This is an archive of past discussions about User:LessHeard vanU. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Old archive material has now been moved to Archive "won"
I would dearly like to assume good faith with regard to User talk:203.39.34.76, the above article's recent edits, and the IP's comment at my talk page. However, given his/her non-good faith, and unexplained, reversion of my recent article edit, plus his/her nine vandal related talk page messages, I rather have my doubts. Could you have a look at his/her activity to establish how committed an editor this may be, before I potentially waste my time trying to educate him/her regarding editing - not that such a tutoral is my responsibility, and given the IP's length of tenure here, should be necessary. But .... maybe I do not see something that you can. Thanks,
Interesting user... An Aussie with an apparent taste for 70's Brit culture (looking back there to 2009 the range of interests is fairly encompassed by my characterisation). I should think that the editor is an ex-pat (possibly a child of "£10 Poms"?) of about our age. Why not have a chat with them? They have not edited so much as to be expected to know the WP style, and might not be familiar with internet/computers, and might respond to a friendly message. The edits to articles are not really vandalism, just more inexpert (the longer spelling of "inept") in some cases. Might be worth a try before hitting them with warning templates and such? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Splendid - many thanks for taking the time to 'investigate' this one. It is such a one dimensional media in many ways, so I'm really pleased that I asked and that you replied so fulsomely. I really like 'inexpert' by the way, a far better word in this context. Thank you, I'll have a go.
For what it's worth, I think capitalizing a definitive leading article (like the) in a band name, or even some movie and book titles, within a sentence, is... very mistaken. Seems to me, it should be dealt with more thoroughly at WP:MOS. Only sayin'. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It is dealt with at MoS; the consensus there is that it should not be capitalised. However, British persons of a certain age were taught that the definite should be capitalised (as a compound noun), and the band is of the era when that was the correct form. Reliable sources spell the group name both ways, with it more common in the older publications, although - per Baseball Bugs at ANI a couple of days ago - the liner notes of the most recent re-issues capitalise the t. Thus the local consensus of editors at the article that it should remain capitalised appears to be valid. Therefore my request at ArbCom (largely ignored over comments regarding the lameness of the content dispute itself) that the disruption engendered by the conflict of trying to impose a guideline consensus over a local editing one be reviewed. It is one of those instances where British sensibilities and established practices (for a subject that is definitively British) are seemingly bypassed by the suggestion application of a more general grammatical standard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC) ps. You will note that I spell capitalisation without the z? According to MoS, "Oxford British English" allows the use of the z - and should therefore be used as this standardises (there you go again!) both British and American spelling... There is a note saying so at The Beatles article talkpage - but again the English editors are writing to the grammatical norms that they were taught. Again, an example of a consensus at a guideline conflicting with the consensus of the contributors to the article. Lame? You bet it is!
Long tale short, z is much older and more British (being Greek, as it happens) than s, which was a French-language driven, snitty reaction (très snob, en effet) among Brit "intellectuals" after the upstart colonists went their own merry way back in the day.
This is one of those content related task thingies, isn't it..? I regret that I am going to have to decline, because I am no longer much of a content producer and I think it would be unfair to have my inexpert comments be decisive in relation to the efforts of those who are. Thanks for asking, all the same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You might be very pleased to see what's going on over here: [1]. It could be the breakthrough of the century, and I can hardly believe it. :)--andreasegde (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I see it does say "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." at WP:EW. To intervene means to "Come between so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events.", so as grammatical/minor edits do not "prevent or alter a result or course of events", this statement means that my three reverts should be counted as one regardless of the grammar edits inbetween them, and that I should not have been warned and threatened for making my first major edit to an article.
It would be nice if this could be clarified and added to WP:RV as well as, while EW and RV are closely related, it is very possible to break either policy while not breaking the other. Passionless-Talk22:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reverting is an Wikipedia:Essay, which is often one or a few editors interpretation of a policy or guideline. As such, it can in good faith be amended by anyone - and especially if it clarifies an area which is addressed by Wikipedia:Policy (which Wikipedia:Edit warring is.) - and it should not be used in preference to or in conflict with policy. As for the series of edits for which you were warned, I should say that I have not reviewed them or the discussion regarding them - but if you made additions and grammatical changes to your initial revert and not revert anyone's subsequent revision to your initial edit, then you were wrong to have been warned for edit warring or getting close to exceeding 3RR. Since I have not reviewed the matter, I would also comment generally that editors and admins do make mistakes and it is sometimesalways preferable to take a non confrontational approach to addressing issues. Even if there was not a mistake, an editor seeking advice on how to avoid further occurrences is likely to be given advice and help. As for warnings, they can be blanked from your userpage; doing so acknowledges that you are aware of them, and you should not be reverted or indeed criticized for doing so (however, it is still best to do so when the matter is concluded or at least a couple of days old).
Since we are having this discussion, if there are any other issues you would like advice with you can always make your concerns known here. There are a few knowledgeable people who read this page, and they might be able to offer advice - I may even chip in with a bit, myself. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I believe I am going about this is a non confrontation way, I am not complaining to the presiding admins or about the presiding admins. What I am trying to do is make the rules more clear so that there is less interpretation of the rules, leading to more consistent outcomes for similar infractions. And yes, I did not "revert anyone's subsequent revision to [my] initial edit", yet I was declared to be in the wrong, and I do not believe this to be a once off mistake, but I think many admins have different interpretations of the rules around reverting and this type of thing happens too often. Passionless-Talk23:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
You may consider asking the editor who removed the template (Mukarram Habib (talk·contribs)) whether they intended to do so, as it seems to have been in the middle of number of edits and may have been unintentional - in which case it could be returned as "removed in error". I would, however, suggest that you should not go to such lengths, as the cited rationale for the deletion request is not appropriate. As this is the English language and thus culture encyclopedia, it is correct to date articles according to the Western standard - even though the subject is Islam. It may be properly recorded on the page what the corresponding date according to the Islamic system is, if desired. Also, and even if there was an argument that the date is incorrect, it would be wrong to simply delete the page - the proposed correction should be discussed on the talkpage and, if consensus is found, have the page WP:MOVEd to the correct title. I realise that this is not the "yes" or "no" answer you may have sought, but I trust this does help with your enquiry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
To answer your question more concretely, no, you should almost never be replacing a removed PROD template. The next step is to take the article to WP:AFD. Cheers. lifebaka++15:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I think "removed in error", where there was no intent to remove the PROD in the midst of other edits, is one of the few exceptions. That has to be confirmed by the account whose edit removed the template, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Happiness is a Warm Gun
FYI, in the military, a weapon can be kept in a holster, while a gun should be kept in your trousers. I'm pretty sure Lennon wasn't singing about a weapon, but rather, his gun. — GabeMc (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, he got that from a hunting magazine cover. He thought it was insane sentiment; obviously you would have just had to shoot something... Hotcop2 (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he is best remembered as Steve New. Nova was OK when he was alive, but he is dead, he will be generally remembered for the things he made in the punk scene of the '70s, as Steve New. Francodamned (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, good, someone who has connected the dots for me; I have indefinitely blocked the account and am currently providing the notice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I have increased it to a week - if they change ip addresses it won't be effective, but if they resume after the block expires it indicates that it is stable enough to block for longer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Please unblock
I don't understand why you blocked my first account bobjoe786 for an indefinite amount of time. I needed to be blocked true but not indefinitely. I would appreciate if you either unblocked it right away or decreased the amount of block time. Note that by blocking the ip address you have blocked 5 computers at once that used the same wifi network and that is causing disruptions with other wikipedia users using that computer.
thanks,
bobjoe7786 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobjoe7786 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
If you wish to be unblocked, use the template included in the block notice on your User talk:bobjoe786 page - you can find it in the history. As you will be aware, this account is now blocked. It is unfortunate that your antics have meant other users of the wifi network you use have been inconvenienced, although registering an account will mean they will be unaffected. Lastly, indefinite blocks are not of any set time and can last for less than a 1 day block. You just have to convince an admin you are not going to muck around with census information or the like in future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Error
You are in error because user Nanazo and others IP are not socks of Ragusino: socks are only inventions of POV pusher DIREKTOR! Also Italian users Luigi28 and BarbaNane are not socks! Luigi28 is from Venice and Nanazo is from other city with a static IP used by many users! Read user talk:DIREKTOR#ANI and this ban--Mat003second (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that was really very funny. Also, I'm shamelessly taking advantage of this seemingly completed exchange to avoid having to create a new section. So on an unrelated note, I just wanted to reiterate my appreciation for your comments at AN/I. I replied there, too, but I thought your having waded through all that to actually read it, and to have replied at the length you did, as well, was just very generous. Thanks very much for taking the time, for responding with respect, and for your explaining your view so carefully. No need to reply, unless you just want to, of course, but in that case you can do so here. Best regards, – OhioStandard (talk)01:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Persistent anon vandalism from my IP block
Good day,
I'm part of the response team for the IP block you banned in September of last year. It would seem that someone on our side is at it again, and I'd like to know more about how we can relieve these people of their permission to edit before this foolishness leads to some kind of public humiliation.
The 193. IP is the other IP used by Ragusino. You can see the edits of his modulating IP on the various Dalmatian articles [2], and the Ragusino trademark grammar is there as well ("this article is shamefully serie of titoist fakes!"). "Shamefully" (as opposed to "disgraceful") is in particular his "copyright logo". It is indeed him and noone else, as you've correctly surmised. Here [3], of course, you can see the full extent of his vandalism (and some other.. rather disturbing interests). His edits are still up on National Memorial Day of the Exiles and Foibe, Josip Broz Tito, Operation Storm, and Foibe killings (the latter two were fixed just now by Fainites).
I would like to draw attention to the Josip Broz Tito article, where he is restoring disputed edits of his. The Goli Otok federal prison nonsense has nothing to do with the biography of that person, and the three extremely right-wing Italian authors have previously been removed as 1) completely unreliable, non-scholarly sources that are 2) simply listed haphazardly without any evidence that this is what they actually claim. --DIREKTOR(TALK)17:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the two outstanding articles on the basis that they are either the banned editor or are proxying for same - I have also translated the ip's comments at the blocked accounts talkpage. I am apparently anti-Italian, which will be a surprise to one of my regular correspondents... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You are also a communist, while I'm your Croatian-nationalist prophet. And I'm a Nazi. Hitler. (Had to say it, law of probability..) --DIREKTOR(TALK)00:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you can help?
Hello, User:LessHeard vanU. I have a request. For about the last month I have had almost daily harassment by a serial ip user that you previously blocked on March 12th (as ip 60). It began with him repeatedly using multiple ip's to place offensive anti-Semitic posters on my user page seen ---> here and here(which subsequently had to be locked down) and since has spread to every sort of general harassment you could think of through (as of last count) his 9 various ip addresses - but all with the same Latitude/
Longitude location of -37.814251 / 144.963169 in Melbourne, Australia. I was hoping he would tire himself out, but in the last few days he has really ramped it up and now follows all my edits, reverts everything I post, and continually now makes random harassing reverts even on my own talk page etc. The 9 ip addresses as of last count include
This user changes his ip almost daily at this point in his attempt to harass and troll with me. Could you please block all of the above ip addresses permanently and do a range block in the hopes that this will subside? He has shown he will go 10RR+ on every edit and I have little recourse to stop him other than hitting rollback each time. This has gotten unreal and I haven't seen anything like it in my years of editing. Thanks. Redthoreau-- (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked the most recent address used, although it is apparent that the individual will have moved onto a new one when they next edit. I would suggest that you file a WP:SPI report, detailing the abuse, and requesting a range block. A Checkuser can then review if there would be any collateral damage (good faith ip's) from executing a range block (or two). I regret that I am not technically savvy enough to make that determination, although I will do the SPI report if you are unfamiliar with the process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I have never filed an SPI report, so any help or links you could provide would be appreciated. As for this serial sock, he has now returned (with a new 58 ip) and his first 3 edits were reverting your reverts of his last ip ---> seen here. Thus, it would be helpful if you could block this latest sock for now. Thanks. Redthoreau-- (talk) -- (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Try [5]. This is basically a retained copy of an AN/I posting made by that person. The purpose was to retain in userspace (i.e. without any responses) the charges against two editors and a proposal to block and article-ban an administrator. Collect (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The first thing I would point out that admins have no special right to have comments made about them saved elsewhere or not, as regards to that of any other user. The other thing I would note that the page is not indexed, so scrapers should not be able to seed it into the wider net. Lastly, as pointed out, it is a copy of content that previously existed elsewhere - including a period where it also had no responses... Since it should not appear on any google search results and is being kept on a very low trafficked page I do not think it can be classified as an attack page, i.e. one maintained to create a negative impression of the subjects (psuedo anonymous accounts at that) - and even then the idents have since been "camouflaged". However, I shall ask Ohiostandard to remove the content from the page so to diminish any chance of fostering poor feelings between editors. It remains in the page history, should the writer feel the need to refer to it in future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, LHvU. Collect is mistaken re my intent and the process by which the diff he cites ended up my userspace, too. It was the straw-poll format that I wanted, not the specific content. I've replied (permalink) further re the concern expressed here, doing so below your post to my talk page informing me of it. Thanks for your help. Also, please don't miss the post I made above before this current thread was started, where I expressed my appreciation as well; it's in the Error section on this page. Best, – OhioStandard (talk)16:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, did some digging, which wasn't tough, and found a pretty good pattern of this user removing parts of articles he clearly doesn't like: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Then there are other examples of him removing edits to talk pages: 1, 2. Then there is the one NPA I found. I only dug to March 27, but there are probably more. This is a pattern of vandalism and disruptive editing. His talk page edits show that clearly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not convinced that the putative removals are vandalism; the earlier ones of removing AfD flags is certainly inappropriate but not vandalism, while the later examples show other information "replacing" the original text - which is more of a content dispute. My impression regarding the talkpage removals is that it is possible the editor is removing comments they made as an ip - there is a similarity in language construction. The personal attack is just that, an NPA violation, rather than vandalism. I am not saying that there are not issues with this editor, least of all in the matter of WP:Competence, but there is a fair chance that their intent is not to damage the encyclopedia. I think that perhaps a report to ANI and more eyes and opinions may come to a consensus which may result in a sanction or restriction, but more for disruption and ownership than vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Okie Dokie, I will throw it at the "ANI wall" and see if it sticks. :) I am hoping that I am wrong and this is just a WP:COMPETENCE issue, but in my gut, it feels like trolling. But again, I am hoping I am wrong. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Mail
Hello, LessHeard vanU. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The same person(s) that vandalised my page previously has revandalised it (I've since reverted it), but could you block again? TyVulpine (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It is not encouraged, but it does not raise to a situation where warnings are issued and blocks made - certainly not in isolation. I am finding Dave1185's tone to be disappointing, but I don't think that making an issue of it is going to improve the situation regarding the content dispute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Miranche's latest edits on Yugoslav Front and Syrmian Front are unsupported POV and should be reviewed.
On Yugoslav Front the editor uses the term "ethnic cleansing" without any support and describes the soldiers of the NDH as "Croatian soldiers". The latter is misleading as two Croatias existed at the time, both fielding "Croatian soldiers", disambiguation is necessary (NDH soldiers). Furthermore he mentions the summary execution of civilians which is highly disputed.
On Syrmian Front his entire edit is simply untrue, unsourced nonsense. The whole thing should be sourced or removed.
I've corrected a simple mistake you made here. Incidentally, this clown impersonated you to vote Delete in this AfD, and that almost led to a major misunderstanding on my part. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The page has now been deleted. I found and blocked the joker after they were reported to AIV, although it took me some time to be sure it was the right thing because they were impersonating yet another admin - a slightly misspelt name and a copied over user talkpage; it being part of their modus operandi. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Foxhound (continued)
Hi LHvU, continuing on from the ANI thread and Foxhound66's comments at Talk:Chief of Defence Force (Singapore)#Terribly written, he continues his crusade on his userpage. I don't see this as being acceptable. He doesn't get his way, so he changes tack and says that "most of [the] article" is "written by Strange Passerby", and is "not well written". I mean, come on. Although not explicit, I do very much get the feeling that this continues to be based on my nationality and the fact that I'm using Singaporean sources (which are apparently unacceptable to him). Is this actionable? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
While you might wish to read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and formulate your own preferences for handling, I suggest that you invite Foxhound66 to present their own sources and have a third party review them - and the existing sources - so to incorporate as much of both as able per Wikipedia:Due weight. In any case, I strongly recommend disregarding Foxhound66's references to nationality or other allegations - do not mention them in your comments - but maintain a helpful and courteous tone in attempting to resolve the matter of the sources. As ever, getting more parties involved allows for broader consensus to form and less instances of an issue being one between two editors. If, after making these efforts, Foxhound66 continues to object to your edits, and the removal of theirs, on the basis of bias (either or both his and yours) then you can ask for assistance in dealing with the disruption. I regret it is a drawback of the editing process that you may have to endure the indignity of some attacks upon yourself while you go through the proper channels of dispute resolution before it is possible to sanction the other editor for their behaviour. In the meanwhile, any instance of him using your nationality (including possible nationalism or cultural bias) as a way of deprecating your edits should be reported to me or the admin board - noting the final warning I have given if the latter - for action. Even so, it should be hoped that if you approach Foxhound66 in a collegiate and respectful manner you may yet receive a little of the same in return. I realise that this is not the quick fix (a block) you may have been hoping for, but it is the best way to ensure the issue is resolved in the long term. I hope this proves useful to you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I've tried the kind discussion route a long time ago, only to be met by the responses I laid out at ANI. I'm no longer in the mood for discussing with them if they aren't willing to discuss in a collegial manner themselves. I note Demiurge1000 (talk·contribs), a neutral third party, has laid out his comments at the talk page of the article backing up my view that there is no bias and I haven't been removing valid additions as claimed by Foxhound. I'll continue to watch the issue, but I consider what's left (an RFC and a peer review have both been done) of the DR process to no longer be of use as Foxhound is unwilling to abide by it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you should make a last effort, linking to this discussion perhaps, to instigate a resolution regarding the content issues. Then, with Foxhound66 being comprehensively warned regarding the consequences, if the concerns are not addressed then admins like me can address the matter of editor behaviour. It is necessary for all avenues to be exhausted before such action can be considered. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but last I checked, content disputes and editor behavioural disputes were separate. Why is it not possible to follow up on one even while the other is unresolved? I'm confused here. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Largely, because one stems from the other - if a content dispute is resolved, via the processes, then there is no behavioural issue, but if DR does not resolve the matter then it must purely be because one or more parties are being disruptive. By exhausting DR, it then follows that there is a behavioral issue to be resolved. It is true that the two may be addressed separately, but an admin must be assured that one party is not trying to "win" a content dispute by referencing a behavioural issue; exhausting content dispute resolution justifies an admin concentrating on the behaviour. Ultimately, a good admin tries to ensure that they are acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia when they action a sanction against another contributor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
And in this case, an RFC has been attempted, and a neutral third party had weighed in on the content dispute. There's no more room for DR content-wise after an RFC (noting that mediation would require his agreement, which is not forthcoming), which anyway due to lack of comments closed in favour of the protected version (his version). If he's basing his attacks on new content I've added on which a third opinion has judged to be a non-issue, then surely that suggests content is not the issue at hand now? In any case, he says he's withdrawing totally from the article, and if that's the case, there is no content dispute remaining, leaving just the behaviour. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
So, what is there to lose with one more effort? The time expended in us describing our stances might have been spent making that last attempt at getting the content issue addressed, and Foxhound66 might have been blocked by now. If, however, you are adamant that you are not prepared to take that action, then please could you provide links to the RfC and the third party opinion and any relevant (non) responses from Foxhound66 so I might review the matter and decide on the appropriate response? The fact that they are withdrawing may now make this moot, since sanctions are designed to address issues going forward, and not as punishment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand that blocks are preventative, not punitive; whilst they are withdrawing ("I'll let him/her take charge of it and edit it has he likes") if he's going to continue saying the article is poorly written with the imputation that it's because of my nationality then surely any block would still remain preventative. The old RFC's also found on the same talk page, at Talk:Chief_of_Defence_Force_(Singapore)#RFC (closed), which attracted no response thus meaning the article stayed in the state he wanted, until I came back two weeks later. The third party comment was left here by Demiurge1000, in which he backs up my argument by saying he "can't find any "Singaporean POV" in the article". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Can I just say, I'm not specifically looking for a block (although if one is warranted, it should be meted out); all I want is for him to stop using my nationality as a basis for his attacks against me or my contributions. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
That is my thinking - a block would only be to act as a deterrent if there were egregious examples of personal attacks, otherwise a final warning against further incidents would suffice. I need to look at the evidence to see how "bad" the tone was. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I have commented at Foxhound66's talkpage. I suspect that they will blank the message, but they have now been warned specifically regarding their attitude. Should they return to the article in the same mindset, or you find they start finding fault in a similar manner with other articles you are involved in, then please contact me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
And the userpage soapboxing continues, replete with a fresh claim that the article is biased and now with a new claim that some other article apparently passing GNG "should not even be here". At what point does one say, "that's enough"? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked them for 24 hours, noting that continued soapboxing will attract further sanctions and a suggestion they take any complaint regarding my actions to ANI. Let us see what the future brings, then? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Just found this little nugget. Reads to me like a threat to intentionally disrupt Wikipedia until he gets his way with that article. If this behaviour continues perhaps it's time to look at a longer block. Should we bring The-Pope into further discussion? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason to do anything. Disruption will be dealt with as and when it occurs, and when it is apparent that short term sanctions are having no effect then someone will likely take it to the next stage. As I was saying in the discussion above, it is best to exhaust all available options before progressing to indef blocks or bans - if they are not to be challenged. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I assume you have seen this, and I honestly wonder how much longer a user who clearly rejects the idea of discussion and cohesive encyclopaedia-building as he does will get free rein to abuse his userpage and other editing rights. Your call though I think my stand is obvious (and, I suspect, yours hasn@ changed despite the continued soapboxing). StrPby (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll let people who are from the Singapore Army edit that article
and I'm sure you'll have fun editing a page which you may not have the knowledge of but letting others do so.And you still don't listen when i say dont write on my page. May your English isnt goodOther dictionaries are better (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably nothing, but...
I've no idea if this is just coincidence, or what, but have a squint at User:Rodhull&emuu if you have the time. Thanks,
I do not know the full circumstances (or really want to), but I really feel sorry for him. To be honest, I'd rather hoped it was someone else. Ho-hum. Cheers anyway,
I was not clear - the imposter is someone who was interfering with Rh&e's edits back at the end of last year. This was not Rod. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I feel a bit better now - you're a good egg who works his socks off for Wiki - I do not know how you have the patience ! Regards,
Very likely. I rolled back their last edit to Status Quo, since it was a revert of a decently rationaled reversion of their edit and also responded on the talkpage. I have not bothered blocking them since they have finished using that addy, and they had not edited past a final warning they had received. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Diffs
Hi. I appreciate your actually asking what I was talking about. At the moment I wrote one of those sentences I was definitely reacting to the tone towards me from Lothar. I have never encountered him before, and fail to see why he felt the need to say such things to me as "Looks like someone failed to read the fine normal sized print" and "Once again you demonstrate your disastrously incomplete understanding of the proposal."
To be honest, I'm a bit confused about what the Wikipedia definition of personal attacks is, after Doncram's recent block for supposedly heaping such things upon others. The blocking editor cited [9] in his block. That's a personal attack? There's a long history of conflict between Doncram and Orlady. I couldn't possibly go in to all of it. I think that people see the negative interactions between them, and because she's an administrator and because she's quick and pithy they tend to think she's always in the right. Some of what Doncram does can look questionable, but he always has reasons. He has thought about these things. He's not just charging through willy-nilly as many seem to think. When challenged, Doncram spends a lot of time and a lot of words trying to explain his reasons for why he does some of the things people object to. Sometimes people are dismissive because they don't want to take the time to read all of what he writes, or because there just isn't going to be any explanation they'll accept. So he says it again. Then they say he's stubborn and argumentative. I think that because Orlady and some others keep saying how unreasonable he is, people expect him to be unreasonable, so they interpret him as unreasonable.
Just recently, at User talk:Orlady, there was discussion where I thought worse things were said to and about Doncram than what he was blocked for. In this diff [10], Orlady says "I wish I didn't see a need to discuss your behavior anywhere, because I would greatly prefer for you to stop behaving like an [expletive deleted]." Later, following a calm and reasoned explanation to an editor he was not familiar with of why he chose to use some wording that others found vague and unencyclopedic, that editor replied this way [11]. Later, when a specific stub was mentioned (and thus under discussion to Doncram's way of thinking), Orlady summarily moved it to user space and when Doncram moved it back to be discussed (and very likely improved) she moved it back to user space and used her Admin powers to move block it. No AfD, just her determination. She also accused him of move-warring. After he moved it once. In the diff [12], she says that the article was "a piece of garbage". Orlady not only follows Doncram's edits looking for things to object to, she searches for phrases he uses that she finds objectionable in his old edits. Shortly after I said at her talk page that it seemed she was intentionally goading him, she made four more of what I perceived as goading type edits, prompting this response from Doncram [13]. Sitush's reply to that was this [14] in which he characterizes each as "a ridiculously crap page". When Doncram asked him not to use such characterizations, Sitush replied "Please do not lecture me - "crap" is a generalised term about the article. Call it rubbish, baloney, anything you want: the thing was pretty much meaningless. FWIW, I think I called it garbage before Orlady did." (Here's the diff, but it's a long one with other stuff in it, too [15]). And, based on this, as far as I know their only interaction, Sitush says at the ANI [16]"I've found it impossible to deal with Doncram in a collaborative way and this is causing at least as many problems with NHRP articles as benefits." As far as Doncram can remember the only interaction they've ever had is on Orlady's talk page!
So, would I have called these things "personal attacks" before Doncram was blocked for a WEEK for what I perceive to be less denigrating than this? No. Do I think that Orlady is generally incivil with him? Absolutely. Do I think she mis-used her Admin powers with him? In my opinion she did, at least in some mild way. As I said to her, were I in her place I'd avoid using them in connection with him at all, just to avoid the appearance of impropriety. She can't be bothered to take the articles to AfD (possibly because experience has shown that they rarely get deleted if they do go there), so she just does what she wants because they offend her.
Now that I've used the only night this week I'm likely to get home before 11 doing this, I'll end. I do appreciate your at least taking the time to ask if there were truly something else going on here than what it seems on the surface. Regardless of what your opinion ends up being, I appreciate that you could see that there might actually be something worth hearing on "the other side". I truly did used to enjoy editing on Wikipedia. It's sad that it's no fun any more. I expect I'll still do a little now and then, but the last thing I want to do after coming home from a long, stressful day at work is confront this environment. Lvklock (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
There is quite a bit here to review, and this is my lunch time. I will need to review this in detail, so will look again this evening (UK time). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
May I say, as a long term casual observer of the extraordinary chemistry that exists between Orlady and Doncram, that I basically agree with Lvklock's observations. But, as an administrator, Orlady has not behaved badly. SarekOfVulcan has, yet again, descended upon a prominent content editor and blocked him. This raises questions in my mind about whether administrators can find more skillful ways of dealing with conflicts between well establish editors. After all, does it really matter if they choose to waste each others time in silly ways? Why not give them space, maybe just reflecting their behaviour back to them from time to time, and noting better ways. If there was a less punishing climate, and editors were encouraged to develop better interaction skills as they go along, then maybe much drama would resolve more constructively. As it is, these blocks add considerably to the demeaning environment content editors are now expected to work in, and in the long run, must be seriously destructive to the project. --Epipelagic (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course you may. I would comment that my view of Sarek of Vulcan is generally positive, but like all of us I feel he is stronger is some areas of his interactions and weaker in others. I have not seen the sequence of events (or lack of) that lead SoV to take that action. I am not sanguine, also, that you should include allegations regarding SoV's purported intentions or rationale for his admin actions, and would be grateful if you would strike them. However, the issue at hand is whether doncram has been the recipient of personal attacks or similar - concerns regarding Sarek of Vulcan should be addressed in other, more appropriate arena's, as might your antipathy. LessHeard vanU (talk)
(Resp to Lvklock) After a thorough review, I am not seeing personal attacks on doncram - I am seeing strong language and pointed comment upon the quality of the contested stub articles, and the same for some of doncrams actions, and in the expression of dissatisfaction with responses; but this is within the aegis of "comment upon content, and not the contributor." Sometimes there may have been blurring of the act and the actor in the criticisms, such as saying "doncram is unreasonable" where it may had been better expressed as "doncram's actions/comments/etc. are unreasonable", but generally within the context of the dispute and application of Good Faith these are grammatical errors and not attacks. In fact, it is a valid point that criticism of a persons actions (or inactions, as might be argued is the case in some instances here) and rationales is not only not a personal attack, but part of the sometimes vigorous method of consensus forming. It is the case that sometimes when there are a lot of people saying "You are wrong" in varying degrees of civility it is not because they are attacking the subject of their comments, but because a majority of people are of the opinion that the subject is incorrect - and may perhaps be getting frustrated at the response; either the lack of same, or a "I do not care for your opinion, and will continue." That is not to say that either party is right in what they believe, but that the communication system used is deficient. Just as it takes more than one party to have a discussion, it requires two or more to have an argument. My point is, the strident language and the manner in which it is directed do not, in my view, constitute personal attacks.
As far as communication deficiencies go, I also fail to see how Orlady's four exampled "goading edits" are anything like as described. I would agree that the first two instances are examples of stubs of a quality such that userfying them until they are of better standard is a reasonable editorial decision - PROD or AfD are not the only options available. Only if doncrams reaction is considered to be within good practice might it be considered goading, but as doncrams response to stub articles he created having anything done to them except improved to his satisfaction is one of the issues at hand I cannot say that these actions were designed to irritate or vex another editor in an abuse of process. As I intimated above, just because someone responds negatively to an action does not mean that that action was in itself wrong. As for the redirects, and without spending even more time seeing if there is a background story, I see that the move summaries provided excellent rationales. If the content already exists in another article, or is better served as a section of an article with better claim to notability, then these are valid content derived decisions. Again, just because the creator of the stub feels aggrieved at that action does not make it wrong.
I should tell you that I think that your ascribing rationales and viewpoints to Orlady's actions and comments is problematic. You raised the very valid point that if an editor such as doncram is labelled "difficult", then people interacting with him under that impression or opinion may indeed read responses in that light. It is regrettable that you appear to have fallen for the same error, in that you clearly appear (correct me if I am wrong) consider Orlady's actions as adversarial when it comes to interacting with doncram. By adversarial, I mean that it is suggested that Orlady seeks areas of possible concern with doncrams contributing for the reason of bringing them up and formenting a dispute in respect of them. I am not so familiar with this case as to dismiss this theory, but I can comment that my interactions with Orlady (although few) have not lead me to consider this to be a viable consideration and neither do I recall any (certainly recent) admin noticeboard discussions in regard to such allegations of behaviour by her.
To sum up, I do not see personal attacks upon doncram. I do see some strong words regarding doncrams editing in some specific instances, and doncrams alleged apparent unsatisfactory responses to those concerns. I also see robust language used, within a project that may be edited by anyone regardless of cultural and personal backgrounds - some people are going to describe something they think of as worthless as "crap" because that is their vocabulary - and perhaps oversensitivity on the part of some individuals who may be mistaking commentary upon the lack of value of an edit or (stub) article as a commentary upon the value of the editor. It is this latter that I think lays at the root of much of this issue. However, I am only an admin - and an indifferent content producer, to boot - and this falls outside of my remit as a volunteer here. I am not able, in my view, to act upon my opinion although I may, if I think it may help resolve matters refer to it at the AN discussion.
Well, as I said, I appreciate your taking the time to ask. As I said, the only reason I would have even considered these particular things personal attacks is that Doncram was blocked for something that seemed milder to me. May I ask your opinion of whether that reason [17] cited in his block rises to a personal attack, in your opinion? I was flabbergasted when I saw that he'd been recently blocked, and for so long. And then for people to just jump all over him so immediately when he came back.
As far as whether I am seeing Orlady as adversarial to Doncram because I expect her to be by reputation, I do not believe that to be the case. I was an observer to a great deal of the development of their....relationship, I guess you could call it. It began with Doncram thinking he was defending a newbie editor that Orlady was sure was a sockpuppet of some known baddie. The article area where the newbie/sockpuppet was editing NRHP articles. Orlady was on sockpuppet patrol, I think. This was before she was an Admin. She was reverting all of the sockpuppet's edits, even though they were sometimes beneficial. Doncram objected to that, and defended the sockpuppet, probably too stubbornly, in the end. Sortly after that, Doncram opposed her RfA (as did I). Somehow, this all ended with Orlady and Doncram, who had never encountered each other before, to my knowledge, spending so much time around each others edits that Orlady joined WP:NRHP.[18]. There have been other huge....issues, I suppose you could say, and I have no desire to try to remember or explain them all. I have seen them each accuse the other of ascribing evil intent where none was meant. But, Orlady DOES go looking for things to argue with him about. They don't just come up in the normal course of things. She follows his edits. He develops things in mainspace. Some people don't like that, but he has what seem to me to be well considered reasons for it, and I don't believe there are any rules against it. Sometimes before he can even make a second edit in developing an article Orlady's already there harping on how bad it is.[19][20].By her own admission, this was his first article after his block. She had to be watching for him to see what he'd do.
Sometimes she just decides that some piece of information he has included is "unencyclopedic" and removes it. He replies with his reasons for why he thinks it should be included, but she's "profoundly uniterested". To me, that's a content dispute, but if Doncram tries to fight to keep the info in, he seems always to be the one deemed "unreasonable".[21][22](line 172-line 175 section) She doesn't like his editing style, but won't discuss ways to keep in the info SHE deems "unencyclopedic". Is that how a content dispute is supposed to be dealt with?
As far as goading him, you really don't see the timing of her making those edits as goading? I'm not asking that sarcastically, I'm truly wondering. He'd just come off a week's block. If she were so very concerned about cleaning up these things, she could have done it during that week. At least two of the four articles were several months old. He came off the block, she immediately jumped on him (with reference to the block), he disagreed and she went out and found some more stuff to change. Stuff that wasn't new edits she was just responding to. I do believe that was done to annoy him and lessen his enjoyment of editing in Wikipedia. I believe that whether the edits were valid edits or not. It's the timing that makes them goading, IMO. That was what I meant by preafcing that diff with "Shortly after I said at her talk page that it seemed she was intentionally goading him,". It seemed to me that those edits were an answer, and the answer was "Yes. Here. Watch me do it some more."
Yes, I think it's adversarial. She wouldn't be at those articles if it weren't for the fact that he was. She's following him around, looking for things to criticize. I understand that she's not the only one who has problems with his stubs. But she is the one I have seen following him around and criticizing him, not just criticizing when they come across his stuff, but going looking for it, routinely for two or three years now. I think it is adversarial, and I think that there are plenty of other Admins who could deal with Doncram without someone with her history with him ever having to use Admin powers in conjunction with him. So, did she break a rule? Nope, I guess not. But, I don't think it looks good for her to go following around someone she had a history of disputes with before she became an Admin and using her Admin powers to dominate him. Judges have to recuse themselves when they're personally involved with a case. It smacks of conduct unbecoming an Admin, IMO.
Let me add that Orlady and I have had some interaction, as well. I do not think that either of us hold any past disagreements against the other personally. I'm sure we could work together productively in the future. Have I been exasperated by her? Yes, and I'd guess she has by me. Wikipedia often seems to me to be a place where She (in our cases) Who Is Most Stubborn Wins. I'm not going to say I can't be stubborn (we're having bad storms and I don't want to be struck by lightning), but I don't have the patience for it in the Wiki-world, so I usually just walk away. It also seems to me that her status as an Admin, though it supposedly doesn't, makes her opinion worth more than mine and she ends up "winning". So, yes, I get exasperated. But, if I were driving through Oak Ridge, Tennessee, I'd ask her if she wanted to have a beer or a cup of coffee, as long as we agreed not to discuss Doncram.
As far as people feeling like Doncram's unreasonable in insisting on creating the stubs, and asserting that he thinks Wikipedia policies don't apply to him, I don't think that's the case. Rather, he truly believes the stubs are NOT against Wikipedia policy. I am in agreement with him on that in most cases. I think he sometimes includes some things that could be moved to the talk page. But, in my opinion a stub with the infobox, especially if it has a picture in it, and a simple sentence saying that "Such and such was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 19??." is enough for a valid stub. Enough people had a problem with that, so that Doncram started trying to put in more, and that's where all this trouble began. He WON'T say something he can't be absolutely certain of, so he writes those factual but ambiguous statements that so bother everyone. He has repeatedly expressed willingness to discuss other wording. He has repeatedly asked Orlady to go to arbitration, in this and in other disputes. If everyone is so sure that his "substubs" are against policy, then why don't they take them to AfD? If the articles are truly against Wikipedia policy, isn't that the way to deal with them? That was my understanding. I get be bold, but then if someone disputes it, you discuss. If you still don't agree, doesn't the one who wants the article gone then have the option of AfD?
To me it looks like the only thing he won't discuss is willingly giving up the ability to create a stub without stopping at that moment to do a bunch of research. I share that desire. I pretty much quit creating stubs when they started "requiring" more than that bare sentence. Now, unless the documentation is available online and it's something I'm particularly intrested in, if there's not already an article, my pictures go only in the list article. Seeing my pictures in little tiny form on a list article is not all that exciting, so I don't post as many pictures as I used to. That's what raising the bar and forcing editors to do things they don't enjoy accomplishes, IMO.
It seems that no one wants to discuss compromises they could live with so that he could accomplish what he's trying to do without so angering all these others. What I'm getting from them is either he takes the time to do the research or he can't create a stub. They didn't need him to stop and do research when he was working tirelessly at the boring and repetitive work of tableizing (believe me, I did my share and he did many multiples as much as I did), so apparently he was considered a prolific and valuable contributor back then. I think he was around back when project members were having to repeatedly defend NRHP articles against others who questioned their notability. I think that his willingness to fight the same fight over and over was valued by the community back then. But, now that same quality is seen as stubborness at best, maybe recalcitrance, and [expletive deleted] at worst.
Hmmm. I've talked your ear off (figuratively, of course). I may have rambled off topic somewhat. But I am truly offended by the way he is being treated. The very people who accuse him of thinking policies don't apply to him are, in my view, not dealing with his oh so egregious sins using the tools built to deal with them. It looks to me like they don't like his stubs so they blocked him for personal attacks. Whether or not the things some of these people say are personal attacks, many of them could choose nicer ways to say them, but instead choose to be obnoxious, IMO. You and I obviously disagree about some of this, but we manage to discuss it rationally instead of stooping to questioning each other's intelligence. Again, I appreciate that. Lvklock (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a lot there, indeed. I am going to try and answer as briefly as possible. Re SoV's block - on the face of it there does not appear to be much of a personal attack, but then I do not know the back story. Had Orlady objected to being termed adversarial or as "the adversary"? There does seem to be imputation of Orlady's motives, which does mean commentary upon the person rather than accounts. Re Sockpuppetry - if the sock is of a banned editor, then all edits are reverted by policy regardless of value. Most edits by block evading editors are also reverted, all though the edits may be adopted by editors in good standing, simply allowing edits to stand "because they are good" does not suffice. As far as "developing things in mainspace", this is fine providing that the initial posting is sufficiently encyclopedic to stand prior to subsequent edits. There are speedy deletion criteria for good faith edits that are not of sufficient quality, for instance. It does not matter how soon a new article is improved, if it is of a substandard quality when presented it can be challenged. No, the Orlady edits are not goading - unless you are prepared to accept that doncram's edits were inflammatory, in that he presented articles and edits in a manner that had already been a matter of dispute. Since both sets of edits were, according to those making them, in good faith then either both or neither were intended to irritate or frustrate the other party. As for following doncram's edits, it is entirely possible that Orlady believes that doncram is a source of poor standard stub articles in some of the material he creates and believes it to the benefit of the project that she flags it up - since it is her contention that doncram does not wish to not post such content. It may then also follow that she will, in reviewing doncrams editing, find different issues with other otherwise legitimate contributions and attempt to resolve these as well. At the heart of this would be the perception of whether she does this because she wishes to cause doncram irritation and frustration, or because she is concerned that a portion of doncrams output is below the standard expected for published content. Without evidence the first allegation is bad faith, while the latter falls under AGF. To one point you make, I have not seen previously an allegation that she has used her admin flags to win a dispute - I believe that she has moved some content over redirect (which is an admin only ability) but only in the case of double redirect. Other than that I am unaware that she had deleted content or executed blocks in relation to these content disputes. As far as the status of admin, that really is only on a par of any other experienced editor and does not confer authority. If sysop status has been used as an "appeal to authority" I have not seen mention of it at AN. Again, this would be something that needs to be cited to an example or two. I realise that the two differing schools of thought about what constitutes lies at the heart of the issue before AN - I should say that the specific examples supplied by SoV are pretty poor quality, in that there is ambiguity within the stub over the status of a building - it may have been in the register at one point but is now removed, and may not now exist, and something (undefined) may or may not have happened at some other point in time. The issue appears to be that there are some people (and not just Orlady and SoV) that are saying that this is an unacceptable standard of stub to be placed in mainspace, and doncram insisting it is fine because it can be expanded. One group of people are saying that doncram argues for retention on the basis that it will become compliant (and there are allegations that this is not always forthcoming) with little support - that would be you and perhaps one or two more - and does not act upon or recognise the consensus that is apparently against him. This is where I find myself concerned, in this project consensus is prime and even where it goes against our own interpretation then it must still be obeyed. To that, I would suggest that the AfD argument is bogus, because AfD only looks at one article (or group of articles, if appropriate) at a time and those articles can be further improved while the process is ongoing resulting in a keep that does not address what some people allege is the source of the problem. Perhaps it is time for a RfAR, since the issue appears to be one or the other side insisting upon an interpretation of policy and practice and is unwilling (and therefore disruptive) to move from that position? Finally (and if there are bits I've missed - dammit and confound it, but nevermind) the matter of there being higher or different standards to that which once applied, and to which one prefers to edit to... It is part of the aim of the project that it should be prompted to improve its base standards, to become better. Articles that were once considered FA may now struggle to retain B class status. Images that were once acceptable with a incomplete rationale are now routinely deleted. It appears to be the nature of the beast, and the volunteers should be accepting of it - since the basis of good faith editing is to try and improve the encyclopedia. The raising of standards may bring its own problems, but it seems ludicrous to suggest that to resolve them we should lower them again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. I do see what you're saying, about seeing Doncram's edits as inflammatory if you see Orlady's as goading. It's all a matter of perception. However, no one seems to be chiding the others for assuming that Doncram intends to be inflammatory. I DO see a distinction. I see it like this. In my nice suburban neighborhood in my nice suburban town, most of my neighbors would not be happy if my truck driver brother started to park this truck this truck on the street in front of our house every night. They could even come to a consensus in the neighborhood that they would prefer he not park the truck there where they had to look at it. They might call the police and complain. But, if my brother got a good price on it and couldn't afford to have it repainted, or if he just liked it that way, as long as there were no law or statute on the town books that said he couldn't park a truck of that size on the street then they couldn't stop him from parking the truck there just because they didn't like the way it looked. If one particular neighbor started to follow him around, and call the police if he rolled through a stop sign, or if a candy wrapper blew out of his window would he not likely feel hounded by that? Or perhaps the neighbor would suddenly decide to call the animal control officer because our dog got out of the yard several times last month when the latch on the gate was broken. Would my brother be being inflammatory for parking the truck legally on the street? Would the neighbor be goading him because she didn't like what he was doing even though it was legal?
Wikipedia is the town. WP:NRHP is the neighborhood. Wikipedia policy is town law. IF the stubs that Doncram creates are indeed within Wikipedia policy, then just because the people in the neighborhood agree that they don't like them, it doesn't mean he has to stop making them. What if he agreed to have some go to AfD and to not be worked on during the process? He firmly believes they would survive AfD. If, indeed, they don't, as most of you believe, then maybe that would convince him. If not, would that convince the others they needed to leave him alone? As far as RfAR, I'm not at all up on the differences, but I do know that Doncram has repeatedly asked Orlady to engage in mediation [23] with him, but she will not.
I don't think it's ludicrous be against "progress" that might exclude these stubs if they were begun nowadays: Silk Covered Bridge is in Vermont where nomination documents are not available online. IMO, though, the picture and the minimal information in the infobox are still worth the stub. El Pino Parque Historic District is in Florida where Ebyabe stubbed everything several years ago. Most nomination documents are available online there, but for some reason this one isn't. Maine's documents aren't online either, but I'm glad I could find enough for a stub for these pictures at the Fort Point Light (Maine). In New York, the documents are available. So, even if the stub doesn't say much like this one for the Oran Community Church, the link to the document makes the information available until someone gets around to filling in the stub more. I even like stubs about places that aren't there any more like the Hop-o'-Nose Knitting Mill. That stub provides the link to the nomination document and documented information that it is no longer there, even though the NRHP hasn't gotten around to delisting it. My passion is the traveling around, the finding the places and the picture taking. I like having a place to share the pictures and a bit of the knowledge gained with others at Wikipedia. But, sorting through the documentation for interesting info and then making sure I don't just spit it back out in their words instead of transforming it into my own scintillating (hah!) prose is not my forte. Maybe a picture's not worth a thousand words, but I don't think it's worthless, either.
One point only (I read all this stuff, you know!) The policies (at least in the detail) and guidelines are descriptive and not prescriptive - while unfortunate it is possible for someone to work within the letter of a policy and then enough people review the consequences and decide to tweak the policy so those contributions are not valid... and they don't even have to rewrite the policy page. It is one of the most contentious aspects of WP:Consensus, perhaps, and why someone thought it therefore necessary to write Wikipedia:Wikilawyer. In this town it is not possible to say, "It is within the law, so you cannot stop me" because the law is written and rewritten to reflect what the citizens decide it should be today. This may not even be a town, it may indeed be a city state called... Athens. Even Socrates was unable to stand against the citizenship when they decided that his teachings were anathema. It is a far better strategy to argue ones position within the mass of the citizenry than to take a stand against it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Ahhhh. And that's exactly why I wouldn't, as my first choice, choose to live in a co-housing or communal living type community (I have a close friend who strongly advocates this). Living in a place where some group of people gets to watch what I do and change the rules against me if they don't like it is not my idea of comfortable. I lived in a condominium as a teenager where the board of directors had nothing better to do than write letters of warning when my brothers curtain blew out the window or we hung a clothes line on our patio when the dryer broke. It can all degenerate into pettiness far too easily. Maybe it's just my accountant brain, but I want to know what the rules are going in, not have them all slippery beneath me. I admit I don't really understand the nuances of consensus. In theory, it's not supposed to be like democracy where majority rules, but in practice that seems to be what happens. I'll just continue my practice of posting my pics only when I have the time and energy and inclination to contribute at the level that I understand (or make my best guess at) to be acceptable. Lvklock (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I quoted from Epipelagic's comments in this discussion, both from stronger first statement and from this amended version, in my oppose vote at new Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2. To LessHeard vanU and Epipelagic both, I hope you don't mind unduly my quoting from the unvarnished first version. I respect your right to discuss and to amend your posted comments here, but I think the unvarnished version bears repeating and I believe it is okay practice to cite it directly. I am a recent, repeated subject of SarekOfVulcan's blocks and proposals, and I don't believe I deserve the treatment, and I also perceive too-careless treatment of others has been going on. Thank you both for your thoughtful discussion here, addressing concerns of Lvklock. --doncram00:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
You've got mail
I replied to your oversight mailing list message. :)
You have a reply. The OS mailing list is a little clumsy for one to one discussion, so please feel free to use the user email facility on this page. If you want to make a request to all/other Oversighters on the issues you raised, make that clear in the email to Oversight - or you could send your questions to me which I can then circulate and request responses are sent to you. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi - I see you blocked IP 69.231.218.20 for his insane edits - don't know if you knew he's clearly also IP 69.231.228.193, blocked a day or so ago. Is there anything more that we can do to stop this, like a range block? He's very persistent and is making a lot of work, and I doubt it's over. Thanks! Tvoz/talk03:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Since the two ip's have the same first six numbers and have targeted the same articles "in a similar way" it may be worthwhile to make an SPI report and see if a small rangeblock might usefully serve to diminish disruption. If another ip becomes apparent, again with a similar address, then I would recommend this course of action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Ive been reverting changes done by IP addresses as this article has been subject to some edit warring. GiovBag has been accused of IP sockpuppetry, which Alex has been trying to prove. GiovBag has also been campaigning to get rid of any and all articles about "white" or "European-heritage" people in Latin American countries. Ive simply been reverting to the last version by a known editor.Thelmadatter (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
As the matter is now being discussed on the article talkpage, I am content to let WP Dispute Resolution processes handle the issue. I am, of course, available if anyone desires policy interpretation input. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I replied in my talk page. I hope you didn't miss it. Thanks for your concern! I personally am very frustrated with this situation. I can't believe a single user can make all these troubles and turn it against us. AlexCovarrubias( Talk? )12:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my mistake, but the way that you told me was threatening, which I do not appreciate. Also, I don't believe a thing like bad faith can be calculated. I Help, When I Can.[12]22:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I block accounts for bad faith edits most days, so I am fairly practiced at discerning it. Perhaps it was not, in your case, but it is rather... curious why you should think it appropriate to template someone who has been blocked for over 4 weeks, when nobody else seemed to regard it so. The irony of you not appreciating being "threatened" when you are nonchalant about placing a blocked template on the page of someone who has produced 6 GA's, and over 20 DYK's, over the course of some 120,000 edits is fairly acute. Perhaps your discomfort may give you some indication why I am annoyed when such an editor gets a badge of shame on their userpages. Good day. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Then get the templates deprecated. Don't threaten editors who use them legitimately. That others haven't added them may simply be because we don't trust admins to behave themselves in this area. DuncanHill (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Not really - there is no need to add these templates. As a project we are not un-emotional - user Rod hull and emu was and is a respected valued contributor (with a couple of issues)- moving forward imo we are looking to assist this user to return to beneficial contributions to the project than we are desirous of labeling his account with indefinitely rejected templates.. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Then explain to an editor why there is no need, jumping straight in with a threat of a block is not appropriate. DuncanHill (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I know exactly who the user was. I put the template on his page not trying to give him a "badge of shame" so that he won't come back. I put the template on his page because it is the truth. He was a great user. I didn't add any opinions to the template. Facts are facts. If this is truly the case, you need to add such information to the template. I honestly feel that you got mad because you may have felt that I was insulting your friend. I Help, When I Can.[12]00:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
You knew...? You knew who he is and presumably the circumstances that has lead to this current situation, and still thought that it would be to the benefit to the project (and never mind the poor bloody editor) to place templates on his userpages weeks after the event? Did it not occur to you to ask the Arbs whether this was appropriate? Anyone? Damn... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I think you are making fair points LHvU, but were a little bit too harsh in the opening of that message to IHWIC. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
In review, yes, I was initially - but now that I am aware that IHWIC was familiar with the situation I stand by my view that the action was antagonistic, or may have been interpreted as such. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I Help When I can, the templates are used and are valuable in a lot of situations, but it would've been a good idea to check with AC first. Better yet, you may wish to check with Jimbo Wales as to why he heard an appeal and updated the decision case log but did not leave an update on the user's talk. That the templates exist does not mean they must be used in every single situation where it could possibly apply. The well-intentioned placement of templates like this, weeks after the event when no further developments have arisen, is not necessarily helpful. Of course, it's possible they forgot and placing the template (or doing something else) would be helpful all around, but it's also possible they didn't forget and deliberately left things as they are. Being bold is one thing, but you need to be sensitive to the circumstances; in the event that they didn't forget, you'll be creating more unnecessary work and frustration for others if you do things without checking if it is OK beforehand. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
So far, they have provided zero sources when I noted tat they were unsourced, the edit uses language like "This slur refer to the body size of Cantonese because they are usually short and skinny. Moreover, Cantonese usually have darker skin color than those northern origin."
the "usually" just jumps at me at being WP:OR, as does "They call them barbarian because those southern people have customs similar to pacific islanders.", which is absolutely without a source at all. Pacific islanders are not related to cantonese.
I will look at this later, since it is very early morning in the UK, but I would just comment that the last comment is also a slur upon Pacific Islanders. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I have warned both of the accounts. The ip edit was a one off, likely one of the accounts not signed in. I notice that User:Dave1185 is also active in reverting and warning. Maybe you should discuss with him whether a request for semi protection might stop or slow down the vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
As per my discussion with User:Tvoz a few sections above, perhaps it is time to compile a SPI report? In this case I have not blocked as it is over 14 hours since they were last active - and they will be back with a different address next time, anyway. Perhaps you and Tvoz should have a chat? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC) ps. I trust you do not mind my reformatting of your post?
IP vandal
Hi there. I saw you blocked this IP from vandalism yesterday. This is becoming quite a problem (as I have outlined here) and we seem to have someone IP hopping and vandalising on an almost daily basis. This is the damage today. Is there anything we can do from an IP block perspective? The WHOIS analysis shows these IPs are all coming from Opal in Manchester. SFB18:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
While I appreciate your input over at the Ross article, I think it is unfair for you to arbitrarily rule out "The New York Times" article as a major reliable source. It is enough to utilize to make reference to the Alexander-Ross controversy. It can at least be included as a "controversy" without stating either way whether Ross stole anything.
I ask that you read that times article closely and reconsider. I am not going to meddle with the article itself until I have a chance to review the style in which it is presented right now. Please respond at the talk page.75.21.106.208 (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
From the edit history to the template, it appears that your last edit has not been undone so hopefully this issue is resolved. You are both editors of between 1 and 2 years experience here, so perhaps a bit better communications would be a better approach in future? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
MajorHawke
Hi LessHeard vanU. I've been trying to help User:MajorHawke understand the importance of proper sourcing when changing or adding information to articles, but it just doesn't seem to be sinking in. Since you commented on his talk page recently, would you be willing to offer another friendly (or not so friendly) reminder? 28bytes (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I have dropped a level3 vandal warning (for disruption) on them. If they continue let me know and I will drop a level4 (I note that you were earlier reluctant to template them). After that, I am afraid you will have to take it to AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
"User:Zellino" this time.. apparently now he's "a group of 16 years old students who edits from a national library" [25]. Luckily you can always count on old Ragy to inform everyone he's a sock. Check out all his opinions (newly formed) about you, me, communist propaganda on Wikipedia, "bunglers", my "dogma" etc. etc. [26] - having supposedly never met me or you or any of those users before. It was particularly fun when, having been told he shouldn't really know whether I "persistently edit-war" or about my "dogma", in his next post he asks "who is this figure"? :)
His "English" is identical, his POV and edits are identical, the fact that he's not a new user or a "group of students" is painfully obvious. Its Ragusino. And he's butchering articles all over the place with his same old single-purpose "ethnic cleansing" nonsense (Kočevski Rog, Yugoslav Front, Foibe killings, etc. [27]). --DIREKTOR(TALK)13:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
We are in a library open for everybody and this guy harrass and stalking our account obsessively repeating his same strange opinions using same words non sense against us and you can check here where questions are:
is user:Miranche a Croat Ustasha or Serb Chetnik 103 years old?
Now we can confirm our opinion: in this project many guys find a battleground for propaganda and conjectures! You are admin and you have a responsability here: sure for us wiki is not very important but we can honestly collaborate. Good luck!--Zellino (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Indef blocked as a sock or meatpuppet, edits rolled back per policy, and Fainites noted. If DIREKTOR wants to add this account to the sockpuppet page, then that is fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
We are the Ragusino. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. We will copy-paste text we think makes sense because someone proof-read it for us.. our suspicions have been confirmed.. you will be assimilated.. :) --DIREKTOR(TALK)14:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
LessHeard vanU, this guy has a fixation but why he doesn't go to play tennis or basket for pastime and why he doesn't stay away from our edits?
i don't vandalize, i simply edit too much. Please don't threaten me with getting admins involved, thanks....MajorHawke (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
SPA and possible sock
I thought I'd bring User:Lord Sbur to your attention. The account is very likely a sock, though I can't figure out who's exactly.. Over the years there have been so many banned accounts its difficult to remember all of them, much less their editing styles. In any case its a very obvious SPA. The user's edits show a very specific and pronounced political agenda. He lists sources, to be sure, though he has been caught falsely quoting some of those that are available for verification, and much of the rest are very low quality. --DIREKTOR(TALK)14:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
LessHeard vanU, you are ignorant and previous guy is idiot and troll. Now what is your goal? Why don't ban this crap who stays all day long to break balls to us? I will ban you both and will push your accountes in foibe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.126.34 (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I am fortunate in that I have only been exposed to "Ragusino Inc., and also have no idea whose sock this is. I suggest that once your topic ban is determined, then you can present the case against these edits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, if I'm not mistaken my topic ban is up today or tommorow or something like that.. the latest thing was an expansion of its scope, not of its duration. Fainites is an ok guy, he's perfectly correct in most of what he does, it just ticks me off to be singled out as "the troublemaker". I probably overdid in my response on my talkpage, I had just convinced myself "its a one-time thing", "I have a ton of work to do anyway", when I get slammed with an expansion. So now I've got to check the Lord's sources, discuss, edit.. To quote Roger Murtaugh, I'm getting too old for this shit. I think I understand why people ask you to block them for their own good :) --DIREKTOR(TALK)19:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Blocked??
Excuse me, I'm MajorHawke and everytime i log-in and try to look at anything besides the special page that tells me i have new messages, it logs me off. I think i have been blocked, and i have reason to believe you did it. Did you?? I got your warnings, and i stopped editing as much, and out of know where you block me without telling me?? (If you did block me) Anyway, yeah, thanks. MajorHawke, 5-11-11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.104.242 (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi MajorHawke! As far as I can tell, you are not blocked by anyone - there are no entries in your block log, and LHVU has not blocked user:MajorHawke, either. You must experience some technical problems. Login status is traced via cookies. The symptoms you have are compatible with cookie problems. Take a look at WP:COOKIES and see if that is of help. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Per Stephan Schulz, you were not blocked by me or anyone else. There is also a message on the log on page regarding some editors having difficulty logging in, which may also assist you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Editing that page is a torture. I honestly don't know what happened, or how people manage to discuss things there in long threads, it takes me almost an hour to type anything there due to lag and servers breaking down...
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I am sure that someone has sorted it out - but I was on my lunchbreak and went back to work after posting to your talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, unfortunately we don't have a barnstar for nice use of metaphorical language, but if we did, you'd get it for this. Well done! Drmies (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Could use a pair of eyes
Hi LessHeard, sorry to bother you again about Foxhound. There's an article he nominated for AFD, Yam Ah Mee (AFD here). At the AFD he's now made three "delete" comments including his original deletion nomination. I redacted one of them yesterday by changing "delete" to "comment" but he's added a third today. He appears to be on a crusade to delete the article. That said, I'm not here to ask for any action, merely to request that you keep an eye on the AfD in case Foxhound continues to disrupt it by adding more delete votes. Thanks, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I shall. In the meantime make a note of these multiple votes, and Foxhounds responses, on the AfD talkpage, so the reviewing admin can review it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
After the AfD I think I shall bring up the issue of Foxhound/otherdictionariesarebetter and WP:Competence at ANI. There is a difference between not knowing how things should be and not wanting to care. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to repeatedly violate policy and refuse to listen to others telling you so, you don't exactly have the right to complain about being reported. Your other contributions don't mean anything if you're here to edit obtrusively. StrPby (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
vandalism
No I didn't look at my assertion and see if you agree. The reference given leads to a tertiary source that's out of date. Reverting your edit. Please assume the principle of charity before you revert. Thnanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.76.215 (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
What's it about?
Hi there. May I ask what the issue with User:SudhirRahichamar was? My only involvement is that I helped someone (It might have been an IP or maybe him?) some time ago with correcting facts on Chamar. Yesterday [redacted username] approached me at my talk page for some more help. I must say his claim sounded reasonable on first sight (something about castes and professions, I can't say I'm an expert). Now I see his edit at my talk page was completely removed from the history, so I'm curious. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Another editor has sent me an email clarifying the matter, so my curiosity has been satisfied and no more clarifications are required. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I have removed the editors name and will suppress your edits from the edit history, although the content will remain here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that when one attempts to edit a protected page the length of time the page is protected for is indicated. If disruption resumes it would be possible to (s)protect the article for a tariff of 1 month - but actually lift the protection after a couple of days. Hopefully the vandal editor(s) will see the one month restriction and not bother, perhaps even find a new hobby. In any case, it is worth a try. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I understand what you mean. I was just noting that this article will always be vandalized. And while that goes for all unprotected Wikipedia articles, vandalism on sexual pages are usually high. The Anal sex article is one of those, and has been for some time. It only recently came out of protection after a long lockdown, and I suppose it can be argued that (after it did) the vandalism wasn't at its worst -- always vandalized at every hour or so -- but it probably would have gotten back to that point soon enough.
Sex related articles will always be a target for vandalism (especially the puerile humour type) but "Anal sex" seems to be - if you pardon the analogy - something of a bullseye... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's always assholes who do it. They go after the sex articles and don't stop until they've rectum. HalfShadow20:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the ANI thread involving Sergeant Cribb / Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus: that previous account was also declared as a "clean start" from a prior one. I believe that I know the identity of the original account, although -- assuming I am correct -- I don't see anything that would bias against its continued anonymity. However, as I'm not wholly certain of my suspicions, nor an admin besides, I though it best to inquire whether you felt anything should be done on the topic at all. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Unless there was a good indication at the time what the previous account was, I do not think it can be commented upon now. However, if the fact that Hyperdoctor Phogghrus was also a WP:Clean start account can be evidenced in a diff then this is germane to the current discussion - as the Sgt/Dr should be well aware of the requirements in operating such an account. If you are not comfortable in bringing this to the ANI discussion you could provide it to me, and I can present it. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for being candid. I am not concerned whether you had previous dealings with TreasuryTag, since that would require knowing what the previous identity was - and that would negate the purpose for desiring a clean start, but that you should have been aware of the restrictions relating to creating such an account. People make mistakes all the time, and being permitted to start afresh and become a better contributor as a result is of benefit to the project. It is for that reason I have considerable antipathy toward abuse of that privilege. If bringing this further issue to light results in a more cautious approach by you toward potential concerns relating to a past editing history, I am content to note it only. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi and thank you for your message in my talk page . I will do just as you said and will never post any message in his talk page . Anyway , in fact there is an auto Google translator from Persian(Farsi) to English , but don't know how much would it help : [31]. I translated my Azerbaijani message myself to English to avoid misunderstanding here :[32] Thanks again , --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
When I read your userpage I noted the Iranian related userboxes, knew the script was not Arabic and assumed it was Farsi. There is no problem with further posting to the other editors talkpage, but do so in English (and civilly). Most things can be resolved with a polite discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure ! I think editors with more contributions (I have 5,479) may do their best to avoid misinterpretation from newer editors .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi again ! As I promised not to use any language other than English in English Wikipedia , don't know what to do when I encountered [offensive] Persian comment in my talk page :here . Can you take a look ?! Thanks again --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I have tried the translation pages, and they can only decipher part of the text. From the bit I was able to translate I do not see what the offensive part is, although perhaps saying that Persians are not Aryans may be considered offensive culturally? Perhaps you can post a translation on this page, and explain why it may be offensive to you or others? What you can do, outside of ignoring the other editor, is to write to their talkpage asking them to write in English - it would be fine to write the message in both English and Persian, making sure you note it is a translation. If there is a problem of civility with this editor, I can then warn them appropriately. However, this depends on me being able to understand what was said and what it meant to you - so I need to be guided by your help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't know if I translate it myself , Is it reliable or not ? This Persian sentence means :
"آیا منظور شما از تغییر سازنده این است که به دروغ مثل یک نفر که خودش را به ندانم کاری زده بنویسم"
By "Unconstructive edit" do you mean I have to write like some one [--like you ,Alborz]-- who falsely pretends to know nothing [but knows the truth himself]....--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
User talk:186.211.99.74 does not seem to be getting the message over his repeated edits on this article (possibly others looking at his talk page). If he is obsessed with his own viewpoint of musical genres, then perhaps my comments are insufficient to stop him. A spell in the cooler perhaps ? Cheers,
I am surprised you have not come across the "Rock Musice Genre Changing Vandal" before. I have no idea whether it is one or more individuals, but these edits are quite common - they change genres according to their ears and opinions, and never discuss. I block on sight, and much the same happens if they are reported to AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
OK. I am not a great lover of any 'music genre' listing on Wikpedia, because it tends to perpetuate the restrictive categorisation of almost anyone, dependent upon someone's opinion and often regardless of said musician's ability, or reviewer's nous. Or to put it another way, Allmusic etc., show no more globally desirable acumen for this type of listing than any other. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is a mirror, rather than a light. However, the mindless/opinionated 'I think it that he/she/them is this type of music' attitude of most IPs, descends the whole debate to the state of ludicrous. Thanks again, one day I will ride a low horse !
In light of your prior admonishment of Tarannon103 you might want to take a look at this posted at the top of Noq's user page (not the bottom of his talk page), this posted at the top of the Wikipedia:Copyright violations policy page replacing the policy header template, and this discussion resulting from the speedy deletion of Society of Portrait Sculptors as a near-verbatim copyvio of this website. His reactions, ineptness with tools, tossing around of terms such as "criminal", acknowledgment of but refusal to learn or accept Wikinorms, and statements such as, "And if you ban, I shall set up another editorship and ther ain't nothing you can do but steal my computer," are disturbing. Whatever you want to do, if anything, is fine, of course, it's your call, but I wanted you to know that the drama is continuing. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Since I consider it less of a time sink to block the editor indefinitely, and his sockpuppets as they arise, than the community to try and discuss how they may be eased into complying with standard WP policy and preactice, that is what I shall do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Request
Hello LessHeard vanU, I'm fairly new to editing, although I've been using wikipedia for a while, so please excuse me if this is the wrong area to talk to you!
I have a problem, some ip that goes by '89.126.11.83' vandalized an article i created, that was being perfected and built up by other users, cleaned up ect, then this ip adress came on and vandalized it by changing the positive words to negative ones, making untrue/unverifiable statements overall hate speech.
I've managed to figure out how to get the page back to how it was and i've done so, but if you check history you can see where they ruined the page. Is there anything that could be done to prevent them doing it again?
Thanks for your time and for reading all this, have an awesome day!
-KiddRock123 =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiddRock123 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Ummm... wow[33]. I've never seen a warning so well craft and well balanced with agf, repercussions and thorough descriptions of the potential offenses that warranted such. A valued learning experience (reading it). Thanks for being a calm voice all over Wikipedia. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Valid post. Hey Mark, how the heck are you doing these days? Good to have reason to stop by and make a note on your talk. Cheers and best., :) — Ched : ? 14:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
LoL, I was going to suggest the first two people in this section, but then I realized I actually like the second one, and the first one is me... it stopped seeming like a good suggestion at that point. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN21:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thought I should leave a note to tell you that I have reset the block of User:Foxhound66. It is clear that he used 147.188.254.154 (talk·contribs) to evade the block and carry on editing. If you have any reservations or believe I've erred, feel free to do reverse etc. Thanks, Woody (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Not only do we appear to have a WP:Duck, but it is apparently returning to the same pond... The most obvious edit is the very first one by the ip, where they continue a discussion involving Foxhound66, but very many of them are to pages very recently edited by the same user. Even where edits are to pages not recently edited by Foxhound66, they are to the same general Royal Navy and Singapore military interest topics as those found in Foxhound66's contrib history. I certainly think the ip should be blocked, but I will leave any decision regarding a reset of Foxhounds block to you (although you might wish to bring it to wider community input if you are thinking of extending the tariff). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree that the IP is clearly foxhound66, I have worked with him often and that edit pattern seems to be his exactly. G.R. Allison (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I was hesitant to continue this discussion here, on a user's talk page, but I feel compelled to do so, given Foxhound66's continued block evasion and awful etiquette toward other users. It is my firm belief that Foxhound66 is actually an account being used to evade an indef block imposed on Jeneral28(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), who was indefinitely blocked back on May 29, 2009. Foxhound66's account was created the day after this indef block was imposed, on May 30, 2009, and I think the evidence strongly suggests that the two users are related.
Both Jeneral28 and Foxhound66 also act similarly. They both consistently blank their talk pages after other users edit it. They both attack Wikipedia and its users (for example, see: [34], [35], [36], [37]). Finally, as noted above by other users, both have a tendency to go back to their previous edits while logged in on a sock account and continue previous conversations started from their "master" account. For example, see this edit by FoxHound66, this edit by Neptune123456, this edit by Tomcat96, this edit by a confirmed IP-sock of Foxhound66, etc.
In summary, unless there is another user with bad manners who is affiliated to the University of Birmingham who likes Jennette McCurdy, Toto, international political economy, and two specific Singapore girls schools, and who happened to create their account on the day after Jeneral28 was blocked, I think there is pretty clearly a connection between these two accounts. I have compiled evidence in slightly more detail in my sandbox.
I am posting this here because I am unsure what to do with this information. Is the evidence sufficient? If so, would filing a formal sockpuppet investigation be appropriate? LessHeard vanU, I apologize for discussing this matter on your talk page. Thank you, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Part of the remit of adminship is to allow discussion between parties (I've had some where I wasn't even a participant...!) in pursuit of resolution of issues on the sysop's talkpage. Also, of course, it is not my talkpage but a space provided by WP/WM which I have responsibility for. In other words - no problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Dave asked me to comment here. Poking around some, it appears that the technical data for Jeneral28 and the other 2009 accounts has expired, so checkuser would not be able to draw any conclusions there. Also, checkusers generally do not disclose connections between IPs and named accounts. However, I think the analysis of the behavior makes a lot of sense. TNXMan13:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it is sufficient to make an SPI report under the Jeneral28 case. I would comment that it is my understanding that it is only the data contained within the editing histories of normal editors that is discarded after a few months and that information regarding proven sockmasters and their socks might be retained. Further, CU technology can only provide a comparison of raw data while those inhabiting the SPI/CU page are rather adept at spotting stylistic and other similarities. If a case can be made for linking Foxhound66 and Jeneral39 then the issue of the formers block being reset becomes moot - they should be indeff'ed as a sock of a banned user. My only regret in this matter is that many of the edits by current block evading accounts are actually more than quite good. If Foxhound66/Jeneral39 were able to not make asinine comments regarding other editors and the articles they have edited, and would not hold practice and policy which does not meet their opinion with contempt, then no-one would be inclined to investigate whether they have a past. That is the real shame, I feel. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your time, consideration, and advice. I agree that Foxhound66 has contributed some very good edits to Wikipedia, and this is another reason why I have been very hesitant to bring this forward. I have suspected that the two accounts may have been related for some time now. However, I had hoped that the user would change their ways and work more constructively with other users; I have therefore held back from doing anything about it until now. I have put my regrettable feelings aside, however, and I have filed an SPI report here. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
An FYI to both LHvU and any talk page stalkers watching this section, as the SPI was checkuser-declined as stale, I've requested neutral admin and SPI clerk User:HelloAnnyong review the evidence provided to make a decision on whether there is enough similarity to block indef as a socking case. This is in lieu ot going to ANI, where I don't believe there will be any useful conclusion, especially considering Foxhound's current block expires tomorrow. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Your block of SeaGazEd
SeaGazEd (talk·contribs), whom you blocked the other day, has posted an unblock request on the unblock-l mailing list. I don't know if you're subscribed to that list, but this appears to be a good-faith request from a new user who indicates that he was unaware of our policies on external links and simply added a few links to his publication's website because a reader had suggested it after seeing another publication similarly linked. Would you have any objection to unblocking, with a link referring the user to relevant policies?
Also, I wonder if this might have been a situation where a warning would have been useful before blocking. Please let me know what you think. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to unblocking, of course - indefinite in my lexicon always being a period that is determined by necessity only. I am not subscribed to the unblock list. My experience of spam contributors is that in nearly every case where they do take notice of a warning, it is to increase their activity before the guillotine falls - and they very rarely do take notice. This appears to be only spam block that I have been referred to, as far as I can remember, and I believe my modus operandi to be the most expedient. I am, of course, open to persuasion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
edit warring by dynamic ip address
this dynamic ip address keeps deleting the same piece of (cited) information repeatedly-
the sentence it deletes is- "They are reported to speak a dialect of Yue, with no linguistic relation to Vietnamese"
the three ips were -71.134.7.29, 71.129.48.220, and 71.129.61.109
I don't know how to report a dynamic ip, and I don't know how to warn it either (neither do I see how that would be effective since its ip keeps changing), can you stop this guy from his constant deleting?ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
As you note, it is difficult to block the account(s) of an editor using dynamic ip addresses - so the better option may be to block access to the article. I have reviewed the edit history, and other than the edit warring ip's noted above there have only been two ip editors since the beginning of the year, with one edit each. I shall semi protect the article for 5 days in the hope that the anonymous editor will lose interest. Should the editor return subsequently, you may request further short semi protections at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or this talkpage or at any other friendly admin talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
June 2011
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Dude, was calling Δ a "rude fucker" really necessary? Just present the facts and let the community decide.— BQZip01 —talk01:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
My point is exactly that the editor concerned is rude (that is, aggressive and inflexible) in their interactions - i.e. their contributions - with other editors under certain circumstances, for which they have previously been blocked and subsequently banned and only permitted to return under the provision that they amend that behaviour. My amplifier was perhaps un-necessary, I admit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
ip personal attack
The ip called me a "dumba**" and a moron, and proceeded to edit my userpage to leave a notice.
As the ip is very likely very mobile, I have not enacted a block - but I have indef blocked the account who was promising to edit war once they were confirmed. Have you attempted to discuss the fact that YouTube (or any other site) video's are not WP:RS, where yours were? If you can start a discussion on the accounts page and get some meaningful dialogue, I can then lift the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
There you go, I am such the besterist admin everandever that stuff gets sorted without me actually having to do anything... much like how the encyclopedia gets written, in fact! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The thread about the interaction ban between Haymaker and me was archived without being closed. Would you mind pulling it out so we can end this? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be easier to simply proceed with getting an interaction ban agreement between the two of you agreed, and then finding a couple of admins willing to co-monitor it with me (I am assuming that I will be acceptable to both parties - I would be willing to stand back if necessary.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd be content with you, our interactions have always been decent. I'm not set any anybody, there are 1 or 2 admins I would be reluctant about but no one I would rule out all together. My primary reservation regards the messaging war that Ros and I have been locked in low these many months. Ros has changed the term "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" across scores (probably hundreds) of articles. I admit that I have done the inverse, we revert each other, occasionally we come to a shared consensus but usually we don't. This has probably constituted the majority of our interaction and it has certainly been the most contentious part. I don't to put Ros in a position where I can no longer contest these changes (and I imagine she would dislike being unable to contest similar changes from my end). Ros has showed up at some discussions that I wouldn't have expected and I admit that looking at Ros's contributions led to at least 1 AfD that I can think of that I probably wouldn't have seen otherwise.
What I propose is that for the next 3 months, neither of us edit each others' edits (specifically, that would mean altering paragraphs/links/templates/categories/etc. that the other has edited in the last year), each of us abstain from changing the terms "pro-life", "anti-abortion" and "pro-family" (I'm open to more suggested terms from Ros) and we each abstain from AfDs/RfCs that the other has commented in, unless we have previously edited that article. Naturally reverting blatant vandalism would be exempt and any questions would be brought to you. I want this to work, I'm flexible, lets talk this out. - Haymaker (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings about a user:talk page ban, but I wouldn't oppose it. - Haymaker (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
With regard to the issues surrounding "pro-life"/"anti-abortion", I would prefer that there is a moratorium on such changes - but where one phrase was not made by one party then the other would be free to change it, the interaction ban does not cover it. What might be possible would be for both parties agree to a WP:V standard; that the language used by whichever prime source for that definition is the one used. If the source describes the subject as pro life then that is what is used, likewise the subject is anti abortion when that is how they are described in the major source. This would mean having to check the references in each case (and realising the other party can do the same, and challenge any incorrect attribution) when looking to make that change. The benefit to this would be that if any other uninvolved editor reverts the change it can be challenged per WP:V. I would also suggest that changing the source to change the terminology would be unacceptable unless the new source is demonstrably better than that previously provided. To be honest, if the parties here are unable to subscribe to reflecting the sources used (not changing the phrases) then this exercise may yet fail to proceed - I am not interested in refereeing a WP:BATTLE relating to pro life/anti abortion advocacy. Is this agreeable, and may it be included in a voluntary agreement? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It's unnecessary because I do not go about changing "pro-life" to "anti-abortion." Haymaker claims that I've made "hundreds" of changes of people's and organizations' self-identification from "pro-life" to "anti-abortion," but that's patently untrue; I have not made a single such change, and, as I said to him, he should be ashamed of himself for making such blatantly false claims about another user, particularly at an admin noticeboard. Even diffs of my changing "pro-life legislation" to "anti-abortion legislation" are prior to an RfC which determined that neither term should be used (because "Mr. Y is pro-life" implies "he identifies as pro-life," but the closest analogous implication in "pro-life legislation" is "its proponents believe it is pro-life," and why should we, in Wikipedia prose, endorse their view and not that of the legislation's opponents who might call it "anti-choice"?), but rather that the effects of the legislation should be described. Since then I have not made such changes, choosing instead to replace the taboo phrase with a description of the legislation. Haymaker, on the other hand, has on a number of occasions stalked me to pages and restored the term long after the discussion, in which he participated, determined that it was not to be used.
TLDR: this restriction does not address any arguments that have occurred between Haymaker and me, and so Haymaker's request for it, like his request that I not be allowed to comment in RfCs or AfDs where he has commented or like his request that PhGustaf not be allowed to revert his edits, seems to be made in bad faith. I'm also wary of any additional restriction that is content-related rather than behavioral, given that poor behavior is why the ban is needed. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The fact that I'm here, trying to make this work should inspire a sufficient amount of faith. I named PhGustaf as a proxy when we were talking about possible proxies but we're not anymore so that ship has pretty we sailed. If you do not go about changing those terms than it shouldn't be a big deal to agree to not go about changing them for the next 3 months, should it? I'm willing to do the same and if you've got any you want included put them up and we'll talk about them. I'm still very reluctant on the AfD/RfC front but if it is what it takes to make this work I'm willing to put that aside. - Haymaker (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
How generous of you, you drop a frivolous request that you never had any evidence to support. And my answer is the same here as it was there: Any editing restriction of any kind should be based on evidence that the user has abused the privilege. You've got some nerve asking for this based purely on your desire that I not make certain edits. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
As the privilege does not exist yet it cannot have been abused. If changing these terms is not something you do, show some good faith, humor me an agree not to do it for the next 3 months. - Haymaker (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay.... So we do not include content based concerns, because they can be dealt with via standard dispute resolution mechanisms? Then we are left with the simple interaction ban, and how it is to be applied on pages outside of articles and their talkpages? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Ros and I are the only ones who edit a lot of these isolated articles. I'm not going to walk away from the right to edit them without at least these minor assurances. - Haymaker (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no restraint in the articles you might choose to edit, but only instances that effects a prior edit by the other party. These topics may be lightly trafficked, but surely not so to the point that you and Roscelese are the only editors? On the basis that WP is going to last forever, it is surely not necessary to police every potential "error in representation" made by the other party? If there is an error, it will be fixed at some point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Its like you said at one point, we don't just want to wait for 3 months and then have a frenzy of reverting the minute this thing ends. - Haymaker (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Your concern mentioned above is why I suggested that part of the job of the moderation team should be addressing concerns one of us has with an edit of the other that we can't just revert and that is unlikely to be reverted by someone else. Does that work? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The terms themselves are obviously not; I don't go about making the changes you claim I make, and I don't have any objection to you changing "anti-abortion" to "pro-life." On general principle, however, I oppose adding clauses to any sort of restriction just because someone feels like it. Moreover, as you know well, you make plenty of POV and synthy edits that would not be encompassed by your proposed restriction, so it's very silly to say "what you're proposing is just unnecessary because I've suggested something else." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Me, and two other admins (because of human nature, when there are instances of disagreement between admins for the sake of expediency the majority opinion is followed). I would hope that both of you would be able to nominate a sysop who would be acceptable to the other party... and hopefully they will agree to help moderate this voluntary ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Outing
Thank you for the reply. I agree that I have linked to my blog which says where I went to school. But how about the year I went to school? That is particularly creepy and according to the user here he found that information in other places. Does that blog link make any bit of information about me found online fair game to post to Wikipedia? If so that's a bit worrisome. John Milito (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Once a connection to a RL identity has been made, it is difficult to limit how that may be used (for instance, it would be very easy to find the enrollment lists of a school and note how many individuals of a certain name there might be). What certainly can be done is to remind the other editor that WP:COI does not disallow an individual from editing an article, but only demands an exact compliance with policy (which, of course, is what should happen in every instance for everyone!) when they do and attempting to effect another editors contributing to an article by raising the issue of a potential conflict of interest may well be regarded as harassment - especially when there is no issue regarding policy but rather in regard to a content dispute. I feel that this would be a more effective way of limiting the exposure of your RL details. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I understand your point. There's a line in WP:OUTING/WP:PRIVACY that I thought might give some protection in this instance: "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research"". In any case, a reminder would be appreciated. This is very much a dispute over content. Thank you for your time. John Milito (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I have responded on my talkpage. I would have not bothered to investigate had it not been for the removal of a notable art writer from the colleges notable alumni section with little reason for doing so. The graduation date was mentioned on the blog and the blog was linked to other things that made identity very clear. I thought it was interesting that you attended the same college as the notable art writer that you removed from the alumni list. It was even more interesting that you attended the college at the same time at one point. That is simple math. I also discovered that you had made a lot of edits to the article about your society and had created bios for past society members and involved yourself in deletion debates over those bios never once mentioning that you are a member of the society as well. You only mentioned your connection after I exposed you with information that you provided on Wikipedia. I think anyone would have questioned your neutrality after seeing all of that. I've never had to deal with a potential COI before.SunRiddled (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
LessHeard, I also responded to you on my talk page and provided some links. This is beyond just a content dispute. If he had gave a good reason for removing content I would have never gave it a second thought and would have never made the connection that I made about his identity. He brought that on himself. It does not "fit" is not a good reason to remove content. I think this editor has violated policy on more than one occasion spanning years.SunRiddled (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello LessHeard vanU. I am wondering what the etiquette is regarding removal of the personal attack on the IP's talk page User talk:71.10.61.68 that you blocked a few minutes ago. While I've had worse things said in my time here it is mildly annoying that it is on there. If you think that I should just ignore it then that is fine too. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk20:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, any perceived personal attack can be removed by anyone. You have to balance the fact that some person believes you to represented by the larvae of a fly, against a potential admission that you are irritated by such idiocy. If removing, add something like "more in sorrow than anger" to your edit summary? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You brought a smile to my face and your perspective has helped me to realize that ignoring them works pretty darn well. Thanks again and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD | Talk20:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems that there was consensus that the post warning edits, although ungreat, were not vandalism sufficient to warrant a block. Of course, if the reported editor thinks they have gotten away with it and resumes then they can be re-reported. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello... saw your post. Frankly, there was nothing incorrect in blanking the information. ArbCom blocked/banned the individual; unless there is information to the contrary, they did not state that we could not delete the contact information. Furthermore, there is nothing unusual about blanking pages of banned users, and we don't typically maintain off-site contact information for someone who has violated Wikipedia's rules to such a degree that they manage to get banned. Lastly, there most certainly was nothing that could be described as an edit war. You can of course decide as you see fit, but it would be more appropriate to leave the information off of the page. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy16:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts. Mazyarkhakpour made some edits in December 2010 in much the same vein as an socking editor in 2007... They might be a sockpuppet, or a meatpuppet, but I am inclined to think they are simply someone with the same opinion regarding certain products - if they are the same person I am wondering why they didn't feel anxious to continue advocating those changes in 2008 and 2009 and not since last year either. Given the lack of evidence for a sustained campaign by one person I do not think blocking or linking the account to the moribund sockmaster is appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting result. Another account created on the day of the latest block (30 June) editing similar articles; one unused sleeper; and an older account editing similar articles while pretending to be an incontinent woman. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
The "diaper" issue is interesting, in that any edits to those issues as well as the usual Singapore (military)/Royal Navy by future accounts is going to be a valuable marker. If no such instances occur, I wonder if that account is a family member who JeneralFoxHound used. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Re:ANI
LHvU, I think you may have misread my comments on Xonus's talk page. I said "I could plaster your talk page with warnings". But I did not, instead I put forward an explanation of why I had reverted the article, and links to a number of core policies. I am not against an alternative point of view being presented, as long as sources meet WP:RS. Heck, they don't even need to be in English. Arabic/Farsi/Persian sources would be acceptable as I could ask for independent verification by readers of those languages if i needed to. I've commented at ANI myself. Mjroots (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Psssst....
FYI, perhaps you failed to notice, but Anthropologist's "accursed" faux pas was already brought to his attention by Philbrick. I think you'll probably agree that a second, dedicated TP section is a bit of an overkill, no? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I am crestfallen that someone else noticed, and before me. This obviously infers that people are actually reading the statements... Surely nothing good can come of that!? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I am, however, indifferent that notice was already placed on RA's talkpage - am I supposed to read it before posting, or something, hmm...?
Given the circumstance? Of course not. I can certainly understand a sudden onset of tunnel vision, debilitating the peripheral vision of even those most truly circumspect, given so delicious the opportunity. Silly me. Never mind then. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I have looked back in my archives a year, and cannot find the issue concerned - although I certainly remember the name, your account, and the style. Can you give me the relevant link/diff, so I can refresh my memory and be best informed what action might be appropriate? LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked, for only 31 hours in the first instance. If they continue on this or another address, let me know and I will respond again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit as unsourced - there is no point in blocking the account because it is a UK ISP who typically issue addy's per logon, and this edit was over 30 hours ago as at this time. I am afraid it is a case of reverting when noticed, and if you don't want to deal with any potential grief just let me know and I will do the necessary. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand about the IP blocking issue. Like you say, I didn't want to deal with any potential grief. But I think that, eventually, someone will have to. Our friend's been advised repeatedly about WP's policies on referencing, burden of proof etc. I may as well just have it out with him. Ultimately, pussyfooting around this clown only harms the encyclopedia. Thank you for following up. LordVetinari13:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see the latest discussion at User talk:Wustenfuchs. An admin has proposed that Wustenfuchs accept a six-month topic ban from "subjects/people related to facism (broadly construed)" in return for unblock. Since you're the blocking admin, please comment on whether this deal is acceptable. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Not a lot, really. You have done the only thing I would have suggested, which is to request another reviewer - maybe there is a GA Reviewers page, or something, where other reviewers can respond to such a request? This is, I feel, another instance where the fact that everyone is a volunteer means you have to be a bit diplomatic if you want things altered; don't lose your temper, Andrew. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello again. It looks like IP 71.10.61.68(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) that you blocked last month has returned. If you take a look here [41] you will note that this new IP 173.99.127.162(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) attempted to insert the same unsourced info from last month and one minute later the 71 IP edited the article again. Although there is a differing range of IP numbers trying to insert the info in the article they all seem to geolocate to Kansas so I think suspect that these are the same person(s). I don't think that there are any admin actions to be taken at the moment but I would like to request that you put Joss Ackland's article on your watchlist. Normally I wouldn't request this but several days worth of lightening storms in my neighborhood have left me internet connect a bit dodgy and I would like to know that other eyes are watching the situation if I can't. If you are too busy to do this I sure will understand. Thanks for you time and have a wonderful weekend. MarnetteD | Talk20:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
My weekend has been made better by putting Joss Ackland's article on my watchlist... If this issue continues I suppose we will have to consider whether to semi protect the article or inquire of SPI if a rangeblock is feasible, but that will likely wait until your connectivity is more stable. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance and suggestions. Thinks seem to have normalized here. The IPs haven't returned since my request but, as they were tenacious about this last month we will just have to see how things unfold. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk17:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I don't think an apology is needed in this case Night, LessHerad spelled out exactly what his intentions were and why. Also for the record if you think you deserve an apology then also stating that an editor is out of their mind could also be deemed as an attack and too would need an apology. Mo ainm~Talk12:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
By now he has edited his comment. This was his original comment, what I consider rude and threatening without any need for it. An reply you do not expect from an administrator and certainly not an attempt to open a discussion. Night of the Big Windtalk13:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The post was edited to correct a typo and the substance hasn't changed and my original comment stays the same. Mo ainm~Talk14:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Less: Your message on Night's talk page was not, that I can see, uncivil (certainly not in the WP:CIVIL sense). At worst it is slightly brusque (between which and “emphatic” the line is quite thin) and could benefit from slightly more “please” and “will regrettably have to”. Note that I've here looked only on the message and not at the actions that presaged them, and thus I have not judged whether the issuance of the warning as such was warranted, nor whether the relevant actions necessitated a greater level of emphasis to get the point across. Night: So far as I can tell Less hasn't edited his message except to fix a spelling mistake, so saying “By now he has edited his comment […]” is effectively dishonest (even if you did not intend it to be) in that it leaves the reader with the impression that Less has altered his original comment in order to avoid scrutiny (which he has not done). It also seems from your comments, on your user talk page, that you need to go reread the part of WP:3RR where it says “The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.” as well as WP:BRD where it explains that the expected course for an editor whose bold edit has been reverted is to then go to the talk page to discuss it and gain consensus for his proposed changes. Purely from your comments and responses here and on your talk page (without even looking at your edits or other discussions) I would have suspected you of being engaged in Edit Warring (for which editors are regularly blocked for 24 hours for a first offence). My strong suggestion would be to assume that Less is trying to help, heed his advice, and ask for his help; rather than focus on what you (right or wrong) perceive as “rudeness”. Opting for a confrontational approach here is not likely to lead to a constructive outcome. --Xover (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey LessHeard, how are you? I have email enabled but the feature isn't showing up for me. Also, on page names, what's the procedure again to change an article name? Wanted to change Wendi Deng to Wendi Deng Murdoch which is how she styles herself. Discussion on talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I am fine, thank you. I can see your "email this user" link on your talkpage, so that seems to be okay. At the top of a WP page, to the right of the "view history" tab is a five pointed star (clear if the page is not watched - blue if it is; clicking changes the status), and a down button for a drop down list with "move" option. Click that, choose the new name and give the reason for the move in the fields provided and click any of the appropriate fields. If moving an article page you will be prompted to move the talkpage also. I think that sums up the technical aspect - you have to sort out the consensus between you. Cheers, and nice to see you back. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info on the page move. I was thinking of putting up a move tag to alert others to the discussion. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
You might be able to help
I've not come across a situation like this before and thought you might be able to help. There is a proposal to merge this article here with this article here. The thing is though, the subject of the bio's correct name is Thomas Miller Beach. I've add a ref from Beach's own book to support this. Is it possible to just delete the incorrectly name bio and remove the merge tag. --Domer48'fenian'20:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
As there is a merge discussion I suggest you should put forward this suggestion (delete the incorrect title), as the source for the wrong one is fairly poor - it itself being an encyclopedia article taken from other sources - against the ones provided by the one under the correct name. It is possible for merge discussions to arrive at a consensus other than to merge/not merge. I also suggest that you could offer an alternative of merging the histories but keeping the content the same as the Thomas Miller Beach, as it is the better referenced and - according to the sources - correct title. Whatever the decision, it is best that it is a consensus following a discussion than a fait accompli by deletion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It appears that you have already transcluded the Request, and all I needed to do was remove a bit of the prompt. The request is live. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Say, do you think you could stop busting people's proverbials at the talk page? Everyone is trying to improve that article and you keep hopping in saying we can't use this, we can't use that---well who made you the expert? You don't know what you're talking about half the time. Give people a break once in a while, it does wonders for the complexion.75.21.155.189 (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Who made me the expert? The Elves of Curnow, as per the remit given by Hecate. Prove me wrong, and you can write crap over the Bob Ross article to your hearts content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC) ps. I have no idea what you are referring to, but I am aware that there are many others who have cleared up after me in the past; it is how the place works.
Looks like a duck to me And the rabbit hole goes deeper... thank you for sharing! Btw, I've tagged another username (User:Tomcat96) as the confirmed sock of Jeneral28. Also, I'll tag Foxhound66 with a sock template before we get things started. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
--Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Dude, was calling Δ a "rude fucker" really necessary? Just present the facts and let the community decide. — BQZip01 — talk 01:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)