it).
- Passers-by haven't been a problem in the past. One of the main benefits of using 1RR and essentially slowing everything down, means that editors get a chance to consider the change and to reflect what edits should be made, if any. Disagreements can be played out at the Task Force rather than at the article itself. If a passer-by innocently makes a change that someone disagrees with, it's not a big deal to point them to the discussion on the Task Force. The 1RR is to prevent article disruption until a consensus emerges. Simple.
- Your point about WP:AGF, WP:BRD, WP:BOLD, and WP:CREEP is a noble one, but fails to take into consideration the fact that we started out there, and ended up here. The Task Force was set up to create guidelines. The SE page was set up to move the discussions away from the articles, and essentially to get consensus *before* changes were made. My initial concern is that this was a form of censure and against policies e.g. WP:BOLD, etc. I agreed because the alternative was to carry out discussions on numerous article Talk pages. If an editor is going to edit around "British Isles", it is best if we have guidelines, and these are best formed centrally. --HighKing (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- First, if you want, as Matt does, to propose a chnage to the WP:MOS - you need to do it there. Second whether you realize it or not the Task Force has been used as a site for dispute resolution. Users uninvolved in a dispute don't need to behave as if they are/were. Third, users outside of this dispute would tend to say that the movement away from from AGF etc is not a failing of the policies. The reason this needs community input is becuase you are *all* too close to it. Finally if you want/need a complex solution you should go through ArbCom who will take the time to weigh the long term effects and policy implications etc with the history of behaviour of those involved--Cailil talk 17:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, movement away from AGF isn't a failing of policies, it's a failure of enforcement of policies. We would never have required a task force at all if policies were enforced. Especially AGF and CIVIL, plus BRD, etc. Also, it's not just Matt and me that are talking about creating guidelines, but also Snowded above (perhaps you missed that). Are you suggesting we need to address guidelines in a different way? --HighKing (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well you can't create guidelines here HK. If you want to change or add to the MOS you need to work on it there. Like everything else guidelines are developed by consensus--Cailil talk 01:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, movement away from AGF isn't a failing of policies, it's a failure of enforcement of policies. We would never have required a task force at all if policies were enforced. Especially AGF and CIVIL, plus BRD, etc. Also, it's not just Matt and me that are talking about creating guidelines, but also Snowded above (perhaps you missed that). Are you suggesting we need to address guidelines in a different way? --HighKing (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- First, if you want, as Matt does, to propose a chnage to the WP:MOS - you need to do it there. Second whether you realize it or not the Task Force has been used as a site for dispute resolution. Users uninvolved in a dispute don't need to behave as if they are/were. Third, users outside of this dispute would tend to say that the movement away from from AGF etc is not a failing of the policies. The reason this needs community input is becuase you are *all* too close to it. Finally if you want/need a complex solution you should go through ArbCom who will take the time to weigh the long term effects and policy implications etc with the history of behaviour of those involved--Cailil talk 17:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hold on please
Resolved- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I have information regarding User:Þjóðólfr, who I have very good reason to believe is a sock of another editor with an extensive prior history of edit warring in related areas, including twice being put on probation from an ArbCom case. I don't have sufficient time to prepare a SPI case today but it will be done tomorrow. As the result of the SPI case should have a direct bearing on the sanctions here, I request any decision is put on hold until then. Thanks. 2 lines of K303 14:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- ...Hmm, I remember your last melodrama...who was proved to be the liar? Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)... Oh it was you!
User:Proofreader77 Indef Block consensus review.
| These issues are pending attention at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Proofreader77 blocks, collapsing for readability. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
ProofReader is currently blocked. He was originally blocked for 48 hours and then recently this was extended to indefinite. With the utmost respect to User:Gwen Gale I think this is a bit extreme. The user is blocked and is doing what he normally does in his blocks, gather documentation and talk about going to ARBCOM. However it is on his talkpage.....and if admin simply WP:DENY or salt his talk page during his block the issue is solved. I also didn't see justification for the block lengthing and find it somewhat punitive aalthough it may not have been meant that way. I'd like to have the community discuss to gain a Consensus on if this is a way we want to go. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Question For Gwen GaleCould you provide some diffs explaining why an indef block is necessary here? Doc Quintana (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
As regards contribs, here's the bigger picture, which I add without comment. Rodhullandemu 01:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You should look at hist past 2000 edits stretching back a couple of months or so (only 99 edits in article space). A vastly different pattern. He needs to go back to article writing. A project and/or user talk ban should help, temporarility at least. Pcap ping 01:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Redaction of Hindu SwastikaWith regard to the redaction of what appeared to be the Hindu Swastika symbol in a signature during the above discussion, I am unclear if the editor mistakenly confused the Nazi Swastika (rotated by 45 degrees) with the Hindu symbol. Is there a prior consensus that applies to such redactions of any character or image that may be confused with the Nazi Swastika? Ash (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Arbitration
ProposedBased on the refusal of the extending admin to back up block extention by policy, we should revert to the original 2 day block. Proofreader77 should be admonished he is on thin ice and the community would like to see the Arbcom case filed or dropped. Dragging on is unacceptable and it can lead to indefinite blocks in the future if the disruption warrants it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
DoneI reinstated the original 48-hour block per the above. While I feel that it would be a delicious irony to simply let it be without explaining myself (perhaps stating the term "inappropriate" a lot, in lieu of anything else), I'll say that admins should not simply extend blocks - especially to indefinite - without having a strong argument to support themselves. As it became painfully clear that Gwen Gale had no argument prepared and isn't likely to prepare one anytime soon, I reinstated Fut. Perf's original block. Tan | 39 02:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Topic ban from Arbcom and editing restrictions against diff gathering for any "potential" arbcom casesThis seems to be something he loves doing. A user disagrees with him, wrongs him, and he threatens arbcom. As far as I have seen, these threats are only used to push other users away. He cannot be allowed to continue this. I know that this is not a real legal threat, but it's just about as close as you can get. NLT was create to prevent people from threatening court action to coerce people into doing what they want or backing off. There should be a separate policy, or a modification of NLT to account for threats to go to arbcom used for coercion. This can't be allowed to continue. I, as the writer of this, obviously support.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
|
New proposal
- Proofreader77 is restricted from threatening or alerting other users of "pending" or "potential" arbcom cases unless alerting them of a case already filed, nor can Proofreader77 ask anyone(on or off wiki) to do this for him.
- Diff gathering by Proofreader77, or any user they ask to help them(on or off wiki), must take place on a sub-page in Proofreader77's user space or user talk space. It may not take place on his user page or user talk page.
- Under no circumstances shall other users be made aware of this page by Proofreader77, or anyone that Proofreader77 has asked(on or off wiki).
- This page shall not be linked by Proofreader77, or anyone they have asked(on or off wiki), from his talk page, or his userpage. He can easily save a bookmark and watch the page if he wants to keep tabs on it.
- Should the arbcom case in regards to this page not be filed within a timely manner, then the page may be subject to deletion.
- Under no circumstances shall other users be made aware of this page by Proofreader77, or anyone that Proofreader77 has asked(on or off wiki).
- Should any of these restrictions be violated, then Proofreader77 is blocked for (insert good amount of time here).
Per Ks, I have revised the restrictions and tried to outline everything. I believe that sums things up. As the writer of this, I obviously support.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support Of course Proofreader77 is able to prepare a case for arbcom, and is able to gather evidence for a likely case in a subpage. However, the irritatingly high noise-to-signal ratio is a problem: please stop talking about proposed arbcom cases, and please stop repeating points that have irritated other editors. It is disruptive, and leads to total time wasting like this discussion (which will not be totally wasted if we can achieve a consensus to reign in Proofreader77's talk page drama).
07:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)signed correctly this time, sorry Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. The first proposal about not threatening ArbCom cases makes sense I suppose, but I don't understand the second bit about keeping diffs gathered on a separate page. Whether Proofreader links to it or not, any other editor who checks his or her contributions (which will happen) will immediately "be made aware of" it—you can't really "hide" a page you are editing. As such I'm confused as to why doing this "diff gathering" would be less troublesome at User Talk:Proofreader77/Diffs than at their normal talk page. Even the first proposal about not threatening ArbCom cases seems unnecessary to me, though I have no problem with it. This indefinite block had significant (if not sufficient) support, and I think the next time there are any shenanigans there will be resounding support for such a measure. I'm not sure we need to impose any formal restrictions in the interim, and surely Proofreader77 knows they are on thin ice. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- In regards to the bit about it being on a sub-page, this is because when 77 posts these kind of things on their talk, they are either insulting, irritating, or threatening by their very existence, such as when 77 posted that I took 5 edits to undo a resolved tag. Stating such a thing is rather insulting, as I was just having a bit of trouble with the template. There is also no good reason to record perceived flaws as openly as 77 has done in the past. Especially when they have continually threatened arbcom, but never really gone through with it.
- In case the above is tl;dr: They use their talk page as a means of an indirect threat against those that are there, or some over project page like ANI, to leave, or they would become a party in his next case. There is no need for that kind of thing here.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you, my point is just that shunting those "indirect threat" sort of comments off to a subpage does not really do anything about the problem. They will be somewhat less visible, but will still be there, and people will obviously know about them. Indeed the page would almost certainly come under discussion as an attack page possibly warranting deletion, so it might actually create more problems. I understand the spirit of what you are proposing, I just don't think it would have much of an effect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Having the page deleted as an attack page is actually a better course of action than what we have currently: 77 makes threats about potential cases on his talk pages, and as they are "pending", and on his talk pages, they can't be deleted when he fails to file any such case. If they were restricted like I write, those pages could be deleted when he fails to file any such case for a due amount of time.. and as such, going to clarify that above.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you, my point is just that shunting those "indirect threat" sort of comments off to a subpage does not really do anything about the problem. They will be somewhat less visible, but will still be there, and people will obviously know about them. Indeed the page would almost certainly come under discussion as an attack page possibly warranting deletion, so it might actually create more problems. I understand the spirit of what you are proposing, I just don't think it would have much of an effect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- In case the above is tl;dr: They use their talk page as a means of an indirect threat against those that are there, or some over project page like ANI, to leave, or they would become a party in his next case. There is no need for that kind of thing here.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment, I'm unsurprised to see this editor here as the last time I was trying to deal with them Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive578#Roman Polanski interpreter or referee needed (November 2009) they were specifically told unambiguously they were on thin ice and needed to work with other editors and stop overwhelming opposition. That same thread includes a link to another thread of mass distraction whereby Boke, a disambiguation page, had to be rolled back by reasonable and productive editors with an immense amount of energy as evidenced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Vulnerability of short pages to attack, UD overflow, and other issues of Boke (April 2009) . Unfortunately I see little to show that they have changed. Myself and several editors have tried to deal with them regarding Roman Polanski but simply walked away instead. I think the relative concept is WP:Competence, perhaps a line needs to be added their that even if you can spin a sentence in twelve ways and utterly frustrate all others on a talkpage does not mean you are correct or that anyone agrees with you; and WP:Hear. Gwen Gale, IMHO, has been patiently dealing with this and these editing restrictions (in November 2009) should likely be strengthened as part of this. I also feel Gwen Gale's suggestion of a mentor is a solid one that likely should be enforced for Proofreader 77 to remain. -- Banjeboi 15:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with this assessment. This user may not be here to help build an encyclopedia. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- As do I. This editor appears to be on thin ice repeatedly. Maybe a formal ban proposal...? Equazcion (talk) 04:04, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with BB for reasons (especially about Gwen's patience) I've stated elsewhere in this thread. The problem originally may have been one of ability, but Proofreader77 has now moved on to being a distraction in other ways -- which does not indicate he wants to contribute in a positive manner. However, a mentor will only work for Proofreader -- as for anyone --only if she/he wants to be a productive contributor here; I'm not convinced that is the case. -- llywrch (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a considerable amount of irony going on here. Proofreader77 spammed me out about a month ago when I raised the issue of law keeping on wikipedia. I considered his behaviour to be somewhat irritating. He was resisting the proposals that I was making. Yet those proposals were designed to protect editors from the very kind of excesses that Proofreader77 has now found himself at the brunt of. Proofreader77 nevertheless has a sense of humour and I have no desire to see anybody blocked indefinitely. I'll repeat my view that all serious editors will eventually mend their ways if they are subjected to enough 3 month blocks. It's quite simple. If genuine disruption occurs, then block them. Begin with short blocks and build up to 3 months. Three months is a long time. If they continue the offending behaviour when they come back after 3 months, then block them for 3 months again. They will soon tire of it. Could it be any more simple than that? There is no need for all these complex restrictions and probations, and topic bans. There is too much time wasted on it. And why are we witnessing so many cases of short blocks being suddenly bumped up to indefinite? It's a bit like watching traffic fines being bumped up to the noose because the accused looked at the magistrate the wrong way. I'm just glad however that Proofreader77 won't be able to spam me out on this occasion, at least until tomorrow anyway. David Tombe (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- You've never had to deal with a real problem editor, have you? Repeated 3 month blocks just means we'll be blocking certain people every three months ad infinitum. An indef block is actually less of a penalty, as they can come back whenever they can demonstrate they're no longer going to be disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be making out here that pushing the block button is a major effort. Yes, I've had problems with Proofreader77, but I believe that remedial measures need to be kept proportionate. There is something seriously wrong when somebody gets blocked for 48 hours, and as soon as he squeaks, somebody else piles in and bumps it up to indefinite. Why? Why this excessive action? If they thought that 48 hours wasn't long enough, then why not 72 hours or a week, or even three months? Why go storming straight in for indefinite? It strikes me as being a case of kicking somebody when they are down. Look at me everybody, nobody can kick harder than I can. I've no objection to having a wikipedia jester as such. It adds a bit of humour to the project, yet at the same time such a jester needs to be strictly regulated. And I don't agree with your assessment that you'll necessarily be repeating the blocks every 3 months. Even an encyclopaedia jester will soon tire of having his jokes interrupted for 3 month periods at a time, and they will quickly learn how to be humorous in a less annoying way. And a block of any length can be appealed, so I don't follow your logic that an indefinite block is less of a penalty than a three month block. David Tombe (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Respectfully I disagree. In many cases an increasingly lengthy approach is sensible. I think this editor may need some exceptional intervention but do note they have been blocked a few times lately. Having been frustrated by their winding up the talkpage on a BLP for months to frustrate any change, no matter how insignificant is just my experience. It was a colossal waste of energy driving away the very editors we want to be using a talkpage to make significant improvements, their involvement wholly frustrated and in some cases rolled back improvements. Court jesters, fine we can use a few. Humour? Great, no problems there. But disruption remains disruptive and whatever their goals here they seem rather incapable of adhering to community and collegial approaches to editing. We really don't want to encourage intellectualized battlegrounding. Just because other editors give up in frustration doesn't mean the oppressive side's view is correct. This has been played out many times going back almost a year if not longer. If this is a social experiment of theirs put a fork in it and call it a day. Having said all that it seems their block was reinstated to just the original 48 hours. If they don't show a remarkable about face to working with other editors then editing restriction and topic bans are in order. Roman Polanski remains a BLP mess but I won't bother until Proofreader77 is off that article altogether. Generally blocks should increase incrementally, but as in this case several blocks that likely should have occurred didn't. I've seen this before where the right people didn't bring an editor's behaviours to wider attention in the right way. And ... the situation grinds until it hits a breaking point and then looks like it's an over-reaction. The initial case could have/should have been presented in context of months and volume of disruption - "what is the best way forward". It wasn't so here we are to pick up the pieces and mop the mess. Maybe Proofreader77 can explain where they're coming from and how they will bring their eccentricities in line with community standards without the spin, poetry, etc. -- Banjeboi 17:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I was only pointing out the need for proportionate action. As regards the case of Proofreader77, my opinion is that you weren't hard enough on him when you needed to be, and then suddenly you went over the top. Recently an editor came to my talk page regarding problems with Proofreader77. He had raised the issue on a noticeboard, and if I recall correctly, the admins turned the tables right around on him, ultimately leading to a block, and Proofreader77 got off scot-free, no doubt with a smile on his face. Turning the tables on the person complaining seems to be a cowardly tactic which is rife on wikipedia. Hence you gave Proofreader77 a licence to continue with his behaviour. And suddenly then you clobbered him hard, and a trail of discord has been left along the way.
What you should have done was listened carefully to the complaints that were being made against Proofreader77 back in January and taken heed. A block for a week or two would have eased the pressure at the Roman Polanski article, while at the same time allowing Proofreader77 a chance to think it all over, knowing that he would be returning again. Had the cycle repeated often enough, I can assure you that he would have tired of it unless his sole objective was to become the first wikipedia editor to get a block record which carries on to a second page.
But to let him off scot-free and encourage him, and then to block him for 48 hours when he's not expecting it, and to suddenly bump it up to indefinite because of some talk page edits serves no purpose other than to wind him up. Why should his talk page edits have been a problem to anybody? I don't habitually look at Proofreader77's talk page and if nobody else did either then they wouldn't see anything that they didn't like.
Apply blocks proportionately and fairly when they are required, and there will be alot less discord on wikipedia. David Tombe (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I hear you and generally agree however in practice a lot of problems are ignored until they boil over. In Proofreader77's case(s), IMHO, it's never a simple read and it's always WP:TLDR. -- Banjeboi 18:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. When a user dances on the boundary between what is permitted & what is not, it can be hard to see whether that is due to simple naivette or careful malice. And Admins who take a firm stand in one instance should always step back & let another Admin, who has fresh eyes & no vested interest handle the next. In this case, however, I'm finding it hard to continue to extend good faith to Proofreader77. -- llywrch (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but you must never bang the door totally in someone's face, and that is what an indefinite block does. That's how you wind people up. If he really is being big trouble, and has been so for a long time, then block him for 3 months. If he starts again as soon as the 3 months is up, then block him for another 3 months. I assure you that he will get the message, and although he may be angry at the lengthy blocks, he will not have had the ultimate insult of having had the door shut completely in his face, and he will know that he will ultimately be allowed another chance when the period expires. Even Jimbo Wales himself has expressed the opinion that any punitive action should not exceed one year. I personally think that 3 months at a time is adequate, but there are still many admins and arbitrators who are dishing out indefinite sanctions. This needs to be stopped. Ironically, it was on this very issue that Proofreader77 spammed me out when I raised it on Jimbo's talk page in December. All Jimbo needs to do is set the software that blocks can't exceed a certain maximum length of time. That will remove alot of discord and alot of indulgence. A week long block in January would have sufficed, but instead they preferred to wind up Tombaker321, no doubt leaving him totally sour about the project. David Tombe (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Can you please indent your replies so we know who you're talking to?— Dædαlus Contribs 21:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- You "assure" us he'll get the message, huh? Forgive me for not being so naive. Indef is not this "ultimate insult" you claim it to be, and your indefinite rolling blocks are useless. Personally, I think we shouldn't have blocks that automatically release after 48 hours. If we're blocking someone for more than two days, something is wrong. An indef says, "we'll let you edit once you demonstrate an understanding of what a collaborative editing environment is." That's it. If you find that insulting, I'm not sure what to tell you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Tweaked sanction proposal
- After tweaking Deadalus' proposal:
- Any user who appears to be acting in such a manner as to circumvent the effect and/or spirit of the following restrictions may be sanctioned appropriately at the acting admin's discretion.
- Proofreader77 is prohibited from
- asking anyone (on or off wiki) to act in a manner that would circumvent the effect and spirit of the following restrictions;
- threatening or alerting any user of "pending" or "potential" arbcom cases, except where notifying an user of a case that has already been filed.
- using his user page and user talk page for the purpose of diff gathering. Diff gathering, if any, may only take place on a subpage in Proofreader77's user space.
- linking such subpages anywhere on-wiki, or making any user aware of the existence of such subpages, on or off wiki.
- Should the arbcom case in regards to such subpages not be filed within a timely manner, then the page may be subject to deletion.
- Should any of these restrictions be violated, then Proofreader77 may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator, for up to one month in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.
- Administrators are not permitted to reverse or modify actions taken under this set of restrictions without explicit authorisation to do so by the acting administrator, or a clear community consensus to do so. Taking action under this set of restrictions shall not constitute involvement for the purpose of future such actions.
I think that sums it up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Number 4 is too bureaucratic (it could be completely eliminated), and number 5 is trying to take an opinion on the Gwen Gale/Tan issue and make a rule about it. Tan | 39 03:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly didn't have any "Gwen Gale/Tan" issue in mind when tweaking this; nor have I ever wanted to add unnecessary bureaucracy where it's unrequired. This is simply a standard way many editing restrictions listed at WP:RESTRICT have been enacted, be it by ArbCom or the community. It's just a clear definition of what each thing means for the purposes of this restriction so admins are firmly acting within certain limits, yet are also given a broad level of discretion - leaving the definitions open to general site norms would simply mean more of the time and space taken to debate what means what as there is no set definition; I think one of the more useful points of having a restriction is to reduce the unnecessary time and space that would otherwise be taken. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support I don't think I really need to explain myself here. I have already done so several times above.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Motion to end this
Given the latest developments [58], he was indef blocked [59] by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Pcap ping 07:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think this may be wise as long as action over there actually happens which we cannot force. Is there a means to track this to ensure it is sussed out there and if not addressed here? -- Banjeboi 07:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- He was blocked by an admin, not by ArbCom. Pcap ping 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes but the issue is there right now and Proofreader77, IMHO, shouldn't have to defend themselves on two fronts when we have an elected body of generally dispassionate editors at Arbcom looking into the issues. My only concern is that if they don't take action it is revisited here to address the concerns raised. 07:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- The community is sorting this out here so there is no good reason to close this off, particularly when ArbCom have pretty much declined the case. The above sanction proposal is for enacting, should Proofreader77 be unblocked again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I think then that the above needs to be severely tweaked to take on board prior concerns not just the no legal threats parts. -- Banjeboi 08:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be more than happy to continue tweaking with the community, though I'd need a concise list of the specific concerns that have not been addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think the editing restrictions from last year remain relevant and some additional points may be useful here in one form or another. Not sure how all can work or - likely - simplyfying so everyone can easily digest these:
- I'd be more than happy to continue tweaking with the community, though I'd need a concise list of the specific concerns that have not been addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I think then that the above needs to be severely tweaked to take on board prior concerns not just the no legal threats parts. -- Banjeboi 08:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- The community is sorting this out here so there is no good reason to close this off, particularly when ArbCom have pretty much declined the case. The above sanction proposal is for enacting, should Proofreader77 be unblocked again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes but the issue is there right now and Proofreader77, IMHO, shouldn't have to defend themselves on two fronts when we have an elected body of generally dispassionate editors at Arbcom looking into the issues. My only concern is that if they don't take action it is revisited here to address the concerns raised. 07:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- He was blocked by an admin, not by ArbCom. Pcap ping 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
A. You are to follow the spirit of not Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, specifically admonishing the absence or encouraging formal proceedures, using legal language needlessly and conducting editing as if Wikipedia were a courtroom.
B. In the spirit of WP:Talk - "The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration." - talkpage posts are to remain clear, unambiguous and easily understood by all editors. Talkpage contributions should be no longer than 1000 bytes (or 100 words, whichever is easier to gauge/enforce) and no more than 5 contributions per day to any one talk page except your own userspace. Any editor may use {{collapse}} or alikened templates to redact the breaches.
C. You are not allowed to use non-community standardized formatting anywhere but in your own userspace. Boke was an example of this which made normal editing nearly impossible. Poetry, specifically meta-discussions on other users seems antagonistic and unhelpful. Do this off-Wikipedia if it must be done at all.
D. If you seek and successfully obtain mentorship for help with evidenced idiosyncratic style and make meaningful progress improving your communication skills, these restrictions may be lifted by a consensus of editors.
- I think that covers the areas I've seen. I'd like to ensure that the end product is easy understood by us now as well as the next folks who come new to the situation. -- Banjeboi 10:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- This indefr block is as good as the last fucked up one. Who the fuck cares if Proof wirtes in Poetry. What policy did he violate by posting a idosyncratic post at arbcom. SHOULD HE HAVE GROVELED MORE? That's sure what it looks like from this end, indef blocked because he actually followed through and posted on the Board. Make up you fucking minds, first you say he shouild and when he does you indef him again. I wish to hell people, meaning blocking admin start laying off the block button for frivolous reasons. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Writing in poetry is, essentially, giving the middle finger to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- So is borderline stupidity but it is tolerated in Mass Force here. This is a personal dislike not a detriment to wiki. 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC) comment posted by User:Hell in a Bucket
- It depends on whether the "stupidity" is willful or not -- and even if it isn't, I'm in favor of considering serial incompetence to be disruptive. As for the current case: writing in poetry cannot be considered as anything but a willful act, a deliberate slap in the face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- So is borderline stupidity but it is tolerated in Mass Force here. This is a personal dislike not a detriment to wiki. 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC) comment posted by User:Hell in a Bucket
- Writing in poetry is one thing, however, writing in poetry to specifically insult other editors isn't allowed.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's more than that. If you occasionally write a poem in a light-hearted and friendly exchange with another editor, or use it to defuse tension, that's one thing. If you write a poem in a situation that calls for a straight-forward explanation, then you're being disruptive, whether or not the poem contains a personal attack, which is a totally seperate transgression. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Damn, I really hoped he would heed the warnings and turn himself around, I really did. *sigh* Oh well...good block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's more than that. If you occasionally write a poem in a light-hearted and friendly exchange with another editor, or use it to defuse tension, that's one thing. If you write a poem in a situation that calls for a straight-forward explanation, then you're being disruptive, whether or not the poem contains a personal attack, which is a totally seperate transgression. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Writing in poetry is, essentially, giving the middle finger to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to answer HiaB's question, even if it means beating a dead horse. Nobody cares if another Wikipedian writes poetry as part of how she/he communicates with other editors -- in itself. (If you can write readable, or even entertaining, poetry, I welcome you to do so.) But with Proofreader77, the problem has been that she/he fails to respond other people in an understandable way, & her/his sonnets only compound the problem. It's the equivalent of an instance where you ask me why I made such-&-such an edit, & I start talking about the time I met Ward Cunningham. All very nice, you reply, but what about that edit I made, & I continue to talk about Ward, & you rant at me for being unresponsive -- at which point I post a sonnet. What you have is an example of dealing with PR77: she/he appears to have a valid point, but fails -- almost stubbornly -- to engage other users in a productive -- or even useful -- manner. At this point, I feel the best that can be said about this person is that PR77 suffers from Asperger's Syndrome; at worst, we have a troublemaker. If you disagree with my opinion, feel free to offer to mentor Proofreader77; but I think your time & energy would be better spent on anything else. -- llywrch (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Everything else aside, I find it hard to believe anyone could honestly argue Proofreader to be an asset to the aim of building an encyclopedia. There's no other way to see it – the vast majority of his energy here is spent engaging in abstruse rhetorical experiments on talk pages that, oddly, prevent any actual communication from taking place. He's obviously heard that this is a problem, but won't (or can't) address it.--Cúchullain t/c 21:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
All that aside, I would rather keep this open in the event that he is unblocked, in regards to the proposed restrictions above.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I support the block (as I did previously) and strongly enjoin other admins to not unblock unilaterally. The problem some people had with Gwen Gale's previous unblock (though an equal number supported it) was that it did not provide a significant rationale, and was essentially overturning the action of another administrator who had only blocked for 48 hours. Now that original blocking admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, has blocked indefinitely and provided a clear rationale. This action is fully within an administrator's purview and should not be reversed lightly. Of course if there is a strong consensus against it, or if the Arbs want to reverse it and have a case (which seems unlikely) that would be different, but this is not the kind of block where another admin can waltz by and say "I don't like that, unblocking." If there are not significant objections in the near future this thread should indeed be closed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Having a fairly large reservoir of good will towards PR77, I've taken the time to look thru the initial dustup with Rod, the AN thread, the ANI thread, and the RFAR. I believe, as usual in cases like this, that this is something that spiraled out of control, and that the fault for that does not lie with any one side alone. PR77 could have handled this better, but several people need to rethink their definitions of "disruption" and "personal attacks". I do not believe any of PR77's comments are "mean"; and I take his description of what happened in good faith: he tried to be lighthearted, was slapped in the face for it, and things went downhill from there.
It bothers me that some of the same people who find his sonnets to be disruptive to communication seem to believe that the block button is somehow not disruptive to (and, indeed, is a satisfactory replacement for) communication. I find it annoying that he has been insulted by several people, but he is blocked for mocking someone. I find it annoying that we are going to block someone for "disruption" when what we really mean is "we find him sufficiently not like us".
So, in spite of the tide being against this, I would propose and ublock, contingent on:
- An assurance that based on feedback from the community, PR77 limit his poetry to places he knows it will be appreciated (my talk page, for instance), or to pages in his user space. He can link to these if he wishes to put his poetry "on the record"; people can choose to ignore it or read it, as they wish.
- There is no limitation of PR77's ability to file an ArbCom case; reciprocally, PR77 stops talking about this potential ArbCom case until it actually happens.
- PR77 and Rod endeavor not to cross paths for a while. Not as part of some formal interaction ban, but as a gentleman's agreement.
- PR77 is free to assemble diffs that he plans to use in an ArbCom case on his talk page, or on a subpage, with no interference. If no case is forthcoming in 2-3 weeks, he takes it off-wiki and the page is deleted.
- The sanction proposal above be rejected.
- A little more good faith be extended to PR77; I see a lot of assumptions of his motivations above that do not jive with my own interactions with him.
- --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'd maybe be more inclined to support unblocking if you or some other admin were essentially willing to take personal responsibility for Proofreader77's editing going forward. That is to say that you would handle any future problems/complaints that come up, discuss issues with Proofreader as they arise and get that editor to stop certain behavior if it's problematic, and if necessary reblock in the long run. I say this because your comment seems to suggest that you believe Proofreader77 has something to contribute to the project (beyond original poetry, which even if valued by some is not really what we're looking for in terms of contributions). I scanned through the last 2,000 or so edits going back a couple of months, and aside from some minor reversion on articles Proofreader seems to be here mainly to make comments that he or she finds amusing and generally stir up drama (in both the Wikipedia and literary senses). I view editors like that as a severe drain on community resources (witness this thread, another one on AN, and a prospective ArbCom case) and think we need to be better about showing them the door when it seems clear they are not really here to help us write an encyclopedia. However I'm also a huge believer in WP:AGF and appreciate that you have a larger well of that with respect to Proofreader than I do. I think unblocking risks (indeed probably guarantees) further disruption, but if you're willing to essentially take a measure of responsibility for that then maybe it's okay. That's not necessarily a fair deal to you and really you should only be responsible for yourself, but I think it's going to take something like that to get Proofreader unblocked, because many of us (including me) have no interest in dealing with this problem again in the future were the indef block to be lifted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- PR77 is an adult, he doesn't need me to "take responsibility" for his edits. He does need a few more
peopleadmins! to stop calling him "stupid", or infer mental problems, or tell him to "fuck off", or have the most involved admin there is block him from editing his own talk page with not a peep from anyone, or stop assuming you know his motives, but it appears he isn't going to get that right now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)- I agree with you that Rod should not have locked out talk page access and have told him so. Most people supporting the block(s) now or previously have not made comments like the ones you cite above, and the fact that some others are does not invalidate the concerns here. I stand by my original point though—many editors feel Proofreader77 has already been quite disruptive enough up to this point and are not going to be amenable to an unblock, based primarily on the assumption that further disruption would be the inevitable result. You're not convincing me that won't happen, and you're also not offering any evidence that Proofreader77 is here to contribute positively. I believe you're the third or fourth person I've asked (quite seriously) to point to good contributions of late, and so far no one has responded, which to me is telling. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- PR77's constructive edits? Easy: First, look at his contribs, filtered for article and article talk space. Constructive. He seems quite active at Roman Polanski, and although to be honest I haven't looked into that mess too closely, it appears he's trying to protect a BLP. In addition, if you look at the content of his posts in usertalk and project space, rather than the methods he uses to post them, 50% are helpful/beneficial, 25% are just friendly, and 25% are indecipherable (I made those numbers up, but they're probably close). But indecipherable is not disruption. He's no angel, but he's not a troll. And his much derided and mocked donation announcement, although certainly not a get out of jail free card for disruption, is evidence that he supports the project (since his motivations are being called into question).
- If he's been less productive in your eyes lately, that probably has something to do with being blocked three times for what he considers unfair, bullying reasons (I don't go quite that far, but I do find most of them dubious). You'd likely be pissed off too. I certainly wish he'd handled this differently, and as I say above, there are some changes he could make that would be beneficial, but IMHO he is not a disruption, and is not harassing people, no matter how often people that don't like him fling those words around. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- With due respect the only reason I'm aware of this editor is the near roadblock they have created at the Roman Polanski article driving away editors who do seem to want to find the middle ground between the polarizing Polanski sides - that he raped a child vs. context. Arguably it's a sensitive area but we have guidelines on content that can lead and instead it's been one wikilawerish scuffle after the next and the article continues to violate BLP IMHO. We specifically work to ensure NPOV but unfortunately this article has some real issues and IMHO, PR77 has been the main source impeding progress. There may be another SPA over there but they would quickly get sorted if PR77 was pulled from the situation. No comment if they make constructive efforts in other areas, I haven't looked so wouldn't know. -- Banjeboi 23:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you that Rod should not have locked out talk page access and have told him so. Most people supporting the block(s) now or previously have not made comments like the ones you cite above, and the fact that some others are does not invalidate the concerns here. I stand by my original point though—many editors feel Proofreader77 has already been quite disruptive enough up to this point and are not going to be amenable to an unblock, based primarily on the assumption that further disruption would be the inevitable result. You're not convincing me that won't happen, and you're also not offering any evidence that Proofreader77 is here to contribute positively. I believe you're the third or fourth person I've asked (quite seriously) to point to good contributions of late, and so far no one has responded, which to me is telling. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- PR77 is an adult, he doesn't need me to "take responsibility" for his edits. He does need a few more
- To Floquenbeam: It's entirely possible that the the fault lies on both sides here, & that blocking/banning someone might not be the best solution. (Most of the tools we have to deal with problem editors are extremely limited in their effects -- even the block button, which can be evaded quite easily.) The problem is that, due to how Wikipedia works, you can't make anyone on Wikipedia do what you want them to do. Maybe occasionally in the short term, but in the long term people will work on the articles they want to work on, think the way they want to think, & behave the way they want to behave. Effective Wikipedians not only want to build an encyclopedia, but they want to work well with others. (And if they can't -- well, there are plenty of articles that need work where they can go & effectively be left alone. Or settle for wikignoming.) And if someone points to you or me that there is a problem with our behavior, & they do not explain it clearly enough that you or I understand, then if we are willing to work well with others then we need to get a clarification about the problem. In ProofReader77's case, numerous people have tried to explain to her/him the problem (including me), but she/he doesn't want to understand what it is & fix it. In some cases, we might be able to find a way to handle this, but in this case the only thing we can do now is to tell ProofReader77 that it's time for her/him to find something else to do than volunteer labor to Wikipedia with an indefinite ban. -- llywrch (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well yes, I understand the general theory about why we sometimes have to block people; I just don't think the reasons we're giving for blocking are reasonable in this case. As an alternative to blocking, we could just ignore minor idiosyncrasies, because he's helping in other ways, and the problem is not that large. We make that decision all the time. Once you have a block log, all your behavior after the block is seen thru the lens of "problematic user" (or, if we assume good faith, "probably problematic user"). I believe much of PR77's recent issues stem from the fact that he does not feel the first block was reasonable or fair, and that it led to a second unreasonable unfair block, which made it easier to impose a third block, etc. Evidently I am in the minority of people commenting here, but I do not think PR77 is problematic; indeed, as I've said, I think the behavior of several people attacking him are more problematic; in the long term, a culture of bullying (imperfect word, but better than "aggressively imposing our non-vital desires on others") is going to drive away more people than a guy who writes more poetry, and takes people less seriously, than they think he should. Indeed, I think that's at the heart of the current "admins vs. non-admins" meme that seems so common these days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'd maybe be more inclined to support unblocking if you or some other admin were essentially willing to take personal responsibility for Proofreader77's editing going forward. That is to say that you would handle any future problems/complaints that come up, discuss issues with Proofreader as they arise and get that editor to stop certain behavior if it's problematic, and if necessary reblock in the long run. I say this because your comment seems to suggest that you believe Proofreader77 has something to contribute to the project (beyond original poetry, which even if valued by some is not really what we're looking for in terms of contributions). I scanned through the last 2,000 or so edits going back a couple of months, and aside from some minor reversion on articles Proofreader seems to be here mainly to make comments that he or she finds amusing and generally stir up drama (in both the Wikipedia and literary senses). I view editors like that as a severe drain on community resources (witness this thread, another one on AN, and a prospective ArbCom case) and think we need to be better about showing them the door when it seems clear they are not really here to help us write an encyclopedia. However I'm also a huge believer in WP:AGF and appreciate that you have a larger well of that with respect to Proofreader than I do. I think unblocking risks (indeed probably guarantees) further disruption, but if you're willing to essentially take a measure of responsibility for that then maybe it's okay. That's not necessarily a fair deal to you and really you should only be responsible for yourself, but I think it's going to take something like that to get Proofreader unblocked, because many of us (including me) have no interest in dealing with this problem again in the future were the indef block to be lifted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I strongly support the indef block. We routinely go out of our way to accommodate stupid editors so long as we are convinced they are stupid in good faith. Since this a project to write an encyclopedia, not an education project, that approach is actually not OK and will have to be revisited sooner or later. Our current way of dealing with stupidity is definitely not an excuse for dealing with other forms of disruption through incompetence in the same inefficient way.
We shouldn't have to care whether PR's unique pseudo-communication style is caused by some form of autism, by a psychosis, by having been raised in a community where everybody speaks like that, or whether it is just plain trolling. (In fact, it's not even appropriate to speculate too much about the precise reason.) It is obvious that he will never contribute to building the encyclopedia, and his attempts to do so are highly disruptive. Per WP:COMPETENCE that's enough for an indef block.
I support closing this discussion, since it is very unlikely that we will get a consensus for reverting this valid block. Hans Adler 00:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I also support the indef block and closing this discussion. After some off-topic comments on Jimbo's talk page, Proofreader77 accidentally got up the nose of an editor who was stressed at the time. Proofreader77's follow-ups since then have been particularly unhelpful and not all connected with the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam's suggested course of action is kind-hearted, but misplaced. Proofreader77 has had a considerable amount of good faith extended by the community, and it has not been conducive to changing their behavior. I do not think the community needs to go to great lengths to tolerate an individual who refuses or is unable to meet the community even half-way, especially when the editor's contributions to Talk pages and the Wikipedia domain unnumber their article edits, and when their primary contribution there is 181 edits to an obscure disambiguation page.[60] I don't see this as a person whose worth to the project is sufficient to outweigh the problems they cause. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I am getting the impression that Floquenbeam's support for Proofreader77 is not so much based on kind-heartedness but on the naive assumption that because Rodhullandemu is wrong, Proofreader77 must be right. [61] Hans Adler 04:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually the arguement is valid. I do not hold malice for Rod or Gwen......But their actions were innapropriate and examplifies a problem. The sad fa ct is I've had my problems with Proof that ultimately landed his first block. Since then it sure semed to be personal and everyone was ganging up on him. I'm not cool with that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I am getting the impression that Floquenbeam's support for Proofreader77 is not so much based on kind-heartedness but on the naive assumption that because Rodhullandemu is wrong, Proofreader77 must be right. [61] Hans Adler 04:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam's suggested course of action is kind-hearted, but misplaced. Proofreader77 has had a considerable amount of good faith extended by the community, and it has not been conducive to changing their behavior. I do not think the community needs to go to great lengths to tolerate an individual who refuses or is unable to meet the community even half-way, especially when the editor's contributions to Talk pages and the Wikipedia domain unnumber their article edits, and when their primary contribution there is 181 edits to an obscure disambiguation page.[60] I don't see this as a person whose worth to the project is sufficient to outweigh the problems they cause. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia: enough is enough
That SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) is one of Wikipedia's most prolific editors is uncontested: at 100k+ edits she currently ranks at about 65 in the all time list. She is not an admin (one wonders what might come out of the woodwork if Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SandyGeorgia were turned blue), but she is known by many for her involvement in Wikipedia:Featured article review.
I had rather promised myself that I wouldn't edit until at least March, having been driven into semi-retirement [62] by SandyGeorgia's campaign of harassment involving misrepresentation, manipulation, serial accusations of bad faith (User:Rd232/Notes) and even, increasingly just before I declared semi-retirement, insinuations of advocacy-based COI editing (eg at the top of this User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela_BLP_problem page about me). I've managed to avoid editing for a week now, but I have on occasion logged in to check my watchlist, and have observed Sandy's behaviour with increasing dismay, and ultimately feel forced to do something.
Background: Sandy is an editor with links of some kind to Venezuela, and a point of view that strongly supports the Venezuelan opposition. This is fine, but hand in hand with that has gone an attempt to smear sources that comment on Venezuela in terms she disagrees with, by insinuating connections with the Venezuelan government. For these purposes, Sandy applies standards of sourcing which she would not accept in any other context. I could broaden this point, but it's taken my 1.5 hrs to write this, and will limit myself to the CEPR/Weisbrot issues.
Issue 1:
- on 23 Jan the biography of living person Mark Weisbrot looked like this. It included, as the second-to-last sentence, sourced to the New York Times, that "He is a broad supporter of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez' economic policies."
- after an enormous flurry of edits by Sandy, by 25 Jan it looked like this. At this point "He has been described as an adviser to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and supporter of his policies." was the last sentence in the lead. The sources supporting "adviser to Chavez" are i) a minor Spanish source which described Weisbrot as the "intellectual architect" of the Bank of the South and ii) infoshop.org, "An Anarchist At the World Social Forum". One of these sources does not support the claim made, so the definitive statement he is an adviser to Chavez (not "some sources say" or "X claims that" - authorial claim of fact) rests on a single source. Is it a trivial claim, and a really good source? No, it is a massively significant claim, and an incredibly poor source: yet stated as fact.
- the second part of the new 25 Jan sentence is "who is described as supporting Chavez's policies". This is now sourced to two footnotes. One is the original NYT source. the other footnote is a composite of a number of sources (SYNTH alert!). Let's look at these sources. The first is USA Today, claiming (without explanation or detail) that Weisbrot "has supported Chavez's policies." Possibly WP:BLP demands better than a vague passing remark in a short news piece to stamp someone as a supporter of someone the US more or less considers an enemy, but let's leave that to one side. What other source delights await to support the claim? Some statements of Weisbrot's perhaps? A paper or two? No, in fact we have a remark in The NewStandard (a minor now-defunct online news service); a Miami Herald op-ed (I thought op-eds were frowned upon as sources for controversial statements in BLPs... cough), a Washington Post blog entry, and a magazine and website published by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Fantastic sources for contentious BLP material.
- attempts to discuss these issues in detail, using WP:BLPN (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive79#Mark_Weisbrot) and other dispute resolution, were shut down aggressively by SandyGeorgia - possibly because she knew her work would not stand close scrutiny.
Issue 2:
- Sandy's 24/5 Jan flurry of edits also resulted in a transparently WP:SYNTHy attempt to smear Weisbrot by linking him with the Venezuela Information Office, relying on a poor source of debatable relevance (National Review, making merely the vague and unsourced claim that VIO "coordinates a media response team" that includes "representatives from the Center for Economic Policy and Research") and a Center for Public Integrity report which mentions neither CEPR nor Weisbrot. But the Center for Public Integrity did feel the need to publish a response from a number of people, including Weisbrot, in response to the various allegations of people being associated with VIO. Unbelievably, Sandy summarises this as the letter "saying that their [Center for Public Integrity's] statements about the VIO were "highly misleading"." The letter is not about the VIO, it is about the people smeared by supposed connections to VIO - and Sandy seeks to use this to smear Weisbrot and CEPR, neither of whom are mentioned in the original piece!
- The text was eventually removed from Mark Weisbrot after intervention via WP:BLPN; the same text currently remains at Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Issue 3: misleading SPI report leading to unjustified block:
- these edits come to the attention of User:Scalabrineformvp on 9 Feb; it subsequently becomes clear that he is associated with CEPR. He edit wars unsuccessfully to try to remove the problematic content. Of course the flip side of Scalabrine editwarring to remove contentious, badly sourced BLP material is that others were edit warring to reinsert it. Scalabrine was blocked on 11 Feb for supposed socking to skirt 3RR. The blocking admin appears not to have noticed that the first edit of the supposed sock (User:Constitutional1787) is 24 hours after the last Scalabrine edit. Constitutional1787 violated 3RR and was indef-blocked as a supposed sock, in addition to Scalabrine being blocked temporarily for socking. No-one seems to have noticed that the subsequent SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp concluded Constitutional was NOT a sock!
- SandyGeorgia's evidence at the SPI on 10 Feb declares that "Constitutional1787 is a new accounts, just created, that continued blanking the article when Scalabrine reached three reverts." This despite the fact that Scalabrine's last edit was 21.15 on 9 feb; Constitutional's first at 21.53 on 10 Feb [63]
- Scalabrine is blocked 31 hours at 02.51 on 11 Feb.
Issue 4: OTRS ticket
- At 17.13 on 11 Feb an OTRS ticket is announced at Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Important_OTRS_ticket_related_to_this_article. It does not take a genius - now that we know Scalabrine is CEPR-connected - to see how Scalabrine's unjustified block led to this, in an attempt to deal with the problematic content.
- SandyGeorgia's response to this probably speaks for itself [64] in terms of the transparent attempt to further smear Weisbrot.
- Scalabrine makes no further article edits; he comments on the talk page, explaining somewhat the OTRS issues - without, it must be said, clarifying the COI.
- On 12 Feb user:Kriswarner turns up, editing the related article Center for Economic and Policy Research, attempting to remove the problematic content. He doesn't declare COI other, but he is using his real name (there is a Kris Warner at CEPR). His edits do not overlap with Scalabrine's, who last edited that article in November.
- On 14 Feb User:markweisbrot turns up, making some comments at Talk:Dean Baker (Dean Baker being the other co-director of CEPR). Neither Kriswarner nor Scalabrine ever edited this article.
- Sandy re-opens the SPI on 12 Feb, adding Kriswarner and then Markweisbrot. Checkuser concludes (apparently) that they're editing from the same location, and as a result they're both blocked as socks. The fact that two of these are real names (one obviously so) of people from an organisation with an open OTRS ticket does not seem to have factored into the equation. Additionally, Scalabrine, the supposed sockmaster, is idef-ed for socking. (None of these 3 accounts, incidentally, received the relevant user talk block notices.)
- An unblock request from Scalabrine clarifying the IP issue and declaring "We are not interested in editing the site but it seems unfair and counter-productive to exclude us from at least providing information in the discussion, with our name and affiliation openly stated." is declined, on the basis that "you have enlisted to assist in both swaying WP:CONSENSUS, and emphasize WP:OWNership over an article. The only possible way that you would likely achieve an unblock, considering the above, is to never edit related articles again." This makes no sense to me in terms of the edit pattern noted above (accounts NOT supporting each other), as well as the clear recognition that discussion should be preferred to editing. The other "socks" remain blocked despite the new information.
Result
- highly problematic, badly sourced BLP-related content remains, with an open OTRS ticket
- An account cleared of being a sock remains indeffed as a sock
- 2 accounts using real names of individuals remain indeffed as socks
- supposed sockmaster remains blocked
- the organisation/individuals who submitted the OTRS ticket cannot fully explain their concerns onwiki (and OTRS team does not seem to have done anything at all based on the ticket itself)
The COI issues remain, of course. But I submit that this smear campaign of SandyGeorgia's has gone far enough in how it is impacting on actual living persons; and that in addition SandyGeorgia's campaign of bullying and harassment has gone far enough. See for example her addition of a number of editors to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scalabrineformvp; and her continuing personal attacks on me (even in my absence in the last week; cf Talk:Mark Weisbrot). !Ya basta! Rd232 talk 09:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Additional parts of Sandy's smear campaign, which I forgot to note:
- Re-inserting long-deleted content at Venezuela Information Office, listing personnel associated with it.[65] The primary reason for doing so is to link VIO with CEPR. The content was long-deleted because organisation articles do not normally record past employees unless there is some particular significance or notability. There was a talk page discussion about this in March 2009, which sort of ran into the ground in a "no consensus" situation, with an RFC proposed but never done, and the content staying out until Sandy reinserted it without discussion on 9 Feb 2010.
- Giving undue, unsourced prominence to the role of Weisbrot in Just Foreign Policy, with this 10 Feb edit [66]. He was the founding President, yes, previously mentioned well down the article. Sandy promoted that to "founded in January 2007 by economist Mark Weisbrot...", in the lead sentence. The source relied on is the same source previously used; and it is currently a dead link, so Sandy made this substantive change without even looking at the source relied on. Archive.org gives us this, which gives a letter from the Board of Directors with Weisbrot 1 of 13 signatories, and no mention of Weisbrot's role beyond what was previously said "founding President". Rd232 talk 13:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what to make of this one, reading through it. Do you have a specific remedy in mind? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- At the moment, mainly (1) fixing the problems created (further discussion may of course lead to changes, but BLP caution should be applied, and contentious content removed until there is a consensus that is reasonably sourced and given appropriate weight). Also (2) unblocking the inappropriately blocked accounts, subject to warnings of how to behave appropriately when there are WP:COI concerns, so that they can elaborate onwiki what their OTRS concerns were/are. However, in view the concertedness of Sandy's activities, and the vociferousness with which she has defended these BLP violations through edit warring and bullying, I think something more is required. At this point I know not what that might be. Perhaps simply (3) lots more people being aware of her intentions and behaviour would be a start. Inevitably, she will want people to put more eyes on my edits too - I'm fine with that. I've said all along in the recent Venezuela-related disputes that "more eyes are needed". Rd232 talk 13:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused also. I just reviewed two of the articles, but I got confused as they have some of the most excruciatingly constructed sentences I've ever had the privilege of reading! However, that's a content issue. I also read this diff, but I'll be honest and this just seems to be Sandy's considered opinion. Without specific examples of the issue at that point, I'm not sure what could have been expected of Sandy? I'm not familiar with the conflict and have only reviewed the examples you've given, but I can't really see a smear campaign from Sandy, though it is evident that she doesn't like Weisbrot, but that's not actually a crime.
- The only actionable thing I can see here is that two editors were blocked as socks when it's quite possible that they were from the same organization. But I'm afraid here too there is an issue, because if they are who their usernames and location suggests, there is a clear conflict of interest for them to be editing this article.
- I am uncertain what is required of admins here... I can't see an ongoing edit war and I don't see any gross incivility or disruption. This looks like a content dispute. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- 1) I've made the blocked "socks" issue perfectly clear. Unblocking should be subject to warnings about appropriate COI behaviour. Is the fact that there is an open OTRS ticket compeletely irrelevant? Do we have a policy of blocking people trying to explain why there are serious problems with articles about them and their organisations, without a history of actual problems being shown? Try and look at it from their point of view, and imagine it's you and your organisation being accused of being linked to a government that your home country considers a virtual enemy. Rd232 talk 13:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am uncertain what is required of admins here... I can't see an ongoing edit war and I don't see any gross incivility or disruption. This looks like a content dispute. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Well... have the accounts been confirmed to operate as individual people via that OTRS ticket, and is Markweisbrot really Mark Weisbrot? How can we be certain - is there some independent evidence or does the OTRS ticket confirm his identity? If so then I think we probably should unblock that account, but make sure that they are aware that they should restrict their commentary to commenting only on the article text and they should not edit the article. That's probably not an issue if they are who they say they are as this diff is the only edit to their page they've made, and that's to the talk page where they make it clear they've not edited the article.
- I'd like to note that I went through the entirety of Sandy's comments on Talk:Mark Weisbrot and the only even slight claim you might have to a personal attack was when she said "Those are interesting conclusions; from what planet did they come?" Aside from that barely incivil comment, Sandy has admirably kept on the topic itself - as have you Rd232 - but she's never made things personal. I think that she's got as forceful a personality as myself and a similar arguing style, which is relentless and forthright, which can definitely cause upsets unnecessarily. However, I don't see one actionable personal attack, nor do I see that she injects her dislike of yourself into her commentary on that talk page. If anything, I see that at one point you apologised for something and she quickly accepted this. I just don't see a problem Rd, sorry. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well she is fairly subtle about it; it's not so much hysterical swearing as a grinding, constant background hum of bad faith accusations. Things like "NYT and USA Today are good, unless the tendentious editors scream. " (from Talk:Mark Weisbrot). I can find lots more examples if I'm willing to put in hours I don't have, but I'm far more interested in somebody waking up and smelling the malicious editing coffee. Nobody of 100k+ edits can do everything outlined above in good faith. Combine that with the harassment campaign noted (perhaps insufficiently explained; notes were for myself) at User:Rd232/Notes, and you have an editor who is willing and able to bully other editors into submission in the service of her goal of perpetuating a real-world political crusade to discredit anyone who comments on Venezuela and does not meet with her approval. That discrediting crusade, as the SPI shows, covers Wikipedia editors she disagrees with as well. Rd232 talk 14:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- There are some fairly clear statements from her recently at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp. Rd232 talk 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to note that I went through the entirety of Sandy's comments on Talk:Mark Weisbrot and the only even slight claim you might have to a personal attack was when she said "Those are interesting conclusions; from what planet did they come?" Aside from that barely incivil comment, Sandy has admirably kept on the topic itself - as have you Rd232 - but she's never made things personal. I think that she's got as forceful a personality as myself and a similar arguing style, which is relentless and forthright, which can definitely cause upsets unnecessarily. However, I don't see one actionable personal attack, nor do I see that she injects her dislike of yourself into her commentary on that talk page. If anything, I see that at one point you apologised for something and she quickly accepted this. I just don't see a problem Rd, sorry. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- SG is not operating in a vacuum; having followed this, I notice lots of other regular editors involved, and quite a few seem supportive of SG's position. Therefore I don't see this an SG issue, but a normal and proper Wikipedia process to find the proper balance point in a contentious political issue. I don't see room for admin intervention at the moment. Crum375 (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Others may have supported her, but it is her who is operating a campaign seeking to smear individuals whose views and activities she approves of by virtue of linking them to a foreign government. She has done so based on bad sources, misrepresenting sources, and using synthesis, and edit warred to support that. She is too experienced to have done all this - elaborated above - in error. These edits are, to be blunt, malicious. Rd232 talk 13:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Rd, calling a fellow editor (or their edits) "malicious" requires a very good proof. Can you provide a diff to such behavior? None of the material you provide above comes close to it, IMO. Crum375 (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Between her campaign harassing me (User:Rd232/Notes) and her misleading edits noted above (an editor of her experience could not make this many mistakes in good faith), I consider it proven. If you know her not from Adam - or know her only from other topics, where she may be angelic for all I know, this may be hard to accept. Take another look in detail at what I laid out above, and ask yourself if a 100k+ editor can get all that wrong in good faith. Rd232 talk 14:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I do care a lot about proper sourcing and BLP, and that's my focus. Her contributions to the project add an extra burden of proof for any allegations of malfeasance. In the your set of diffs, I find your characterization of USA Today as a "poor source" troubling. Crum375 (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- What I said right up this thread was "The first [source] is USA Today, claiming (without explanation or detail) that Weisbrot "has supported Chavez's policies." Possibly WP:BLP demands better than a vague passing remark in a short news piece to stamp someone as a supporter of someone the US more or less considers an enemy, but let's leave that to one side." Rd232 talk 15:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I do care a lot about proper sourcing and BLP, and that's my focus. Her contributions to the project add an extra burden of proof for any allegations of malfeasance. In the your set of diffs, I find your characterization of USA Today as a "poor source" troubling. Crum375 (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Between her campaign harassing me (User:Rd232/Notes) and her misleading edits noted above (an editor of her experience could not make this many mistakes in good faith), I consider it proven. If you know her not from Adam - or know her only from other topics, where she may be angelic for all I know, this may be hard to accept. Take another look in detail at what I laid out above, and ask yourself if a 100k+ editor can get all that wrong in good faith. Rd232 talk 14:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Rd, calling a fellow editor (or their edits) "malicious" requires a very good proof. Can you provide a diff to such behavior? None of the material you provide above comes close to it, IMO. Crum375 (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Others may have supported her, but it is her who is operating a campaign seeking to smear individuals whose views and activities she approves of by virtue of linking them to a foreign government. She has done so based on bad sources, misrepresenting sources, and using synthesis, and edit warred to support that. She is too experienced to have done all this - elaborated above - in error. These edits are, to be blunt, malicious. Rd232 talk 13:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- SG is not operating in a vacuum; having followed this, I notice lots of other regular editors involved, and quite a few seem supportive of SG's position. Therefore I don't see this an SG issue, but a normal and proper Wikipedia process to find the proper balance point in a contentious political issue. I don't see room for admin intervention at the moment. Crum375 (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Did you all check the Checkuser request here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scalabrineformvp. Shes accusing me, Rd232, Off2Riorob and further down, JRSP and John Z of being socks of each other and CEPR.net editors. Shes got absolutely no evidence. I haven't even edited any of the articles, just talk pages. Off2Rio arrived to investigate the OTRS complain and she accuses him of "sundenly" appearing. Do you know what we all have in common? At some point one or the other disagreed with Sandy about something related to the Venezuela issue and sundenly we're all Socks. Shes claiming to be cleaning up Venezuela related articles, and I'm the first to admit they haven't always been examples of NPOV, but shes adding POV material of her own. And if you try to point it out, you get added to the Sock list. Its ridiculous. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Outside eyes at Talk:Mark Weisbrot would be welcome. I share some of Rd232's concerns about sourcing, and have explained there; see Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Comments and sections following.
- Basically, Weisbrot seems to be a well-respected US economist and columnist. He regularly contributes to the New York Times, and is widely quoted as an expert, on a whole range of topics and countries.
- About a quarter of all google news articles mentioning Weisbrot's name also mention Venzuela in one way or another (see: Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Additional_sources). So Venezuela is evidently a major part of his work, while not representing the majority of his work, and he has been described as broadly sympathetic to Chavez and Venezuela in the New York Times.
- The matter of potential concern is that there has been a clear effort to make his BLP mainly about his views on Chavez. This would be okay if his views had somehow caused widespread controversy, and his reputation had suffered as a result. But I have so far failed to find, and have not been shown, any sources to indicate that there is any controversy surrounding Weisbrot's views on Chavez. As far as I can tell, he is just a well-respected liberal commentator whose comments are sought by a wide range of top class sources (e.g. BBC). I gather the OTRS complaint makes broadly the same point. Some of the sources used about the Venezuela issue are distinctly not top drawer: Línea Capital, The New Standard, discoverthenetworks.org, and Front Page Magazine.
- On the blocks: I do not think it is a good idea to block editors from the subject's research organisation from contributing, at least to the talk page. Clearly, COIs have to be acknowledged, and there should be no need for socking, but it is very poor public relations for Wikipedia to have questionable BLPs and then block BLP subjects (or their representatives) when they come to complain about our work. Given all the recent discussions about BLPs an OTRS complaint should be greeted with a clear presumption in favour of the BLP subject and meticulous scrutiny and article rebuilding afterwards. --JN466 13:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
This seems like a content dispute which requires no administrative action. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't a mere content dispute. More evidence of Sandy's continuation of her malicious smear campaign: reinsertion of disputed BLP-related content, without discussion never mind consensus: [67] [68] A nice example of her serial evasiveness of difficult questions pops up too: adds COI tag [69] which is ludicrous since no editing of the article by any COI accounts has taken place;[70] on this questioning of relevance of the tag, says merely "I'm not the author of Wiki's COI tag; feel free to fix it yourself if you think it's poorly worded."[71]. This is not good faith debate. Rd232 talk 15:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Starting Checkuser procedures against everyone that disagrees with her and getting the subject of a BLP blocked cannot be considered to fall within the realm of content disputes. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- COI is allowed. It only becomes a worry (and may be cited as such) when edits by someone with a COI become unencyclopedic or they stray beyond policy bounds such as edit warring or PoV flogging. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Additional: Sandy today creates Francisco Rodríguez (Venezuelan economist), an economist who almost certainly fails WP:PROF, but has debated Venezuela economic issues with Mark Weisbrot. To reduce the risk of deletion, she puffs him by misrepresenting the man's own page: 3 published articles is not "numerous"; 8 media interviews is not "numerous". This is clearly intended to ensure that if the debates with Rodriguez are removed from the Weisbrot page as UNDUE, they have a home on Wikipedia. Rd232 talk 15:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Additional: Earlier ANI detailing Sandy's efforts to derail dispute resolution on these issues. Rd232 talk 15:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The block of Markweisbrot
I think we probably need to look into the block of Mark Weisbrot. It's bad form to have blocked him if we can confirm he is who he says he is. Is his account identity confirmed? I think we had better start from here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think the sock drawer needs to be identified and unraveled before we can go much further. It's difficult to take any of these complaints at face value until we know who is socking. Blocking of the CEPR people aside, we're still staring at a series of accounts and IP addresses that all have startlingly similar patterns of editing. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- This just shows how much you bothered to actually inform yourself of the situation. The "series of IPs" are one and the same user: Me, as I've said more than once on the checkuser page. The others are long established users. There is no sock drawer. Sandy is just trying to discredit people who disagree with her, thats the whole point of that Checkuser charade. I wanted that RFCU thrown out on principle since she didn't provide any evidence whatsoever, but now I actually want to see it go throu. And when the result comes, and it confirms that none of us are socks of each other, then what exaclty will happen to Sandy? I can answer that myself: Absolutely nothing. She used RFCU for her owns purpuses, to discredit opposition, which is exactly the opposite of what RFCU is intended for, but nothing will come of it. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Another inconsistent understanding of Wiki; what would you like to see happen to me for requesting a checkuser with ample evidence? We have, if not sockpuppetry, evidence of coordinated editing and meatpuppetry, with striking similarities between the editors, and some editors suddenly disappearing while others appear. Asking for a Checkuser is not a crime; it's business. If I'm wrong, you're happy, you're all exonerated, and we can all go about editing. Being checkusered is not a big deal if you're innocent; I've welcomed the times it has happened to me. Of course, I'll go about editing under the onslaught of personal attacks, failures to AGF, and misrepresentations of my edits to which I've been subjected by multiple editors now, but I'm tough :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- This just shows how much you bothered to actually inform yourself of the situation. The "series of IPs" are one and the same user: Me, as I've said more than once on the checkuser page. The others are long established users. There is no sock drawer. Sandy is just trying to discredit people who disagree with her, thats the whole point of that Checkuser charade. I wanted that RFCU thrown out on principle since she didn't provide any evidence whatsoever, but now I actually want to see it go throu. And when the result comes, and it confirms that none of us are socks of each other, then what exaclty will happen to Sandy? I can answer that myself: Absolutely nothing. She used RFCU for her owns purpuses, to discredit opposition, which is exactly the opposite of what RFCU is intended for, but nothing will come of it. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is no evidence of anything, you saying it dosnt make it so. There is no coordination, no shared Ips, no nothing. I don't know Rd232 and never had contact with him other than to inform him that you included him in your little RFCU charede (wich you dindt have the decency to do yourself), the same goes for all the other users. All we ever had in common was that we disagreed with you, and a couple of days later we're all lumped toguether in your baseless accusations. As I've repeatedly told you before, if you enjoy being falselu accused thats "your" problem. You expect me to AGF after you started a bad faith RFCU against me? wow! just wow! 187.47.124.216 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) I know they are "you", what is your point, exactly? CheckUser is for discovering abusive use of multiple accounts and IP addresses to avoid scrutiny or create the appearance of support, and there is plenty of evidence of that. All one has to do is compare a list of your contributions against that of any of the other named editors. An editor might be warned for using RFCU spuriously, but the rare times I've seen Sandy use it, there has been cause. If the CheckUsers decide there is not sufficient evidence to investigate, it will be closed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- My point, exactly, is that this is a spurrious, bad faithed request. There is absolutely no evidence of anything. All I have in common with the other users is that at some point I disagreed with SandyGeorgia. Thats it. She didnt start taht RFCU to get to the bottom of anything, she did it to discredit, tire, and wear down anybody who disagreed with her on any Chavez related articles. And that is not what RFCU is for. But of course arguing with you is not gona be of much use, shes obviously your friend and you came here with your mind made up. 187.47.124.216 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Rd232 continues misrepresenting in his campaign against me, frequently accompanied by personal attacks and failure to AGF;[72] TLDR. On the Weisbrot issue, I don't believe the block was heavy handed, as we have long term COI, sock and meatpuppetry going on there, and we need to get to the bottom of it. It wasn't just a sudden thing; those articles have all been created by CEPR symathizers, employees, socks, or whatever they are, and now they are being aided by pro-Chavez admins in censoring the articles. It would be good to have Weisbrot's input into his article (for example, no one has written anything about him and other Latin American countries, and I'm not familiar with his work there), but given the long-term abuse already documented, he could provide that feedback on any one of the sock talk pages, even if blocked. It remains unclear why so many pro-Chavez editors are suddenly so invested in covering Weisbrot's connections to Chavez; is there a law being broken or something that is going over my head? I can't understand why this molehill has become such a mountain, and why it is so important to remove his well-sourced connections to Chavez from the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh this is good. His campaign agaisnt you??? He had stopped editing, untill you dragged him into the RFCU mess (and you really expect AGF after that? its not an unlimited credit card), along with me and others. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, well. Besides sorting the Weisbrot block and sock drawer, getting to the bottom of the serious whitewashing across all Venezuela/Chavez articles should be another big priority here. We have essentially no Venezuelan articles that aren't POV, looking like Chavez propaganda, and ownership on all those articles. I'm the only editor attempting to neutralize them, and one person can't do it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is exactly the problem, User SandyGeorgia has a very strong anti Chavez POV and is on a campaign to have any article associated with Chavez reflect her POV, any editor that is at any other position is a sock, or has a coi or some other wiki lawyering. The whole sock drawer story is all part of her campaign that look at all these socks and all these articles are pro Chavez and it all adds weight to her campaign that she needs to neutralize all these articles so they reflect her very strong anti chavez pov, I am afraid that in user SandyGeorgia's case this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Right, well, more unsubstantiated attacks and bad faith assumptions from an admin; seems to be my lot :) By all means, let's look at my editing in relation to y'all :) It's most troubling that we have so many admins who don't actually seem to have read or understood WP:NPOV. Anyway, based on something Rd232 just posted, I think I see now what this is about. The concern seems to be whether Weisbrot or CEPR or someone is actually acting as an agent for a foreign government, and that might be the urgency behind removing well sourced text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- That precise concern was discussed at Talk:Mark Weisbrot as long ago as 27 Jan, when I said " You must understand that VIO (Venezuela Information Office) is a registered agent of the Venezuelan government, and that associating Weisbrot with them directly serves to discredit him. The source doesn't permit any actual conclusion to be drawn on the nature of the relationship between VIO and CEPR - it could easily be merely information exchange; or it could be a financial relationship. The reader is left to read between the lines, and when Weisbrot's signing of a single letter is thrown in (WP:UNDUE much? as John Z notes), it's either intending to insinuate or unintentionally leaving dangerous ambiguity that Weisbrot is a paid agent, indirectly, of the Venezuelan government." Sandy replied to this serious BLP concern with "Those are interesting conclusions; from what planet did they come? There's nothing like that in the very neutral text. I have a hard time imagining how you came up with that scenario." The discussion then trailed off, largely - I think - because Sandy then accepted the removal of that text from Mark Weisbrot, seemingly because of accepting the validity of these concerns. Rd232 talk 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, well now I see where you were heading with all of this; perhaps if you weren't so sarcastic and attacking in all of your posts, that message would have come through sooner. At any rate, Wiki is not censored, and we report what reliable sources say. If that leads some to conclude that Weisbrot is acting as an agent of a foreign government, I don't think Wiki can be responsible for what very reliable sources say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing attacking or dismissive in the quoted post making this important point; yet you dismissed it without substantive response. Your dismissive response here, implicitly claiming sarcasm as a reason for not getting the point, is typical of the way in which you constantly misrepresent and evade. Rd232 talk 13:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, well now I see where you were heading with all of this; perhaps if you weren't so sarcastic and attacking in all of your posts, that message would have come through sooner. At any rate, Wiki is not censored, and we report what reliable sources say. If that leads some to conclude that Weisbrot is acting as an agent of a foreign government, I don't think Wiki can be responsible for what very reliable sources say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- That precise concern was discussed at Talk:Mark Weisbrot as long ago as 27 Jan, when I said " You must understand that VIO (Venezuela Information Office) is a registered agent of the Venezuelan government, and that associating Weisbrot with them directly serves to discredit him. The source doesn't permit any actual conclusion to be drawn on the nature of the relationship between VIO and CEPR - it could easily be merely information exchange; or it could be a financial relationship. The reader is left to read between the lines, and when Weisbrot's signing of a single letter is thrown in (WP:UNDUE much? as John Z notes), it's either intending to insinuate or unintentionally leaving dangerous ambiguity that Weisbrot is a paid agent, indirectly, of the Venezuelan government." Sandy replied to this serious BLP concern with "Those are interesting conclusions; from what planet did they come? There's nothing like that in the very neutral text. I have a hard time imagining how you came up with that scenario." The discussion then trailed off, largely - I think - because Sandy then accepted the removal of that text from Mark Weisbrot, seemingly because of accepting the validity of these concerns. Rd232 talk 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Right, well, more unsubstantiated attacks and bad faith assumptions from an admin; seems to be my lot :) By all means, let's look at my editing in relation to y'all :) It's most troubling that we have so many admins who don't actually seem to have read or understood WP:NPOV. Anyway, based on something Rd232 just posted, I think I see now what this is about. The concern seems to be whether Weisbrot or CEPR or someone is actually acting as an agent for a foreign government, and that might be the urgency behind removing well sourced text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Clarification note: Off2riorob is not an admin. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- User SandyGeorgia has such a strong anti Chavez POV and has herself declared that she is on some kind of campaign to neutralize a whole bunch of articles to reflect her POV that it would be better if she did not edit articles related to him. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sir, your jabs are contributing precisely nothing to this conversation. It should be our goal to neutralize articles that display a POV; that does not mean we're trying to insert our own POV. But I suspect you know that and are just trying to stir up trouble. Please disengage from this thread if you have nothing of value to add. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- They are not jabs, they are the exact issues as I have found them to be true, my comments are constructive, User SandyGeorgia has conveyed these opinions and I am stating nothing that is not correct and as I have been involved at more than one location with this User, I will add my comments as I see them, you may not like them but they are indisputable and totally correct.Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Eliminating the only Spanish-speaking editor apparently on Wiki and knowledgeable of Venezuelan history and politics from Chavez/Venezuela articles would be quite a coup for the pillars upon which Wiki is based, such as WP:V and WP:NPOV :) I will say that standing up to all of you is time-consuming, but I suspect you'll gain more sympathy if you actually look at my edits in relation to policy, demonstrate an understanding of policy, stop misrepresenting my edits, and hold off on the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions. Separately, I would note that something should be done about the extreme WP:OWN and WP:BITE that has contributed to the whitewashing of every Chavez/Venezuela and now CEPR-related article on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- There it is again, your very strongly held negative POV that is verging on a conspiracy theory regarding chavez and CEPR, and more wiki lawyering, claims that something needs to be done about all these articles to save the world from this whitewashing of wikipedia articles. Sorry SandyGeorgia but IMO you should take a step back from editing articles related to Chavez, at least for a while. Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- There's something to be said about the corp group of editors who agree with you, and the number of uninvolved editors who don't :) But it would be quite a WP:NPOV coup if y'all could eliminate little ole me from Chavez/Venezuela/CEPR articles. Rio/Rob, the gentleman doth protest too much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- The gentleman doth protest to much, what rubbish, more of youR obsessive conspiracy theories. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- And there she goes playing the martyr - another favourite Sandy tactic. Anybody actually bothering to use Wikidashboard will see that on rather a lot of Venezuela articles, it is actually Sandy who leads in number of edits. eg Hugo Chavez Also instructive is looking at users' top 20 edited pages: Sandy v me. I have 2 Ve pages in the top 20 (3 if you count RSN which is there because of one single enormous Venezuela-related hooha) - both talk pages. Combined Ve edits in the top 20: 263 (=1.7% of total). Sandy has both Chavez and Talk:Chavez in top 20, totalling 1800 edits (also 1.7% of total). Since Sandy inter alia claims that I don't create content, last 100 articles I created. Rd232 talk 17:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Another personal attack; and please read WP:EDITCOUNTITIS and consult anyone about my famously inefficient editing style :) Now, as to the way we really examine articles, an in-depth look at all of the POV Chavez articles will reveal that WP:OWN, WP:BITE and WP:TEND contributed to two editors only POVing every Venezuela/Chavez article on Wiki in the several years I stopped following them, and now we see same on CEPR/Weisbrot, where CEPR.net and Venezuelanalysis.com are frequently used to present one-sided articles. And now it's more than one Spanish-speaking editor can clean up; yes, my edits on these articles have been high since I observed what was happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- You're very good at making unsupported claims. You do it a lot. I must avoid the temptation to respond every time; but it does mean the constant unsupported claims accumulate. Like the claim that CEPR is "frequently" used for anything other than the CEPR articles. Or the claim you've made several times that there is any connection between CEPR and Venezuelanalysis other than you hating both of them. Rd232 talk 19:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Famously inefficient or not, the substantive point about the proportion of Venezuela edits remains: both of us 1.7% going by the top 20 edited pages, which sadly is all wikidashboard provides (anyone know a better tool?). Ooh, found a better tool, which with a bit of Excel calculation gives me Rd232 14% venezuela-related edits (in top 100); SandyGeorgia 21%. This permits some conclusions about relative involvement and WP:OWNership. Rd232 talk 19:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Another personal attack; and please read WP:EDITCOUNTITIS and consult anyone about my famously inefficient editing style :) Now, as to the way we really examine articles, an in-depth look at all of the POV Chavez articles will reveal that WP:OWN, WP:BITE and WP:TEND contributed to two editors only POVing every Venezuela/Chavez article on Wiki in the several years I stopped following them, and now we see same on CEPR/Weisbrot, where CEPR.net and Venezuelanalysis.com are frequently used to present one-sided articles. And now it's more than one Spanish-speaking editor can clean up; yes, my edits on these articles have been high since I observed what was happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
See continuation at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SPI_followup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Separate admin question
RegentsPark, thanks for pointing out that Off2riorob is not an admin; that mitigates part of my question. His persistent misrepresentations of my editing notwithstanding, Rd232's involvement here is a concern. Several of the editors participating here have evidenced a lack of understanding of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Rd232 has frequently personally attacked me, failed to AGF, failed to engage in meaningful attempts to resolve disputes with me via either ignoring or removing my good faith atttempts at discussion, refusing to discuss because he's "going on WikiBreak", or ignoring direct questions put to him, and we've seen all of these editors removing text well sourced to The New York Times, USA Today and other AP sources, removing POV tags, edit warring, ignoring consensus, and claiming BLP vios where none existed, yet engaging in egregious BLP vios.
My question is-- and since I'm not an admin, I make an assumption-- is it not time to formally establish that Rd232 and John Z should not use admin tools on any Chavez/Venezuela/CEPR-related articles? User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles
I need to check out of my hotel soon, and don't know when I'll be able to resurface; hopefully I won't find more attacks on me when I do :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is one of User SandyGeorgia's modus operandi wikilayering and accusations of being attacked, there are no attacks here, just people that have issues with your stated editing objectives. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Considering your (mis)understanding of several Wiki policies, I'm relieved to know you're not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, actually the fact that you weren't aware or were unable to discover this simple point says more about you than it does me. Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps I wasn't interested enough :) Or too busy chasing my tail across all of the policy violations across numerous articles ... But while we're on the subject, could you explain why you-- a prolific contributor at WP:BLPN, didn't engage when Mark Weisbrot was raised at that noticeboard-- and chose to do so much later, after it was all settled? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Do you see some conspiracy in this deviousness? Everyone is a Chavez spy out to whitewash all the articles related to him and you are the wikipedia Saviour that is going to save the world from this conspiracy, hello? Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps I wasn't interested enough :) Or too busy chasing my tail across all of the policy violations across numerous articles ... But while we're on the subject, could you explain why you-- a prolific contributor at WP:BLPN, didn't engage when Mark Weisbrot was raised at that noticeboard-- and chose to do so much later, after it was all settled? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, actually the fact that you weren't aware or were unable to discover this simple point says more about you than it does me. Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Considering your (mis)understanding of several Wiki policies, I'm relieved to know you're not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would certainly consider Rd232 an involved administrator for this topic area, but I trust that he himself knows that and will refrain from using the admin tools. John Z is not an administrator. NW (Talk) 17:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm obtuse (x 2); I should pay more attention to the admin corp :) Anyway, that gives me some reassurance about the lack of understanding of policy that has been evidenced across all of these articles, and Rd232 remains the only admin concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
(ecx4) 1) I've never used tools where I'm involved - that's Admin 101. Thanks for asking! User:John Z is not an admin (doesn't even have rollback).
2) I have not failed WP:AGF. I assumed good faith for a long, long time. Since you ask, the point where AGF (which is an assumption, not a dogma or a collective suicide pact) crumbled for me (having been weakened previously) was the Thor Halvorssen incident, which I eventually concluded was the most obvious part of a campaign to smear me. Even after that, I tried to keep my concerns to myself, hoping to talk it out. Never happened - because you constantly evaded questions, sought to shut down dispute resolution, constantly claimed tendentiousness (is that not breaching AGF? what exactly is tendentiousness?) and made COI insinuations, and constantly brought up old issues (it's hard to convey just how constantly; cf Earlier ANI detailing Sandy's efforts to derail dispute resolution on these issues. ). (eg "but not feasible with so many editors spreading only these sources across so many articles (Venezuela Information Office?)"[73]) In response to this I elaborated my involvement with Venezuela articles (somewhat pathetically, really, I should have known she wouldn't dignify it with a response) how ridiculous that is.[74]
2a) Quoting Sandy, just before I started giving up on AGF for her: "You were quick to cry "BLP violation" on Weisbrot when there was none, yet you saw no problem on Halvorssen and don't seem to see a problem on Chavez, which is contradictory editing and appears tendentious. You are quick to revert accurate changes to inaccurately sourced text (four times, without checking the sources yourself, on the Coup article, even though *everyone* who has dos dedos frente a la cara knows that reliable sources do not say Chavez was illegally detained), but slow to remove a simple POV heading from a short article, that would have taken you one second, because you were editing that section anyway. Your method of editing is revert, revert, revert anything that isn't pro-Chavez, but you rarely seem to build content or neutralize content. In other words, what I see is an editor showing all the signs of tendentious editing. Your bite-iness and ownership tendencies chase off other editors, because your edits support JRSP's POV, so it's usually two against one. Now, JRSP clearly has a POV, but he's not hard to work with; when policy is pointed out to him, or sources are supplied, he backs off and doesn't edit war to enforce his POV; he does discuss, is not rude, and I've collaborated with him successfully on several articles, where between the two of us, we were able to respect each other's work and balance articles. You, on the other hand, have edit warred across almost every article where I've observed your work, have practically forum shopped when you didn't get the answers you want, harrassed with me the "libel" statement, don't seem particularly aware of policy or guideline or willing to read sources, and are quite a bit ruder than JRSP (undue much? is a sarcastic edit summary, and not conducive to collaborative editing, but that's your style ... noting that JRSP has a POV, but doesn't edit like that). In other words, I see an editor who edits Venezuelan content not to build articles, but to impose a specific point of view ... classic WP:TEND. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)"[75]
- In quoting Sandy here I unfortunately repeat another misrepresentation ("revert accurate changes to inaccurately sourced text"), the details of which are at the top of User:Rd232/notes - for those who have far more interest in this than can possibly be good for their health. Rd232 talk 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
2b) For those who care, the Thor Halvorssen incident played out like this. i) At Thor Halvorssen Mendoza I move a paragraph from one place to another. In response, Sandy makes no edit, nor discusses on talk (merely posting a reference to WP:BLPN), and at BLPN declares "Rd232 again (see Mark Weisbrot thread above). In this edit, Rd232 repeats selective info from Thor Halvorssen Hellum, (Sr. vs. Jr.) in a BLP that now reads as an attempt to smear Thor Jr. with allegations about his father, Thor Sr., although the Thor Sr. article is already linked and info about Thor Sr. belongs in and can be explored in more detail in his article."[76] Despite repeated requests on her talk page and at BLPN and elsewhere (eg RSN), Sandy never explains the alleged "smear", but repeatedly brings up the issue later (eg at WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis [77]). Whatever it was was apparently fixed by another editor (Sandy declined to fix the "smear" herself - an interesting approach to handling alleged WP:BLP problems) moving a few phrases aboutSandy then keeps bringing it up as a stick to beat me with, still not explaining the supposed problem: mentioning again, in unrelated thread, 31 Jan yet again not explaining and finally some explanation, 2 Feb. The explanation (apart from being wildly implausible) in typically misrepresentative fashion draws on a comment I made [78] the day after the edits were made which she later declared had fixed the problem.[79] Rd232 talk 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Another TLDR misrepresentation, taking over in a separate thread. I've got to check out of my hotel; please don't let me interfere with the mischaracterizations of my edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I presume you will come back when you have time and address the unsupported claims of misrepresentation. Because I would totally expect you to just never bother coming back to it and hope that everyone around forgets. This is one of your various tactics (I should number them for convenience, perhaps) - simply not responding to issues you have no answer for. Which is part of the pattern demonstrated above! I'll perfectly well allow that you can't respond now; but so very frequently you simply do not respond at all to issues you have no answer for. Feel free to make an exception here, when you have the time. Rd232 talk 19:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Another TLDR misrepresentation, taking over in a separate thread. I've got to check out of my hotel; please don't let me interfere with the mischaracterizations of my edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Inappropriate use of rollback by Rd232
I am wondering if this rollbacking follow the guidelines of WP:ROLLBACK. --Defender of torch (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it would. But there is no need to come running here first. Could you please discuss this with him on a talk page somewhere? NW (Talk) 18:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Talking with him doesn't usually work; he claims BLP vios where none exist, and uses that to revert well sourced edits. Rd232 is now edit warring at Venezuela Information Office and Center for Economic and Policy Research (maybe others). In the Manuel Rosales egregious BLP vio, he's already demonstrated a less-than-firm grasp on BLP, and doesn't respond to consensus on these articles. Additionally, very well sourced text (New York Times and USA Today) has now disappeared from Mark Weisbrot, in spite of no consensus to remove that text. WP:TEND is everywhere here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, let's compare notes on the handling of Rosales and the handling of the other BLP issues. i) Did I declare contentious claims as fact, as you did? No - it was written as "X reported that Y claimed Z", not "Z". ii) did I edit war to include the material when it was challenged, as you have repeatedly done? no. iii) did I seek to shut down debate/DR on the issue, as you have done? no, I sought it out by posting at BLPN. iv) did I bang on about your misrepresentations (User:Rd232/notes) at every opportunity, regardless of relevance, as a stick to try and win unrelated arguments? no. Finally, as to the egregiousness of reporting the Rosales claim (which incidentally I avoid repeating here - you were so concerned about the egregiousness that you repeated it at RSN...), you claimed at RSN not to able to find any reliable mentions; you can't have looked very hard because in seconds I found the claims were reported by the Miami Herald; [80] (El Mundo), and, er, that bastion of Chavismo, El Universal [81]. The egregiousness of the text should also be contextualised by noting that the claim lived unchallenged from October to January, and that it was added to the German Wikipedia entry in September (not by me - I pop by occasionally but hardly ever edit) and remains there to this day. Rd232 talk 21:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Talking with him doesn't usually work; he claims BLP vios where none exist, and uses that to revert well sourced edits. Rd232 is now edit warring at Venezuela Information Office and Center for Economic and Policy Research (maybe others). In the Manuel Rosales egregious BLP vio, he's already demonstrated a less-than-firm grasp on BLP, and doesn't respond to consensus on these articles. Additionally, very well sourced text (New York Times and USA Today) has now disappeared from Mark Weisbrot, in spite of no consensus to remove that text. WP:TEND is everywhere here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Both the New York Times source and the USA Today source, and the information cited to them, are still in the article; they are refs 10 and 11. The wording implemented is one that you did not object to when I proposed it to you earlier today; you just thought that the "other camp" would object to it. That has not happened. Otherwise, what I have taken out is a bunch of primary sources, mostly from Weisbrot's website, a point that was discussed as well: "Then the reference to his Senate testimony should also be removed, under the same criteria, unless secondary sources mention it." In an article as contentious as this one, it is best to stick to mainstream secondary sources, such as the NYT and USA Today, as much as possible. --JN466 19:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I did in fact immediately afterwards move the material to talk - despite it being so obviously unsuitable. If you want to discuss it further, the talk place is the place to do it. If you think I'm going to be unreasonable, that's what dispute resolution is for. (If there is one really consistent pattern in these conflicts, it is that I am always willing to talk more and to pursue dispute resolution, whilst others - let's identify them as those who falsely label me "pro-Chavez" - generally are remarkably eager to close down debates, end discussion, walk away from discussion, undermine content dispute resolution by complaining at length about unrelated alleged behaviour and content issues, etc. Rd232 talk 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Success of Wiki pillars
Wiki is censored, and cleansed, WP:V and WP:NPOV are thrown under the train, and Wiki is censored. Mark Weisbrot is now "neutral" according to someone, but not Wiki policy. All well sourced text is now gone, along with all mention of the numerous publications for whom he writes in this cleansed version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- See the article talk page. --JN466 18:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia had inserted, last month, the information that Weisbrot
"has written for and been interviewed by online magazines such as SocialistViewpoint,[1] Solidarity, a "an independent socialist organization",[2][3] and Alternet.[4]"
- I think the subject could be forgiven if they felt here that Wikipedia was trying to tar them with the socialist brush. The evidence that Weisbrot writes for SocialistViewpoint and Alternet boiled down to the presence of the same article by Weisbrot on both sites: "Labor Day 2003: Nothing to Celebrate". According to [82], this was published through Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services and appeared in the San-Bernardino Sun, August 30, 2003, as well as the Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL) on September 1, 2003. It is still present on the Sun Sentinel website today: [83] (albeit with a different headline). So Weisbrot wrote for a syndicated news service, and these websites picked the article up from the news service. Now the evidence for "Solidarity": The interview on the socialist Solidarity site begins "Suzi Weissman: And Welcome back to BTS". It did not originate on the Solidarity site either but is a transcript of an episode of this radio show broadcast on KPFK radio.
- That is why I removed the information that Weisbrot "has written for and been interviewed by online magazines such as SocialistViewpoint, Solidarity, "an independent socialist organization", and Alternet." I think that was the right thing to do, especially given that the subject had complained of unfair coverage. --JN466 20:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- One of the many irritating things about ANI is the propensity for someone to shut down a thread just after one of the main participants has stated s/he won't be available for a bit. So, I'll post my apology to JN here anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- This thread was archived, then unarchived, so I've moved the above post to the correct section. Additionally, the issue of organizations for whom Weisbrot writes has now been cleared up on article talk (after another good dose of bad faith rants were aimed at me for implementing a consensus change to the article about the organizations for whom Weisbrot writes [84] -- thanks JN for reviewing old threads and clearing that up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Pleasure. Of the three news outlets above, one (AlterNet) has been restored to the article, with bona fide sourcing (Weisbrot's own CEPR website). A couple of others not involved in the above edit have been restored as well. SocialistViewpoint and Solidarity have not been restored, as they were merely republishing material originating elsewhere. --JN466 12:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- This thread was archived, then unarchived, so I've moved the above post to the correct section. Additionally, the issue of organizations for whom Weisbrot writes has now been cleared up on article talk (after another good dose of bad faith rants were aimed at me for implementing a consensus change to the article about the organizations for whom Weisbrot writes [84] -- thanks JN for reviewing old threads and clearing that up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Uninvolved administrator viewpoint
This needs to get toned down and a liberal dose of AGF applied to all parties, about everyone not already confirmed by CU to be a sock. SandyGeorgia smelled socks, asked for SPI/CU, got same, which found some sockpuppetry. There's no sign so far that the other long term editors/admins involved are involved. This also is apparently a content weighting issue, which would seem (absent a clear policy violation by either side) to be an Article / Topic RFC problem rather than ANI. Please take the rhetoric down a few notches, and consider what a more appropriate venue might be to continue this away from ANI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- The SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp cleared one editor of socking (User:Constitutional1787); for some reason this editor remains indeffed. The SPI concluded that one editor (User:Scalabrineformvp) had created two socks, User:Markweisbrot and User:Kriswarner - an excellent example of naive use of checkuser. What kind of sockmaster creates two aliases using the real names of people associated with the relevant articles (hence COI issues), and uses those socks entirely independently of each other and of the "sockmaster"? It does not take a long look at the edit histories to divine 3 people in the same location. (Given that the accounts have not supported each other in any way, claims of meatpuppetry are so far equally off base - though this would need to be monitored in future.) User:Kriswarner managed to get unblocked, the situation being acknowledged; the other "sock" and supposed "sockmaster" remain blocked. Does anyone feel like, at some convenient time, unblocking these 3 accounts? One exonerated of being a sock by CU, one clearly not a sockmaster, one clearly not a sock and also the author of an OTRS ticket. Anyone? Rd232 talk 00:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
As for the other issues - it's true these cannot really be resolved here. It would need at least an WP:RFC/U and probably an arbcase to deal with Sandy's behaviour. I have neither the time nor the stomach for that, so if the OTRS issues are seemingly being addressed - unblocking of the related accounts would help, with whatever dire WP:COI warnings may be required - then I'd be happy to fade back into semi-retirement. Rd232 talk 00:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
An involved editor view
Sorry I don't know if I can write here. But I would like to say that I have been surfing and trying to edit pages concerning Venezuela. The situation is simple: anybody a bit objective can see that Venezuela pages are incredibly POV. Why is it so? Mostly because of the actions of a few editors like Rd232. And when anybody tries to resist this, Rd232 reacts by attacks like this one. This is just how it is and it works very well for him. Voui (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not helpful. Most of our interaction is at Talk:Human rights in Venezuela, and I leave it as an exercise for the disinterested reader to judge who is attacking who there. Rd232 talk 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think that a general assessment of the state of the articles is very helpful. If we've got whole swaths of articles that seem to be biased, then we need to know about them so we can fix them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Motion to close
This isn't really going anywhere, is it? Especially now the ongoing sock issue has been split into a separate thread (due to this thread's temporary closure), it might as well be put out of its misery. The issues are too complex to handle here. Rd232 talk 09:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- If it's too complex for ANI, then the next step would be ArbCom. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I really don't have time for such a next step. It's a timesink in which I could probably produce an entire paper! Rd232 talk 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, the next step would be a content and/or user RFC. ANI is not dispute resolution. Karanacs (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the first step is one Rd232 has avoided, which is user talk. He has attacked me endlessly across multiple noticeboards and on my talk page, but removed my conciliatory posts from his talk page and refused to discuss items with me, saying he's going on a Wikibreak, then constantly re-appearing and not dropping issues. Rd232 has never engaged the first step in dispute resolution, which is AGF and discuss with me, not rant at me. His refusal to discuss, continue attacking, and then ask me not to discuss because he's going on break doesn't help. If he is going to continue these attacks on me across multiple noticeboards, at least he should decide if he is or isn't retiring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's jawdroppingly amazing how rarely Sandy is able to post about me without a misrepresentation or two. Her talk page is full of discussion with me. And the "conciliatory post" she referred to I first undid (being pissed off; it may be the first time I've ever done it), then reverted the undo and archived it. And replied on her talk. Further, unless Sandy has some hitherto undisclosed authority, I have no need to decide if I'm "retiring" or not: I've marked my page "semi retired". Rd232 talk 01:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- If it's too complex for ANI, going to an RFC isn't going to get us anywhere either. I'm not fond of process for process' sake. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree-- RFC/U is broken for situations this complex, but a good first step might be for some admin to get Off2riorob and Rd232 to stop the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, and engage in the first and usually most productive use of DR, which is editor talk pages. The personal attacks are turning into a separate matter that probably do warrant admin attention. [85] Other than that, I would suggest archiving this thread again, and someone doing something about the personal attacks and onslaught I've been enduring quietly for a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- you've been enduring an onslaught for a month? The comedy never ceases around here. You bullied me into semi-retirement. Rd232 talk 01:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any chance we could talk the two of you into a mutual disengagement for say a month? This much assuming bad faith all around is getting to the point that uninvolved admins may step in rather than letting it fizzle down. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am finding all of this to be an incredible waste of time, when we could all be editing articles instead, but so far, Rd232 refuses to dialogue with me, saying he doesn't have time, while continuing to spread persistent attacks on me far and wide. [86] This situation would be immensely complex for any form of dispute resolution, because of the extent and because of the Spanish translation issues. If anyone can convince him to stop attacking and start talking, I'm game. It's a bit hard for me to understand why uninvolved admins are allowing these documented and persistent attacks to continue. In the past, he has rebuffed my attempts to talk because he wanted to retire or he simply deleted them,[87] yet he started this thread here. I don't see what else I can do if he refuses dialogue but continues these attacks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would be helpful if SandyGeorgia were to familiarize himself with Wikipedia policies on content. These articles are supposed to represent a range of mainstream views, but SandyGeorgia apparently wants them to represent the types of views that one sees in down market sources like Fox News, the Washington Times, etc. I have asked SandyGeorgia to read upscale publications for sources, but apparently he has no interest in doing this. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- The Four Deuces, perhaps you missed the uninvolved admin statement about your (mis)understanding of NPOV here or here? Also see here; you're a very involved party. Also, your statement about me reading sources is completely incorrect; have you got a diff for that? Perhaps you forget that most of my Wiki work is at FAC, and I'm very accustomed to high-level sourcing. Or perhaps you missed this response from Rd232 to an article that I did make time to read before my recent travel break of one week. Or perchance you've forgotten that the first hit your google scholar search returned is one that I advocate should be used and has gone missing from the now POV article ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just for the record, Ludwigs2, the editor who commented, is not an admin. Sandy, to see if someone is an admin or not, you can use this tool: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/isAdmin/ --JN466 12:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you look at arbcom's views on source quality and NPOV, Ludwigs2 was also arguably wrong in his response to The Four Deuces. Arbcom has consistently discouraged attempts to synthesise a NPOV from polarised sources and encouraged an approach similar to what The Four Deuces advocated in that discussion. See
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#Neutrality_and_sources,
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Neutral_point_of_view_and_sourcing,
- Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Neutrality_and_sources,
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2#Neutral_point_of_view_and_sourcing,
- Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Quality_of_sources.
- Also see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#Decorum.
- Any arbitration case here is guaranteed to end with a spelling out of much the same principles. --JN466 14:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, JN (for everything, including recognizing what it has been like for me to deal with these sustained attacks while I have so much going on IRL and on Wiki); actually, your links above fully support Ludwigs2 and me, but I will come back to this after I hear from Rd232. I appreciate that you are doing your best on these articles, but without a full understanding of the background and history of events in Venezuela, it can be very hard for others to sort this mess-- another reason (besides the Spanish translation issues) to try to avoid ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- The Four Deuces, perhaps you missed the uninvolved admin statement about your (mis)understanding of NPOV here or here? Also see here; you're a very involved party. Also, your statement about me reading sources is completely incorrect; have you got a diff for that? Perhaps you forget that most of my Wiki work is at FAC, and I'm very accustomed to high-level sourcing. Or perhaps you missed this response from Rd232 to an article that I did make time to read before my recent travel break of one week. Or perchance you've forgotten that the first hit your google scholar search returned is one that I advocate should be used and has gone missing from the now POV article ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would be helpful if SandyGeorgia were to familiarize himself with Wikipedia policies on content. These articles are supposed to represent a range of mainstream views, but SandyGeorgia apparently wants them to represent the types of views that one sees in down market sources like Fox News, the Washington Times, etc. I have asked SandyGeorgia to read upscale publications for sources, but apparently he has no interest in doing this. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am finding all of this to be an incredible waste of time, when we could all be editing articles instead, but so far, Rd232 refuses to dialogue with me, saying he doesn't have time, while continuing to spread persistent attacks on me far and wide. [86] This situation would be immensely complex for any form of dispute resolution, because of the extent and because of the Spanish translation issues. If anyone can convince him to stop attacking and start talking, I'm game. It's a bit hard for me to understand why uninvolved admins are allowing these documented and persistent attacks to continue. In the past, he has rebuffed my attempts to talk because he wanted to retire or he simply deleted them,[87] yet he started this thread here. I don't see what else I can do if he refuses dialogue but continues these attacks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any chance we could talk the two of you into a mutual disengagement for say a month? This much assuming bad faith all around is getting to the point that uninvolved admins may step in rather than letting it fizzle down. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- you've been enduring an onslaught for a month? The comedy never ceases around here. You bullied me into semi-retirement. Rd232 talk 01:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree-- RFC/U is broken for situations this complex, but a good first step might be for some admin to get Off2riorob and Rd232 to stop the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, and engage in the first and usually most productive use of DR, which is editor talk pages. The personal attacks are turning into a separate matter that probably do warrant admin attention. [85] Other than that, I would suggest archiving this thread again, and someone doing something about the personal attacks and onslaught I've been enduring quietly for a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the first step is one Rd232 has avoided, which is user talk. He has attacked me endlessly across multiple noticeboards and on my talk page, but removed my conciliatory posts from his talk page and refused to discuss items with me, saying he's going on a Wikibreak, then constantly re-appearing and not dropping issues. Rd232 has never engaged the first step in dispute resolution, which is AGF and discuss with me, not rant at me. His refusal to discuss, continue attacking, and then ask me not to discuss because he's going on break doesn't help. If he is going to continue these attacks on me across multiple noticeboards, at least he should decide if he is or isn't retiring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) Basically all you have done is complain the the articles are biased without providing any sources whatsoever. You complained that I set up an RfC and said that I was trying to control the article which makes no sense whatsoever. Sure these articles should be improved and I presented several NPOV academic articles that could help. Please provide reliable sources to help us improve them. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Then perhaps you've forgotten the extensive list I've started (not yet completed) at User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources, or that there were no changes to the article while I was traveling, in spite of all the work I presented? We discussed that on talk as well-- not sources that must be used, but sources that used to be in the article, and points of view that are now entirely absent. At this rate, it's going to be very slow going ... we've been over this already :) I left you all plenty to work with in my nine-day absence, yet nothing changed except a reduction in the lead, which can't be a proper WP:LEAD and is still unbalanced because ... there's no article to work with yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Most of your sources are from the Economist. Is there any reason why you do not want to use sources from academic literature? The Four Deuces (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is not accurate, and this discussion belongs at Talk:Hugo Chavez, not ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Most of your sources are from the Economist. Is there any reason why you do not want to use sources from academic literature? The Four Deuces (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Sandy, with respect -- and that is not an empty phrase, since I think you do a wonderful job at WP:FAC, and it is accompanied by some affection -- you are guilty of some of the things you accuse others of too. For example, you have many times referred to editors as "pro-Chavez", "pro-Chavez admins" etc., which if it were accurate is not unlike Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views and, if it were false, would be a case of poisoning the well. Georgewilliamherbert's advice above to tone things down, and apply liberal doses of AGF all round was good. It was by far the most sensible thing anyone has said here. You've worked on this while travelling, under real-life time constraints, without being in the best of health and, as you've pointed out several times, without support from someone who shares your view of what needs to be done in the Venezuela articles and speaks Spanish well enough. You're overexerting yourself. Much is overlooked, misunderstood or misconstrued when one is stressed and hurried, and words written in heat easily produce responses that escalate a situation to a point where it becomes unmanageable.
Much of all this activity has by now become personalized, without benefiting the articles. The complaints about how each editor feels they have been treated by the other side far outstrip any useful content discussion. Please let's remember why we are here, mend fences on talk pages, seek compromise and consensus, focus on edits not editors, and build talk page support for stable article versions that do not swallow hours and hours of editors' time. I am confident it can be done. Outside this polarised dynamic that has developed, I have not found anyone here unwilling to talk. Everyone here is capable of collaborative editing.
Above all, everyone needs to relax here. And please don't take this to arbitration, because it will drag on for months, be an even bigger time drain on you, and no one will come away from an arbitration case feeling that they have been entirely vindicated, with themselves commended by arbcom for upholding NPOV, free to edit as they please, and the other side topic-banned. --JN466 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- So sensible - thank you. I would be more than happy, if Sandy would agree to it, to draw a line under everything that's been said and done in the past month or so. Clearly, we both think the other is vastly more at fault; but things have got heated enough and complicated enough that trying to disentangle all that and apportion fault appropriately would be an enormous timesink. (Arbcom alone should breathe a collective sigh of relief if we can avoid burdening them with an almost inevitably near book-length exchange...) I've said repeatedly I don't have time for an arbcom case and would be happy to avoid it, and focus on the few remaining content issues that I'm actively concerned about, which relate to the OTRS ticket articles. Once they're resolved, I'll be happy to fade away for a while and pursue RL projects. So if Sandy will back off her COI/meatpuppetry accusations (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp), we could try both taking a superhuman leap back to that forgotten time when we both were able to sustain WP:AGF in relation to each other. This will require a more drastic change in behaviour from Sandy than from me - in terms of not constantly bringing up accusations of tendentiousness and "pro-Chavez"ness and miscellaneous claims of past wrongdoing in furtherance of trying to win content disputes. But if she can do that I will reciprocate, and so if she says she's willing to draw a line under all this animosity and return to discussing content on a good faith basis, I'll give it a crack and see if we can make it last. Rd232 talk 14:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have some questions to pose to Rd232 on my talk before responding here;[88] will come back to this after I hear from him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Request from Chuck Marean for review of ban
Banned user Chuck Marean (talk · contribs) has asked for the following to be copied from his talk page:
Please move this appeal to ANI for consideration. I understand why I was community banned and I’ll do constructive edits instead. My community ban was because I did some major edits without a consensus and sufficient preparation. For example, I reworded a Current Events blurb to say the victims of the Madoff investment fraud had not received a government bailout (when the references merely stated they had lost a lot of money). I’ve been thinking of ways to find consensus, such as working in my user space and getting my edits reviewed, looking at edit histories to try to find out who wrote what I want to edit, mentioning the edit idea on the article’s talk page, and putting forth more effort when reading sources and writing. I apologize for editing Current Events without knowing for certain I had a consensus. Rather than asking, I supposed everyone would agree with my edit. I believe it is uncivil to call people disruptive or vandals or uncivil or stupid or not neutral or bad editors, and so forth, although I can understand a writer being upset when someone else edits or corrects his writing. So, to improve my editing, I could ask if I have a consensus and I could read the policies I haven’t read and I could find and read a book on how to find sources and so forth. I think my community ban is no longer needed, as I’ve just explained. Chuck Marean 08:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
For reference, the most recent AN/I discussion seems to be here. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is the guy who thought it was a news item that the European Union existed. Also, the issue with Madoff was nothing to do with bailouts - the user thought it was 'biased' to report that Madoff had pleaded guilty to criminal fraud by running a Ponzi scheme, and been sentenced to a lot of years in jail for it. Marean thought the article should only say that Madoff had somehow managed to accidentally go bankrupt. Basically, he did a lot of edits that inserted utter nonsense (or possibly an alternative reality of some kind) into articles, causing a lot of time end effort to be wasted. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Unban request does not show that he understands the problems with his edits, and as Elen states above, it also misrepresents the proximate reason for the ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Yes, I was the Admin who blocked him. However, reviewing the WP:AN/I thread that led me to this sanction, I find that he simply didn't get it then & I have to wonder whether he even gets it now. (WP:NPOV doesn't mean that if someone confesses to a crime, experts have verified that he did the crime, & a legal court found him guilty & threw the book at him for the crime, Wikipedia must say something a lot less definite & incriminating.) But if he can find a mentor who will help him understand the actual problem, I'm willing to withdraw my objection. But according to the earlier thread, he already burnt out one mentor by that point. -- llywrch (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- No per that AN/Bernie Madoff thing that got him banned in the first place. I'm sorry, lack of clue is one thing, but complete and willful ignorance is another. –MuZemike 18:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- But enough about [personal attack on politician redacted]. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:COMPETENCE. I remember the ban and this editor just isn't able to be productive. I think he actually means well, but as mean as it is, even well-meaning people who harm the encyclopedia can't be allowed to edit it. -- Atama頭 02:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose after reading the long AN thread; I think he still doesn't get it. There's a large gulf between being bold and being completely wrong. Mr. Marean was completely wrong, to the point that not even the person whom he cast in a better light Bernie Madoff would agree with his edits. Big deal; revert and move on; except that Mr. Marean didn't get it at that point, and continued on AN to insist he was correct in his edits. Even in this unblock request there is an undercurrent of 'you just didn't understand my edits'. Further, that he wants to be unbanned and read policies is again, wrong. Read the policies first, understand them, and (now that his talk page is unlocked), try proposing edits there. If he can propose constructive edits that actually line up with reality for a while, then ask to be unbanned. Until he proves he can make constructive edits, I can't help but think this request is putting the cart before the horse. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Quite simply put, I believe he is simply saying what he thinks needs to be said in order to get unblocked. He still has not admitted that he made any mistake, simply chalking up this to 'not having consensus'. I'd like to say that a mentor could help, but if he can't understand what was wrong with the edits by now, I don't think a mentor will be much of a help. Sodam Yat (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I remember him, oppose, as mentioned above WP:COMPETENCE. One doesn't get community banned for a minor disagreement on the rules. A willfully ignorant and incompetent person, who I thought quit possibly was just a really clever troll playing Forrest Gump.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- [89]I think this article should be called Elizabeth II of England, because whoever heard of the United Kingdom? Everybody knows what England means. It’s the southern half of one of the British Isles. I know which one my money's on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- 'Whoever heard of the United Kingdom'?! You're shitting your Uncle HalfShadow, right? That's Newfie joke dumb. HalfShadow 20:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly, he's either too incompetent, or a plain ole garden variety...... you get the point. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Nobody lost money underestimating the intelligence of the US public," to quote one of our sages. We have people who doubt Hawaii is part our nation, so I'm no longer surprised at the ignorance of my fellow citizens. (I don't know what those eople think the 50th state is in that case. Canada? God, if that were the case, I hope those 34 million people would rate more than 2 senators & 2 representatives.) -- 21:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly, he's either too incompetent, or a plain ole garden variety...... you get the point. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- 'Whoever heard of the United Kingdom'?! You're shitting your Uncle HalfShadow, right? That's Newfie joke dumb. HalfShadow 20:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- [89]I think this article should be called Elizabeth II of England, because whoever heard of the United Kingdom? Everybody knows what England means. It’s the southern half of one of the British Isles. I know which one my money's on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Reject appeal; he still doesn't get it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Oh sweet Jesus, oppose. This is one we do NOT want back. --Smashvilletalk 22:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose He's either monstrously stupid or a clever troll; either way, we can do without him. HalfShadow 22:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I feel bad for the guy, but I have to concur with the above. It's not worth the effort if he is going to act like that. Wikipedia is not for everyone. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It's worth mentioning that the user has requested mentorship (on the condition of their return) on their talk page. Swarm(Talk) 01:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I note that the diff he cites as some of his best work was immediately reverted for destroying the formatting [90] on the Character Formatting section of How to edit a page. I think he would need a tutor, not a mentor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I've been misreading, but didn't he have a mentor when he was blocked? --Smashvilletalk 16:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I note that the diff he cites as some of his best work was immediately reverted for destroying the formatting [90] on the Character Formatting section of How to edit a page. I think he would need a tutor, not a mentor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Lifting community ban on Petri Krohn
This user has been banned for a year from Wikipedia as a result of a community ban, imposed, as it was discovered later, as a result of wikistalking campaign by the so-called EEML cabal group. (see this evidence: [91]. The only his guilt was that he suggested that the recent creation of the so-called Historical Truth Commission by the Russian government may be in part, triggered by the Digwuren's group (later discovered to be EEML conspiracy) activity in Wikipedia.
He also has been previously banned as a result of WP:DIGWUREN case which was also abused by the EEML group by demanding the remedies were "symmetric" and accusing the arbitrator Kirill Loshkin of ethnic prejudice towards Russian cause. Petri Krohn was completely irrelated to the cause of that arbitration (which was good article promotion shopping in IRC by Digwuren), other than being political opponent of the EEML group. He was inactive in political topics for 3 months by the time of the arbitratiuon.
It was discovered lated that hounding political opponents and driving them off Wikipedia is a common tactic of the EEML group, other case being Russavia (see evidence here:[92]).
It has been suggested by the Arbitration Committee members that the victims of the group (Russavia and Petri Krohn) to apply of lifting of their respective bans, Russavia already did and the ban has been lifted.
I personally know no Wikipedia's rule Petri Krohn ever broke and suggest him to be unblocked.--Dojarca (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just noting that the Arbitration Committee's one-year ban on this user was imposed in 2007 and expired in 2008. According to the block log, the user is currently blocked/banned as the result of a different discussion. Also, before spending time on this discussion, do we know whether Petri Krohn actually wishes to return to editing? Not commenting on any other aspect at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just re-read my post. Second time he was "community-banned" by the Wiki-stalking campign by the EEML members which is evident from their mail archive:[93], submitted to the Arbcom. There are posts where they discuss how to better drive him out of Wikipedia and how to better vote on his ban to avoid suspicions of stalking. The formal reason for the community ban was his mention that Digwuren's group behavior in Wikipedia maybe played role in the creation of the Historical Truth Commition by the Russian government. Currently he is under this ban which was clearly discovered to be canvassed.--Dojarca (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no canvassing was discovered by the ArbCom, which was the reason why ArbCom did not remove his ban. Also, I believe that the current ArbCom needs to be notified in this, as there may be a separate issue with Krohn's ban not being lifted. --Sander Säde 20:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Canvassing was discoverad by the Arbcom.--Dojarca (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, can you please link the relevant (about Krohn's block) finding of fact by ArbCom and not delusional musings? --Sander Säde 07:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support - If we are chiming in to determine if Petri Krohn is to be unblocked and allowed to return, I support that. Looking at the thread in his block log, it looks like he was blocked very soon after coming off his 1 year ban for allegedly making threats [94]. I don't really see a direct threat though, it looks more like a misunderstanding blown out of proportion... the editor even apologized and removed the alleged threat but was blocked anyway. A number of EEML partisans pile on at that discussion, which kinda makes it seem corrupted to me. PK was active at his own talk page as recently as last January, so it's safe to assume he is checking in now and then and perhaps still interested in participating. He has something like 27,000 live edits, which is fairly prolific... I say let him come back and contribute. Additioanlly, the ArbCom ban was over long ago, he is currently community blocked and can be unblocked by consensus, as noted at the bottom of the block discussion from last May. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. The admin that decided the ban is apparently not around, having
invoked the right to vanishrenamed his account and retired (see User talk:GoneAwayNowAndRetired). I have no opinion on the merits of this appeal. Pcap ping 03:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC) - Support - well-worth giving another chance. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- "It was teh Cabalz!" is not compelling when considered in the context of an editor who has already been banned once by ArbCom. I think an independent review of the evidence is indicated and would suggest that if this user wants to return to editing then they should contact the ban appeals subcommittee, who will judge the case dispassionately on its merits. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you look at the face of it it's fairly clear what happened. I don't think anyone is making such a simplistic statement blaming it on only Cabals, but the current block is somewhat tainted, IMHO, based on what I read in the block discussion. I don't know the blocked editor, so have no personal opinion of him one way or the other, I just think it's a shame to leave such a prolific content contributor blocked. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support lifting the ban, although making the un-ban provisional/conditional may not be a bad idea. I have taken a look at the original AN/I thread where the ban was imposed. The number of users who cast !votes was relatively small and a significant proportion of them were EEML-related users. There was a valid misconduct case with respect to the banned editor, but it does look like the discussion was tainted. Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, unless it is replaced with a Baltic topic ban. Petri Krohn has a track record of rather nasty POV pushing in this topic area, as documented here and here, which is apparently driven by an extreme political agenda as documented here. You only need to Google his name together with the word "viro" (which is Finnish for Estonia) to see that he and his political organisation still maintain and promote this strident anti-Estonian sentiment that all Estonians are "Holocaust denying fascist glorifiers of Nazism". The fear is that he will again attempt to push this fringe POV in the Baltic topic space and target any editor he identifies as being Estonian. Given that he doesn't appear to understand that his combative approach in regard to the Baltics is grossly offensive to most editors from that region, and in fact seems to believe he is an innocent victim of evil cabalz, his return without such an topic ban may result in more battleground drama. --Martin (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose with caveat per Martin. Petri's ban was lifted for EEML participation which he used simply to rehash his political position. Petri is a member of SAFKA, an openly virulently anti-Estonian Finnish-based activist group which regularly accuses Estonia of fascism in the extreme. I have long acknowledged Petri's positive contributions on other topics. Petri was on ban before EEML existed, there is nothing "tainted" regarding portrayals of his prior editorial conduct. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 16:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Please note that User:Martintg and User:Vecrumba have both been sanctioned by the committee under the WP:EEML case (Wikipedia:EEML#Vecrumba_topic_banned and Wikipedia:EEML#Martintg_topic_banned). Their participation here is completely inappropriate given that this is exactly the type of behaviour that the Arbcom wants editors to refrain from engaging in, and dare I say it, their participation here could well be in violation of the sanctions they have been placed under. Would someone who is not involved in EEML care to look into that? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 17:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, their topic bans cover "all process discussions" about Eastern European article topics; both their comments above clearly fall under that rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. The topic ban imposed is explicitly specific to EE articles, as the wording suggests: "articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same". Engaging in a discussion about another editor is not the same as engaging in a process discussion (e.g. AfDs) about an article, this is plain common sense. The fact that the committee also made an additional explicit restriction in regard to the discussion of one individual editor here, indicates that they understand the difference between discussing an article and discussing an editor. There is no restriction in discussing Petri Krohn. If you disagree please seek clarification and/or an amendment with the ArbCom. --Martin (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, their topic bans cover "all process discussions" about Eastern European article topics; both their comments above clearly fall under that rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
False information on Gregorian and Julian calendars
62.31.226.77 insists upon inserting an incorrect procedure, based on original research, for converting between the Gregorian and Julian calendars into Gregorian calendar. The error is shown at Talk:Gregorian calendar#Novel conversion procedure. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
This series of edits have extended to Julian calendar, with statements indicating that the USSR adopted the religious New Calendar despite the fact that the USSR changed calendars in 1919, four years before the New Calendar was created. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
After what period of administrator inaction may an issue be taken to arbitration? Jc3s5h (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- The above claim is false.
62.31.226.77 (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Have patience, I think going to ArbCom would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I think it would help if you explained how the IP is being disruptive in more detail, provided more diffs. You're assuming that admins will understand this content dispute and side with you. Fences&Windows 23:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- In several edits including this one to Gregorian calendar 62.31.226.77 (who also edits as 156.61.160.1) added a method to find the difference in dates between the Julian and Gregorian calendar. It is well know that the rule is that centurial years (ending in 00) are always Julian leap years, but not Gregorian leap years unless they are also evenly divisible by 400. The years 1200 and 2800 are leap years under both systems, so the difference should not increase in those years. When 62.31.226.77's procedure is followed (and all divisions are integer divisions, remainders are dropped), the results are:
- For 1199 and 1200:
- ((1199 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 6
- ((1200 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 7
- so the difference increases, which is wrong.
- For 1199 and 1200:
- Similarly, for 2799 and 2800:
- ((2799 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 19
- ((2799 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 19
- Similarly, for 2799 and 2800:
- As for the Julian calendar, 62.31.226.77 made a series of edits in which he mixed up the meanings of civil and religious calendars, and indicated countries adopted a religious calendar, the New Calendar, when that is plainly impossible. The most recent pair of such edit is here.
- He/she changed
- The Julian calendar remained in use into the 20th century in some countries as a civil calendar, but it has generally been replaced by the Gregorian calendar introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582.
- to
- The Julian calendar remained in use into the 20th century in some countries as a civil calendar, but thirteen days have been excised to make the date the same as in other countries. This is described as the "New calendar". Research will be needed to establish which leap year model has been adopted (if any), but the civil calendar is identical with the new calendar of fixed holy days in Orthodox countries.
- which is nonsense for several reasons, including
- If thirteen days are excised from the Julian calendar, it isn't the Julian calendar anymore.
- Russia retained the Julian calendar into the 20th century, but when the USSR took over, they certainly didn't adopt the New Calendar because it didn't exist until 1923, and the USSR government was hostile to religion.
- Civil calendars don't have holy days, so it is nonsense to say they the civil calendar and New Calendar are identical in this respect. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I find this arithmetic rather odd:
- ((1199 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 6
When I add 1199 and 300, I get 1499. When I divide that by 100, I get 1.499. Then I multiply that by 7, getting 10.493. Then divide that by 9, getting 1.1658888... (with the "8" repeating). Finally, subtract 4 from that, getting −2.8341111... (with the "1" repeating). How is that equal to 6? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- As state above, "and all divisions are integer divisions, remainders are dropped". 1499/100 = 14. 14 * 7 = 98. 98/9 = 10. 10 - 4 = 6. Integer arithmetic, the floor function, and the ceiling function are all quite common in calendar calculations. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Legal threat
I interpret the edit summary in this edit to be a legal threat. It states "(Certain individuals have been telling lies about me to the administrators and on talk pages. Be careful what you say as your remarks are disseminated worldwide and libel suits are not unknown.)." Jc3s5h (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- A registered user would be indef'd for that comment, which is probably why some editors prefer to remain as IP's, as they can get away with more. An IP is seldom indef'd, but a lengthy block would seem to be called for. Possibly with a fitting comment such as, "Certain individuals have been making legal threats, and lengthy blocks for such threats are well known." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's the same IP address for the last month, safe to say it's static. Say a 6 month block for legal threats? Canterbury Tail talk 20:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked for 3 months, and neutral block comment and notice provided. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's the same IP address for the last month, safe to say it's static. Say a 6 month block for legal threats? Canterbury Tail talk 20:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Block evasion
The blocked user continues to edit using his other IP address, 156.61.160.1 Jc3s5h (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just blocked that one for 3 months to agree with the original block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
SPI followup
Since the thread above where this was previously discussed was closed:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp followup
The SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp cleared one editor of socking (User:Constitutional1787); for some reason this editor remains indeffed. The SPI concluded that one editor (User:Scalabrineformvp) had created two socks, User:Markweisbrot and User:Kriswarner - an excellent example of naive use of checkuser. What kind of sockmaster previously operating with undisclosed COI creates two aliases using the real names of people associated with the relevant articles (hence raising COI issues), and then uses those socks entirely independently of each other and of the "sockmaster"? It does not take a long look at the edit histories to divine 3 people in the same location. (Given that the accounts have not supported each other in any way, claims of meatpuppetry are so far equally off base - though this would need to be monitored in future.) User:Kriswarner managed to get unblocked, the situation being acknowledged; the other "sock" and supposed "sockmaster" remain blocked. Does anyone feel like, at some convenient time, unblocking these 3 accounts? One exonerated of being a sock by CU, one clearly not a sockmaster, one clearly not a sock and also the author of an OTRS ticket. Anyone? Rd232 talk 00:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Very embarassing for Wikipedia. :( Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would think it more embarassing that someone can get their article cleansed by writing to Wiki OTRS, even though COI and meatpuppetry policies were violated. That would seem to damage Wiki's credibility more than blocking editors who violate policies. There are still outstanding meatpuppetry questions here, but that's for tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- As Sandy states, very embarassing. I don't know the situation details enough to point out which act is the most embarassing only to know that Wikipedia is getting a black eye. :( or x( Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would think it more embarassing that someone can get their article cleansed by writing to Wiki OTRS, even though COI and meatpuppetry policies were violated. That would seem to damage Wiki's credibility more than blocking editors who violate policies. There are still outstanding meatpuppetry questions here, but that's for tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Very embarassing for Wikipedia. :( Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- It seems unwise and uncalled for to block a renowned, international journalist, a regular columnist for The Guardian as well as a contributor to the LA Times and The New York Times, after he's complained via OTRS about the NPOV balance of his BLP here. It is not likely to enhance Wikipedia's reputation out there in the real world.
- I would think differently if there were a pattern of longstanding abuse; but looking at the edits that the Markweisbrot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account has made here, I don't see it. Assuming the IP checked out, it seems he used his RL name and sits in the same building as his colleagues, one of whom also used his RL name.
- By all means, hand out all the appropriate warnings about COI and meatpuppeting and all the rest of it ... but let's also remember that we are hardly in a position to claim the moral high ground on neutral BLPs in general, and this one in particular. --JN466 01:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- There seems to be a fundamental understanding of Checkuser limitations here; Constitutional1787 may not have been editing from the same IP, but meatpuppetry is meatpuppetry, and they've admitted to that, as well as reverted other editors to add unsourced material to articles. Not to mention that all CUs haven't been run yet. On the other hand, I found it unfortunate that the Weisbrot account was welcomed with no mention of COI issues until I added it. And the fact that he complained to OTRS doesn't make the complaint valid; those articles have largely been edited by CEPR-friendly editors since their inception, providing a strange context for their complaints about the content. We still have Rd232 and JRSP disappearing at a time that Off2riorob and the Brazilian IP took up the same edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sandy, they are newbies, probably three guys sitting in an office, and the term "meatpuppetry" most likely means nothing to them. --JN466 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, and was troubled that editors welcomed them without explaining the COI issues, but the other problem is that this has been going on for a long time, they don't seem repentant, and although they've been editing the articles for a long time, they're still blaming Wikipedia for the content. Someone should explain to them that they should add suggestions to talk pages, and we should still get to the bottom of the coordinated editing across all of these articles. Checkuser can't catch everything, and the statements that Constitional1787 is unrelated demonstrate some lack of understanding of CU. The way the OTRS report has been used to censor content is alarming, and sets a bad precedent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sandy, they are newbies, probably three guys sitting in an office, and the term "meatpuppetry" most likely means nothing to them. --JN466 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sandy, a glance through JRSP's contribs shows that he disappears for a week or more at a time not infrequently [95]. Also, if you're going to repeatedly raise suspicions, then do add him to the SPI. In fact, throw in Jayen466, User:Pohta ce-am pohtit (who AFD'd a Venezuela article of Sandy's); who else? Let's get some fire into this witch-hunt already! No-one who does anything Sandy dislikes shall edit unless approved by checkuser! (Which is infallible, because IPs are burned into our foreheads at birth...)
- You know perfectly well why I tried to semi-retire - and not editing for a week was quite an achievement for me; I was hoping to avoid it til March. But this OTRS mess - including blocking editors from the OTRS ticket-placing organisation as socks, despite this being pretty obviously ridiculous - forced me to start again. The sooner this can be resolved, the sooner I can slip back into semi-retirement and not edit til at least March.
- Claims that CEPR editors have had a hand in those articles ("this has been going on for a long time, they don't seem repentant, and although they've been editing the articles for a long time, they're still blaming Wikipedia for the content.") are without evidence. The only one of the accounts in question to have been around a while (User:Scalabrineformvp, March 2009) has a grand total of 30 mainspace edits. Looking at editor involvement at Mark Weisbrot [96] and CEPR [97] doesn't suggest major IP involvement or undiscovered sock involvement either.
- "Someone should explain to them that they should add suggestions to talk pages" - Well that's all user:Markweisbrot did - and he's still blocked. User:Kriswarner managed to get unblocked, having agreed that. user:Scalabrineformvp said the same but is still blocked.
- No evidence of meatpuppetry for User:Constitutional1787. The unblock requests from the Markweisbrot/Kriswarner/Scalabrine CEPR guys do not mention him; User_talk:Kriswarner is pretty clear in only referring to those 3 accounts. Constitutional made 5 edits to Mark Weisbrot before being blocked; those reverts came over 24 hours after Scalabrine's last involvement, so no impact on 3RR. This user was cleared by checkuser, and like all the blocked users mentioned here, has still not even received a block message such that they can properly request an unblock. Rd232 talk 09:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've added block messages to the relevant user talk pages such that they can request unblocking. Rd232 talk 13:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Rd232, do you honestly fail to see how attacking, accusatory, assuming bad faith, and disruptive your posts are? Are you going to continue attacking me across multiple noticeboards,[98] are you going to retire, or would you like to stop attacking, start assuming good faith, and actually engage the first step in dispute resolution, which is your or my talk page, without removing my conciliatory posts from your talk page [99] or refusing to discuss with me because you're going on Wikibreak? [100] Your post above is full of bad faith and wasting everyone's time here, and you are misusing noticeboards to air your vendetta against me (although you don't seem to have noticed that no one else is buying your attempts to discredit me). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I have had substantial support by email from people who understand what you can be like (I find it hard to believe you're *always* like this). The problem is that it would be a full-time job keeping up with your misrepresentations if you ceased repeating them when shown false; but you just repeat them regardless, steamrollering on, making the task beyond human capacity. Rd232 talk 11:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Rd232, do you honestly fail to see how attacking, accusatory, assuming bad faith, and disruptive your posts are? Are you going to continue attacking me across multiple noticeboards,[98] are you going to retire, or would you like to stop attacking, start assuming good faith, and actually engage the first step in dispute resolution, which is your or my talk page, without removing my conciliatory posts from your talk page [99] or refusing to discuss with me because you're going on Wikibreak? [100] Your post above is full of bad faith and wasting everyone's time here, and you are misusing noticeboards to air your vendetta against me (although you don't seem to have noticed that no one else is buying your attempts to discredit me). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Something for an admin to do now: I think the most urgent thing here, most appropriate for ANI, is to unblock User:Markweisbrot. I think it is pretty clear he was not involved in any malfeasance, and that it is the real Mark Weisbrot. These diffs, his only genuine edits: [101] and [102] clarify things. I think he now knows his account should only be used by him. If the subject of a BLP is bothered enough by its content to send in an OTRS complaint, we should be very circumspect about blocking him or keeping him blocked.John Z (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- There are still checkusers pending, including another new account continuing the CEPR edits. It is premature to say the CEPR crowd understands what they did wrong, and the representations of some of these blocks (example Constitutional1787) are incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's getting to the point where it would less of an effort to document posts by Sandy which do not contain misrepresentations. Here, Sandy is referring to User:RegisMordor, who may well be a sock (probably of User:Scalabrineformvp or User:Constitutional1787, both whom remain unjustly blocked), or else someone else at CEPR than the people involved previously; checkuser cannot distinguish that. Either way, the account so far has made 1 (one) talk page comment[103]. The entire gist of the CEPR/COI discussion was that these people (however many there are) should be limiting themselves to talk page comments. Rd232 talk 11:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- We block people as individuals for their actions, not as members of a group, and literary and editing style counts for something in identification. As I said, it is doubtful the Markweisbrot account will ever be used again, but it is important to give him, or any complaining real world blp subject the benefit of the doubt. It is very unlikely that the (co)boss of CEPR is doing anything untoward, he surely has better things to do. Unblock, if there are new edits, ask him nicely if he is MW, this is probably confirmable already by people with the tools, given the OTRS email. The damage to wikipedia of continued blocking is much greater than the microscopic probability of misuse of this account.John Z (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- But Kriswarner's recent post at Talk:Center for Economic and Policy Research indicates that she/they/whomever still haven't grasped the situation ... hopefully my post there will illuminate. [104] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think your implications of meatpuppetry and nonunderstanding are true. And as I just said to UnitAnode at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp, "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus" - a point you quote yourself. Yet no evidence whatsoever has been provided that these accounts have interacted in ways that amount to supporting each other. I've looked into the edit histories and seen none, with the sole exception of 1 (one) occasion at Mark Weisbrot, an occasion which suggests that User:Constitutional1787 is actually a sock of user:Scalabrineformvp, unlike the other two accounts. Ironically, checkuser said no to Constitutional being a sock; maybe whoever did that could confirm how strong that conclusion was; on that one occasion, Scalabrine/Constitutional edited one hour apart. Rd232 talk 09:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Blatant BLP Violation - Wikipedia attempts to "Out" athlete who makes no public claim about his sexuality
I stumbled upon a comment
I stumbled upon a comment and I know very little about the origins of the comment. See this comment. I would be grateful of a diplomatic administrator would advise the new user. I am asking for neutral administrator assistance at a early stage to help to ensure the least disruptive outcome. Snowman (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, instead of a diplomatic admin, you got me. I see where it came from, but there was no way the activity deserved that kind of comment. I repeated the warning: hopefully, when they come back, they'll have cooled down and be able to edit within community norms. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Snowman (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is also this comment [113], which is also totally unacceptable (it was reverted, but no warning given). Rapido (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- He last edited 2 days ago and was told he would only be warned once. I'm sure if he comes back and is still acting like he's "off his meds", as the saying goes, then an admin will swing his vorpal sword. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is also this comment [113], which is also totally unacceptable (it was reverted, but no warning given). Rapido (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Snowman (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- This deserves a block, previous warnings or not. Woogee (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I reviewed and agree. Blocked for a week. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Someone's sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Simon-in-sagamihara blocked for disruptive CSD tagging - comments welcome
Simon-in-sagamihara (talk · contribs) has a history of making poor CSD taggings. Numerous editors have spoken to him about it, and he's showed little to no interest in improving his work. See various sections here, here and here (sorry if these overlap a bit - Simon's habit of archiving talkpage discussions to "/dev/null", i.e. removing them without archiving, makes it rather difficult), and in general the history of his talk page.
Earlier this month I gave him this notice, which suggested that he take some time to look of the CSD criteria before doing more tagging; I also offered to help 'mentor' him in CSD work. He removed it without response.
More recently, he was given this warning by PanchoS (talk · contribs); his initial reply was "Generic reply", followed later by this clear indication that he still saw no problem: "Some other guy gets butthurt because his article got tagged as spam and spergs out, whatever". I warned him that if he continued with inappropriate taggings I'd block him (having also reminded him of my mentoring offer). He made no direct response to that, but said he'd start using the article incubator (sorry, I can't find that diff right now).
Today, he began speedy tagging again - including A7s on several comedians with claims of importance. Most striking is this one, containing the sentence "He has also gained international recognition through winning Best International Show at the New Zealand Comedy Festival". Given the multiple editors' attempts to persuade him to stop bad CSD taggings and his repeated failure to respond positively, I have blocked him for 24 hours. It's my hope that he'll take this time to reflect on how he can improve his CSD work: because he does have a lot of good taggings in his history but all these bad ones are becoming disruptive. Any comments on the block are welcome (I'll be going offline for the evening quite soon, so if my block is deemed bad feel free to reverse it without waiting for my input). Olaf Davis (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good block, I endorse it entirely. I've declined a few of his speedies myself, I think - while he seems well-intentioned, he does tend to be quite inaccurate and it's clear from his responses to previous warnings that he doesn't really acknowledge the problem. Hopefully he will take this opportunity to review his behaviour and correct the problem. ~ mazca talk 17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have also declined several speedy deletions by this editor and have put messages on his talk page, which he has blanked with no response. He is of course, entitled to blank talk page msgs when he as read them, and they remain in the history, but I could wish for some indication that he understood that such careless use of speedy tags is a problem, and can violate WP:BITE. DES (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I think this is excessive. The taggings are poor and the failure to take criticism on board worse. However, no warning was given of the block. Also, given this is a first block, would not a one hour shot "across the bows" have sufficed - increase duration if he fails to take heed?--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Scott - Olaf gave him a clear warning, which is linked in Olaf's opening post in this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I jumped to his talk page and missed that. I've posted to the user's talk indicating that what we need is an indication he "gets it" and will discuss and learn before resuming tagging. The bottom line is that if he gets the message, then we can unblock him now, if he doesn't then he's liable to wind up blocked for a lot longer than 24 hours. The timescale is probably irrelevant - we just need him to understand.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'll certainly consider your comment about warning shots in similar situations in future, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if the admins in this case are aware, the term "sperging," which this editor uses liberally, does not mean 'whining' or 'griping' (or anything to do with brewing beer, but specifically means 'behaving like someone with Aspergers syndrome", and relates to a belief that people with Aspergers syndrome are excessively concerned with attention to detail. I fail to see why this is any different to describing someone in offensive racial or sexual terms, something for which a block is often forthcoming. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is a fairly full list of diffs bearing on this matter. DES (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Allegations of personal attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=319549260-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=326462719
- Warnings on WP:NPA
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=329840234
- Complaints about improper speedy tagging
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=333253080
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342619742
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342636926
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342650693
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342741787
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342839803
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342899203
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342901950
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342903074
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343030312
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343059509
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343112101
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343516191
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343520162
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343521087
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343522562
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343523546
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343531676
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344182074
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344198267
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344203388
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344204174
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344204477
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344291852
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344341667
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344342744
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344508197
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344818373
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344843456
- Complaints about procedure when placing speedy tags
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=prev&oldid=342650930
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342656015
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342698287
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342883186
- Warnings of accumulated problems with speedy deletion and related issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344344364
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344401405
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344402603
- Complaints about improper WP:PROD tags
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342650386
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343118462
- Inappropriate responses to talk page msgs
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=326462799
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=329289378-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=330024604
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=330235751
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=333068363
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342901156
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342902994
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344180791
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344399754
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344401705
- Innappropriate msgs to other users
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cameron_Scott&diff=next&oldid=344197627
This may be worth considering. DES (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- He's been skating on thin ice for a while now. I noticed his incivility before, but it wasn't quite at block levels. He needs to realise that if he doesn't behave better and be more careful with his speedy tagging, his account will be blocked indefinitely. He's not shown much sign of acknowledging his problems. Fences&Windows 22:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I left a civility warning. More admins commenting on his talk page, emphasizing the issues, may help get the point across. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- He blanked his talk page with the comment "turning over a new leaf". Hopefully his future behavior is consistent with that sentiment and we're done here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- That would be very good. DES (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, let's hope so. Thanks for having the patience to compile that list, DESiegel. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- That would be very good. DES (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- He blanked his talk page with the comment "turning over a new leaf". Hopefully his future behavior is consistent with that sentiment and we're done here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I left a civility warning. More admins commenting on his talk page, emphasizing the issues, may help get the point across. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I have just one comment to add to the above discussion. I totally disagree with the suggestion that Olaf's action was excessive, and that a token one hour block as a shot over the bows at first would have been better. Considering the huge number of times this editor had been given friendly advice, the contemptuous way in which he had dismissed such attempts to advise him, the fact that he had explicitly stated that he doesn't care about his errors, I think a 24 hour block was a shot over the bows, and far less than he might have deserved. In fact I think Olaf's handling of the matter has been exemplary: giving very courteous advice and an offer of help, followed by a very courteous warning, together with a repeated offer of help, followed eventually by a quite short block as a further warning. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback James. As a relatively new admin I listed this here exactly to get comments on whether I was too harsh or too lenient so it's good to hear what people think. Anyway it seems as though we're all agreed in cautious optimism about Simon's intent to reform, so hopefully this won't need to be brought up here again. Cheers all. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just deleted their userpage as ANOTHER attack page. It had previously been deleted as the same. The version I just deleted was a cunning (not) attempt to use rhyme to circumvent the NPA policy. I will watchlist the page to see if it comes back. GedUK 14:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well spotted, Ged. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Block pls
Resolved38.116.202.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) As normal i dont ask unless we our having problem keeping up with the problem see-> [114] ..again thks to Admin for all you do..its a thank less job!!..But thank you !!Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you User:Jac16888 that was fast!! ..Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The investigation into the crime is not yet completed, no official statement has been released by any government concerning who's responsible for the assassination, but that doesn't seem to bother some wikipedia editors who seem to know exactly who the culprits are. By placing certain categories into the article, they present their personal point of view: see here and here. What we have as a result is a BLP and NPOV issue, and it would be a good idea for wikipedia administrators to thoroughly check out this issue, since one of the editors has already been warned against adding unsourced contentious and controversial material into BLP articles. Amsaim (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- A full protection of the page is probably in order. You should try filing it here to see what they think on the protection status. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it is in need of full protection, those edits can easily be dealt with, there's a lot of active editors on the page. "Mossad" isn't a living person, so we don't need to panic too much: is it really going to damage their reputation? Fully protecting would hinder keeping the page up-to-date when the information is rapidly changing. Fences&Windows 22:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
User CRAustralia (again)
This user has been persistently repeating unacceptable edits in two pages. This involves not only edit warring, but also BLP, NPOV, and copyright infringement. His/her editing was the subject of a report on this noticeboard, as a result of which he/she was blocked for 24 hours. Unfortunately he/she has continued with the same pattern of editing, as can be seen in these edits: [115] [116] [117] [118]. Since BLP issues and copyright are involved, I think it is important for thsi to be dealt with fairly urgently. Copyright of [119] is violated JamesBWatson (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- While VOA is not subject to copyright (as it's an agency of the US government), this is clearly an SPA based on contributions. Blocked indef--please review. Blueboy96 21:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Copyright or not aside, there is still enough to warrant a block. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good block YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Copyright or not aside, there is still enough to warrant a block. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see I was wrong about copyright, but the rest stands. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry, COI and recruiting allegations by User:Sam Weller
User:Sam Weller, an editor whose recent editing history consists approximately 95% of edits related to chronic fatigue syndrome, has alleged repeatedly ([120], [121], [122], [123] and [124]) that I am engaged in sockpuppetry (or am a sock of another editor).
In these statements, Weller also asserts that I "recruited" another editor...although Weller, in these messages, has canvassed like-minded editors.
Elsewhere, Sam Weller states that I have a WP:COI, although I have been very adamant about my complete lack of any conceivable conflict as regards Weller's major topic of interest. This editor's failure to assume good faith and insistence on personal attacks has become quite disruptive. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- First, try talking to him about these allegations. Try to find out why he might be going after you. If this doesn't work, try looking over Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am one of the editors that Sam Weller contacted on my talk page whether the User:RetroS1mone and User:Keepcalmandcarryon accounts might be connected.[125] I have edited several articles that RetroS1mone and Keepcalmandcarryon have edited. After much consideration, my opinion is they are highly likely to be connected. Accordingly, I have filed a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keepcalmandcarryon report. The timeline and diffs given in the sockpuppet investigation report supports Sam Weller's concerns and the likelihood the same editor contributed to the same page and to related articles with multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny. I would also like to point out that the diff[126] that Keepcalmandcarryon gave when stating that Sam Weller accuses her of COI does not support the assertion. Sam Weller's edit refered to an instance where Keepcalmandcarryon accuses another editor of COI. Ward20 (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Question
Hi,
This user that is editing from an IP address, 99.243.109.23, has been vandalizing the Care Bears: Adventures in Care-a-Lot article. I have reverted their edits twice in recent weeks, and another user has as well. I have sent them warnings, and since they vandalize the article on different days, not continuously at the same time, like some vandals, I'm wondering if I'm doing the right thing by sending them a first level warning the first day the vandalize, a second level the next time they vandalize, and a third level warning this time they vandalize. Their user talk page can be found here: 99.243.109.23's talk. Please help me with this issue, it would be appreciated. Abby 96 (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing to do except have them run afoul again and get blocked. They've only vandalized it twice at the .23 address. Page protection won't work as there isn't a normal amount of vandalism right now. Keep continuing to warn them as they obviously know that they are doing something wrong. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but since I seem to find the vandalism a while after it's been vandalized, would I still be able to report them? I should be able to get them blocked even if it's a few hours after their vandalism is discovered. Abby 96 (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, since they seem to be only vandalizing pages. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
User:JazzCarnival
JazzCarnival has made a personal threat and a legal one. I've blocked and removed his ability to talk and email, and provided an explanation and roadmap. Is there anything else which should be done? —EncMstr (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. It wasn't really outing, but certainly a personal and legal issue. It's unfortuante this user has decided to use their excellent writing skills to soapbox against several users (not just myself); it's also amusing/tragic the user has decided I'm a puppetmaster who coordinated objection to many of their changes, especially this FUR template on an image. tedder (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- As an aside, I did receive an email from the user shortly before they posted their final rant. I didn't reply, as I usually don't reply off-wiki to things that can/should be handled on Wikipedia. I've shared it with another editor I trust. tedder (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you choose to contact law enforcement (which I would), it won't be hard for LE to track this person down between that email, CU results and the details of his/her employment on User:JazzCarnival. Toddst1 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- As an aside, I did receive an email from the user shortly before they posted their final rant. I didn't reply, as I usually don't reply off-wiki to things that can/should be handled on Wikipedia. I've shared it with another editor I trust. tedder (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Opinions would be appreciated, re. racist comments on talkpage. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Fellow above (User:Notpietru) has been edit warring. No big deal. Reported him to 3rr noticeboard. This was his "defense." "How is reverting edits by rascist editors unjustified."[127]. Speaks for itself.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Random editor above decided to support an edit by the "racist editor", which was made without consensus. I fail to see how that is justified. S/he also declined to participate in the talkpage discussion, or offer reasons for supporting the deletion. How is that acceptable? What input (if any) has Bali ultimate had on the article in question and in what position are they to dispute what information should be removed, without so much as a nod to established information? Some sort of explanation is only fair. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Admins? Is nobody going to put in an appearance? Assistance/clarification would be appreciated. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, someone please block Notpietru. He's way past 3RR and I can't see anything racist about the part he keeps removing.--Atlan (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Notpietru has a history of edit warring and incivilities - including in numerous edit summaries - most particularly under his old name of User:Pietru, where he's been blocked eight times [128] for edit warring, 3RR violations and gross incivilities. This certainly isn't the first time he's accused an editor of racism [129],[130],[131], [132], [133], [134], of "vandalising" an article edited against his preferences [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], or otherwise has just been uncivil [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149]. RGTraynor 11:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please involve another admin, considering past dealings with the above editor, I don't think any sort of fair resolution can be achieved. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've blocked Notpietru for a month. I did so before I saw his protest here, but I wouldn't have heeded it. I am completely "uninvolved" with this editor; all prior dealings we had were in my function as an admin stepping in against his disruptive conduct. The fact that he didn't like these interventions is, well, not unexpected, but irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Uncivil behaviour after warning or is this how things go at Wikipedia-land
ResolvedAfter repeated warning[150][151][152]and not so civil responses in edit summaries[153][154][155] Rvcx has continued his uncivil and bad faith behaviour. This requires an indef-ban from all articles and user and talk pages related to Larry Sanger or at the wild, wild west of wikis this behaviour is acceptable from Rvcx. QuackGuru (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- At what point does QuackGuru's stalking pass the threshold for WP:harassment? The above links clearly demonstrate intentional violation of WP:DRC, he has a habit of tossing around sockpuppet allegations, and he's certainly one to complain about obnoxious edit summaries. Apparently he's decided I'm an enemy and it's become personal for him. I'd like to get on with editing and move past this silliness. Rvcx (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Tothwolf / Theserialcomma / JBsupreme
I stumbled into a multi-way civility incident and am bringing discussion here to a) get it off the least involved users' talk page and b) expose it to other uninvolved administrator review.
Parties are:
- Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Theserialcomma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This is my narrative; the parties and others may have different interpretations and are welcome to respond and challenge or clarify.
Tothwolf was the subject of an Arbcom finding and remedy about a month ago regarding uncivil claims and comments: [156]
- "1) Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."
The current incident started with Theserialcomma removing a wikilink to an old page containing critical comments Tothwolf made in December from the top of Tothwolf's talk page: [157]. Theserialcomma believed that the linked diff was a personal attack on him and other users, and violated civility standards and the edit restriction. Tothwulf disagreed and restored [158] and filed a warning on TSC's talk page [159]. This warning was reverted off Theserialcomma's talk page by TSC apparently using Twinkle and with the edit summary of "identified as vandalism" [160]. Tothwolf placed a slightly different warning - this time, reinterating a prior, standing request for Theserialcomma not to edit on Tothwolf's talk page [161] and threatening to ask ANI for a topic ban. Following this, Theserialcomma filed an Arbitration Enforcement request over the series of events: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Tothwolf, responded on his talk page [162], prompting a large response by Tothwolf [163], which Theserialcomma again removed with Twinkle with the edit summary of "identified as vandalism" [164].
At this point I warned Theserialcomma that elements of his behavior seemed to me to be baiting [165] and didn't specify how the comment violated the arbitration editing restriction, and commented similarly on the AE request [166]. TSC reinterated the claim that the earlier diff was a violation of the arbcom finding [167] to which I reinterated my concerns about baiting [168]. Uninvolved admin A Stop at Willoughby echoed the baiting concern at AE [169] following which TSC withdrew the filing [170]. Theserialcomma claimed in the withdrawl that they would file the issue on ANI but did not do so at the time.
TSC during this came to my talk page and insisted I was biased and demanded I leave them alone and stop watching their talk page, which I declined to do as I have no COI and am not biased against them. Uninvolved admins do not become conflicted out of enforcing policy by dint of having done so, etc. I have previously blocked TSC for baiting another user, for a period of time which was found to be excessive (reduced from a month, in parity with the baited users' block for their abusive responses, down to 5 days).
Around this time I received email from Tothwolf complaining of TSC harrassing him and his aquaintences via email. I took no action on that.
Fast forwards a bit - JBsupreme now steps onto Theserialcomma's talk page and with this edit claims that Tothwolf is harrassing and stalking him now. TSC agrees. As JBsupreme claimed to be being stalked and harrassed by Tothwolf I compared edit histories, finding the only point of significant overlap to be edits to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat bots [171]. Tothwolf had been editing chat program and IRC related topics with about 40% of his edit history in the last 500 edits; it seemed difficult to sustain a claim of stalking when it was referring to their main article focus area. I advised JBsupreme of that and advised more AGF.
JBsupreme reinterated his position and states that he cannot AGF re Tothwolf anymore [172], followed by my reinterating [173], and his re-reinterating [174].
At this point Theserialcomma commented on JBsupreme's talk page, complaining that I was warning JBsupreme but hadn't sanctioned Tothwolf for his violation from the withdrawn AE case [175] and demanding that I unwatch TSC's talk page. TSC followed with [176] in which they claimed Tothwolf is still emailing them and harrassing them and trying to bait them (and further, [177]). I asked TSC if I should ask Tothwolf to stop emailing [178]. TSC said yes [179].
At this point, before I had a chance to make such a request to Tothwolf, Tothwolf commented in the thread on JBsupreme's talk page [180] making critical statements about the thread and both TSC and JBsupreme, including repeating his claim from the email to me that in fact Theserialcomma was email harrassing Tothwolf and Tothwolf's friends in real life, not visa versa. This was reverted off JBsupreme's talk page by JBS [181] who doesn't want to talk to Tothwolf (policy compliant), and then Theserialcomma took Tothwolf's now-reverted comment as yet another arbitration edit restriction violation and asked for enforcement [182]. At this point I determined that the situation is escalating and needs more eyeballs.
I would like to request additional input on the following questions:
- Was Tothwolf's link that started this ( [183] ) in violation of general Wikipedia civility and/or the edit restrictions he is under?
- Was Theserialcomma's removal appropriate or inappropriate?
- Were Tothwolf's warnings and edit restrictions reasonable or unreasonable / uncivil?
- Were Theserialcomma's "vandalism" reverts with TW reasonable or unreasonable / uncivil?
- Was the Arbitration Enforcement filing reasonable and well founded or unreasonable?
- Considering all the above, was Tothwolf at that time in violation of his edit restrictions or otherwise acting unreasonably and uncivily?
- Considering all the above, was Theserialcomma engaged in baiting or other uncivil behavior?
- Was JBsupreme's claim of harrassment and stalking (wikihounding) appropriate and well founded?
- Did Tothwolf's final complaint on JBsupreme's talk page violate his edit restriction or otherwise constitute abusive uncivil behavior?
- Does my history or participation here constitute a conflict of interest or bar under Admin policy or best practice to continuing to act in regards to these users?
- Finally, would it be appropriate for the community to issue a restraining order on all 3 participants in the form of an edit restriction that they cannot talk to or comment about each other? There's a similar ER in place for Theserialcomma and now-indeffed User:Koalorka - see Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community
And finally, questions for the participants:
- Tothwolf
- Tothwolf, have you sent any email(s) to Theserialcomma in the last month, or are you aware of anyone you are associated with having done so?
- Tothwolf, are you willing to forward the emails you claim to have received to an uninvolved administrator for review (please DO NOT post them here)?
- Theserialcomma
- Theserialcomma, have you sent any email(s) to Tothwolf or people he is associated with, in the last month?
- Theserialcomma, are you willing to forward the emails you claim to have received to an uninvolved administrator for review (please DO NOT post them here)?
My apologies to everyone else for the size of the filing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Georgewilliamherbert, yikes mate, that's a heck of a tl;dr (although my reply here will be too). At least I was already familiar with the situation and knew what the diff links were... I can forward you the emails I've sent Theserialcomma if you'd like, although as I mentioned on my talk page they are the "Leave me alone" variety. You may want to re-read the email I sent you though as I didn't claim Theserialcomma had been emailing me directly. As I mentioned, one of the things that has been happening is a number of people I know have been receiving unusual emails which have been attempts to get them to give out any personal information that they might have about me (which won't work; they just contact me and tell me they are receiving suspicious social engineering type emails asking for my personal information). As far as I know, none of the people I know have responded to the emails they've received but there is obviously no way for me to know for certain.
- If you are proposing an interaction ban, please also add Miami33139 to the list as well since he is directly involved in the larger issue. I'm not sure an interaction ban will actually resolve the larger issues though, as these three individuals have systematically attempted to harass me to the point where I am unable to edit. My primary editing focus had been in the Computing and Technology subject areas, including online communications and software. As can be seen in their contribution histories, these three individuals did not edit in these subject areas prior to interacting with me and have not made any sort of constructive edits in these subject areas.
- For those who are not familiar with the larger issue, I made a statement here and the evidence backing up that statement can he found here, in the collapsed wikitable here (both of these are extremely long and detailed with 100s of diffs), and some simplified material can also be found here.
- Unfortunately, due to the case name, the material I presented was apparently thrown out and ignored by the person who wrote the draft decision. The original RFAR working name was "Hounding of Tothwolf" [184] but Manning Bartlett attempted to go with a more neutral name of "Tothwolf" [185] when he moved it from the RFAR stage to an open case. The case name discussion from Manning Bartlett's talk page can be found here. The diff link that Theserialcomma has attempted to remove from my talk page [186] details this and was a reply to the personal attack she made here.
- Now, partly due to how long this issue has gone on, I have very much become a "tell it like it is" person when it comes to this issue. As can be seen in the evidence I linked to above, when I claimed something I backed it up with diffs. In the statement I linked to above (written November 2009) I said: "I feel as though I've tried pretty much everything else possible to resolve this situation short of either leaving the project (such as what Ed Fitzgerald did and something I've been considering) or having ArbCom review this issue. I've tried taking this to AN/I without resolution and individual administrators have mostly suggested I collect diffs and document things. I really feel as though the community has failed me and left me out in the cold with no way to defend myself against the harassment from these three individuals. I will admit that dealing with these three editors has at times been rather stressful and at times I've made some comments I wouldn't have likely made otherwise, but by in large I've attempted to deal with each encounter without making things worse."
- My feelings on this have not really changed at all. I feel as though the community has left me out in the cold with no way to defend myself from the on-wiki harassment. While I certainly do have the ability to mitigate some of the off-wiki harassment, there seems to be no way for me to put a stop to the on-wiki harassment. Past AN/I discussions did little to resolve the larger harassment issues and unfortunately even an ArbCom case failed to resolve anything (had the EEML case and ArbCom elections not happened in the middle of the case things might have turned out very differently however). The decision the drafting arbitrator wrote (while throwing out all of the evidence I provided) only gave these individuals another tool with which to attack me. While I've unfortunately allowed myself to be baited a handful of times by these individuals, it hasn't happened all that often, and having been in this situation now personally, I have a lot more respect for people who have the patience to deal with issues of online harassment.
- I voluntarily stopped editing for awhile in an attempt to mitigate the damage these three individuals were doing to Wikipedia. [187] (You can actually correlate the drops in my monthly contributions in these graphs with the evidence I linked to above.) As can be seen in the evidence I linked to above, when I edited, these individuals targeted those pages and attempted to have them deleted. They still wouldn't leave me alone when I stopped editing though, so we are back here yet again. They've continued their attempts to damage my reputation and quite frankly, that is unacceptable. All three of these individuals have attacked me constantly with claims of WP:COI, WP:OWN, and so on but have never provided any diffs to back up their claims and no other editors have echoed such concerns or provided any evidence which would back up such claims.
- I'm tired of the harassment. Without going into too much detail due to WP:BEANS, I have in the past contributed to MediaWiki itself and I'm quite familiar with its internals. Because of this, it would be trivial for me to create new accounts which are completely separate from this one (and impossible to link via a CU) and set about editing again without being harassed by these three individuals. I've not done so however, because quite frankly no one should ever have to do such a thing in order to edit without being harassed. With as long as I've been using this particular username (outside of Wikipedia), I should not have to give up my username on Wikipedia simply because a few individuals wish to harass me and prevent me from improving Wikipedia.
- --Tothwolf (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- just to clarify, i've never emailed or attempted to contact tothwolf or any of his "friends" off-wiki, whether via wikipedia email or otherwise, ever. his claims that i've attempted to contact him or his "friends" off wiki should be carefully scrutinized, considering his specific arbcom admonishment not to make unsubstantiated allegations against other users. if tothwolf has any supposed evidence that his off-wiki-contact allegations are true, he can feel free to submit any such 'evidence' publicly or privately to any admin he wishes. if the evidence he submits does not pass scrutiny, or he avoids submitting any compelling evidence of off-wiki harassment, i would expect him to be blocked for violating his arbcom restrictions by making unsubstantiated allegations. as far as i'm concerned, tothwolf's delusional accusations without evidence should be treated as direct violations of his arbcom restrictions. wikipedia is not therapy, and allowing paranoid/delusional accusations without solid evidence is just enabling and assisting deviant behavior. show the evidence, tothwolf. we are all waiting.
- on the other hand, tothwolf has contacted/harassed/threatened me twice via wiki email since his arbcom restrictions, with both emails having been immediately forwarded to arbcom by me. i never responded to tothwolf's threatening email, obviously, so he doesn't know my email address or IP. any admin interested can get his harassing emails to me forwarded to them. the same admin should also request his evidence of off-wiki contact from me, which doesn't exist. his first email to me is publically documented at [[188]], which resulted in him being blocked. he thought he was outing me as a "woman blogger" or something, and felt so confident that he posted it publically without evidence. he was so completely wrong that i question from which planet he gathered the evidence. he was blocked for this attempted outing, but the fact that he failed so badly to come anywhere near outing me really makes me question his judgment when it comes to gathering evidence and making deductions. no idea what he was thinking, but it's a bizarre and creepy failure of an attempt to out me, regardless. check out tothwolf's backwards outing logic here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_40#User:Theserialcomma_and_Tucker_Max
- as for my 'vandalism' reverts, i apologize. i will use rollback or twinkle's 'good faith' rollback on my talkpage in the future. i thought it was ok because it was my talk page, but it won't happen again, regardless.
- tothwolf was restricted from making allegations against other users. linking a diff on his talkpage that calls me, miami, and jbsupreme 'harassers, wikistalkers, and gamers of the system' to me feels like unsubstantiated allegations which were rejected by arbcom and resulted in tothwolf being restricted from making these exact allegations. perhaps the fact that he is linking a diff that makes allegations on his talk page, and not making the allegations directly, somehow absolves him from his restrictions. that's up to the community to decide. Theserialcomma (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- just to clarify, i've never emailed or attempted to contact tothwolf or any of his "friends" off-wiki, whether via wikipedia email or otherwise, ever. his claims that i've attempted to contact him or his "friends" off wiki should be carefully scrutinized, considering his specific arbcom admonishment not to make unsubstantiated allegations against other users. if tothwolf has any supposed evidence that his off-wiki-contact allegations are true, he can feel free to submit any such 'evidence' publicly or privately to any admin he wishes. if the evidence he submits does not pass scrutiny, or he avoids submitting any compelling evidence of off-wiki harassment, i would expect him to be blocked for violating his arbcom restrictions by making unsubstantiated allegations. as far as i'm concerned, tothwolf's delusional accusations without evidence should be treated as direct violations of his arbcom restrictions. wikipedia is not therapy, and allowing paranoid/delusional accusations without solid evidence is just enabling and assisting deviant behavior. show the evidence, tothwolf. we are all waiting.
- Good grief Theserialcomma, your lies just never seem to stop do they? You know darn good and well what you've done. Your ISP took things seriously when they were notified of your off-wiki actions. I believe they also have a 3 strikes policy and you've already used up two.
- The IP address from the email headers that were shown to me match the IP address that attempted to breach my webserver (logs were emailed to ArbCom) which also matched the same IP address/netblock that Theserialcomma edits Wikipedia from. I could even point out some of her past IP edits on her "favourite" articles too if need be...
- Theserialcomma, you were already told that email is "offsite conduct" and does not fall under AE. Your statement above "his first email to me is publically documented at [[189]], which resulted in him being blocked." is an outright lie. [190] [191] [192] I was not blocked for any sort of email activity, nor was I blocked for "attempted outing". The block that was imposed on my account was also the subject of lengthy email discussions with a number of administrators, the summary of which boils down to the fact that while the block wasn't justifiable under the rationale used, it was short enough that contesting it while it was active would have only created further drama and thus not really be worthwhile contesting.
- Theserialcomma, I've never sent you a threatening email; I told you to Leave me alone. You revert of my on-wiki messages and warnings as "vandalism" so warning you via email seems to be the only thing that actually gets your attention. Your twinkle explanation regarding you marking of my edits as "vandalism" also doesn't hold water; you have to select "vandalism" as the reason for your revert.
- This is also more than enough evidence of your long term harassment of myself and it is trivially easy for someone to go through your contributions and find that you've done similar things to others for as long as your account has existed. It doesn't even appear that you've ever made any actual constructive edits; you pick fights with others, revert people who you dislike or with whom you don't agree (then report them for edit warring, or on SPI, AN/I, COI/N, etc). Your blog made it quite obvious why you do so...it gives you something dramatic to blog about which will bring in more readers (don't worry; I saved copies of those posts so they won't be lost "accidentally"...)
- You also need to stop referring to me as "paranoid", "delusional", "deviant", etc. That is a personal attack. You began attacking me with such statements after Miami33139 began making them. It's also quite obvious that you are not even medically qualified to make such claims; one of the very first things you are taught is: Don't diagnose unless you have a treatment plan.
- Theserialcomma, I'll tell you one last time: Leave me the hell alone.
- Theserialcomma...you know, given the sheer overwhelming amount of evidence taken directly from your contribution history it's no wonder you, [193] Miami33139, [194] and JBsupreme [195] didn't want any part of the ArbCom case and why you resorted to attacking my person [196] [197] and even others [198] [199] (full discussion) in further attempts to discredit me and damage my reputation.
- Now if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do with my time than put up with your abuse. I'd rather be forced watch a marathon of The Jerry Springer Show uncensored than respond to any more of your bogus claims. If someone needs to contact me, I ask that they please send me an email as I do not plan to monitor this AN/I discussion closely.
- --Tothwolf (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- i'm tired of tothwolf's bullshit accusations about me trying to contact him off wiki. i dont care about him. i have no interest in his personal life, and the allegations that i would care enough to email him or his friends is repugnant. if i've acted abrasively at any point here it's because i'm fed up with tothwolf's completely fabricated accusations. he just makes accusation after accusation, and no one steps in to say "evidence please?" that is his MO. he previously accused me, jbsupreme, and miami of hacking into his email address, his webserver, attempting to ruin his reputation off wiki, and even DDOS attacks[[200]], which are a felony. can you accuse people of felonies on wikipedia these days without evidence? where is the police report? cause i'd file one if I got DDOS'd. now i am trying to contact his friends off wiki. there is no other word for this than delusional. no evidence has been presented, just increasing amounts of unsubstantiated lies. tothwolf has to stop making crazy accusations with evidence. he is strongly violating civility guidelines here. we cannot play his game anymore.
- and while ill concede that my actions could appear like baiting, i actually asked him at least 4 times, with multiple posts to the arbcom clerk noticeboard to have tothwolf remove his attacks from his soapbox talk page. the clerks responded that i should take it to ANI. i didn't do so because i'm lazy, instead I removed the attack diffs myself. if that was wrong, i learned my lesson. i won't do that again either. but it wasn't baiting, it was a sincere attempt to get him not to link to a diff on the top of his talk page which calls me a wikistalker and a harasser - without evidence, and in violation of his restrictions. i approached that one wrong, but i admit to my error. but before chastising me for these minor transgressions, keep in mind that i'm fed up with tothwolf's delusional accusations and i want it to stop. even in his response above, he is continuing to try to OUT me. he calls me 'she' which is a reference to his ridiculous outing attempt for which he was blocked [[201]] i have never identified myself as a woman, and i've denied it repeatedly. but he continues to call me 'she' because he is trying to out me as some female blogger. he's wrong, he's speculating as to my identity even after being blocked for this behavior. he is, at best, further inflaming the situation with this outing BS. how can he get away with continuing to make unsubstantiated accusations and outing attempts?
- Theserialcomma (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- i'm tired of tothwolf's bullshit accusations about me trying to contact him off wiki. i dont care about him. i have no interest in his personal life, and the allegations that i would care enough to email him or his friends is repugnant. if i've acted abrasively at any point here it's because i'm fed up with tothwolf's completely fabricated accusations. he just makes accusation after accusation, and no one steps in to say "evidence please?" that is his MO. he previously accused me, jbsupreme, and miami of hacking into his email address, his webserver, attempting to ruin his reputation off wiki, and even DDOS attacks[[200]], which are a felony. can you accuse people of felonies on wikipedia these days without evidence? where is the police report? cause i'd file one if I got DDOS'd. now i am trying to contact his friends off wiki. there is no other word for this than delusional. no evidence has been presented, just increasing amounts of unsubstantiated lies. tothwolf has to stop making crazy accusations with evidence. he is strongly violating civility guidelines here. we cannot play his game anymore.
- Re 1) -- while the content of that diff wasn't terribly civil, linking to it documented the issues that Tothwolf had with the case name, and was not itself uncivil. Hence, 2) the removal was inappropriate. 3) Jumping straight to a level-3 warning may have been a bit iffy, though. Since "topic ban" is a term of art referring to a ban imposed by the community, it was inappropriate for Tothwolf to claim that there was one in place, when it was apparently a simple request not to edit his page. 4) Claiming "vandalism" in this case was inappropriate.
- That's all I've gone through so far -- I'm not sure if I'll be able to evaluate the other questions tonight. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
To answer GWH:
- It's not clear cut but given the arbitration ruling, it was probably unwise. Linking to accusations against editors, when the restriction from arbcom was: "Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." could be considered a breach of the ruling.
- Whether the removal was appropriate or not (I would say it was), it shouldn't have been theserialcomma who did it. If he was unhappy with it then he should have raised it elsewhere, and let others deal with it.
- Tothwolf should have raised it somewhere else rather than template the person he was in conflict with. It is obvious that doing so would only escalate the problem.
- Likewise, theserialcomma's choosing of the 'vandalism' revert option in twinkle would only further escalate things.
- The AE request was perhaps reasonable, and should have been followed in the first place rather then go directly into the dispute. It's difficult to judge how bothered people are about something, or whether it's simply furthering a dispute. To my mind it would have been best just to leave it, but I haven't been in a long running dispute and through arbcom, which is obviously going to colour ones view of the matter.
- Tothwolf shouldn't have carried on the dispute. I'd say this definitely breaches his restrictions.
- theserialcomma has done nothing in this situation to de-escalate things, but instead every action has made it worse. I think 'baiting' would be an adequate description.
- JBsupreme's claims do not appear well founded. I agree with GWH's analysis of that.
- Tothwolf's last reply is full of the same sort of accusations that got him sanctioned in the first place. It is in response to JBsupreme summarily removing stuff from a list, which should at least have been discussed first. Lists do not require every individual entry to be notable and can often be a useful way of presenting information for subjects which are not notable enough for an individual article. In other words, tothwolf was perhaps right to be pissed off, but his response violated his arbcom restriction.
- I can't see that GWH has done much wrong here.
- Given all the above, I cannot see any hope that these users will be able to work together at all, so some further restriction is probably warranted. Quantpole (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- What makes me think that it was baiting was the deliberate choice to use the ROLLBACK (VANDAL) option in twinkle. That was your decision and the only reason I can think of to do that in this dispute was to annoy the other user. I'm not saying that your only purpose in this dispute were to bait tothwolf, far from it, but some of your actions seemed to be baiting. If what you are saying regarding his accusations are true then that would appear to be a clear breach of the arbcom ruling, and I suggest you take it to AE. Quantpole (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- after tothwolf's accused me of DDOS, hacking his webserver, hacking his email, contacting his friends off wiki, libeling him off wiki, and then he continues to try to erroneously out me as a female blogger (he still calls me 'she' when i repeatedly mention i am a dude), it's highly likely that i could have been pushed to making a mistake in terms of which rollback button i pressed on my own talk page. i am frustrated, creeped out, and fed up. so if i came across as baiting, you'll have to keep in mind that he keeps accusing me of bullshit, and so i'm prone to make errors due to losing my patience. his talk page comments weren't 'vandalism', and i should have clicked the other rollback button. my bad. is this really the issue though? how many allegations and outing atempts can someone make against another editor before the accused gets some leeway in their responses. tothwolf is restricted by arbcom for this exact reason. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said before, if that is all true then I'd think it is up to arbcom to handle. I can understand you doing something in frustration, and I don't think using the rollback is that big a deal, especially since you have apologised for it. The only advice I can give is to try and rise above it. I know it's not easy when you're pissed off but it means things don't get clouded by relatively petty side disputes. Anyway, I think tothwolf's accusations in this thread go way past his restrictions, and should be sent to AE to deal with. Quantpole (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Theserialcomma, can you provide diffs for each of the claims you are making above? I can (and have) been providing diffs and links regarding your behaviours towards me. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- unsubstantiated allegations, for which you should be blocked indefinitely: | their efforts off-wiki include attempts to damage my reputation. The efforts of one of these individuals to breach the security of my personal webserver to gain access to my email, personal information manager, project holding area, etc did not go unnoticed and their ISP's abuse group was notified and very cooperative. Logs of the DDoS attack. most recently, in this ANI, you accused me of contacting your friends off wiki. where's the evidence? is it in the same evidence database from where you 'discovered' i was a female blogger and keep trying to out me by continually calling me 'she' when i've only said i'm a man? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_40#User:Theserialcomma_and_Tucker_Max . im not playing your games anymore. i am done with you. go harass someone else with your destructive imagination. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Some things just never seem to change... [203] [204] (full discussion) [205] (full report) --Tothwolf (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
ResolvedA POV-pusher has moved this article to 2010 Austin domestic terror attack without consensus. It requires administrator intervention to move it back. Thanks! WTF? (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the new title is very POV-pushing. Because this is such a timely article, we can't rely on the normal move nomination process to redress the problem. Thanks! Racepacket (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have moved the page back. Perhaps a move protection is in order to keep the page title stable; any requested move should be discussed first. Ucucha 05:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- That title is likely sufficient, until or if the media come up with something clever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Unitanode block
Legal threat at Talk:Richard Rossi
ResolvedAnon editor is unhappy that local newspaper accounts are used instead of blogs to discuss a nationally-covered trial. As it is, the article bends over backwards to achieve NPOV by giving equal credence to some fairly implausible denials and conspiracy theories sourced only to the Rossi family and their press agent.
This appears to be a sequel to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive285#Legal_threats_-_please_banhammer and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive283#Richard_Rossi_.28BLP_concerns.29. THF (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- The IP resolves to Los Angeles Community College District, not the Attorney in question. I've softblocked it for a month per the identity fishing expedition and associated chilling effect; that's completely unacceptable by any standards.
I suggest removing the talk page post. EyeSerenetalk 10:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- NB the article history shows lots of Los Angeles edits with the same tactics, POV-pushing, and adding WP:PUFF. I hate to suggest semi-protection of the article, but it's the most useful way to identify SPAs; this IP was very clearly banned User:Jacksbernstein, right down to the lawyer's address. THF (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Although long-term, the IP's crusade is sporadic. However, it's likely that their recent spate has been provoked by your cleanup work so I agree that protection may also be worth trying. I've sprotted the article, also for a month. I considered removing the block on the IP as redundant, but I think the recent talk page harassment, previous edits from that IP to the article, and low edit count from the IP for other articles justify the softblock and limit any collateral damage. If any SPAs show up to continue their crusade (as seems likely), please report back. Hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 10:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
User:65.254.165.214
I don't know if this is the right place for this, but it seems that 65.254.165.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been constantly blanking Negima!? whenever he logs on to Wikipedia. Any long term solution against this guy? It seems that all vandalism on this article is from the address, BTW. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lots of long-term vandalism and previous blocks; blocked for 6 months. EyeSerenetalk 11:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of edits
I would like to request Wikipedia:Revision deletion of these two diffs [212] [213] as a clear cut copyvio. It was later removed by the contributor [214] so shouldn't be too hard. There is some talk of oversight Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Details but I don't know if that would be necessary. Deletion clearly is however Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Editor needs shrubbery for wanting to own an article and talkpage.
Over at Talk:Perception, Dibrisim (talk · contribs) is trying to WP:OWN both the article and talk page, despite only having edited the article twice long ago. This morning, the talk page looked like this, with some "general rules", e.g. "* Anonimity is discouraged. Changes of an anonimus are likely to be reverted within 24 hours - automatically." and "* No direct interventions should not be allowed at the article itself. Each comment, change, real life example, citation, external reference etc. should be added here first, under appropriate section."
This was removed by me (reverted by Dibrisim), removed again by User:Maurreen (again reverted), and finally by User:Maunus. For this, he threatened me[215] ("I will report you to the hiearchy" and "That's bullining I am talking about. And I do have ways to stop that.") and Maurreen here ("And I have reported you for this.") and me again ("Fram asked me to whom I have reported him... Well he will see that."). No evidence of him making any reports to anyone though.
On reading Talk:Perception more closely, I noticed more unacceptable sections, which I removed here: "Every editor who successfully initiated a change to the article, has the right to sign here and describe the agreed change or changes. This is the only reward we can currently provide to serious editors. We also offer to the editors listed here a final say in the discussions and rights to implement the changes." The editors listed here are Dibrisim as "original author" and one other, although the article is from 2002 and has over 700 edits so far. If he had his way, he would implement his new version of the article on tuesday, and from then on he would decide who was allowed to edit the page and which edits were acceptable. Obviously, he reverted this as well[216].
People have tried to explain things to him on his talk page, on Talk:perception, and on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people (the page that brought this to our attention). So far, to no avail. So if anyone has a spare trout or shrubbery, now may be the time to use them (a dose of patient and friendly explanation may be tried as well, but I fear that we have a severe case of Ididnthearthat here...) Fram (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- He keeps adding a personal note about how to use the talk page above the headers. I've concluded that he really has no clue about Wikipedia, unless I've greatly misunderstood this that he's written on the talk page:
- "I have contemplated the following going live strategy:
- I would publish the article worldwide and wait few days until the article is replicated. In these few days we will have to be vigilant, though.
- After the article is replicated we could move under umbrella of the flagged revisions and pickup some jewels for discussion.
- I guess that from then on we could lose some valuable feedback. Could we have a proxy Percept page to pick up these"
- And what does this mean? "I have opted in Further Reading for online retailers. However this could be used as promotional tool by specific online retailers and there could be a contract with Wikipedia re this. Could you see if there is a preferred online retailer?".
- His rewrite which is now in the talk page archives is totally unencyclopedic and unacceptable. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- It sounds like WP:COMPETENT is at issue. Encyclopedic or not, this is the English Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that pointer, Bugs, a useful essay. We have an editor unfamiliar with and dismissive of Wikipedia content, style, and behavioral rules, aggressively trying to push through a major redraft of a fairly important article on a difficult scientific / philosophical subject, in a mood to do battle rather than work with others, whose proposed draft introduces more problems than it fixes, and apparently not fluent enough in English to write standard authoritative encyclopedic prose. Even someone who plays by the rules and can write standard English typically needs to start small, copyediting here and there, making minor improvements, learning the style guidelines and markup, etc., before they are ready to tackle a big task like this. This editor isn't even willing to accept that they need to learn the rules. He's said more than once that he rejects the rules, and collaboration with other editors (who he is starting to accuse of obstructionism and bad faith), because they are getting in the way of his article redraft. The only solution is for the editor to do a 180-degree turn and start editing modestly, incrementally, and collaboratively - or simply losing interest in redrafting the article. If that doesn't happen voluntarily it will have to be imposed, hopefully without generating too much Wikipedia process. Their approach to talk pages is voluminous and idiosyncratic, so a discussion about what to do could spin out of control. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Consciousness/Archive 3#A call to discus intro might be useful reading for those involved in this discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- He's violated 3RR, so we have grounds to block him immediately. However, he seems to have stopped for the moment, so I'm hopeful. I'm watching him as is another admin. With luck, he'll take it upon himself to pause, read, and learn. If not, we'll provide an enforced pause. It's an open and shut case really, so there's not much need for further review here. Interested editors should provide recommendations, tips, and encouragement on the user's talk page. He clearly has an interest in helping. With luck, we can shape it into something productive. Rklawton (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I also see 3rr here. Moreover, the edit warring has been over a talk page notice which is straightforwardly beyond the pale of policy. No need for a block if they've stopped and there are indeed hints the editor isn't aware of the policies (rather than, say, knowingly trying to edit war through them and lay his own onto the article). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- In cases like this (WP:OWN or WP:COI) where I block, I often use an addendum along the lines of "please use this time to review [[''suitable link'']]. Should similar concerns continue to be raised, you will likely find that further sanctions of longer durations may be applied." Sometimes, it does take a block for someone to realise where the problem truly resides. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed Ancheta Wis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an admin, has been active in talking to Dibrisim and invited them to comment here. something lame from CBW 19:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I hate to be blunt, but I am bit concerned that we have an Admin writing "Your rewrite is in fact superior to the current state of the article, of course. But what about the poor guy for whom the rewrite is just words? He might not understand it because he doesn't have the background. Would it help if you used the experience I described above as a concrete example?". That seems to be a lack of understanding of one of our basic policies. And what in the world is she trying to do on her talk page? I've seen her as part of the problem. By the way, her use of the tools has been minimal, 5 blocks, 15 pages deleted, 1 page protected, 2 restored. She became an Admin in 2005. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Request for permanent semi-protection of List of male performers in gay porn films on BLP grounds
Although it hasn't had a great deal of recent vandalism, the incorrect (or deliberately malicious) addition of someone to a list of gay porn performers is a clear violation of BLP guidelines. Here is an example from earlier today that no one has removed: "Mark Tilley a.k.a.Tildo the king, Mark Tilley lives in worcestershire and is willing to and has performed and gay porn shoots possible, he has even been known to star in an all male gang bang". Would some kindly and clueful admin please permanently semi-protect this list? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, color me mean and clueless, but...I think such an entry could go on any page in the project. Should we protect them all against vandalism that we have other ways of dealing with? Frank | talk 18:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to be focusing the specific words used in the most recent (and still present) vandalism. The addition of any name to this list (choose your favourite author, actor, or aardvark specialist) labels them as a performer in gay porn films. Unless they are a performer in gay porn films, this is a situation we should avoid. Although there has been much said here and elsewhere about the issues with that particular article, it does not receive the attention it requires to prevent this type of vandalism from lingering. Permanent semi-protection is a simple and obvious solution. Did I mention that the vandalism is still there? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Embrace it carbuncle. I have two blps on my watchlist which have had claims added by IPs recently that one man is a serial killer Ash (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)and that another man has a long chapter on the wonders of bestiality in his latest book. Both by IPs. I'm leaving them be.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I had hoped you were kidding, but did happen to find the bestiality edit. Unbelievable that you would both leave that and then boast about it. --Onorem♠Dil 19:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, if this goes through, could I semi every article I watch too? In fact, lets just make it so only I can edit my favorite articles. It's a coup d'etat, I could just take over the whole Wiki, my own private domain, lol. This is prolly not a good idea for many reasons. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- People stand in the way of flagged revisions and of deleting lightly watched blps of marginally notable people (and scream at me to WP:PRESERVE when i try to deal with serial blp vios and insist on maintaining poorly sourced fluff, inuendos, etc...) have sent the message that wikipedia as a whole supports this stuff. I won't deal with it at all until things change (and change is looking very unlikely). Enjoy your special little community.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of flagged revisions, but I'm not looking to stand in the way of their implementation. I had thought that I could trust the well intentioned part of the community here to fix problems when they saw them. I didn't realize that some people "cared" so much that they would ignore blatant vandalism. Pathetic. --Onorem♠Dil 19:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh there's way more blp violations that i've seen lately that i haven't dealt with. Of course, the amount that i've seen and not dealt with is dwarfed by the amount that's being done -- even as we speak -- that no one is noticing at all. Enjoy.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of flagged revisions, but I'm not looking to stand in the way of their implementation. I had thought that I could trust the well intentioned part of the community here to fix problems when they saw them. I didn't realize that some people "cared" so much that they would ignore blatant vandalism. Pathetic. --Onorem♠Dil 19:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- People stand in the way of flagged revisions and of deleting lightly watched blps of marginally notable people (and scream at me to WP:PRESERVE when i try to deal with serial blp vios and insist on maintaining poorly sourced fluff, inuendos, etc...) have sent the message that wikipedia as a whole supports this stuff. I won't deal with it at all until things change (and change is looking very unlikely). Enjoy your special little community.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, if this goes through, could I semi every article I watch too? In fact, lets just make it so only I can edit my favorite articles. It's a coup d'etat, I could just take over the whole Wiki, my own private domain, lol. This is prolly not a good idea for many reasons. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I had hoped you were kidding, but did happen to find the bestiality edit. Unbelievable that you would both leave that and then boast about it. --Onorem♠Dil 19:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Embrace it carbuncle. I have two blps on my watchlist which have had claims added by IPs recently that one man is a serial killer Ash (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)and that another man has a long chapter on the wonders of bestiality in his latest book. Both by IPs. I'm leaving them be.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to be focusing the specific words used in the most recent (and still present) vandalism. The addition of any name to this list (choose your favourite author, actor, or aardvark specialist) labels them as a performer in gay porn films. Unless they are a performer in gay porn films, this is a situation we should avoid. Although there has been much said here and elsewhere about the issues with that particular article, it does not receive the attention it requires to prevent this type of vandalism from lingering. Permanent semi-protection is a simple and obvious solution. Did I mention that the vandalism is still there? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) You may not be aware of WP:RPP which is a more suitable forum. However as the list has had minor vandalism from Anon IPs 3 times in the last week I do not believe that counts as endemic vandalism for an article that has a topic that one would expect to be quite a vandalism magnet. Ash (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- You see Carbuncle? Ash is right. We need way more defamation of people than 3x a week before we can stop this stuff. How much defamation is enough? Well, we'll let you know when we get there.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, if you dislike it that much, the door's behind you. Don't let it hit you on the way out; I don't want ass-prints on the glass. HalfShadow 19:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- The edits in question appear to be fairly mindless vandalism, please examine them. At worst, the wrong BLPs may be linked on a list of award-winning porn stars (the BLPs were not vandalized). The 3 examples in the last week were not for the same person, and were reversed fairly quickly. This is minor vandalism, not the defamation you are looking for. Ash (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Great work on Brad Hunt (pornographic actor) Ash. That's a wonderful encyclopedia article on an important living person right there. Wikipedia needs more of those.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well at least he's doing work, as opposed to bitching about how hard life is. HalfShadow 19:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree. This wonderful compendium will not be complete until we have a poorly sourced biography (on people for whom true sources don't exist to write a proper biography, generally) on every retired porn store that ever lived. Gloria, knowledge, onward! I propose we prioritize the ones that would like to leave their past in porn behind them.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Great to see self-appointed BLP defenders spitefully ignoring vandalism. You go off in your huff while the rest of us get on with editing. The same IP user also added a BLP violating edit to How I Met Your Mother; shall we semi-protect that article too? Fences&Windows 20:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I"m done defending shit here (except for the articles i wrote, until i get bored with that and wander away and they're degraded too). As for semi-protection -- i'd do it as a matter of course on every article that's ever been vandalized once. It would put the vandal fighters out of work, but can't see who else that would hurt. I'm an adult and not interested in playing whack-a-mole for a pseudo-libertarian website.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- WP:SOAP. Please compose your retirement message in your own userspace. --King Öomie 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Enjoy your vandal fighting. Who said anything about "retiring?" I'm just not going to play silly reindeer games anymore.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, you are just going to ineffectively bitch about it. If you don't want to do anything, that's fine, but seriously, just stop whining. The only thing you accomplish is to show the community that you are wasting its time. Resolute 21:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why should i give a fuck about what the community thinks is or is not wasting its time? For the record, I don't.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- He is just asking you to be WP:CIVIL. You have been blocked once and warned multiple times before for incivility. Please just refrain from needless antagonism. Tossing around words like "shit" and dismissing the volunteer project composed of editors with many diverse viewpoints as "a pseudo-libertarian website" does not add to a tension-reduced environment. Besides, if we are really concerned with not insulting living people, how is having a publicly viewable Afd in which that person is dismissed as "a nobody" better than an article? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why should i give a fuck about what the community thinks is or is not wasting its time? For the record, I don't.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, you are just going to ineffectively bitch about it. If you don't want to do anything, that's fine, but seriously, just stop whining. The only thing you accomplish is to show the community that you are wasting its time. Resolute 21:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Enjoy your vandal fighting. Who said anything about "retiring?" I'm just not going to play silly reindeer games anymore.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- WP:SOAP. Please compose your retirement message in your own userspace. --King Öomie 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I"m done defending shit here (except for the articles i wrote, until i get bored with that and wander away and they're degraded too). As for semi-protection -- i'd do it as a matter of course on every article that's ever been vandalized once. It would put the vandal fighters out of work, but can't see who else that would hurt. I'm an adult and not interested in playing whack-a-mole for a pseudo-libertarian website.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Great to see self-appointed BLP defenders spitefully ignoring vandalism. You go off in your huff while the rest of us get on with editing. The same IP user also added a BLP violating edit to How I Met Your Mother; shall we semi-protect that article too? Fences&Windows 20:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree. This wonderful compendium will not be complete until we have a poorly sourced biography (on people for whom true sources don't exist to write a proper biography, generally) on every retired porn store that ever lived. Gloria, knowledge, onward! I propose we prioritize the ones that would like to leave their past in porn behind them.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well at least he's doing work, as opposed to bitching about how hard life is. HalfShadow 19:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Great work on Brad Hunt (pornographic actor) Ash. That's a wonderful encyclopedia article on an important living person right there. Wikipedia needs more of those.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Done
OK, let's be pragmatic and not doctrinaire here. Is it in the interests of our encyclopedia to require people to at least create an account before they are allowed to add living people to a list like this? Surely, yes. This article is open to abuse in a way most are not, and it is highly unlikely a brand new user is going to want to add someone legitimately and with proper referencing. If they do, they can ask on the talk page. No brainer really.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Presumably your non-consensus based anti-abuse theory applies to all articles listed at Category:Lists of LGBT-related people and you'll be protecting them all ASAP. No brainer. You may find HUMAN represents the consensus viewpoint against your actions. Ash (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
deltion
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
they keep deleting my work what i write —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshistory2010 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Several people have explained on your talk page what the problems with these articles were, and made suggestions for how to avoid losing your work in the future. Please read them, and try them out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Mrshistory2010 has been blocked as a obvious troll. Rklawton (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Help: El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area
I recently created El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area and nominated it for DYK. User:Polaron put some banners on the article without explanation. When I insisted on explanation he/she provided what I consider WP:OR (no sources; personal opinions) and proceeded to rename the article, remove references and content, etc, etc. I requested that such changes not be made without consensus, particularly considering the article is up for DYK, and tried to revert the changes. Polaron promptly changed everything back and hasn't been willing to provided any more info as to the motives.
I don't want to get into an edit war but I need this restored before the article fails DYK. Basically I need a "don't do things unilaterally or you'll be blocked" intervention here.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks.
--Mcorazao (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Eckert Seamans
Eckert Seamans (talk · contribs) has been editing Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, an article for which is has an obvious conflict of interest. Seems to me it should be blocked a role/corporate account. --Blargh29 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- ^ "Labor Day 2003: Nothing to Celebrate". Retrieved 2009-07-29.
- ^ "About Solidarity". Solidarity National Office. Retrieved January 24, 2010.
- ^ "Suzi Weissman interviews Mark Weisbrot". Solidarity National Office. Retrieved January 24, 2010.
- ^ "Labor Day 2003: Nothing to celebrate". alternet.org. August 28, 2003. Retrieved January 24, 2010.
- ^ a b Strauss, Amy. "Johnny Drama: Figure-skater Johnny Weir makes headlines for his bad-boy life off the ice". Philly Mag. Retrieved 17 February 2010.
- ^ "Johnny Weir Faces Gay Question Following Chicago Tribune Poll". Chicago Pride. 17 February 2006. Retrieved 17 February 2010.
- ^ Stuever, Hank (17 February 2006). "Out? In? Or Past All That? Johnny Weir's Fancy-Free Skate". The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 February 2010.